2016 a Russia-Trump campaign collusion conspiracy was afoot and unfolding right before our eyes, we were told, as during his roll-out
foreign
policy speech at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C., then candidate Trump said [ gasp! ]:
" Common sense says this cycle, this horrible cycle of hostility must end and ideally will end soon. Good for both countries.
Some say the Russians won't be reasonable. I intend to find out."
NPR and others had breathlessly
reported at the time, "Sergey Kislyak, then the Russian ambassador to the U.S., was sitting in the front row" [ more gasps! ].
This 'suspicious'
"coincidence or something more?" event and of course the infamous
Steele 'Dodgy Dossier' were
followed by over two more years of the following connect-the-dots mere tiny sampling of unrestrained theorizing and avalanche of
accusations...
2019, Wired: Trump Must Be
A Russian Agent... (where we were told...ahem: " It would be rather embarrassing ... if Robert Mueller were to declare that
the president isn't an agent of Russian intelligence." )
It's especially worth noting that a
July 2018 New York Times
op-ed argued that President Trump -- dubbed a "treasonous traitor" for meeting with Putin in Helsinki -- should "be directing
all resources at his disposal to punish Russia."
Fast-forward to a July 2019 NY Times Editorial Board piece entitled
"What's America's Winning Hand if Russia
Plays the China Card?" How dizzying fast all of the above has been wiped from America's collective memory! Or at least the Times
is engaged in hastily pushing it all down the memory hole Orwell-style in order to cover its own dastardly tracks which contributed
in no small measure to non-stop national Russiagate hype and hysteria, with this astounding line:
That's right, The Times' pundits have already pivoted to the new bogeyman while stating they agree with Trump
on Russian relations :
"Given its economic, military and technological trajectory, together with its authoritarian model, China, not Russia , represents
by far the greater challenge to American objectives over the long term . That means President Trump is correct to try to establish
a sounder relationship with Russia and peel it away from China ."
It's 2019, and we've now come full circle . This is The New York Times editorial board continuing their call for Trump to establish
"sounder" ties and "cooperation" with
Russia :
"Even during the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union often made progress in one facet of their relationship while
they remained in conflict over other aspects. The United States and Russia could expand their cooperation in space . They could
also continue to work closely in the Arctic And they could revive cooperation on arms control."
Could we imagine if a mere six months ago Trump himself had uttered these same words? Now the mainstream media apparently agrees
that peace is better than war with Russia.
With 'Russiagate' now effectively dead, the NY Times' new criticism appears to be that Trump-Kremlin relations are not close enough
, as Trump's "approach has been ham-handed " - the 'paper of record' now tells us.
Or imagine if Trump had called for peaceful existence with Russia almost four years ago? Oh wait...
" Common sense says this cycle, this horrible cycle of hostility must end and ideally will end soon. Good for both countries."
-- Then candidate Trump on
April 27, 2016
A way to capture this change was thinking in terms of the traditional task of journalists to
interview or consult a variety of sources to determine was is truth or true. The shift
gradually became one of now interviewing or consulting various sources and reporting those
opinions.
Old-school journalism was like being assigned the task of finding out what "1+1 =?" and the
task was to report the answer was "1."
Now the task would be to report that "Some say it is 1, some say it is 2, some say it is
3."
From comments: "
neoliberalism to be a techno-economic order of control, requiring a state apparatus to enforce
wholly artificial directives. Also, the work of recent critics of data markets such as Shoshana
Zuboff has shown capitalism to be evolving into a totalitarian system of control through
cybernetic data aggregation."
"... By rolling back the state, neoliberalism was supposed to have allowed autonomy and
creativity to flourish. Instead, it has delivered a semi-privatised authoritarianism more
oppressive than the system it replaced. ..."
"... Workers find themselves enmeshed in a Kafkaesque bureaucracy , centrally controlled and
micromanaged. Organisations that depend on a cooperative ethic – such as schools and
hospitals – are stripped down, hectored and forced to conform to suffocating diktats. The
introduction of private capital into public services – that would herald a glorious new age
of choice and openness – is brutally enforced. The doctrine promises diversity and freedom
but demands conformity and silence. ..."
"... Their problem is that neoliberal theology, as well as seeking to roll back the state,
insists that collective bargaining and other forms of worker power be eliminated (in the name of
freedom, of course). So the marketisation and semi-privatisation of public services became not so
much a means of pursuing efficiency as an instrument of control. ..."
"... Public-service workers are now subjected to a panoptical regime of monitoring and
assessment, using the benchmarks von Mises rightly warned were inapplicable and absurd. The
bureaucratic quantification of public administration goes far beyond an attempt at discerning
efficacy. It has become an end in itself. ..."
Notable quotes:
"... By rolling back the state, neoliberalism was supposed to have allowed autonomy and creativity to flourish. Instead, it has delivered a semi-privatised authoritarianism more oppressive than the system it replaced. ..."
"... Workers find themselves enmeshed in a Kafkaesque bureaucracy , centrally controlled and micromanaged. Organisations that depend on a cooperative ethic – such as schools and hospitals – are stripped down, hectored and forced to conform to suffocating diktats. The introduction of private capital into public services – that would herald a glorious new age of choice and openness – is brutally enforced. The doctrine promises diversity and freedom but demands conformity and silence. ..."
"... Their problem is that neoliberal theology, as well as seeking to roll back the state, insists that collective bargaining and other forms of worker power be eliminated (in the name of freedom, of course). So the marketisation and semi-privatisation of public services became not so much a means of pursuing efficiency as an instrument of control. ..."
"... Public-service workers are now subjected to a panoptical regime of monitoring and assessment, using the benchmarks von Mises rightly warned were inapplicable and absurd. The bureaucratic quantification of public administration goes far beyond an attempt at discerning efficacy. It has become an end in itself. ..."
"... The other point to be made is that the return of fundamentalist nationalism is arguably a radicalized form of neoliberalism. ..."
"... Therefore, neoliberal hegemony can only be perpetuated with authoritarian, nationalist ideologies and an order of market feudalism. In other words, neoliberalism's authoritarian orientations, previously effaced beneath discourses of egalitarian free-enterprise, become overt. ..."
"... The market is no longer an enabler of private enterprise, but something more like a medieval religion, conferring ultimate authority on a demagogue. Individual entrepreneurs collectivise into a 'people' serving a market which has become synonymous with nationhood. ..."
Thousands of people march through London to protest against underfunding and privatisation
of the NHS. Photograph: Wiktor Szymanowicz/Barcroft Images M y life was saved last year by the
Churchill Hospital in Oxford, through a skilful procedure
to remove a cancer from my body . Now I will need another operation, to remove my jaw from
the floor. I've just learned what was happening at the hospital while I was being treated. On
the surface, it ran smoothly. Underneath, unknown to me, was fury and tumult. Many of the staff
had objected to a decision by the National Health Service
to privatise the hospital's cancer scanning . They complained that the scanners the private
company was offering were less sensitive than the hospital's own machines. Privatisation, they
said, would put patients at risk. In response,
as the Guardian revealed last week , NHS England threatened to sue the hospital for libel
if its staff continued to criticise the decision.
The dominant system of political thought in this country, which produced both the creeping
privatisation of public health services and this astonishing attempt to stifle free speech,
promised to save us from dehumanising bureaucracy. By rolling back the state, neoliberalism
was supposed to have allowed autonomy and creativity to flourish. Instead, it has delivered a
semi-privatised authoritarianism more oppressive than the system it replaced.
Workers find themselves enmeshed in a
Kafkaesque bureaucracy , centrally controlled and micromanaged. Organisations that depend
on a cooperative ethic – such as schools and hospitals – are stripped down,
hectored and forced to conform to suffocating diktats. The introduction of private capital into
public services – that would herald a glorious new age of choice and openness – is
brutally enforced. The doctrine promises diversity and freedom but demands conformity and
silence.
Much of the theory behind these transformations arises from the work of Ludwig von Mises. In
his book Bureaucracy , published in 1944, he
argued that there could be no accommodation between capitalism and socialism. The creation of
the National Health Service in the UK, the New Deal in the US and other experiments in social
democracy would lead inexorably to the bureaucratic totalitarianism of the Soviet Union and
Nazi Germany.
He recognised that some state bureaucracy was inevitable; there were certain functions that
could not be discharged without it. But unless the role of the state is minimised –
confined to defence, security, taxation, customs and not much else – workers would be
reduced to cogs "in a vast bureaucratic machine", deprived of initiative and free will.
By contrast, those who labour within an "unhampered capitalist system" are "free men", whose
liberty is guaranteed by "an economic democracy in which every penny gives a right to vote". He
forgot to add that some people, in his capitalist utopia, have more votes than others. And
those votes become a source of power.
His ideas, alongside the writings of
Friedrich Hayek , Milton Friedman and other neoliberal thinkers, have been applied in this
country by Margaret Thatcher, David Cameron, Theresa May and, to an alarming extent, Tony
Blair. All of those have attempted to privatise or marketise public services in the name of
freedom and efficiency, but they keep hitting the same snag: democracy. People want essential
services to remain public, and they are right to do so.
If you hand public services to private companies, either you create a private monopoly,
which can use its dominance to extract wealth and shape the system to serve its own needs
– or you introduce competition, creating an incoherent, fragmented service characterised
by the institutional failure you can see every day on our railways. We're not idiots, even if
we are treated as such. We know what the profit motive does to public services.
So successive governments decided that if they could not privatise our core services
outright, they would subject them to "market discipline". Von Mises repeatedly warned against
this approach. "No reform could transform a public office into a sort of private enterprise,"
he cautioned. The value of public administration "cannot be expressed in terms of money".
"Government efficiency and industrial efficiency are entirely different things."
"Intellectual work cannot be measured and valued by mechanical devices." "You cannot
'measure' a doctor according to the time he employs in examining one case." They ignored his
warnings.
Their problem is that neoliberal theology, as well as seeking to roll back the state,
insists that collective bargaining and other forms of worker power be eliminated (in the name
of freedom, of course). So the marketisation and semi-privatisation of public services became
not so much a means of pursuing efficiency as an instrument of control.
Public-service workers are now subjected to a panoptical regime of monitoring and
assessment, using the benchmarks von Mises rightly warned were inapplicable and absurd. The
bureaucratic quantification of public administration goes far beyond an attempt at discerning
efficacy. It has become an end in itself.
Its perversities afflict all public services. Schools teach to the test , depriving
children of a rounded and useful education. Hospitals manipulate waiting times, shuffling
patients from one list to another. Police forces ignore some crimes, reclassify others, and
persuade suspects to admit to extra offences to improve their statistics . Universities urge their
researchers to
write quick and superficial papers , instead of deep monographs, to maximise their scores
under the research excellence framework.
As a result, public services become highly inefficient for an obvious reason: the
destruction of staff morale. Skilled people, including surgeons whose training costs hundreds
of thousands of pounds, resign or retire early because of the stress and misery the system
causes. The leakage of talent is a far greater waste than any inefficiencies this quantomania
claims to address.
New extremes in the surveillance and control of workers are not, of course, confined to the
public sector. Amazon has patented
a wristband that can track workers' movements and detect the slightest deviation from
protocol. Technologies are used to monitor peoples' keystrokes, language, moods and tone of
voice. Some companies have begun to experiment with the
micro-chipping of their staff . As the philosopher Byung-Chul
Han points out , neoliberal work practices, epitomised by the gig economy, that
reclassifies workers as independent contractors, internalise exploitation. "Everyone is a
self-exploiting worker in their own enterprise."
The freedom we were promised turns out to be
freedom for capital , gained at the expense of human liberty. The system neoliberalism has
created is a bureaucracy that tends towards absolutism, produced in the public services by
managers mimicking corporate executives, imposing inappropriate and self-defeating efficiency
measures, and in the private sector by subjection to faceless technologies that can brook no
argument or complaint.
Attempts to resist are met by ever more extreme methods, such as the threatened lawsuit at
the Churchill Hospital. Such instruments of control crush autonomy and creativity. It is true
that the Soviet bureaucracy von Mises rightly denounced reduced its workers to subjugated
drones. But the system his disciples have created is heading the same way.
The other point to be made is that the return of fundamentalist nationalism is arguably a
radicalized form of neoliberalism. If 'free markets' of enterprising individuals have
been tested to destruction, then capitalism is unable to articulate an ideology with which to
legitimise itself.
Therefore, neoliberal hegemony can only be perpetuated with authoritarian, nationalist
ideologies and an order of market feudalism. In other words, neoliberalism's authoritarian
orientations, previously effaced beneath discourses of egalitarian free-enterprise, become
overt.
The market is no longer an enabler of private enterprise, but something more like a
medieval religion, conferring ultimate authority on a demagogue. Individual entrepreneurs
collectivise into a 'people' serving a market which has become synonymous with
nationhood.
A corporate state emerges, free of the regulatory fetters of democracy. The final
restriction on the market - democracy itself - is removed. There then is no separate market
and state, just a totalitarian market state.
This is the best piece of writing on neoliberalism I have ever seen. Look, 'what is in
general good and probably most importantly what is in the future good'. Why are we
collectively not viewing everything that way? Surely those thoughts should drive us all?
Pinkie123: So good to read your understandings of neoliberalism. The political project is the
imposition of the all seeing all knowing 'market' on all aspects of human life. This version
of the market is an 'information processor'. Speaking of the different idea of the
laissez-faire version of market/non market areas and the function of the night watchman state
are you aware there are different neoliberalisms? The EU for example runs on the version
called 'ordoliberalism'. I understand that this still sees some areas of society as separate
from 'the market'?
ADamnSmith: Philip Mirowski has discussed this 'under the radar' aspect of neoliberalism. How
to impose 'the market' on human affairs - best not to be to explicit about what you are
doing. Only recently has some knowledge about the actual neoliberal project been appearing.
Most people think of neoliberalism as 'making the rich richer' - just a ramped up version of
capitalism. That's how the left has thought of it and they have been ineffective in stopping
its implementation.
Finally. A writer who can talk about neoliberalism as NOT being a retro version of classical
laissez faire liberalism. It is about imposing "The Market" as the sole arbiter of Truth on
us all.
Only the 'Market' knows what is true in life - no need for 'democracy' or 'education'.
Neoliberals believe - unlike classical liberals with their view of people as rational
individuals acting in their own self-interest - people are inherently 'unreliable', stupid.
Only entrepreneurs - those close to the market - can know 'the truth' about anything. To
succeed we all need to take our cues in life from what the market tells us. Neoliberalism is
not about a 'small state'. The state is repurposed to impose the 'all knowing' market on
everyone and everything. That is neoliberalism's political project. It is ultimately not
about 'economics'.
The left have been entirely wrong to believe that neoliberalism is a mobilisation of
anarchic, 'free' markets. It never was so. Only a few more acute thinkers on the left
(Jacques Ranciere, Foucault, Deleuze and, more recently, Mark Fisher, Wendy Brown, Will
Davies and David Graeber) have understood neoliberalism to be a techno-economic order of
control, requiring a state apparatus to enforce wholly artificial directives. Also, the work
of recent critics of data markets such as Shoshana Zuboff has shown capitalism to be evolving
into a totalitarian system of control through cybernetic data aggregation.
Only in theory is neoliberalism a form of laissez-faire. Neoliberalism is not a case of the
state saying, as it were: 'OK everyone, we'll impose some very broad legal parameters, so
we'll make sure the police will turn up if someone breaks into your house; but otherwise
we'll hang back and let you do what you want'. Hayek is perfectly clear that a strong state
is required to force people to act according to market logic. If left to their own devices,
they might collectivise, think up dangerous utopian ideologies, and the next thing you know
there would be socialism. This the paradox of neoliberalism as an intellectual critique of
government: a socialist state can only be prohibited with an equally strong state. That is,
neoliberals are not opposed to a state as such, but to a specifically centrally-planned state
based on principles of social justice - a state which, to Hayek's mind, could only end in t
totalitarianism. Because concepts of social justice are expressed in language, neoliberals
are suspicious of linguistic concepts, regarding them as politically dangerous. Their
preference has always been for numbers. Hence, market bureaucracy aims for the quantification
of all values - translating the entirety of social reality into metrics, data, objectively
measurable price signals. Numbers are safe. The laws of numbers never change. Numbers do not
lead to revolutions. Hence, all the audit, performance review and tick-boxing that has been
enforced into public institutions serves to render them forever subservient to numerical
(market) logic. However, because social institutions are not measurable, attempts to make
them so become increasingly mystical and absurd. Administrators manage data that has no
relation to reality. Quantitatively unmeasurable things - like happiness or success - are
measured, with absurd results.
It should be understood (and I speak above all as a critic of neoliberalism) that
neoliberal ideology is not merely a system of class power, but an entire metaphysic, a way of
understanding the world that has an emotional hold over people. For any ideology to
universalize itself, it must be based on some very powerful ideas. Hayek and Von Mises were
Jewish fugitives of Nazism, living through the worst horrors of twentieth-century
totalitarianism. There are passages of Hayek's that describe a world operating according to
the rules of a benign abstract system that make it sound rather lovely. To understand
neoliberalism, we must see that it has an appeal.
However, there is no perfect order of price signals. People do not simply act according to
economic self-interest. Therefore, neoliberalism is a utopian political project like any
other, requiring the brute power of the state to enforce ideological tenets. With tragic
irony, the neoliberal order eventually becomes not dissimilar to the totalitarian regimes
that Hayek railed against.
Nationalised rail in the UK was under-funded and 'set up to fail' in its latter phase to make
privatisation seem like an attractive prospect. I have travelled by train under both
nationalisation and privatisation and the latter has been an unmitigated disaster in my
experience. Under privatisation, public services are run for the benefit of shareholders and
CEO's, rather than customers and citizens and under the opaque shroud of undemocratic
'commercial confidentiality'.
What has been very noticeable about the development of bureaucracy in the public and private
spheres over the last 40 years (since Thatcher govt of 79) has been the way systems are
designed now to place responsibility and culpability on the workers delivering the services -
Teachers, Nurses, social workers, etc. While those making the policies, passing the laws,
overseeing the regulations- viz. the people 'at the top', now no longer take the rap when
something goes wrong- they may be the Captain of their particular ship, but the
responsibility now rests with the man sweeping the decks. Instead they are covered by tying
up in knots those teachers etc. having to fill in endless check lists and reports, which have
as much use as clicking 'yes' one has understood those long legal terms provided by software
companies.... yet are legally binding. So how the hell do we get out of this mess? By us as
individuals uniting through unions or whatever and saying NO. No to your dumb educational
directives, No to your cruel welfare policies, No to your stupid NHS mismanagement.... there
would be a lot of No's but eventually we could say collectively 'Yes I did the right thing'.
'The left wing dialogue about neoliberalism used to be that it was the Wild West and that
anything goes. Now apparently it's a machine of mass control.'
It is the Wild West and anything goes for the corporate entities, and a machine of control
of the masses. Hence the wish of neoliberals to remove legislation that protects workers and
consumers.
"... If the CIA/MI6/FBI did attempt to create a sting it need not be as dramatic as the Skripal fakery. What would you dream up if you were tasked by the CIA to propose something? KISS. ..."
But underlying your comment is an assumption of *logic* in this world. If it ever existed it
certainly does not
apply any longer. Look how much mileage the MSM and the anti-Democracy Party got out of the
nothingburger Russiagate.
The MSM doesn't even need to smell real blood, they will run with anything to continue the
coup.
Anything negative that involves Edward Gallagher between now and election day could be
magnified 1 million-fold and
repeated 1000 million times by the MSM and dropped in Trump's lap.
If the CIA/MI6/FBI did attempt to create a sting it need not be as dramatic as the Skripal
fakery.
What would you dream up if you were tasked by the CIA to propose something? KISS.
Thanks sleeply,
But underlying your comment is an assumption of *logic* in this world. If it ever existed it
certainly does not
apply any longer. Look how much mileage the MSM and the anti-Democracy Party got out of the
nothingburger Russiagate.
The MSM doesn't even need to smell real blood, they will run with anything to continue the
coup.
Anything negative that involves Edward Gallagher between now and election day could be
magnified 1 million-fold and
repeated 1000 million times by the MSM and dropped in Trump's lap.
If the CIA/MI6/FBI did attempt to create a sting it need not be as dramatic as the Skripal
fakery.
What would you dream up if you were tasked by the CIA to propose something? KISS.
"... The circumstances reflect the failure not just by those who prepared the applications but also by the managers and supervisors in the Crossfire Hurricane chain of command including FBI senior officials who were briefed as the investigation progressed" ..."
"... In dialogue with Sen. Crapo about FBI misconduct as ' mind-numbing ', Horowitz responded "there is such a range of conduct here that is inexplicable and the answers we got were not satisfactory that we're left trying to understand how could all these errors occur over a nine month period or so " ..."
"... In other words, the FBI, with a tainted history of deeply embedded corruption, has been out of control for decades with an aggressive pursuit of political opponents , corruption of its Forensic Lab and a COINTEL program against American citizens. ..."
"... In response to Barr's statement regarding the IG Report, former Attorney General Erik Holder who once referred to himself as "still Obama's wing man so i'm there with my boy," wrote a divisive op ed for the Washington Post provocatively entitled "Eric Holder: William Barr is Unfit to be Attorney General " . ..."
"... In a classic example of covering one's butt, it can be assumed that Holder is still protecting Obama's wing as he took cheap shots at Barr for a " series of public statements and taken actions that are so plainly ideological, so nakedly partisan and so deeply inappropriate " making him ' unfit to lead the Justice Department. " ..."
"... Suffering a partisan anxiety attack, Holder has clearly been directed to slander a predecessor who exhibits more candor and principle than he himself demonstrated as AG. ..."
"... The IG Report cited former FBI Director Jim Comey for " clearly and dramatically " departing from department norms in the investigation of HRC's email server and that he made a " serious error of judgment " in sending a letter to Congress announcing the re-opening of the Clinton probe. Comey was fired from the FBI for 'insubordinate' acts and 'dangerous' behavior in deceiving the FISA Court. ..."
The question has yet to be asked what role the FISA Court played in its own debasement by
blindly accepting the majority of surveillance requests and by lax procedures that allow its
own credibility to be violated.
What remains uncertain is exactly how Crossfire Hurricane was born. While it is known that
the Clinton campaign (via the DNC) hired GP Fusion (which hired DOJ deputy AG Bruce Ohr's wife)
to dig dirt on a Republican candidate for President and we know that former MI6 asset
Christopher Steele became involved with creating a salacious Dossier – but the specific
links tying those diverse parts to the FBI remains enigmatic.
An almost immediate response to the ' no bias ' allegation came from AG
William Barr stating that
The Inspector General's report now makes clear that the FBI launched an intrusive
investigation of a U.S. presidential campaign on the thinnest of suspicions that, in my view,
were insufficient to justify the steps taken."
with Special Investigator US Attorney
John Durham adding that he:
advised the IG that he did not agree with some of the report's conclusions as to
predication and how the FBI case was opened."
Both responses were highly unusual and may be interpreted as affirmation of a deeper level
of complicity than the IG discovered although his investigation was limited to DOJ employees
and to the FISA Court process.
It was not until
IG Horowitz's testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee that the true scathing impact
of the full Report was understood; thus revealing the true depth of the FBI's embedded systemic
problems.
Horowitz told the Senate panel:
We found and are deeply concerned that so many basic and fundamental errors were
made by three separate handpicked investigative teams on one of the most sensitive FBI
investigations after the matter had been briefed to the highest levels within the FBI
even though the information sought through the use of FISA authority related so closely to an
on-going Presidential campaign and even though those involved with the investigations knew
that their actions would likely be subjected to close scrutiny .
The circumstances
reflect the failure not just by those who prepared the applications but also by the
managers and supervisors in the Crossfire Hurricane chain of command including FBI senior
officials who were briefed as the investigation progressed"
In dialogue with Sen. Crapo about FBI misconduct as ' mind-numbing ', Horowitz responded
"there is such a range of conduct here that is inexplicable and the answers we got were not
satisfactory that we're left trying to understand how could all these errors occur over a nine
month period or so "
In other words, the FBI, with a tainted history of deeply embedded corruption, has been out
of control for decades with an aggressive pursuit of political opponents , corruption of its
Forensic Lab
and a COINTEL program against
American citizens.
It is ironic that some of the FBI's Congressional supporters are now recipients of that
corruption.
In response to Barr's statement regarding the IG Report, former Attorney General Erik Holder
who once referred to himself as "still
Obama's wing man so i'm there with my boy," wrote a divisive op ed for the
Washington Post provocatively entitled "Eric Holder:
William Barr is Unfit to be Attorney General " .
In a classic example of covering one's butt, it can be assumed that Holder is still
protecting Obama's wing as he took cheap shots at Barr for a " series of public statements and
taken actions that are so plainly ideological, so nakedly partisan and so deeply inappropriate
" making him ' unfit to lead the Justice Department. "
Suffering a partisan anxiety attack, Holder has clearly been directed to slander a
predecessor who exhibits more candor and principle than he himself demonstrated as AG.
Given the IG report's otherwise thorough analysis, the Hope and Change crowd may be feeling
the heat that those morning tete a tete intel briefings in the Oval Office may have included
updates on Crossfire Hurricane.
Holder's condescension, as if he had special privilege to pontificate on "career public
servants," falls flat with his thinly veiled threat to Durham:
I was troubled by his unusual statement disputing the inspector general's findings. Good
reputations are hard-won in the legal profession, but they are fragile; anyone in Durham's
shoes would do well to remember that, in dealing with this administration, many reputations
have been irrevocably lost."
With focus now on whether Durham will succumb to Holder's warning may instead boomerang,
inspiring Durham to dig deeper than he had previously planned.
The IG Report cited former FBI Director Jim Comey for "
clearly and dramatically " departing from department norms in the investigation of HRC's
email server and that he made a " serious error of judgment " in sending a letter to Congress
announcing the re-opening of the Clinton probe. Comey was fired from the FBI for
'insubordinate' acts and 'dangerous' behavior in deceiving the FISA Court.
It is. The FBI has had to wait two years while the President and his supporters lied about
the institution, finally the truth gets told."
Apparently Comey had not read the Report in its entirety, not listened to Horowitz's
testimony to the Senate or he continues to live under a rock.
In a recent
interview with NBC News Pete Williams, Barr explained that
"One of the problems in the IG investigation is that Comey refused to sign back up for
his security clearance and therefore could not be questioned (by the IG) on classified
matters. so someone like Durham can compel testimony."
In other words, Comey is shrewd enough to know how to deliberately avoid pertinent questions
from Horowitz without implicating himself but the day will come when Durham has the legal
authority to demand Comey's full participation.
In a Fox News
Sunday interview with Chris Wallace, Comey refused to accept and was significantly at odds
with many of the IG most significant findings including denial of any personal role in
Crossfire. "I didn't know, As Director I am not kept informed on the details of an
investigation.
I didn't know the particulars with an agency of 38,000 people 'seven layers below." Wallace
repeatedly pushed back with Comey remaining smooth as silk, carefully coached, as he slipped
around every iota that he had any responsibility for the investigation of a President and its
constitutional screw ups.
When asked if he would resign if all these misdeeds were revealed under his watch, Comey
replied "No, I don't think so. There are other mistakes I consider more consequential than
this during my tenure."
Pray, we await those revelations.
Renee Parsons has been a member of the ACLU's
Florida State Board of Directors and President of the ACLU Treasure Coast Chapter. She has been
an elected public official in Colorado, an environmental lobbyist with Friends of the Earth and
staff member in the US House of Representatives in Washington, DC. She can be found on Twitter
@reneedove31.
MASTER OF UNIVE ,
Even if the FBI, CIA, NSA, et cetera, are rotten to the core we know that Trump is worse, and
a rotten businessperson. The Deep State USA is reasonable to want a good businessperson at
helm in the White House, and so are the Democrats. Republicans just want two terms of finance
largesse off the taxpayers' dime because two terms constitutes effective backstroke in the
public trough.
Congress just wants yet another paycheck.
I'll back the Deep State wishes to oust Trump and his spawn from the swamp.
Elizabeth Warren is the safest bet for the USA going forward.
MOU
Antonym ,
Elizabeth is another clueless figure head like Corbyn, but at least she has a good family
name: War -run.
Antonym ,
Plus she is a woman like 50% of the voters. Tulsi Gabbard is too but she has a mind of her
own, so no thanks from the Establishments.
MASTER OF UNIVE ,
Obama has already endorsed Warren, and he told big money backers to back Warren too.
What Obama wants Obama gets.
MOU
Antonym ,
In other words: "The Swamp" that Trump lamented about. Washington keeps on proving that he
was right and assists him getting a second term.
Another stink with Obama at the center:
Obama gave Pearson Publishing a government contract worth $350 million for their work to
create the Common Core text for his administrations education initiative. A subsidiary of
that same publisher gave Obama roughly $65 million for his book deal after he left
office.
I've always said that the FBI should have been abolished long ago since while pretending to
be a "federal law enforcement agency" it is in fact a means of political control. CoIntelPro
mentioned in the article is a perfect example since it went after those involved in any form
of political dissent i.e. the Black Panthers, the American Indian Movement, the Anti-war and
Peace Movement and it seems to have been directly involved in the assassination of Martin
Luther King Jr.
I'm sure J Edgar Hoover was smiling from his special place in hell when they initiated
"Cross Fire Hurricane" based on fabrications of a former MI6 officer to implicate Russia.
richard le sarc ,
The FBI is the US Gestapo.
Antonym ,
The FBI drifted into politics because they have a double function: not only fight inter state
crime but also find foreign spies on US soil – counter intelligence.
Move the latter into a separate agency and they might be able to concentrate on the most
important job, the former.
Igor ,
The FBI was born out of the Palmer Raids of 1920-21, orchestrated for the Justice Department
by J. Edgar Hoover early in his career. The first Red Scare, 30 years before McCarthy's
theatrics.
Antonym ,
Thanks for that info about Hoover's early twist of the older BOI. The FBI historians admit
that AG Palmer Hoover went overboard in 1920; maybe 100 years later they might write the same
about their 2019 "Russiagate". https://www.fbi.gov/history/famous-cases/palmer-raids
BigB ,
The MI6 Oldboy network I call the Dearlove Cabal set up the Trump Tower meeting to target
Papadopoulos. From which the FBI obtained the FISA Warrant. The details are extremely
complex: and probably not all known. Apart from Steele: Bill Browder was an important part in
bringing the meeting to public attention. I refer you to Lucy Komisar, jimmysllama.com, or
the various articles about Browder on this site for details.
I am of the personal opinion that this also catalysed the persecution of Julian Assange.
Not least because he tweeted out this thread just six days before he was made incommunicado
by the Moreno junta.
Notice that the account was taken over and renamed. You might want to read jimmysllama's
take on that. This site has some good background info. Be sure to follow the internal link to
the "Dearlove Connections: Hakluyt". It's circumstantial: but it looks as though it was the
UK that interfered in the US elections – nor Russia.
What is less circumstantial is that Julian will not live to see the inside of and American
court. The British authorities are making sure of that. Abandoned by BOTH neoliberal
imperialist parties; deplatformed by Corbyn on Press Freedom Day; assigned a biased Judge
who's husband was implicated by Wikileaks; being slowly tortured to death with cruel and
inhuman punishment; and facing 175 years in prison for telling the truth that's British
justice. No less corrupt than American justice or the obfuscatory IG report. They do not want
us to know how they work, that's for sure.
richard le sarc ,
The role of the loathsome Alexander Downer must not be forgotten. Papadopoulos's recollection
of his meeting with Downer in the wine bar differs markedly from the Downer version, and I
know from his political career that Downer is an invertebrate liar. Downer was also a member
of the aforementioned Hakluyt, and at present a real Inquisition/Star Chamber perversion of a
'trial' is proceeding against a whistle-blower who revealed the bugging of the East Timorese
Government when Downer was a particularly vicious Foreign Minister (who did not disguise his
racist contempt for the Timorese)during negotiations over shared gas rights in the seas
between the countries, where Australia bullied the Timorese into submission. The
whistleblower's lawyer is on trial, too, their passports were seized to prevent them
providing evidence at the Timorese appeal at the ICJ, and the trial is proceeding in secret,
for 'national security' reasons.
Jen ,
I think you meant to say "inveterate liar" but since you were referring to Alexander Downer,
the closest thing Australia ever got to having its own BoJo Klown leader, I realise that for
once the Spellchecker over-ruling was more appropriate.
paul ,
There seems to be a lot of confusion about Mifsud as well. He hasn't been seen for months and
has either gone to ground, or else they've done an Epstein/ David Kelly on him.
MASTER OF UNIVE ,
Assange is being tortured by the silence of his adherents, hangers on, and bandwagon jumpers
that were too busy enjoying Christmas & watching movies to write articles in defence of
his freedom.
You are a reasonable writer BigB. Off-G will accept articles according to protocol.
MOU
Jen ,
Is this Attorney General William Barr the son of the fellow Donald Barr who gave Jeffrey
Epstein his first job as a maths and physics teacher?
ttshasta ,
Yes at the Dalton School, NYC.
Stephen Morrell ,
The FBI made no 'errors', since they weren't random and all pointed in the same direction. As
Bill Binney points out, if you take the 17 instances as each having a 50:50 chance, then the
probability of the outcome was 1 in 131,072. It's only mind numbing to entertain the notion
that the FBI committed 'errors'.
As Durham's remit is well beyond the DOJ, his chances of an unfortunate motor vehicle or
aircraft accident are considerably higher than 1 in 131,072.
paul ,
The same seditious and treasonous intrigues from higher and mid level bureaucrats in the
military/ secret police/ intelligence/ media/ think tank establishments have been very much
in evidence on both sides of the Atlantic.
Previously, they did at least go through the motions of preserving some kind of pretence of
political impartiality.
Now, like the Zionist power elite, they have thrown caution to the winds and emerged from
behind the curtain to interfere directly in party politics.
You have to think in terms, not so much of a smear campaign as a whole smear industry,
manufacturing hoaxes to order on an industrial scale.
Iraqi WMD, Iranian WMD, White Helmets, Syrian Gas false flags, Skripal, Gaddafi's Viagra
fuelled black rape gangs, Russiagate, Ukrainegate, and much else, all churned out precisely
on cue to enable the next criminal war of aggression. It is clear that these efforts were
closely coordinated on both sides of the Atlantic.
All the organs of the Deep State conspired to rig the 2016 elections to prevent a Republican
victory, and having failed to achieve this, to undermine the administration of an elected
president (whatever you think of Trump.) Comey, Clapper, Brennan, Strzok, Page, and their
ilk, and people like Ioanovitch, Vindman, Cohen and Sondland, were basically just political
hacks with an axe to grind.
Former Chief Spook "We Lie, We Cheat, We Steal" Pompeo, who now passes for Chief Diplomat in
the Trump Circus, promised an assemblage of Zionist luminaries that he would do everything
necessary to prevent the election of Corbyn, if the smear campaign being run by the Board of
Deputies failed to achieve the desired result.
There were at least 40 leaks and smears from UK spooks and the military establishment,
declaring Jezza to be a communist agent and a threat to national security. Dearlove, that
ridiculous old bag Manningham-Buller, and assorted General Blimps were wheeled out on a daily
basis with shock-horror-gasp revelations to be peddled by tame media hacks like Luke Harding
and Sid Scurvy from the Daily Bugle. Our very own General Allendes and Greek Colonels could
be relied upon to intervene if people elected the wrong person.
These people are a greater threat to our countries than any foreign terrorist organisation
(most of which they control anyway.) We would be better off without them.
Antonym ,
mark, Corbyn would have lost all by himself with his wind-vane Brexit non directions.
Dragging in "the Zionists" undermines your narrative.
I imagine MI6 will love you for keeping them partly out of the cross hairs.
MASTER OF UNIVE ,
Smear campaigns are so yesteryear, man. The USA has just passed a law allowing spooks to
commit murder to protect National Security. This means that they can shoot first and ask
questions later which is pretty seamless for accurate record keeping IMHO.
MOU
Dungroanin ,
Is this correct?
".. Holder has clearly been directed to slander a predecessor.."
Isn't Holder the PREDECESSOR and Barr the incumbent?
fritzi cohen ,
Actually Barr was the AG under George W. Bush, 1991-93, so he was Holder's predecessor.
He is the current AG, having succeeded I believe Jeff Sessions. I found Parsons article
incredibly informative, whether you consider Barr, Holder's predecessor or successor.
Whiners. They're all whiners. I don't understand why Maddow is worried. Hell, if she goes
to the slammer she'll have her pick of all those incarcerated Honeys with which she will
reside.
You have to assume that Rachel is a Russian mole - how else can you explain her so
effectively working to destroy the credibility of the Western media. She talks to her
audience like she thinks she's on Sesame Street - Rachel: folks can pick up when they're
being patronized - it's getting tired.
"... It would have been simpler and much cheaper to supply the gas through land pipelines via Ukraine, the Baltics and Poland. But the undersea pipelines had to be built because the Levantine dual nationals parachuted in by the State Department to rule over Ukraine and the Baltics on Washington's behalf have shown themselves to be totally unreliable economic partners. Ukraine refused to pay for gas that was supplied and stole gas intended for European countries. The rabid Levantines in the Baltics and Poland were equally hostile. They could have made billions in transit fees, but they always insisted on cutting off their noses to spite their faces. Bulgaria blocked South Stream on Washington's instructions and lost a reliable source of cheap gas and $400 million a year in transit fees. A lot of money and a lot of jobs for a poor country. US satellites pay a high price to kowtow to Uncle Sam. Russia developed its own port facilities in the Baltic and Riga is now a ghost town. ..."
"... Its surprising how history repeats itself. In the first decade of the nineteenth century, Napoleon achieved dominance over continental Europe. Only Britain stood against him. Napoleon tried to bring Britain to heel through economic warfare, the Continental System, ordering European countries not to trade with his sole remaining enemy. His orders were ignored all the way from Spain to Russia, and this lucrative trade continued. The invasion of Russia and the debacle at Moscow were an attempt to enforce the Continental System. In a similar fashion, Washington's hubris and unbridled arrogance are now alienating even its most abject, cringing, servile satraps like Macron, Merkel, and Erdogan. With the same result. ..."
"... Uncle Sam sees Nord-2 as an energy superpower challenge to energy supremacy which equates to American supremacy & hegemonic supremacy writ large across the world. If the pinko commie bastards in the Russian Federation make inroads by unilaterally making massive energy deals with the entire EU we will see American interests clamoring for market inroads & market share so that the pinko commie bastards in the Russian Federation don't make a dime. ..."
"... Uncle Sam is in actuality a waning ex-superpower thug that is yesterday's man but can't stand being taken out of the limelight being the narcissist nation it is. ..."
"... Zackarova is bang on in that the USA is wholly incompetent to govern their own business interests let alone other sovereign interests. Nord-2 is necessary infrastructure that the USA wants to thwart for their own monetary benefit. ..."
"... Stepping aside from the geopolitics for a moment. In terms of economics the US is attempting to push Russia out of natural gas markets. ..."
"... Greenpeace is yet another "NGO" that is heavily influenced by the National Endowment for Democracy a CIA front that supports US Imperialism. ..."
"... One wonders if the invertebrates of the EU will ever tire of being bullied by the Global Bullying Thug in Chief? The clerico-fascists of priest-ridden Poland one can understand, and the phony 'greens' of Greenpeace the sell-out specialists, but the others are just like mongrel dogs-the more you kick them, the more they lick your boots. ..."
What would Dr Kampmark consider to be an ecologically cleaner alternative to Nordstream I and 2? The US proposal to supply LNG
via an endless conga line of tankers across the North Atlantic would be an ecological nightmare, to say nothing of the specialised
port facilities that need to be built to accommodate the tankers, the extra pipelines needed to pipe the gas to areas of Europe
away from the Atlantic and the potential for accidents and disasters during annual hurricane season. Europe needs the best energy
supply solution possible from a sustainability POV and other POVs and while Nordstream I and 2 may not be perfect, other solutions
are either worse, more expensive or less certain and stable in the long term.
Shale gas is also poop. Only someone totally corrupt or totally insane would buy such junk from the USA.
The collapse of an empire brings up such interesting stuff.
I am of course a Russian troll for stating the obvious, so a merry Christmas from the Kremlin.
Let nuclear bombers fly, baby. Who wants another Christmas. The majority of the present American government (including Trump) are evangelical Christians who believe in
the Rapture . You wouldn't put such people in charge of a
car park, let alone put them in charge of the biggest nuclear weapons arsenal on the planet.
I find this a bit of a strange piece, for reasons that many others have pointed out here in the comments.
With regard to the environmental angle, I should perhaps point out that by far the biggest polluter on the planet is the US
military.
MASTER OF UNIVE ,
The US Military pollutes everything under the sun far past Internet & the over 900 worldwide bases it occupies. Heck, the US MIC
pollutes all sports venues with their propagandistic parades of adherence to state & flag military shows.
In the USA they make you stand in honour of the military at sports events.
I'm glad I don't go down to the USA for the USA Grand National Drag Racing events just because of the MIC pollution at events.
Their propaganda pollution is all over the Internet and that is toxic waste that we all have to sift through on our way to real
news aside from institutional American killing of the third world.
GI-Joe turned out to be anything but a good hippie in my book.
MOU
ttshasta ,
The article mentions Rex Tillerson, yet fails to mention Qatar. Exxon Mobil & Exxon Mobil Qatar, that Tillerson worked for, want
to run an LP pipeline from the Norths Pars gas field, the worlds largest, and Qatar owns 2/3 of,through Saudi Arabia, through
Jordan, Syria, through Alleppo then through Turkey on to Europe. Thus Qatar, S.A. and Turkey have sponsored the foreign invasion
of Syria that the the dolts at NPR to this day call a civil war. The US's Al Udeid air base in Qatar is the largest in the region,
Cheney has been to Qatar many times as have Barack and Michele Obama, John Ashcroft was paid $2.5 million to defend Qatar from
post 911 terrorism charges.
Does it seem the article misses the elephant in the room? US Qatari investments must profit?
Never forget the Clintons, Qatar donates to Clinton Foundation, State Dpt. sells weapons to Qatar (diverted to Syria?), candidate
Clinton to declare no fly zone over Syria as POTUS.
In 2016 Thierry Messan's Voltairenet dot org translated an article from Petra the official Jordanian press paper that S.A. financed
20% of Clinton's campaign, which is illegal under US law. Subsequently, and conveniently, Saudi Prince M.B.S. declared Petra had
been hacked and the report was false. I rely on Thierry's translations, and his voluminous site.
Excellent comment. As always, one should follow the money trail.
paul ,
I've never understood the argument that buying Russian gas is a threat to the security of European countries. Russia doesn't supply
the gas out of altruism, it does so because it wants their money. They are dependent on Russian gas. Russia is dependent on their
money. Mutual dependence, mutual gain.
During the Cold War, Russia always supplied every last gallon of oil and every cubic foot of gas that contracts obliged it
to deliver. It did so, again because it wanted their money. Simple as that.
It would have been simpler and much cheaper to supply the gas through land pipelines via Ukraine, the Baltics and Poland. But
the undersea pipelines had to be built because the Levantine dual nationals parachuted in by the State Department to rule over
Ukraine and the Baltics on Washington's behalf have shown themselves to be totally unreliable economic partners. Ukraine refused
to pay for gas that was supplied and stole gas intended for European countries. The rabid Levantines in the Baltics and Poland
were equally hostile. They could have made billions in transit fees, but they always insisted on cutting off their noses to spite
their faces. Bulgaria blocked South Stream on Washington's instructions and lost a reliable source of cheap gas and $400 million
a year in transit fees. A lot of money and a lot of jobs for a poor country. US satellites pay a high price to kowtow to Uncle
Sam. Russia developed its own port facilities in the Baltic and Riga is now a ghost town.
Uncle Sam is now waging economic warfare and imposing sanctions on its previously most loyal and obedient satellites, Canada,
Mexico, France, Germany, Japan, South Korea, Turkey.
Its surprising how history repeats itself. In the first decade of the nineteenth century, Napoleon achieved dominance over
continental Europe. Only Britain stood against him. Napoleon tried to bring Britain to heel through economic warfare, the Continental
System, ordering European countries not to trade with his sole remaining enemy. His orders were ignored all the way from Spain
to Russia, and this lucrative trade continued. The invasion of Russia and the debacle at Moscow were an attempt to enforce the
Continental System. In a similar fashion, Washington's hubris and unbridled arrogance are now alienating even its most abject,
cringing, servile satraps like Macron, Merkel, and Erdogan. With the same result.
MASTER OF UNIVE ,
Uncle Sam sees Nord-2 as an energy superpower challenge to energy supremacy which equates to American supremacy & hegemonic supremacy
writ large across the world. If the pinko commie bastards in the Russian Federation make inroads by unilaterally making massive
energy deals with the entire EU we will see American interests clamoring for market inroads & market share so that the pinko commie
bastards in the Russian Federation don't make a dime.
Uncle Sam is in actuality a waning ex-superpower thug that is yesterday's man but can't stand being taken out of the limelight
being the narcissist nation it is.
Can you imagine being dependent on the usa for anything never mind fracked gas at twice the price.no doubt brave new worlder boris
will go for it.gb inc looks over and done with.
Guy ,
"Can you imagine being dependent on the usa for anything"
Yes I can .I live in Canada and they basically own our country, for all intent and purposes .
They did not conquer us militarily but they so corporately.
MASTER OF UNIVE ,
Zackarova is bang on in that the USA is wholly incompetent to govern their own business interests let alone other sovereign interests.
Nord-2 is necessary infrastructure that the USA wants to thwart for their own monetary benefit.
The USA is anachronism, insolvent, and lacks common sense as well as entrepreneurial spirit & business acumen.
MOU
padre ,
How very concerned about environment we are, when somebody else is "destroying" it!
paul ,
The US certainly showed how concerned it was about the environment with the North Dakota pipeline.
Francis Lee ,
Stepping aside from the geopolitics for a moment. In terms of economics the US is attempting to push Russia out of natural gas
markets. If a company did this it would be attempting to construct a monopoly and be subject to anti-competitive laws. If the
US becomes the sole supplier in Europe then it has a stranglehold, both economic and political, on Europe. That's the strategy,
and it seems blatantly obvious.
But the construction being put on this sordid little play by the Anglo-American MSM is that the
US frackers – who never make a profit – are doing Europe a really big favour by enabling them not to become dependent on Russian
gas. The Europeans should there for be grateful for US LNG since it will enable to diversify away from Russian gas.
The reality is, however, that once you become dependent on a single overseas crucial energy source you have been unceremoniously
grabbed by the short and curlies.
Antonym ,
Simply connect more European harbors to the existing gas pipeline network and choose the LNG supplier you want.
Not rocket science but Dutch PM Rutte was sold on abolishing natural gas because of CO2, while trees from North America for burning
in power plants was fine.
Neighbour PM Merkel Germany wants gas but not nuclear (a scientist!). France wants nuclear but rely on a new unproven expensive
design.
Political inmates are running the EU madhouse.
John Deehan ,
In this article, it misses the whole point of why the USA wants to impose sanctions, rather late in the day, on companies involved
in its construction. Namely, the continued attempts by it to isolate The Russian Federation and its its long term strategy of
preparations for war. Moreover, the omission of the reasons why Russia built the gas pipeline could not be more striking. The
coup in the Ukraine made the transit of Russian gas to western Europe via its territory open to pressure from the USA. Hence why
the Russians built the pipeline in the first place. It's the same reasons why the USA is attempting to prevent other Russian gas/oil
pipelines in other parts of the world.
Francis Lee ,
If anything illustrates the reality of the EU-NATO 'alliance' it is this. The US to Germany – and by extension the rest of the
EU – 'You will take expensive US LNG gas and like it' Me Tarzan you Jane. This brazen realpolitik illustrates the true nature
of the vassalised EU. And of course Poland, Romania – please station your inter-mediate range missiles here – and the Baltic uber-Petainist
elites come chiming in 'America the Beautiful.' More than anything this explodes the idea of the EU as a third geopolitical bloc.
It is an occupied region always has been and is composed of countries which can't actually defend their own interests whilst privileging
the US.
Gutless and spineless!
George Cornell ,
Indeed. And as reluctant as I am to entertain it, the Brutish ( spellcheck wants it to be British, no irony there) US is forcing
any vertebrate in the EU to crave armed forces.
Why poor EU countries buy the bollocks that is the relentless pressure or requirement from NATO to buy American and Israeli arms
is beyond me. They should be much more frightened of the Americans than the imaginary bogeymen to the East.
You mean like the Azov Battalion, Right Sector and C-14?
Those bogeymen Tim? Some of whom are now in Hong Kong helping Joseph Wong and his mates fight for 'freedom and democracy' with
some help from people in, er, Langley Virginia. Oh, and Nancy Pelosi.
Well, I support the right of all peoples to self-determination as a universal right and oppose imperialism/neo-imperialism regardless
of who does it, so your false dichotomy does not apply to me.
I thought you were referring to the neo nazi thugs in Ukraine that sprung up like weeds after rain following the overthrow of
Yanukovych by you know who. No, it wasn't Putin. And no, I'm not a fan either.
All bullshit pushed by Mr Hopey Changey that has put the world in grave peril.
In fact the changes of nuclear war are greater than any time in history.
And what happened when the Berlin Wall came down Tim?
Bush solemnly promised Gorbachev that NATO would not move one inch eastward.
And where are NATO now?
paul ,
Then no doubt you support the right of the Crimea and Donbas to self determination from the CIA installed Fascist Coup Regime.
George Cornell ,
Oh for Chrissake! And where were you about Gitmo? And Iraq, and Yemen, and Syria, and Libya? And the lithium in Afghanistan makes
it morally justified? Put the photo of Kissinger on a bearskin rug in your drawer and tell me about how the 95% of Crimeans who
wanted to be part of Russia invalidates what happened there.
Come back to me about the sandbars in the South China Sea. Now there's a place to increase your debt.!
lundiel ,
Russia isn't occupying any of Ukraine. There are Russian volunteers and Russia is giving them some weapons and no doubt finance
but the Russian army isn't at war with Ukraine.
Jay ,
If they were, the war would have been on Kiev's doorstep.
Francis Lee ,
The only people 'taking' seven percent of the Ukraine are those who already live in the Donbass and Crimea are the Russian-speaking
inhabitants who have lived there for generations and who are defending their homeland against the Ukie Army and its Waffen SS
look-alikes in the Azov Battalion and various other neo-nazi outfits like Praviy Sektor, and the Tornado Battalion and Dnipro1
and other charming little outfits such as 'Patriots of the Ukraine' – backed by right-wing fanatics in the Ukrainian Rada namely
Biletsky and Parubiy.
These people are the direct descendants of the scum of the murderous Banderist pro-Nazis who were responsible for mass extermination
of Russians, Jew, and above all, Poles in Volhynia in the far west of the Ukraine between 1943-45. The Ukrainian Insurgent army
(UPA – led by Shukeviych) was the military wing of Bandera's OUN-B (Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists). Unfortunately for
for Mr B, he had an unfortunate rendezvous with a KGB hit-man in Munich in 1955. RIP.
Long live the heroic resistance of the Peoples Republics of Donetsk and Lugansk.
Frank Speaker ,
Exactly Francis.
Some of my family were massacred by these bastard who were their neighbours: a woman cut upon at the front, a woman with a
wooden stake driven through her head, two children thrown down a well. That NATO aided and abetted these same evil scum to overthrow a democratically elected government and re-start their murderous
ways – this time around upon the ethnic Russians in the wast of the country – I cannot forgive my political leaders who have done
this.
That our MSM completely ignore this situation, I cannot forgive them, and that's why I am here.If there's a place called hell, I hope there's a special place reserved for our leaders and media owners who have done this.
eddie ,
They are occupying Jacque Schitt, but their 93rd aid convoy to the Donbas in November, consisting of 45 trucks, was not imaginary.
Greenpeace is yet another "NGO" that is heavily influenced by the National Endowment for Democracy a CIA front that supports US
Imperialism.
I'm ambivalent on the issue of pipelines ( see Keystone XL Pipeline being driven through Indian Land in total violation of
the Laramie Treaty) since they are environmentally destructive but the fact is that this is all about politics and has nothing
to do with protecting the environment.
If "Russia's" Greenpeace was so concerned about the environment they'd worry about their backyard first such as the network
of pipelines being run through Siberia.
richard le sarc ,
One wonders if the invertebrates of the EU will ever tire of being bullied by the Global Bullying Thug in Chief? The clerico-fascists
of priest-ridden Poland one can understand, and the phony 'greens' of Greenpeace the sell-out specialists, but the others are
just like mongrel dogs-the more you kick them, the more they lick your boots.
Boats of LNG floating across the Atlantic to Poland is not energy security. Whatever the politics of Nord Stream 2 we may be assured
the US has not got our back in Europe on this.
We may also be in need of energy sooner than we think, as professor Valentina Zharkova of Northumbria University suggests.
Unlike the Guardian her catastrophe theory goes in the other direction where in the next few years Earth will enter into a cooling
phase. That will set off a series of events leading to a mini ice age as happened with the Maunder Minimum of the 17th Century.
The United States is less concerned with matters green. Nord Stream 2 poses a security
threat.
Trump's former secretary of state, Rex Tillerson,
saw it as "undermining Europe's overall energy security and stability."
US energy secretary Rick Perry
argues that "Russian gas has strings attached." The claim is that Germany will be come too
reliant and Ukraine further weakened. Ukraine had been the premier gatekeeper for Russian gas
supply, with 40 percent of Europe's total amount transiting through Ukrainian soil. A
slump in gross domestic product occasioned by an end to transit fees is considered
imminent.
Other European states have been crankily concerned about the prospect of Gazprom's deepening
involvement in the continent's energy market. Poland's anti-monopoly body UOKiK showed a
measure of that opposition
by fining France's Engie Energy (ENGIE.PA) 40 million euros in proceedings against
Gazprom.
In February, EU ambassadors agreed that the project be subjected to greater scrutiny. A
Franco-German compromise was struck : Nord Stream 2 would be placed
"under European control".
The Trump administration's actions against Gazprom and Russia's energy influence, found in a
provision of the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), can hardly be seen as noble
endeavours.
The provision threatens
sanctions and the freezing of assets against entities laying down the pipeline unless their
activities cease "immediately". The United States has its own energy interests in Europe, and
wishes to frustrate the effort. Market share is at stake.
The suspension of laying activities on the part of Allseas, a Swiss company, suggests that
Trump's announcement is already biting.
"In anticipation of the enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA),"
went a
company statement , "Allseas has suspended its Nord Stream 2 pipelay activities." The
company would "proceed, consistent with the legislation's wind down provision and expect
guidance comprising the necessary regulatory, technical and environmental clarifications from
the relevant US authority."
The angle taken by the European Union, Germany and Russia can hardly surprise. Themes of
energy security are reiterated. The Nord Stream 2 consortium makes the claim that, "Completing the
project is essential for European supply security." Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman
Maria Zakharova spikily condemned the
sanctions measure. "A state with a $22 trillion national debt prohibits creditworthy countries
to develop the real sector of their economies!"
For a EU spokesman, this
constituted "the imposition of sanctions against EU companies conducting legitimate
business." A German government spokesman suggested that such actions "affect German and other
European businesses, and we see the move as meddling in our internal affairs." Finance Minister
Olaf Scholz has sees
it as an infringement of sovereignty. "It is up to the companies involved in the
construction of the pipeline to take the next decisions."
Nothing is quite so simple. Gas pipeline politics has always been contentious. One state's
sovereign promise is another's weakening. Concessions made to corporate monopolies are risky,
capable of fostering insecurity as much as reassurance. Those who control the tap control a
country's future.
But the imposition of any sanctions regime signals another bout of economic violence. In
the international market, where governments operate as ready gangsters for corporate interests,
prompted by such motivations as seeking more natural resources, tools of state become
handmaidens of economic self-interest...
The USA desperately need another resource-rich country to loot and can't find suitable
candidate other then Russia. So MIC prostitute Madcow is just a dog of war. The USA
deperately need another resource-rich country to loot and can't find sutable candiadate othe
then Russia
There is no credible analyst not shackled to the MIC trough who ventures such
an analysis beyond of course GE's W-2 harpie, Rachel Maddow.
The Western elites have long decided. WW3 is coming. In recent years, the Russians have
repeatedly tried to get this message through the western Mediadrome, but to little
effect.
The job of the GE spokespeople (Maddow et al) is diversionary/ preparatory spadework i.e.
to drill with numbing repetition into the American consciousness who the enemy is. And you
can bet the enemy is not who signs their paychecks. Their employers though happen to be OUR
enemy.
Thus we find ourselves in the odd position of having Russia's top general attempting to
shout through the Maddow racket that our two nations are on a collision course for war.
Strange messenger. Or maybe not. They want to live too.
Russia is in demographic collapse. It lacks the human capital to exploit even its own vast
resource trove. The western banking system is over-leveraged. The imaginary numbers have
gotten too big. Its 'denominator of the real' badly needs shoring up.
Russian resource wealth, Iran's massive South Pars LNG field are viewed with watering eyes
as prolongations of the doomed Ponzi. Europe is energy-poor, geriatric and overrun with
Islamic jihadists. With all due respect, who would want it at this late stage? At best, it is
a funding source --and a battleground-- for WW3.
Meanwhile the Ponzi is ravenous and never sleeps. No growth - negative interest rates is a
bell-ringer for WW3. The alternative is deflationary collapse. Maddow's been mysteriously
cranked up again: Rushah Rushah!
So we find ourselves in another Goebellian shift: accuse the opposition of your own
ulterior motives. They have no designs on us. Our overlords have designs on them.
Americans are just the People in the middle, hostages in a sense yet seemingly feared
enough that our minds are still worth battling over. Trump's affinities are too populist.
He's a dodgy helmsman for the massive undertaking of a world war where the people are only to
be galvanized, not consulted.
Far from a duteous seat-warmer, he's a leader who squeaked through. The Oval Office is no
place for leaders. It was thought to have been neutered of all that leadership malarkey
post-JFK. Trump's not enough to hold back the MIC. No POTUS is. He either must depart the job
or be compromised into executing the plan. But he's a bad Lieutenant. They'll never be
comfortable with him.
Then some evil, diseased mind had an epiphany. Don't just Get Trump! Get a twofer! Get
Trump and Russah! Weld them together for one kill-shot. Collusion means no daylight and one
bullet. Yes, there's a genius to it, a very sick genius.
B, great article as usual but disappointed that you didn't write about the latest sanctions
on N2.
Another act of WAR by the US. These sanctions now cover the comoany, Allseas, laying the
pipeline to Germany. They ceased operations and will not complete the project and Gazprom
does not have the expertise. Would love to see your
analysis on that.
The NYT propaganda, true to form and loyal to Dem Russophobes just one more attempt to
manufacture consent
This is maddening. These crazies are looking for war on Russia. Are the American people
stupid enough to give that consent?
My NYT site has the title "Russia Is a Mess. Why Is Putin Such a Formidable Enemy?"
Some quotes:
---- 1 ----
Under Mr. Putin, Vladislav Surkov, a longtime Kremlin adviser, wrote in Nezavisimaya Gazeta,
a Moscow newspaper, earlier this year, Russia "is playing with the West's minds."
Also its own.
---- 2 ----
All the same, said Gleb Pavlovsky, a political scientist who worked for more than a decade as
a Kremlin adviser, Russia under Mr. Putin still reminds him of a sci-fi movie exoskeleton:
"Inside is sitting a small, weak and perhaps frightened person, but from the outside it looks
terrifying."
---- 3 ----
Whatever its problems, Mr. Surkov, the Kremlin adviser, said, Russia has created "the
ideology of the future" by dispensing with the "illusion of choice" offered by the West and
rooting itself in the will of a single leader capable of swiftly making the choices without
constraint.
China, too, has advocated autocracy as the way to get results fast, but even Xi Jinping,
the head of the Chinese Communist Party, can't match the lightening speed with which Mr.
Putin ordered and executed the seizure of Crimea. The decision to grab the Black Sea
peninsula from Ukraine was made at a single all-night Kremlin meeting in February 2014 and
then carried out just four days later with the dispatch of a few score Russian special forces
officers to seize a handful of government buildings in Simferopol, the Crimean capital.
==========
If true, the resources committed to "Crimea takeover" were comparable with what Israel
committed to assassinate one person, Mahmoud Al-Mabhouh, dispatching a team of 33 to Dubai in
January 2010. Wasn't the superior productivity the strength of the West?
And this is not a joke. Putin is a maniac for balanced budgets, and compared to the
expansive American style, the resources committed by Syria were minuscule. And by all
accounts, spend well.
REUTERS. Oct 2, 2015 - U.S. President Barack Obama warned Russia on Friday that its
bombing campaign against Syrian rebels will suck Moscow into a "quagmire," after a third
straight day of air raids in support of President Bashar al-Assad. <<-- Obama was well
aware that Russia committed a very small number of troops, and smallish air force that his
military expert were describing as obsolete. Russia could not be many times more effective
than USA, could it?
No sign of Obama's predicted 'quagmire' as Russia's ... https://www.washingtonpost.com
› world › 2016/09/30
Sep 30, 2016 - BEIRUT -- In the year since Russia began conducting airstrikes in support of
the Syrian government, the intervention has worked to secure two ...
That explains the next quote from today NYT
---- 4 ----
"Maybe he's holding small cards, but he seems unafraid to play them," said Michael McFaul, a
former United States ambassador to Moscow and now a scholar at Stanford. "That's what makes
Putin so scary."
=========
Seems that Establishment scours most elite universities, Harvard, Yale, Stanford , Princeton
etc. for the dumbest possible graduates. I know from private sources that not all graduates
are dumb, many are actually brilliant. Does it occur to McFaul that boldness in playing small
cards is even worse than playing large card? Russia (and Assad's partisans in Syria) had to
do something well that USA (in government supporters in Afghanistan) did not do at all or did
badly.
Bellingcat's transparency model is similar to the Tor Project's. It lists a bunch of
innocuous, little-known non-profits and human rights-type organizations. To understand who
they and why they'd fund an outfit like Bellingcat takes a lot more digging.
"... Also seldom acknowledged by left remainers is that the EU is structurally neo-liberal and is enforcing austerity on the peoples of Europe. Read Costas Lapavitsas: 'The Left Case Against the EU'. ..."
"... Another unmentionable is that important parts of Corbyn's programme would have been illegal under the rules of the EU's single market. ..."
"... The fact is that America became an extension of Britannia. Actually the biggest part of the Empire known as the East India Company. Don't believe me. Take a look at the flag. All the bars without the stars. ..."
"... "Corbyn in the UK represented a last futile effort to re-transform the British Labour party, trying to turn the clock back into what it was once. But the core and base for that reconstitution no longer exists. And that's also, at least in part, why Labour suffered the historic defeat yesterday. And why Nationalism is on the ascend once again. ..."
"... Nationalism is undermining national unity in the UK–just as it is doing so in the USA and in Spain, Italy, and elsewhere in Europe, and let's not forget India and Kashmir, and other locales in Asia. Capitalism in crisis always turns to nationalism as a shield to divert blame for its economic and social troubles on 'the others'. The extreme version of this nationalist 'blame it on the outsiders game' is called Fascism. ..."
"... Even with all the abuse, gaslighting, spoiler candidates and a winter election on cold rainy dark prexmas day – nearly 11 MILLION GENUINE voters did choose Corbynite Labour. ..."
It is an anger that would be shared by millions, if they understood the truth about the way
they have been deceived and manipulated by the UK Establishment, not simply over the election
but over the most fundamental issues of trust and decency.
Some of the most evident deceptions that were used against Jeremy Corbyn, such as the
mendacious claims of anti-semitism, have been well aired – if not successfully
countered.
The failure to challenge and dismiss these claims rests almost entirely with the most
influential media – the BBC and Guardian particularly – who have the greatest
influence with Labour voters, even though they may not have been initially responsible for
contriving this high-level smear campaign.
The producers of those media and the journalists who work for them are also primarily
responsible for failing to present an opposing view that legitimised Labour's position and
demonised that of the Tories.
One issue stands out a mile in the context of anti-Semitism claims, being Israel's
continuing crimes against Palestinians, and the silence on the extraordinary and illegal moves
being made by the Israeli government during the election period.
The apparent basis for accusations against Corbyn of anti-Semitism is because of his
historic support for the Palestinian cause and legitimate criticism of Israel's barbaric and
criminal treatment of those living in the occupied West Bank and in Gaza. If any direct
reference was made to this viewpoint, it was only in references to Corbyn's "support for
terrorists" – meaning Hamas.
But reflecting on the election campaign, the absence of any direct reference to foreign
affairs, and policies on which Labour may have had significant support from many in the UK, is
striking. In fact it is more than that – it is indicative. Because the sub-text –
the subliminal message beneath the main issues of contention was always about foreign
affairs.
... ... ...
In his recent
essay on the operation of propaganda , Edward Curtin highlighted the power of movies in
embedding false ideas in peoples' minds, something also noted by Christopher Donnelly in his
exposition on "hybrid warfare".
There is, I think, now substantial evidence that both the broadcasting and suppression of
particular movies played a part in pushing the UK electorate into voting against its interests.
It was the coincidence of these two movies' appearance – and disappearance, with the
election period that makes the case persuasive.
Capricornia Man ,
I was with this author all the way until he made the infantile complaint that only 30 per
cent of the electorate voted for Brexit. The corollary of this is, of course, that LESS than
30 per cent voted to remain. But such inconvenient, if obvious, truths need not be mentioned
if you happen to be a crusading leftist remainer.
Also seldom acknowledged by left remainers is that the EU is structurally neo-liberal and
is enforcing austerity on the peoples of Europe. Read Costas Lapavitsas: 'The Left Case
Against the EU'.
Unmentionable, too, is that the undeclared leader of the stop-Brexit campaign is one Tony
Blair who has called Brexit "rancid" and has reputedly put ten million pounds of his own
money into this campaign.
Another unmentionable is that important parts of Corbyn's programme would have been illegal under the rules of the EU's
single market.
The author follows a well-trodden path in insulting working-class people who voted 'leave'
allegedly in "ignorance" and had "longstanding prejudices".
With this kind of stuff coming from sections of the left, why be surprised that sections
of the working class voted for the right?
When Labour promised in 2017 to implement Brexit, it achieved a 10 percent swing and
almost won the election. When the Blairites turned Labour into a remain party in 2019, it
lost the general election badly.
How many times does the electorate have to show what it wants before EU-idolaters will
accept it?
You have some very insightful comments on this site. Also you publish a needed antidote to
the Guardian and all the other mainstream propaganda out there.
Personally I was ambivalent about Brexit being from across the pond or as the elites like
to say from the "colonies" I didn't really think it was my business. Unlike some from the
commonwealth ( the euphemism for the British Empire) like to go on about our love for
guns.
Compare what happened at the Battle of the Little Big Horn to Wounded Knee. Just as a
thought experiment but I digress. Not too much because we're told that thanks to what would
become the Second Amendment we gained "Independence" from Britain. A nice fairytale we were
all taught in school and like GW chopping down some cherry tree because he couldn't tell a
lie or whatever. More myth than actual truth.
The fact is that America became an extension of Britannia. Actually the biggest part of
the Empire known as the East India Company. Don't believe me. Take a look at the flag. All
the bars without the stars.
Maybe I'm wrong but I see this whole Brexit now is an effort to resurrect an
Anglo-American alliance and all drunken Boris who has as much tact as his Russian counterpart
who almost single handedly and handily destroyed Russia by selling it off at bargain basement
prices which is what I'm sure Boris II plans to do and set up the old mercantile empire using
America's military much like Israel is using us as a "force multiplier".
Thus I sympathize with you all over there. Here we dodged the bullet known as Clinton who
probably would have turned us all into radioactive dust if elected for Trump who in reality
was the lesser of two evils but evil just the same since he seems to be selling us out to the
Rothschilds who as you know rule the City of London and are the benefactors of the terrorist
state of Israel.
Personally I thought you would have been better off with Cobryn but instead got Boris the
Terrible who promises to "get Brexit done". I wish you all the best and hope that it all
comes out alright.
" things will certainly go wrong for Boris. The great "Get Brexit Done" lie may have
helped him back to Downing Street, but it left untouched the insoluble conundrum at the
heart of Brexit – the fact that we can maintain the close economic relationship with
the European Union on which Britain's prosperity depends; or we can go for the sort of
low-cost, low-regulation "Singapore-on-Thames" that Johnson's financiers (oligarchs, hedge
funds, expatriate media barons) demand "
Merry Christmas!
M. le Docteur Ralph ,
You are a civil servant for an exceptional nation, a nation so exceptional that it expends
almost 4% of its GDP on defence, but a nation that is also so exceptional that it expends
that 4% of GDP simply by printing up pieces of paper in the basement.
Imagine a bunch of loser nations get together and have this really stupid idea of creating
their own new currency.
If these bunch of losers succeed instead of printing up pieces of paper in the basement
you will have to pay real money to finance that 4% of GDP and pay those outlandish bonuses to
the bosses of the industrial complex that receives your defence spending.
So, the first thing you do is you use your prison bitch to join the proto-new currency and
then you use your Hungarian Jewish asset to force your prison bitch to leave. A failure.
Next, you push the exchange rate against your own currency so low that you are sure the
loser nations will bend, they do not. A failure.
Next, you raise their new currency so high against your own currency that they cannot
trade and you are sure that the loser nations will bend, they do not. A failure.
Next, you take the country where your security services have previously established a
military junta and with your leading investment bank help you falsify their national
accounts. A failure but a disaster for the country in question. Everyone is too scared to sue
your leading investment bank.
Next, you take your prison bitch of a country and get them to run a referendum to leave
the loser nation trading block. You fix the referendum through postal votes. Then you run an
election and get an upper-class clown elected to make sure they leave on absolutely the worst
terms possible.
You are sure that this time you are on to a winner, pity for the prison bitch country,
pity for the risk for the whole of the rest of the world given what happened when you helped
your buddies at Goldman tank Lehman, but who cares you live in Chevy Chase and your
government pension is perfectly secure.
George Mc ,
Just found this helpful essay on possible future scenarios of the UK. And they're not happy
ones:
"Corbyn in the UK represented a last futile effort to re-transform the British Labour
party, trying to turn the clock back into what it was once. But the core and base for that
reconstitution no longer exists. And that's also, at least in part, why Labour suffered the
historic defeat yesterday. And why Nationalism is on the ascend once again.
And why, after the next crisis, even ascendant Nationalism as we see it today may not be
sufficient for the continuation of late Neoliberal rule for global capitalism."
because it refers to an earlier part:
"Nationalism is undermining national unity in the UK–just as it is doing so in the
USA and in Spain, Italy, and elsewhere in Europe, and let's not forget India and Kashmir,
and other locales in Asia. Capitalism in crisis always turns to nationalism as a shield to
divert blame for its economic and social troubles on 'the others'. The extreme version of
this nationalist 'blame it on the outsiders game' is called Fascism."
Dungroanin ,
Not so George.
Here are 3 simple upsides:
1. Even with all the abuse, gaslighting, spoiler candidates and a winter election on cold
rainy dark prexmas day – nearly 11 MILLION GENUINE voters did choose Corbynite
Labour.
2. Many of the backstabbing exLabour and pains in the arses are gone from their shouty AS
accussing perches.
3. Aside from losing Pidcock (to postal fraud) the next leadership is looking like a great
team and will be backed by the still solid membership- and the remainder shit on shoe
parachutists are deselected in good time for next election.
Its a long game politics and there was no predicted wipeout – Again.
Impeachment is rancid centrist theatre performed by the wizened walking corpses of Pelosi and
Schumer, acted out to make it look like they actually have a sliver of decency and acts as a
distraction from the election.
Democrats applauded and encouraged and voted for Trump's funding of ICE, increased
surveillance, and removing funding from welfare. This will change absolutely nothing.
The impeachment vote along strict party lines, with both parties hearing the exact same
evidence, mathematically proves that the evidence didn't have any bearing on the voter's
decisions.
Impeaching and losing is worse than not impeaching as it makes the division worse. And the
Democrats know they will lose and knew this at the start of the process.
The solution is to give the electorate the evidence for when they vote in 2020. Some of
them will reject the evidence as fake or biased or irrelevant. That is a voter's
prerogative.
Truth is the Democrats all held their noses when they railroaded this through the Kangaroo
Court of the House and voted on Party lines for impeachment. Very noteworthy that not one
Republican agreed and voted Yea. This will backfire on the Democrats and undermine the US
political system and do much harm.
I agree with you that the focus ought to be on policy and winning the election; positive
campaigns fare better, and impeachments is negative, boring, likely to fail.
And I also agree that the Democrats are not squeaky clean.
However:
Proceeding with impeachment does not prohibit the Democrats form being positive about
their own policies and vision. Especially the candidates. The smart Dem candidates will move
the conversation on quickly to how good their ideas are whenever they are asked about
impeachment.
Unwillingness to impeach in this case would support the claim that they're all as bad as
each other, and that the president can do whatever he wants. It is duty to do it.
They have to go for it. It may damage their chances in changing MAGA people's minds, but
it will help shore up the democratic vote (something that Hillary struggled with).
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards . Replies may
also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs .
The best way to sink Trump would be to get hold of his tax returns.
Er yeah... and exactly what do you think these are going to reveal?
Do you think The Donald himself fills these things out? He has scores of companies, and
he'll have an army of tax attorneys who deal with this stuff. The returns themselves won't
show the tens of thousands of line items for each company's expenses.
People with TDS are delusional. You think you'll you'll find something in his returns that
the IRS hasn't?
What's shocking to me is how closely Republicans are copying the behaviour of Trump himself:
the insults, the hyperbole, the shouting and screaming, the calls for his political enemies
to be censured, the cries of hoax and witch hunt. It's very reminiscent of totalitarian
states where the leader's allies compete with each other to prove their cult loyalty to the
Chosen One. It's the Trump Party now; what was once Reagan or Bush conservatism has long
since departed. The leader can do anything he likes, say anything he likes, and his followers
will forgive him everything.
Here's a different American perspective: yes, it's a political as opposed to a criminal
process. That doesn't mean it is necessarily a partisan political process. Impeachment is the
mechanism the Constitution provides for removing a corrupt official. That's what we've got. I
have grown very, very tired of people treating this as a horse race, rather than as the only
thing that can protect our democracy from an overreaching, dishonest leader. If it hurts
election chances, it really doesn't matter, because unless we want to give up altogether on
the framework of U.S. government, impeachment has to happen now. This is not a small matter
of a phone call. It is a very big matter about betraying the interests of the nation for
short-term political gain. And by the way, if it were a Democrat behaving the way this
president has, he should be impeached and removed from office. The flaw in the system is the
cult behavior of one political party. And I have no idea how that flaw can be mended.
The subhead says it all: Trump will not be removed from office.
Worse, he will have spurious 'proof' that by fould means 'the Washington swamp' is out to
get him and ruin his good fight on behalf of 'the people'.
His supporters will be even more determined to see him re-elected and it's even possible
that a few 'undecideds' have sympathy on him and swing his way.
That's why it strikes the writer as an anti-climax.
So. Bill Clinton almost got back into the White House. the only thing that stopped him was
the stupidity of Hillary, he also has made himself very rich in the process.
"Trump attempted to enlist the help of another country in his campaign for a second term
(this is no longer denied), "
Sure. Some Democrats bureaucrat said he overheard, someone who said he overheard someone
say that Trump wanted something.
The president of Ukraine even denies there was any solicitation.
It never even reached the level of denial.
Isn't it the duty of politicians to impeach if the president has broken the law?
Doesn't this transcend political motivations, and is irrelevant whether its going help or
harm at the next election, or even if it's an anti climax or not.. it's an absolute duty
Yet the charge of extortion is speculation. Why didn't the House ask Zelinsky to testify?
Perhaps because he himself doesn't believe he was extorted?
Regarding investigating political opponent: is that not what the Obama DOJ was doing in
the run up to the 2016 election - predicated on falsified documents and outright fraud to
secure a FISA warrent? Is that not what the House has been doing all this time?
I believe that a "political rival" should not be off limits to investigation if they
appear to have done something wrong - but do you? Where are the 8 Billion American tax
dollars that disappeared in Ukraine during Biden's watch? Why was the investigation called
into that called off?
I am sorry, but what you are saying is bullcrap. Hunter Biden was on the board of a Ukrainian
natural gas business earning US$600k per year (a mindboggling CEO level salary) whilst at the
same time being in rehab in California for a crack addition. There is so much more to that
story as well. Here is a well known left wing YouTube channel talking about this - the stuff
that just defies belief - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0RiUWBXGY4
Disclosure: I don't like Trump. I would never vote for him.
But why is naivety a prerequisite for being a liberal? When did this puritanical mindset
take root?
Foreign 'aid' is always on a quid pro quo basis. It's used as a soft power tactic to
prevent a commie revolution in mineral rich countries. It ensures a compliancy. It's NOT the
same as donating a few quid to the Red Cross.
But it was totally partisan based what constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley called
"non-crimes". Trump would wear such as badge of honour--in the sense he was attacked non-stop
by what he calls "The Deep State" and survived.
He would also claim that the elitist bureaucracy in Washington tried to destroy a
President who was for "We the People"--whom the elitist classes call "deplorables" and whom
can even be smelt at Walmart.
I was against the impeachment of Bill Clinton. At that time democrat supporters made
pantomime protests by dressing as puritans and Mrs Clinton referred to the "Vast Right Wing
Conspiracy". The case for Trump impeachment is even weaker and unlike with Clinton there has
been a lack of due process and no bipartisan support. Impeachment has now become the pursuit
of politics by other means which is a bad precedent for the future.
But if you want to re-energise Trump's base, this is a good move.
In the U.S. Schiff is seen as dishonest, a parody make-up trickster, a liar, etc. Pelosi is
seen as intellectually feeble and somewhat ditzy. She was pushed onto the impeachment path by
the hard Left of the Democratic party. An example of that is the words used by Democrat
Rashida Tlaib to refer to Trump--a very vulgar "Impeach the mfer[abbreviation".
'a new Gallup poll released Wednesday morning, before the House vote, which shows two
things happening since House Democrats, led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California, opened up
a formal impeachment inquiry in October:
1) Trump's job approval rating has gone from 39% to 45%
2) Support for Trump's impeachment and removal has dipped from 52% to 46%.'
Tulsi Gabbard on Twitter a few minutes ago, explaining her refusal to vote:
"A house divided cannot stand. And today we are divided. Fragmentation and polarity are
ripping our country apart. Today, I come before you to make a stand for the center, to appeal
to all of you to bridge our differences and stand up for the American people.
#StandWithTulsi"
According to the latest polls her support is about 2% nationally but higher in Iowa and
New Hampshire. Will her supporters stick with her? If not, where do they go? Sanders?
It feels anti-climatic because it was purely political. Democrats have set a terrible
precedent here. With no votes from the opposition party and cheers afterwards from the
majority party, they proved the impeachment was just a laborious exercise in bold faced
politics.
Now impeachment can be used whenever the roles are reversed and one party simply hates the
president from the other party.
So it's ok to have half of the court made up of people who have stated from before he was
elected they would impeach him, but wrong for him to have people in the court who are
prepared to defend him?
You want a show trial in which only the prosecutors get to make their case?
This impeachment is at best a symbolic act of defiance with no consequences.
At worst, it's a cynical ploy by establishment Dems to keeps Sanders and Warren tied up in
pointless Senate hearings, making it difficult for them to campaign for the election, and
giving Grandpa Joe an easy ride. Might Sound a bit tinfoil-hatty, but they'll do just about
anything to prevent meaningful change.
That being said, I also don't believe in the strange notion that this has somehow handed
Trump reelection. Why? The only people enraged by this are his cult, and they'll show up
anyway.
Nahh... We Brazilians have additional reasons to celebrate Trump's Fake Impeachment because
Dilma Rousseff was the victim of a Fake Impeachment sponsored by US Embassy in Brazil.
The self-destruction of the American political system sounds like music in my ears, as the
motherfucker Americans helped a handful of bandits tear my vote. Fuck US very much.
And now the poor Jair Bolsonaro is crying for his ass. Each politician mourns the loss of
his protector through his hole that it misses him, as we all say in Brazil.
This will likely backfire. Regardless of the rights and wrongs.
It will entrench most of his supporters and it will turn some waverers agains the Democrats.
That's a different debate. And one in which everything is viewed trough a short term
opportunistic myoptic lens. In some occasions that might be -accidentally - successful. But
mostly short term opportunistic behaviour is strategically (long term) stupid.
I agree that it was not very smart for Trump and later republicans to focus on the
Biden/Ukraine episode :-). I remember this cartoon with the one person covered in lots and
lots of spots pointing at another person who had just the one small spot while crying out:
'look: you have a spot'. Whatever you think about rich offspring getting into high end
schools and getting board positions (not a fan): the problem is a lot bigger on the
republican side.
Two days ago, the President sent a fuck-you letter to Pelosi. And she deserved it. Dems have nothing to offer to electorate so they engages in those witch hunts. They derailed
Tulsi, now they might face another four years of Trump.
Pelosi sponsored war of terror "completely democratized" more more then a million people
and nobody was impeached for that.
Torquemada's subjects never endured such inhumane treatment as Trump in the hands of Pelosi ;-) But we should not forget that
Pelosi sponsored war of terror "completely democratized" more more then a million people and nobody was impeached for that.
This Kabuki theater became more interesting: On 10th December 2019, Senator Mich McConnell (Republican Kentucky)
publicly declared, &"I'm not impartial about this at all. I'm not an impartial juror. This is a political process. There is not
anything judicial about it. Impeachment is a political decision."
America is a write-off. It was a terrible idea from the beginning. An empire? Now? Really?
Not learning anything from the history books, eh? Ye need an American Union, asap, before
ye destroy us all.
You people need to have stronger memory. Remember all the Iran-Contra criminals who
illegally funded right wing terrorists? The guy who pardoned them all is our fucking
Attorney General! Trumps presidency is a continuation of the right wing terrorist cabal
going back to Reagan; guest starring several Bush regulars.
Yeah Obama fucked up, that doesn't make shit close to even. Obama would have had to kill
thousands more people with drones to even come close to the bush/reagan death tolls.
Oh please. The Big O has far, far more blood on his hands than Rump (at least so far).
Destroying Libya? Supplying munitions at Al-Qaeada in Syria? Overthrowing Yanukovich and
kicking off the Ukrainian civil war? Greenlighting the Sauds genocidal war with Yemen?
Or are you going to insist on including Bush and Reagan in Trump's tally as they're Repug
too. Then, it that case why don't we include Wilson (D), Truman (D), Johnson (D), and Clinton
(D) In Obama's tally?
Trump wasn't impeached for 'alleged sexual assaults, deporting desperate migrants to their
deaths, destroying the possibility of preventing catastrophic climate change, causing
thousands of deaths by rescinding environmental rules and then covering up the human toll and
escalating drone strikes and then hiding the civilian deaths' because as far as I know
grounds 'impeachment' under the constitution must be based on misuse of office.
The point raised by Robinson, however valid, are political. And impeachment is not
supposed to be political.
NB As has been pointed out elsewhere impeachment will set a precedent: in the 240 odd
years since the US has had a president, only three have been impeached, two in the last 20
years.
You can bet your bottom dollar that the next Democrat president will have everything
he/she says or does under scrutiny 24/7 by the Republicans to find grounds for
impeachment.
"In the eyes of the majority of the electorate, Democrats have zero moral authority to
pursue this impeachment"
And on what evidence do you make this risibly and self-evidently false assertion? The
authority of the House Democrats lies in the votes of the Electorate that turned out the
Republicans and gave the Democrats the majority.
The only candidate with a realistic chance of winning the nomination that seemed to be
following the lead and not going impeachment crazy is Bernie Sanders.
And I understand what you are saying, but I do disagree with your last two paragraphs.
Especially with respect to shoring up the democratic vote. The times are changing and long
term allegiances are shifting. Democrats have to attract Trump voters in key battleground
states to win. This impeachment process is massively damaging to that in my opinion.
But look, time will tell come next election. What we know for sure is that Trump will be
contesting it.
Trump, who was due to arrive at his private Palm Beach resort late Friday, has been looking forward to a trial in the
friendlier Republican-controlled Senate and is riled up about the delay, according to Senator Lindsey Graham.
“He’s mad as hell that they would do this to him and now deny him his day in court,” Graham told Fox News Channel after meeting
with Trump at the White House on Thursday night.
McConnell has all but promised an easy acquittal of the president. He appears to have united Republicans behind an approach that
would begin the trial with presentations and arguments, lasting perhaps two weeks, before he tries drawing the proceedings to a
close. The Senate will reconvene 3 January.
The Blairites foisted the U-turn on Brexit onto the party when most of the seats it held
in the old parliament, and most of the seats it needed to win, voted leave. Now the Blairites
are hypocritically blaming Corbyn for the result of their own policy. The election loss was
exactly what they wanted: Corbyn out of the way and Britain 'safe' for neo-liberalism.
BigB ,
31 mn people voted to extend the consensual mandate of the neoliberal capitalist state to
globally expand, extract and expropriate planetary wealth for themselves. Unconsciously:
without any consideration of the consequences. Now, nearly 11 mn of them want to pretend they
were duped into this because two films did not get released? Can there be a more deluded
abdication of self-responsibility? Without any inherent maturity at all: it's hard to see
where UK politic goes from here? What is the deepest spot a mile below the nadir? The
'People's Government' of Boris Johnson we co-constituted the reality of last week?
The election was for a successor capitalist imperialist state: the capitalist imperialist
state was duly elected. No one – no one – can then abdicate responsibility to say
it was the "wrong capitalist state". If people do not like this process – and it is the
most debilitating, dehumanising, and destructive of all processes – then it is their
social responsibility to at least explore the possibility of finding another process. In the
co-creation of superior/inferior status and co-determination of the master/slave dialectic
– we volunteer to choose position of the inferior and the enslaved. Then spend the
consensual contract term complaining about the subordinant class politics we voted for.
Projecting blame scattergun everywhere but where the blame is due: with the voters and
endorsers of globalised neoliberal capitalism.
Is no one else getting bored of this? Not just the embarassment of excuses we can find for
our own self-inferiorisation and voluntary infantalisation: but the fact that no one will
make a positive assessment of how to break this vortex cycle of self-defeatism and
performative powerlessness so we never have to go through the same charade again? Which, no
doubt we will in five years time. Unless we take it on the chin: and fess up to what we have
created as a social reality the Trump/Johnson axis of world power.
If this below and beyond the low point cannot act as a bifurcation point – whereby
we totally reject the state electoral inferiorisation process – I do not know what can.
It is unlikely there will be much left to reclaim in five years: much less so in ten. If we
cannot claim humanity and ecology back from neoliberal globalisation in the next few years
well, it ain't going to be pretty.
A good starting point would be to admit the corruption of the entire state electoral
process of inferiorisation: and take co-responsibility for our part in the election of
Johnson. Then the avowal never to do it again and take the legislative and judicial power we
abdicated back. Which is the socially responsible alternative to the drawnout emetic debrief
that seems to be favoured.
GEOFF ,
Great point BigB I think you're wasting your time they don't care what happens here so long
as they're out of the EU that is all that matters to them. I'm so happy I don't have any
grandchildren, although I fear for those that have, so sad all done in the name of getting
our country back, I wonder how they will feel if farage gets some kind of peerage, you know
the one that has been fighting the elites, and celebrating his birthday at the Ritz owned by
those two socially aware brothers barclay , ha ha ha ha .
smelly ,
We have the very few, the few, and the serfs. The politics of the world is driven by the
Economics of the very few. The very few have created for themselves a feudal system, its
informal, its hidden, but its highly functional and it accounts in large measure for the
global atrocities.
The chiefs (a very few) distribute to the feudal lords(the few) in a variety of ways.
1. direct government contracts
2. privatize the assets and government services that remain after regime change or infra
structure destruction of economic value from regime sex corrupted, blackmailed, regime
changed or defeated nation states and or from sweetheart deals in corporate takeovers.
3. appointment to and assignment to intelligence, or high level diplomatic positions in
defeated entities.
4. promotion to USA congress or the USA presidency or to a high level corporate job.
5. control of access of the goy to education, entry level jobs leading to the knowledge to be
promoted, to bank loans, to houses in neighborhoods, to medical care, and to a massive
variety of other things. They are all in on it together.
6. many others
The tools of the trade are coercion by any means available to include sex, blackmail, spy
technology, war machinery, military, intelligence, private armies, dark money and money
laundering operations to name but a few.
Dependency : it is
This is no longer a problem bounded by one nation, it has become a problem important to the
liberties and freedoms and the station of status of person in the society, membership in
clubs, obtaining credentials to be eligible for licenses (law, medicine, home building,
contracting, service provider, and everything else). License is a huge gate used to keep the
Goya
What Bexit has shown is that there is not a bit of difference between those governed by
any of the nation governments of any kind(they are controlled by the same few), we are just
the Goy or as Hilary Clinton puts it: the deplorables. No longer should we look at ourselves
as citizens of Britain, or Citizens of the United States, or citizens of France, or citizens
of Saudi Arabia, or citizens of Israel, or citizens of Libya, or whatever, we must recognize
that it is the many vs the few . from here on out. We must not identify and expose all of the
ways nation state leaders use or allows others to use information to control our behaviors
and to dictate our rights.
We must help each other no matter or sex, language, religion or nationality because they
have made us all one, but trying to control our lives from birth to death and by trying to
use us, at our expense, for their purposes.
MASTER OF UNIVE ,
Professor Emeritus Vilfredo Pareto outlined the empirical skew of wealth transfer for 'the
few' as a function of culture whereby all have the same or similar wealth distribution.
Post-Lehman evidenced the wholesale destruction that empirical skew manifested on the Western
Banking System & concomitant ruling oiligopoly.
Empirically, the Western Fractional Reserve Banking System has crashed outright to
reveal
even greater skew after all the M&A post-Lehman debacle. In terms of wealth distribution
we are now in what Professor Emeritus Minsky characterized as Late Stage Ponzi Capitalism.
Amazon & Bezos are transnational, leveraged like a Hedge Fund, and a monopoly that was
legislated against during the 30s in the USA.
Today, in contemporary totalitarian society we are fed a daily diet of pseudoscience &
half-baked so-called 'truths' that serve to mask the lies & falsehood.
What is evidently true today is that the empirical skew of wealth has become a matter of
superstructural fault where the tectonic plates of sovereign nations are bound to give us all
degrees of continental shift in contradistinction to the empirical skew of wealth transfer
which is by no means immoveable.
Like gravity, what goes up must come down. Wealth hoarding sub-groups of elite will have
nowhere to hide when the avalanche cascades on top of them without notice before hand.
Six Sigma extinction level events exist for all empirical distributions given the right
conditions.
MOU
BigB ,
The other problem with 'the Few' analysis I have been trying to highlight is that we are in
it the Few that is. In terms of per capita mass aggregate consumption/pollution rates –
93% of us in the UK are in 'the Few'. Which holds for a rough Pareto Principle (80/20): we
are among the top 20% of consumers responsible for 70% of the lifestyle consumption emissions
[Anderson; LabourGND; Oxfam]. Which amounts to 28,000 tonnes per capita of aggregate material
flows: against a global average of 7,000 tonnes [Hickel]. In global consumption/pollution
terms: we are among the "wealth hoarding sub-groups of [the] elite" of the mass material
consumption bourgeoisie.
There are unfair distributions: and inequitable distributions between the haute
bourgeoisie and we in the bourgeoisie. But the greatest inequitable maldistribution is North
to South: where the poorest 50% of the global population are limited – by being
resource cursed and having to subsidise us – to 10% of lifestyle consumption emissions.
If you can call it a lifestyle; a consumer lifestyle; or a profligate pollution problem which
is doubtful? And it current rates of wealth redistribution: it will be 200-900 years before
they are out of poverty.
As for 'wealth hoarding sub-groups': we in the UK voted to extend the amount of mass
material material aggregate demand. Which is complex: because UK rates have been falling but
only because of the service economy. Rates of industrialisation and resource extractivism are
effectively exported. Global demand rises: and so must global supply. Our consumption
fetishism is driving global capitalism. Not solely: the whole of the developed world is.
It is this material economy that acts as a baseline – of sorts – for the
overfinancialised derivative, arbitrage, and highly leveraged stocks, bonds, and equities and
any other exotic financial instruments that can be gambled on. A market that is roughly 75
times the size of the material 'real' productive economy. The market that is likely being
subsidised by the repo- and other 'not QE' hypertrophic liquidity supplements. The market
that is going to collapse when the anabolic steroid effect fails to maintain exponential
growth. Professor Minsky will have his moment!
Whereupon the UK will quickly realise that it is a pissling little island in a sea of
globalisation. With an 80% tertiarised service economy. Servicing an extinct financial market
economy. With failing services and no food coming in from abroad. Or medicines. Or water
purification products. And possibly no energy. But we will have 60,000 military and
paramilitary police to uphold the private property rights of the haute bourgeoisie.
Maybe then we will see and feel what it is like for the rest of the world? Who we have
only ever viewed as subsidisers of our wealth? Just as we subsidise the wealth of those we
choose to be subordinate to. It's a shitty, shitty, system which the UK has done not too
badly out of. Well, enough for us to never look from the outside in through the eyes of a
Frantz Fannon: and try to change the system for a globally more equitable system free from
our white privileged ethnosupremacist racism.
We got the government we deserved – and voted for. And we await the fate of collapse
we deserve – and voted for. As John Michael Greer said: the UK is rushing to collapse
early to avoid the disappointment in the rush. We live in a complete fantasy bubble of a
post-Empire state of mind. As if other – dehumanised foreign – people and the
holistic integrity of the biosphere did not exist. Well, thanks to our lifestyle choices,
they may not for much longer. But the only thing that has perturbed our reserved compassion
and indifferent inhumanity is our election of a Johnson government. Well, that is an
indignity! But not even a fraction of an indignity that we are quite happy to violently
impose on the rest of the world. But let us pretend and console ourselves it would have been
a utopia if they had not held back those films.
Dungroanin ,
"We don't have to join too many dots to see why a discussion about Wikileaks, war crimes in
Iraq, and OPCW crimes in Syria was something the Tories didn't need,"
They also didn't need the Intelligence report of 'Russian' influence in their party and
government; the direct threat made by Pompeo to stop Labour, the deal which they have been
negotiating with the US which confirms the NHS is part of it amongst many other things
– as was confirmed by their Ambassador Woody (Of Johnson&Johnson fame who stand to
benefit hughy) ;the dangerous levels of capacity in the NHS; etc etc etc.
Anyway the Graun is claiming to run a ask us a question about the election now on their
blog – I've asked mine but am not holding my breath for an answer.
tonyopmoc ,
David Macilwain usually writes far better than this. In fact 90% of this, is the same sort of
nonsense, he has apparently been brainwashed with, by reading the Guardian et al.
He displays his own ignorance and arrogance, by yet again telling over 50% of The British
voting public that we didn't know what we were voting for re Brexit.
"not least because only 30% of that public actually voted for Brexit, and did so in
complete ignorance of what it might mean and because of their own long-standing
prejudices."
He analysed Skripal very well. This is total crap.
Tony
JudyJ ,
As soon as UK based Russian oligarchs are mentioned the presumption of many –
encouraged by Western media – is that they must be 'friends' of Putin or have 'close
connections' to him. In fact, in respect of most of them, it is exactly the opposite. They
are based in London precisely because the UK establishment doesn't clamp down on tax dodging
and corrupt business dealings as Putin has done since the beginning of his Presidential
tenures. Corrupt business owners donations to parties in power? Hmm, I wonder why it is that
they are given every encouragement and incentive to settle in London undisturbed?
This article is wrong to imply/assume that Brexiters/Lexiters didn't know what they were
voting for. Wrong to suggest/assume we did/do not have a strategy to try to help leave the
EU. Wrong to assume we are racist and/or stupid. Of course there are a few exceptions but on
the whole people know the score and we love the individual, distinct European countries; we
just despise the imperial, uber-technocratic, ultimately anti-democratic superstate that is
the EU.
See UK Column & similar websites, and the archive of Tony Benn/Barbara Castle/Peter
Shore/Bob Crow (on the reasons for disliking the EEC/EU/Maastrict & Lisbon Treaties etc)
for why so many people voted to leave the EU. I reckon when the options on who to vote for
were purposely limited by the LP (in the last few months after JC was forced to go along with
the PLP) and TBP (after Farage made a deal with Trump/Boris) many Brexiters (and a few
Lexiters?) were forced to vote for the Tories to give a message to the establishment? I am
guessing they thought the election would result in a hung parliament with the tories having
to ally with the DUP again.
Imo – I have a strong suspicion that the real result was a very close result (hung
parliament) and that the establishment using the secret services helped in some way to
engineer this landslide result (probably through postal ballot rigging). On the day of the
election many people observed and commented on the huge queues in the poll stations and
seeing so many young people voting like never before (including many photos on social media).
The result does not seem plausible and the status quo has/had so much to lose.
Incidentally, and this is obviously anecdotal but in my household (and as far as I know)
all my friends voted Labour or stayed at home (we are mostly Lexiters, don't-knows, and a
couple Brexiters) and only know quite well of two openlyTory voters (at my partners'
workplace). On the other hand, I do know my local area (which has been impoverished since the
Thatcher years) is a heavy leave-voting area and I reckon most people here lend their vote to
Tories for strategic reasons (I know a neighbour who wants the Tories to 'own' Brexit knowing
full well they will renege on all their promises and not just the Brexit promise – they
think Boris is a fake and wants to BRINO or, ultimately, even to remain).
I can only state what I observe and hear around me, and what I saw on social media during
the election, but I do know people are so much more informed than the establishment/media
would like to admit.
Francis Lee ,
I was shocked, yes shocked, to see the type sentiments espoused below.
"No-one could seriously believe that Brexit is something the ruling elite has pursued
because it respects the so-called democratic will of the British public – not least
because only 30% of that public actually voted for Brexit, and did so in complete ignorance
of what it might mean and because of their own long-standing prejudices.
That could have come from the mouth Jo Swinson, the Economist, the Guardian or any other
ultra-remainer rag.
It gets better, or worse depending on your point of view.
"Had the Government not had an interest in restructuring its relationship with the US and
NATO, and seen political and economic gains – well illustrated by the jump in the value
of Sterling following the result – then the idea of Brexit would just have quietly died
away."
Yep, it's those damn proles who voted for Brexit again and "did so in complete ignorance
of what that might mean and because of their own long-standing predudices." But of course!
Time to rethink the idea of universal suffrage perhaps. Actually those sort of sentiments
(see above) are precisely why Labour lost the election so heavily.
The point seems to be missed that euroland is an occupied zone and has been zone since
1945 – it is a neoliberal juggernaut and junior partner in the geopolitical global
order. In addition it is the civilian wing of NATO, another American construction. It is
based upon a core-periphery economic structure and upon a currency which locks its members
into a neoliberal straight-jacket, and since they cannot devalue the core runs up trade
surpluses whilst to periphery runs up permanent trade deficits. The euro currency is designed
to do precisely this. Moreover the Stability and growth pact robs states of their ability to
have an independent foreign and economic policy. The eastern and southern peripheries are
little more than colonies. Printing their own currencies – God forbid – is
strictly verboten, so that they cannot and will not recover. Taking Italy 137% of debt-to-gdp
ratio and Greece with a staggering 181% of debt-to-gdp you will get a pretty good picture of
what is happening in Euroland.
It really don't know why I have to explain all of this, particularly in light of the fact
that Corbyn himself has always been a eurosceptic, along with other notables such as Benn
(Sr.) Bryan Gould, Peter Shore and Barbara Castle, that was a unlike the present time when
Labour was Labour.
I think the Labour party has now gone to far to reverse course; it has become an
anachronism, and a neo-Blairite – ultra-remainer – is party now taking shape.
GEOFF ,
I've no idea why you keep going on about the EU , you got your way, we're leaving forget it,
lets see how good it's going to be in this shithole without some protection from the EU , why
do none of you address that, the slob has already started with his refusal to include workers
rights, the fat slob says we can have better employment protection once we leave ha ha ha ha
ha ha whats been stopping him from doing it for the last 40 years ? nothing. everyone is
entitled to their view obviously and I respect it, but you just shut us out as if your
opinion is all that matters, I would suggest 80% of those that voted leave know absolutely
nothing about the EU, I arrive at that by talking incessantly to people, who think they're
clued up and when you start pointing faults with their argument, you get the usual ' hey mate
I've only come in for a pint'
Francis Lee ,
"Share On Twitter" target="_blank"
href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=But+we+haven%26%238217%3Bt+left+it.+And+there+is+g...+&url=https%3A%2F%2Foff-guardian.org%2F2019%2F12%2F20%2Fofficial-secrets-lies-and-the-five-eyes%2F%23comment-107077">
But we haven't left it. And there is good reason to suppose that we never will. A BRINO is
being cooked up by a coalition of the usual suspects whose object is to end the existence of
the UK as an independent nation state and turn it into a province of a European super-state.
We will be voting – if at all – in the equivalent of local government or council
elections with decisions, with economic and geopolitical issues being decided by non-elected
technicians and bureaucrats.
Democracy is only meaningful at the national level. Democracy and Empire (the EU) or
should I say the EUSA, do not mix. Even Thucydides knew this.
GEOFF ,
But that happens here without the EU there are two pricks zac goldsmith and morgan, both been
rejected by the electorate , both been given a place in the H.O.L £305 a day , totally
unelcted but there to make our laws and you still won't see i twill you
Cassandra2 ,
Very much agree, I don't trust Boris to effect a clean break.
I generally trust my instincts like most normal plebs, but since the Lisbon Treaty Europe
has consolidate Federalisation, far removed from the original concept and principles of a
Common Market and my instincts prompted a closer look.
Delving deeper, an easy process given internet access, one discovers a cesspit of
deception. European Union is in reality the successor to the (totalitarian) Third Reich.
Refer to Christopher Story's YouTube 3 part lecture on the subject. EU was planned in 1942 by
a German social elite hierarchy in the likely event of Hitlers defeat. Key members of this
hierarchy were transferred (operation paperclip) to USA at the end of the war and were
integrated into a form of 5th column governing elite (power behind Deep State) who have since
1946 systematically hollowed the out the USA by undermining it's production base (excluding
military hardware production) and displacing economic investment through reckless
speculation/manipulation and perpetual global warfare.
Other than filling the Elites multi-trillion banking chest USA's resources and manpower
(Military & Intelligence) have been utilised to construct a global platform for imposing
a 'New World Order'. Europe's homogenization simply forms an essential part of this
ambition.
Given a cursory (pleb) assessment of Europe's widespread corruption, undemocratic
structure and it's true strategic purpose I cannot help but feel that those who voted
'remain' have had their critical faculties effectively lobotomized by Elite owned State MASS
INDOCTRINATION i.e. BBC et al.
MASTER OF UNIVE ,
Goldman Sachs engineered the entire EU finance by first fudging the books on Greece. The
whole edifice was built upon a shifting substrate of sand.
Castles made of sand float into the sea, eventually. Jimi Hendrix Axis Bold as Love
MOU
Francis Lee ,
"NOBODY voted for a HARD brexit onto WTO rules and the country should have been asked very
specifically if that is what the mythical 17 Million wanted."
'Nobody voted for a hard -Brexit.' Really!
How come you are privy to this "information?" It would be amusing to see you trying to
substantiate this statement.
And as for the 'mythical 17 million' (17.2 million actually) 'well, yes that must have
been a mirage; it didn't happen.
Strange times in which we live when conjecture is treated as if it were fact. Yep, that is
one of the hallmarks of the totalitarian mindset. In his marvellous essay, 'Notes on
Nationalism' Orwell captures this frame of mind perfectly. He writes:
"By 'nationalism' I mean first of all the habit of assuming that human beings can be
classified like insects and that whole blocks of millions or tens of millions of people'
(Leave voters by any chance?) "can be labelled 'good' or 'bad' But secondly (and this is much
more important) I mean the habit of identifying oneself with a particular nation, political
party, religious group or even football team, placing it beyond good and evil and recognising
no other duty than that of advancing its interests" (Remainers perhaps?)
Moreover, "although endlessly brooding on power, victory, defeat or revenge, the
nationalist is somewhat uninterested in what happens in the real world. What he wants is to
feel that his own unit is getting the better of some other unit, and he can more easily do
this off an adversary than by examining the facts to see whether or not they support his
views Arguments with his adversaries are always inconclusive since each of the contestants
believe themselves always right and always winning the victory (in the sight of God
anyway).
Some of the true believers are not far from clinical schizophrenia, living quite happily
amid dreams of power and conquest which have no connexion with the physical world."
Sadly true.
Dungroanin ,
WE will NOT let YOU forget the VoteLEAVE bs. Paul & co.
Here is Vote Leave NOT saying we are going onto WTO rules:
'The day after nothing changes legally. There is no legal obligation on the British
Government to take Britain out of the EU immediately. There will be three stages of creating
a new UK-EU deal – informal negotiations, formal negotiations, and implementation
including both a new Treaty and domestic legal changes. There is no need to rush. We must
take our time and get it right.
WHAT'S THE OVERALL FRAMEWORK WE NEED?
Overall, the negotiations will create a new European institutional architecture that
enables all countries, whether in or out of the EU or euro, to trade freely and cooperate in
a friendly way. In particular, we will negotiate a UK-EU Treaty that enables us 1) to
continue cooperating in many areas just as now (e.g. maritime surveillance), 2) to deepen
cooperation in some areas (e.g. scientific collaborations and counter-terrorism), and 3) to
continue free trade with minimal bureaucracy. The details will have to await a serious
negotiation but there are many agreements between the EU and other countries that already
solve these problems so we will be able to take a lot 'off the shelf'.'
Etc. http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/briefing_newdeal.html
AND HERE IS FACT CHECK
'As far as we've seen, Leave campaigners hardly mentioned the customs union in explicit
terms at all, so there was generally little clarity about what leaving might mean in that
regard.'
&
'There are also examples of leave campaigners claiming the UK could adopt a position similar
to Norway -- which is still part of the single market while not being an EU member.
Arron Banks, a founder of the Leave.EU campaign tweeted in November 2015 "Increasingly the
Norway option looks the best for the UK".'
This article has clarified the main targets for the globalists but where do you think
Brexit stands in their agenda, do they want out of the EU or not? I am confused which side is
in favour of freedom and liberty and which one wants global centralised command and
control.
Look at this way, the Democratic Party had two terms in office, under Obama,in order to deliver
a 'New Deal'.
It turned out,they were selling Snake Oil, life got no easier for ordinary Americans,
particularly those of colour.
So, the poor decided to give the Republicans a try, cutting out the middle men of the
democratic party.
Now,in order to get back into power, the neoliberal Left are breaking Trump's legs and the cycle
will start all over again, with so much time and money that could have been used to help those
who need it, going to the politicians and lawyers who run the charade.
The rich will get richer and the ears of the suckers who vote will bleed from listening to
all the bullshit.
Well, calling out the democrats for these. Things is not really a problem rather the
depressing truth. With clown shows like Nader and Schiff on display its not hard for voters
to conclude that the Democratic Party has become haters, undemocratic, not believers in rules
of evidence or due process, all foundations of American justice.
In other words
anti-American. Turning their so called investigation into the Schiff show has confirmed what
most Americans have come to understand, democrats are not fit to lead the country, and will
not after this next November.
When justice is muddied by the vengeance of politics there is little surety of integrity for
the common citizen believe in. When fighting each other in the name of the people becomes an
obsessive intent to hurt but not to serve, there is little foundation left for the common man
to be believe in.
Whilst perfection was never sought nor expected of those who were chosen by
the people to represent their hopes and wishes, the boundaries of common sense and
commonwealth must never be breached. The war which rages on in Washington is one which
represents little, if anything, of or for the people. In truth, regardless of Trump's fate,
the theatre of narrow political dreams go on, in the name of the people.
Since Trump stepped into office the Democrats were looking for something that would make him
impeachable. The deep state delivered them Russiagate, the claim that Trump 'colluded' with
the Russian government, by taking seriously an obvious fake dossier the Clinton campaign had
ordered and paid for. FBI agents who hated Trump even faked FISA court certification
submissions to be able to spy on the Trump campaign. They found nothing that supported the
'collusion' claims.
The FISA court is not amused about that:
"The frequency with which representations made by FBI personnel turned out to be
unsupported or contradicted by information in their possession, and with which they withheld
information detrimental to their case, calls into question whether information contained in
other FBI applications is reliable," Judge Rosemary Collyer wrote in an order published
Tuesday.
The Dems would have been.better off just coming up with some better more appealing
policies but here's the rub, they haven't and that's because they can't, their agenda is one
of stay tje same, no change, keep the status quo, forever wars and printing money and just
hope it all gos away. Instead of hope we've got horseshit.
This article is spot on.
Impeachment probably persuaded only a tiny number of vacillating voters, sidelined Trump's
worst crimes, and rallied his base. Meanwhile, as the author states, the public is no closer to knowing what the Dems stand
for -- another downside in their election chances.
There has never been a president in my lifetime at least that has been so put under the
spotlight as Trump. Literally under investigation since the day he took office and yet the
best they have is a highly disputed telephone conversation. Meanwhile Biden is there on video
in all his glory boasting about using US aid to force behaviour that suited him.
Trump will be aquitted and the Democrats will suffer for their desperation.
you seem to be suffering from the delusion that actual policies and beliefs are being fought
over by two opposing sides,its a pathetic sideshow between two almost identical parties with
identical policies and the same paymasters,the outcome of this farce is utterly meaningless
to the ordinary citizen.
On Tuesday, Donald Trump showed that it is not only through the spoken word or his Twitter
account that he is able to raise eyebrows, when he sent an angry and frequently bizarre letter
to House speaker Nancy Pelosi .
The six-page missive was remarkable for a number of reasons, not least for Trump's claim he
has been subjected to worse treatment than that endured by people accused of witchcraft in the
17th century.
Here are five highlights, or otherwise, from Trump's dispatch. 1) 'More due process was
afforded to those accused in the Salem Witch Trials.'
Fourteen women and five men were hanged in colonial Massachusetts the late 1690s, for
supposedly engaging in witchcraft. "Spectral evidence" was admissible in the trials –
evidence where a witness had a dream, or apparition, which featured the alleged witch engaged
in dark deeds. Spectral evidence is yet to feature in Trump's impeachment hearings.
2)
'You [Nancy Pelosi] are offending Americans of faith by continually saying: "I pray for the
president," when you know this statement is not true, unless it is meant in a negative sense.
It is a terrible thing you are doing, but you will have to live with it, not I!'
Nancy Pelosi has repeatedly said she prays for Donald Trump. In October, the House speaker
said
she was praying for his "health", after Trump had what she described as a "meltdown" during a
meeting with Democratic leaders.
It's not the first time she has claimed to be appealing to a higher power on Trump's
behalf. It seems Trump doesn't like it. Or believe it.
3) 'There are not many people who
could have taken the punishment inflicted during this period of time, and yet done so much for
the success of America and its citizens.'
Trump's claims that he alone could withstand such rough treatment from his opponents
rather fall down here – located as they are in a six-page ode to
self-pity.
4) 'You view democracy as your enemy!'
This exclamation comes midway through the letter, after Trump claims the Democrats have
developed "Trump Derangement Syndrome". Trump is not confident of the odds Democrats will
recover from the malady: "You will never get over it!" he writes.
5) 'I write this letter
to you for the purpose of history and to put my thoughts on a permanent and indelible record.
100 years from now, when people look back at this affair, I want them to understand it, and
learn from it, so that it can never happen to another president again.'
There's a slightly self-satisfied air to the final paragraph of the letter, as if Trump
feels he has delivered a piece of soaring oratory which will be pored over by scholars in years
to come. At least here, in a sense, Trump is correct. People are unlikely to forget "this
affair" – his presidency – for a long, long time and historians of the future will
certainly examine this letter: just perhaps not in the way Trump would want them to.
But it was totally partisan based what constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley called
"non-crimes". Trump would wear such as badge of honour--in the sense he was attacked non-stop
by what he calls "The Deep State" and survived.
He would also claim that the elitist bureaucracy in Washington tried to destroy a
President who was for "We the People"--whom the elitist classes call "deplorables" and whom
can even be smelt at Walmart.
"... Every US military action and ultimatum to a foreign state has been aggressively pushed by the losing Democrats and particularly 'liberal' mainstream media, any dissent met with smears, censorship or worse. I would argue that today similarities with events leading up to previous global conflicts are too striking and numerous to ignore. ..."
"... Israel and its US relationship – I think Syria is where global conflict is still likely to start. As Syria has been winning, the involvement of Turkey and Saudi Arabia appears to receding. More recently Israel have taken their place and is relentless and unyielding and has its own wider, destructive plans for the Middle East. Israeli influence in the US is now so great that the US has more or less ceded its foreign policy in the Middle East to Israel. In 1914 Austro-Hungary pursued a series of impossible demands against Serbia managing to drag its close and more powerful ally Germany (led by someone equally as obstinate and militaristic as the US leadership) into World War I. Incidentally, some readers may have noticed the similarity between the 1914 diktats and modern-day US bullying towards Venezuala and other states – and perhaps most striking, by Saudi Arabia in its dispute with Qatar not long ago ..."
"... Ideology, paranoia and unstable leaders – history tells us that ideology, paranoia and power are not a good mix and this is in abundance in western elites and media. These establishments are rabidly hostile to Iran and Russia. ..."
"... Media deception and propaganda – The media have been responsible for getting us to where we are today. Without them, the public would have woken up long ago. Much of the deception has been about the presentation of the narrative and the leaders. And it's been a campaign of distraction on our news where the daily genocide in Yemen gives way to sensationalised non-events and celebrity trivia. ..."
"... Appeasement – because of its relative weakness and not wanting a war, Russia has to some extent appeased Western and Israeli aggression in Syria and beyond. To be fair, given the aggression it faces I don't think Russia has had much choice than playing for time. However at some point soon, with the West pushing more and more, something will have to give. Likewise, in the 1930s a militarily unprepared UK and France appeased Germany's expansion. The more they backed off the more Germany pushed until war was the only way. ..."
"... False flags – for those watching events in Syria know that the majority of the 'chemical attacks' have been carried out by Western supported opposition. The timing and nature of these suggest co-ordination at the highest levels. Intelligence Services of the UK and other agencies are believed to co-ordinate these fabrications to provoke a western response aimed at the Syrian Army. On more than one occasion these incidents have nearly escalated to a direct conflict with Russia showing the dangerous game being played by those involved and those pushing the false narrative in the media ..."
As a history student years ago I remember our teacher explaining how past events are linked to what happens in the future. He
told us human behaviour always dictates that events will repeat in a similar way as before. I remember we studied 20th century history
and discussed World War I and the links to World War II. At this time, we were in the middle of the Cold War and in unchartered waters
and I couldn't really link past events to what was likely to happen next. Back then I guess like many I considered US presidents
more as statesman. They talked tough on the Soviet Union but they talked peace too. So, the threat to humanity was very different
then to now. Dangerous but perhaps a stable kind of dangerous. After the break up of the Soviet Union we then went through a phase
of disorderly change in the world. In the early 1990s the war in the Former Yugoslavia erupted and spread from republic to republic.
Up until the mid-to-late nineties I didn't necessarily sense that NATO and the West were the new threat to humanity. While there
was a clear bias to events in Yugoslavia there was still some even-handedness or fairness. Or so I thought. This all changed in 1999
with the war in Kosovo. For the first time I witnessed shocking images of civilian targets being bombed, TV stations, trains, bridges
and so on. But my wake-up call was the daily NATO briefings on the war. The NATO spokesman boasted of hundreds of Serbian tanks being
destroyed. There was something new and disturbing about his manner, language and tone, something I'd not encountered from coverage
of previous conflicts. For the first time I found myself not believing one word of the narrative.
When the peace agreement was reached, out of 300 Serbian tanks which had entered Kosovo at the start of the conflict, over 285
were counted going back into Serbia proper which was
confirmation he had been
lying .
From this conflict onwards I started to see clear parallels with events of the past and some striking similarities with the lead
up to previous world wars. This all hit home when observing events in Syria and more recently Venezuala. But looking around seeing
people absorbed in their phones you wouldn't think the world is on the brink of war. For most of us with little time to watch world
events there are distractions which have obscured the picture historians and geopolitical experts see more clearly.
Recent and current
western leaders haven't been short people in military uniform shouting. That would be far too obvious. It's still military conflict
and mass murder but in smart suits with liberal sound-bites and high-fives. Then the uncool, uncouth conservative Trump came along
and muddied the waters.
Briefly it seemed there might be hope that these wars would stop. But there can be little doubt he's been
put under pressure to comply with the regime change culture embedded in the Deep State. Today, through their incendiary language
we see US leaders morphing into the open style dictators of the past. The only thing missing are the military uniforms and hats.
Every US military action and ultimatum to a foreign state has been aggressively pushed by the losing Democrats and particularly 'liberal'
mainstream media, any dissent met with smears, censorship or worse. I would argue that today similarities with events leading up
to previous global conflicts are too striking and numerous to ignore.
Let's look at some of these:
1) Military build up, alliances and proxy wars – for all the chaos and mass murder pursued by the Obama Administration he did
achieve limited successes in signing agreements with Iran and Cuba. But rather than reverse the endless wars as promised Trump cancels
the agreements leaving the grand sum of zilch foreign policy achievements. NATO has been around for 70 years, but in the last 20
or so has become obsessed with military build up. Nowadays it has hundreds of bases around the world but keeps destablising non-aligned
states, partly to isolate Russia and China. And Syria sums up the dangers of the regime change model used today. With over a dozen
states involved in the proxy war there is a still high risk of conflict breaking out between US and Russia. The motives for military
build up are many. First there are powerful people in the arms industry and media who benefit financially from perpetual war. The
US while powerful in military terms are a declining power which will continue, new powers emerging. The only return on their money
they can see is through military build up. Also there are many in government, intelligence services and media who can see that if
the current order continues to crumble they are likely to be prosecuted for various crimes. All this explains the threatening language
and the doubling-down on those who challenge them. In 1914, Europe had two backward thinking military alliance blocks and Sarajevo
showed how one event could trigger an unstoppable escalation dragging in many states. And empires such as Austro-Hungary were crumbling
from within as they are now. So a similar mentality prevails today where the powerful in these empires under threat favour conflict
to peace. For these individuals it's a last throw of the dice and a gamble with all our lives.
2) Israel and its US relationship – I think Syria is where global conflict is still likely to start. As Syria has been winning,
the involvement of Turkey and Saudi Arabia appears to receding. More recently Israel have taken their place and is relentless and
unyielding and has its own wider, destructive plans for the Middle East. Israeli influence in the US is now so great that the US
has more or less ceded its foreign policy in the Middle East to Israel. In 1914 Austro-Hungary pursued a
series of impossible
demands against Serbia managing to drag its close and more powerful ally Germany (led by someone equally as obstinate and militaristic
as the US leadership) into World War I. Incidentally, some readers may have noticed the similarity between the 1914 diktats and modern-day
US bullying towards Venezuala and other states – and perhaps most striking, by Saudi Arabia in its dispute with
Qatar not long ago.
3) Ideology, paranoia and unstable leaders – history tells us that ideology, paranoia and power are not a good mix and this is
in abundance in western elites and media. These establishments are rabidly hostile to Iran and Russia. In addition we face a situation
of highly unpredictable, ideological regional leaders in Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Israel. Most worrying of all, the language, threats
and actions of Trump, Pompeo and Bolton suggests there are psychopathic tendencies in play. Behind this is a Deep State and Democrat
Party pushing even harder for conflict. The level of paranoia is discouraging any notion of peace. 30 years ago Russia and US would
sit down at a summit and reach a consensus. Today a US leader or diplomat seen talking to a Russian official is accused of collusion.
When there are limited channels to talk in a crisis, you know we are in trouble. In Germany in the 1930s, ideology, propaganda and
creating enemies were key in getting the population on side for war. The leaders within the Nazi clique, Hitler, Goring and Himmler
look disturbingly similar to the Trump, Pompeo, Bolton line up.
4) Media deception and propaganda – The media have been responsible for getting us to where we are today. Without them, the public
would have woken up long ago. Much of the deception has been about the presentation of the narrative and the leaders. And it's been
a campaign of distraction on our news where the daily genocide in Yemen gives way to sensationalised non-events and celebrity trivia.
The terms and words; regime change, mass murder and terrorist have all been substituted by the media with 'humanitarian intervention',
'limited airstrikes' and 'moderate rebels' to fool a distracted public that the victims of the aggression are the bad guys. Western
funded 'fact checking' sites such as Bellingcat have appeared pushing the misdirections to a surreal new level. Obama was portayed
in the media as a cool guy and a little 'soft' on foreign policy. This despite the carnage in Libya, Syria and his drones. Sentiments
of equal rights and diversity fill the home affairs sections in the liberal press, while callous indifference and ethno-centrism
towards the Middle East and Russia dominate foreign affairs pages. In the press generally, BREXIT, non-existent anti-Semitism and
nonsense about the 'ISIS bride' continues unabated. This media circus seeks to distract from important matters, using these topics
to create pointless divisions, causing hostility towards Muslims and Jews in the process. The majority of a distracted public have
still not twigged largely because the propaganda is more subtle nowadays and presented under a false humanitarian cloak. A small
but vocal group of experts and journalists challenging these narratives are regularly smeared as
Putin
or Assad "apologists" . UK journalists are regularly caught out lying and some long standing hoaxes such as Russiagate exposed.
Following this and Iraq WMDs more people are starting to see a pattern here. Yet each time the media in the belief they've bamboozled
enough move on to the next big lie. This a sign of a controlled media which has reached the point of being unaccountable and untouchable,
deeply embedded within the establishment apparatus. In the lead up to World War II the Nazis ran an effective media propaganda campaign
which indoctrinated the population. The media in Germany also reached the point their blindingly obvious lies were rarely questioned.
The classic tactic was to blame others for the problems in Germany and the world and project their crimes on to their victims. There
are some differences as things have evolved. The Nazis created the media and state apparatus to pursue war. Nowadays this is the
opposite way around. Instead the state apparatus is already in place so whoever is leader whether they describe themself as liberal
or conservative, is merely a figurehead required to continue the same pro-war policies. Put a fresh-looking president in a shiny
suit and intoduce him to the Queen and you wouldn't think he's the biggest mass murderer since Hitler. Although there are some differences
in the propaganda techniques, all the signs are that today's media are on a similar war-footing as Germany's was just prior to the
outbreak of World War II.
5) Appeasement – because of its relative weakness and not wanting a war, Russia has to some extent appeased Western and Israeli
aggression in Syria and beyond. To be fair, given the aggression it faces I don't think Russia has had much choice than playing for
time. However at some point soon, with the West pushing more and more, something will have to give. Likewise, in the 1930s a militarily
unprepared UK and France appeased Germany's expansion. The more they backed off the more Germany pushed until war was the only way.
6) False flags – for those watching events in Syria know that the majority of the 'chemical attacks' have been carried out by
Western supported opposition. The timing and nature of these suggest co-ordination at the highest levels. Intelligence Services of
the UK and other agencies are believed to co-ordinate these fabrications to provoke a western response aimed at the Syrian Army.
On more than one occasion these incidents have nearly escalated to a direct conflict with Russia showing the dangerous game being
played by those involved and those pushing the false narrative in the media. The next flashpoint in Syria is Idlib, where it's highly
likely a new chemical fabrication will be attempted this Spring. In the 1930s the Nazis were believed to use false flags with increasing
frequency to discredit and close down internal opposition. Summary – We now live in a society where exposing warmongering is a more
serious crime than committing it. Prisons hold many people who have bravely exposed war crimes – yet most criminals continue to walk
free and hold positions of power. And when the media is pushing for Julian Assange to be extradicted you know this is beyond simple
envy of a man who has almost single-handedly done the job they've collectively failed to do. They are equally complicit in warmongering
hence why they see Assange and others as a threat. For those not fooled by the smart suits, liberal platitudes and media distraction
techniques, the parallels with Germany in the 1930s in particular are now fairly obvious. The blundering military alliances of 1914
and the pure evil of 1939 – with the ignorance, indifference and narcissism described above make for a destructive mix. Unless something
changes soon our days on this planet are likely be numbered. Depressing but one encouraging thing is that the indisputable truth
is now in plain sight for anyone with internet access to see and false narratives have collapsed before. It's still conceivable that
something may create a whole chain of events which sweep these dangerous parasites from power. So anything can happen. In the meantime
we should keep positive and continue to spread the message.
Kevin Smith is a British citizen living and working in London. He researches and writes down his thoughts on the foreign wars
promoted by Western governments and media. In the highly controlled and dumbed down UK media environment, he's keen on exploring
ways of discouraging ideology and tribalism in favour of free thinking.
2- 'Israel and its US relationship'. The 'hands off' policy of the Western powers, guarantees that Syria cannot even be a trigger
to any 'global conflict', supposing that a 'global conflict' was on the cards, especially when Russia is just a crumbling shadow
of the USSR and China a giant with feet of clay, heavily dependent on Western oligarchic goodwill, to maintain its economy and
its technological progress.
In 1914, the Serbian crisis was just trigger of WWI and not a true cause. It is not even clear if it was Germany that dragged
Austria-Hungary into the war or Russia. Although there was a possibility (only a possibility), that a swift and 'illegal' attack
by Austria-Hungary (without an ultimatum), would have localised and contained the conflict.
There is no similarity whatsoever between the 1914 'diktats' and modern US policy, as the US is the sole Superpower and its
acts are not opposed by a balancing and corresponding alliance. Save in the Chinese colony of North Korea, where the US is restrained
by a tacit alliance of the North Eastern Asiatic powers: China, Russia, Japan and South Korea, that oppose any military action
and so promote and protect North Korean bullying. Qatar, on the other hand, is one of the most radical supporters of the Syrian
opposition and terrorist groups around the muslim world, even more than Saudi Arabia and there are powerful reasons for the confrontation
of the Gulf rivals.
You should go back in Time and STUDY what really happened .. that means going back to the Creation of the socalled British Empire
..the Bank of England , the British East Indian Company , the Opium Wars and the Opium Trafficing , the Boer Wars for Gold and
Diamonds , the US Civil War and its aftermath , the manipulations of Gold and Silver by socalled british Financial Interests ,
The US Spanish Wars , the Japanese Russian War , the failed Coup against Czar Russia 1905 , the Young Turk Coup against the Ottoman
Empire 1908, the Armenian Genocide , the Creation of the Federal Reserve 1913 , the Multitude of Assinations and other Terror
Attacks in the period from 1900 and upwards , WHO were the perpetraders ? , , WW 1 and its originators , the Bolshevik Coup 1917
, the Treaty of Versailles and the Actors in that Treaty ,the Plunder of Germany , the dissolution of Austria Hungary , the Bolshevik
Coup attempts all over Europe , and then the run up to WW 2 , the Actions of Poland agianst Germans and Czechs .. Hitler , Musolini
and finally WW 2 .the post war period , the Nuernberg Trials , the Holocaust Mythology , the Creation of Israel , Gladio , the
Fall of the Sovjet Empire and the Warshav Pact , the Wars in the Middle East , the endless Terror Actions , the murder of Kennedy
and a mass of False Flag Terrorist Attacks since then , the destruction of the Balkans and the Middle east THERE IS PLENTY of
EXCELLENT LITERATURE and ANALYSIS on all subjects .
It was your Obama that 'persecuted' Mr Assange !!!
Syria demonstrates that there has NOT been a Western strategy for regime change (specially after the 'defeats' in Iraq and
Afghanistan), let alone a proxy war, but, on the contrary, an effort to keep the tyranny of Assad in power, in a weaker state,
to avoid any strong, 'revolutionary' rival near Israel. Russia has been given a free hand in Syria, otherwise, if the West had
properly armed the resistance groups, it would have been a catastrophe for the Russian forces, like it was in Afghanistan during
the Soviet intervention.
Trump's policy of 'equal' (proportional) contributions for all members of NATO and other allies, gives the lie to the US military
return 'argument' and should be understood as part of his war on unfair competition by other powers.
The 'military' and diplomatic alliances of 1914 were FORWARD thinking, so much so that they 'repeated' themselves during WWII,
with slight changes. But it is very doubtful that the Empires, like the Austro-Hungarian o the Russian ones, would have 'crumbled'
without the outbreak of WWI. They were never under threat, as their military power during the war showed. Only a World War of
cataclysmic character could destroy them. A war, triggered, but not created, by the 'conflict seeking mentality' of the powerful
in the small countries of the Balkans.
Generally attributed to Senator Hiram Warren Johnson in 1918 that 'when war comes the first casualty is truth' is as much a truism
now as it was then.
I'm more inclined to support hauptmanngurski's proposition that the members of the armed forces, from both sides, who return
from conflicts with life-changing injuries or even in flag-draped caskets defended only the freedom of multinational enterprises
and conglomerates to make and continue to make vast profits for the privileged few at the population's expense.
As Kevin Smith makes abundantly clear we are all subject to the downright lies and truth-stretching from our government aided
and abetted by a compliant main stream media as exemplified in the Skripal poisoning affair, which goes far beyond the counting
of Serbian tanks supposedly destroyed during the Balkans conflict. The Skripals' are now God knows where either as willing participants
or as detainees and our government shows no signs of clarifying the matter, so who would believe what it put out anyway in view
of its track record of misinformation ? The nation doesn't know what to believe.
Sadly, I believe this has always been the way of things and I cannot even speculate on how long it will be before this nation
will realise it is being deliberately mis-led.
"... Three billion dollars of USAID money sent to Ukraine over 3 years is not accounted for, no documents, no audits. The Clinton Foundation has received $10 million in donations of $500K and up from Ukraine this century. Igor Pasternak had a fundraiser in Washington for Adam Schiff; $1000/plate- guest, $2500/plate-sponsor. Ukranians and US taxpayers should like to know where did our dollars go, and who else in addition to the Bidens are at the trough. ..."
"... So the documents were released three weeks ago? Giuliani had the evidence in JANUARY? So the Quid Pro Quo kerfuffle was manufactured thereafter? ..."
"... So the QPQ is actually by Dems' trying to stop prosecution of Biden and above? Clinton and Obama? Which is why the impeachment bs? Or is it to stop the prosecution of the chiefs of the 3 letter agencies in their manufacturing of Russiagate? And their 5+1 eyed cohorts? In a conspiracy against the potus? Now just fit in Syria, White Helmets and Skripals and all the dots join up. ..."
On November 22nd, a 100-page Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) data-dump was made by the U.S.
Department of State, to the Democratic-Party-aligned nonprofit "American Oversight," which had been founded in March
2017 by liberals (really by some of the
main billionaires who fund the Democratic Party
) after the 2016 Democratic electoral defeat (by
Republican billionaires
).
The now Republican-headed U.S. State Department made it as difficult as possible to report the contents of this
dump; Most especially by providing only a photographic image of each page, making it impossible to search on most
systems; and also impossible to Copy/Paste any quotations.
Consequently, on November 23rd, I made a pdf copy of that document to the Web Archive (the first of probably many
that will become posted there), in order to be able to link here to something that will come onscreen less sluggishly
for any interested reader who will want to see the document.
I am herewith pasting below what I consider to be the most important extended passage in the document, so as to
make that passage especially available online. I have manually transcribed the photos, in order that any portion of
this important passage (pages 61-66) can now be easily found and cited by other reporters.
This way, at least that passage might become more widely disseminated to the public -- which it should be, because
the information there contradicts many of the 'news'-reports about Ukrainegate, or the impeachment case against
Trump. (Some excerpts from this extended passage were reported on
November 25th
by the great non-mainstream news-site Zero Hedge, and that was entirely accurate.)
In this passage, President Trump's lawyer Rudolphe Giuliani, on January 23, 25, and 26, of 2019, took a deposition
from Viktor Shokin, whom Joe Biden had forced to be fired on 29 March 2016 as Ukraine's Prosecutor General, and also
a deposition from Yuriy Lutsenko, who replaced Shokin and thereby freed-up from the Obama Administration in 2016 a
one-billion-dollar donation ('loan guarantees' to the then-and-now bankrupt Government of Ukraine) from America's
taxpayers, to fund the then just-recently-installed-by-Obama anti-Russian Government
of Ukraine, for it to stay afloat just a while longer.
Shokin – January 23, 2019, 445 Park Avenue New York, NY 10022:
On January 23, 2019, a telephone interview with Mr. Viktor Shokin the former General Prosecutor of Ukraine was
conducted. Present in the New York location were: Rudolph Giuliani, Mr. Igor Fruman, Mr. Lev Parnas and Mr. George
Boyle.
The conversation was conducted through the use of two (2) interpreters one (1) in Ukraine and one (1) Lev
Parnas in New York. The sum and substance of the conversation are as follows:
Mr. Shokin stated that he was appointed to the position of General Prosecutor of Ukraine from 2015 until April
of 2016 when he was removed at the request of Mr. Joseph Biden the Vice President of the United States. Mr. Shokin
was a Deputy Prosecutor prior to becoming the General Prosecutor. He became involved in a case against Mr. Mykola
Zlochevsky the former Minister of Ecology and Natural Resources of Ukraine.
The case was opened as a result of Mr. Zlochevsky giving himself/company permits to drill for gas and oil in
Ukraine. Mr. Zlochevsky is also the owner of Burisma Holdings, which is a corporation registered in Cyprus. Mr.
Shokin stated that there are documents that list five (5) criminal cases in which Mr. Zlochevsky is listed, with
the main case being for issuing illegal gas exploration permits. The following complaints are in the criminal
case.
Mr. Zlochevsky was laundering money
Obtained assets by corrupt acts bribery
Mr. Zlochevsky removed approximately twenty three million U.S. dollars out of Ukraine without permission
While seated as the Minister he approved two addition[al] entities to receive permits for gas exploration
Mr. Zlochevsky was the owner of two secret companies that were part of Burisma Holdings and gave those
companies permits which made it possible for him to profit while he was the sitting Minister
The above cases were closed after Mr. Zlochevsky was dismissed from the Ministry.
Mr. Shokin further stated that there were several Burisma board appointees [that] were made in 2014 as follows:
Hunter Biden son of Vice President Joseph Biden
Joseph Blade former CIA employee assigned to Anti-Terrorist Unit
Aleksander Kwasnieski former President of Poland
Devon Archer roommate to Christopher Heinz the step-son of Mr. John Kerry United States Secretary of State
Mr. Shokin stated that these appointments were made by Mr. Zlochevsky in order to protect himself. Mr.
Zlochevsky left Ukraine while the above-mentioned cases were open.
Mr. Shokin stated that the investigations stopped out of fear of the United States. Mr. Shokin attempted to
continue the investigations but on or around June or July of 2015 the U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey R. Pyatt told him
that the investigation has to be handled with white gloves, which, according to Mr. Shokin, implied to do nothing.
On or about September 2015, Mr. Pyatt gave a speech in Odessa where he stated that the cases were not investigated
correctly and that Mr. Shokin may be corrupt.
Mr. Shokin stated that in 2014 Mr. Zlochevsky was in the UK and that the twenty three million dollars were
frozen in the UK in the BNP Bank. Mr. Shokin stated that false documents were prepared and the money was released
so Mr. S[sp]lochevski before Mr. Shokin took office. That release of the money made Mr. Shokin look into the above
cases again.
Mr. Shokin stated that there were several articles written about bribes being taken during the investigation of
the cases. The bribes were an effort to have the cases closed. On April [actually
29 March
] of 2016 Mr. Shokin was dismissed as the General Prosecutor of Ukraine [and
both the U.S. and its stooge the EU celebrated his firing
-- the EU aquiesced in the
U.S. regime's Ukrainian coup
]. In November of 2016 the cases were closed by the current Prosecutor General
Yuriy Lutsenko.
Mr. Shokin further stated that on February of 2016 warrants were placed on the accounts of multiple people in
Ukraine. There were requests for information on Hunter Biden to which nothing was received. It is believed that
Hunter Biden receives a salary, commission, plus one million dollars. Mr. Shokin stated he was warned to stop by
Ambassador Geoffrey R. Pyatt.
President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko told Mr. Shokin not to investigate Burisma as it was not in the interest
of Joe and/or Hunter Biden. Mr. Shokin was called into Mr. Poroshenko's office and told that the investigation
into Burisma and the Managing Director where Hunter Biden is on the board, has caused Joe Biden to hold up one
billion dollars in U.S. aid to Ukraine.
Mr. Shokin stated that on or around April of 2016 Mr. Petro Poroshenko called him and told him he had to be
fired as the aid to the Ukraine was being withheld by Joe Biden. Mr. Biden told Mr. Poroshenko that he had
evidence that Mr. Shokin was corrupt and needed to be fired. Mr. Shokin was dismissed in April of 2016 and the
U.S. aid was delivered within one and one half months.
On a different point, Mr. Shokin believes the current [U.S.] Ambassador Marie L. Yovanovitch denied his visa to
travel to the U.S. Mr. Shokin stated that she is close to Mr. Biden. Mr. Shokin also stated that there were leaks
by a person named Reshenko of the Ukrainian State Secret Service about the Manafort Black Book. Mr. Shokin stated
that there is possible deceit in the Manafort Black Book.
End of interview.
*
Yuriy Lutsenko January 25, 2019, 445 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10022:
On January 25, 2019, Mr. Yuriy Lutsenko the current Prosecutor General of Ukraine was present at 445 Park Av e,
New York, NY. He was present to speak about corruption in Ukraine. He was accomapnied by Glib Zagoriy, Gyunduz
Mamedov, Lev Parnas, Igor Fruman. Also present were Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and George Boyle.
Mr. Lutsenko stated that he is currently the Prosecutor General for Ukraine. He was the Minister of Interior
from 2007 to 2010. He further stated that he was placed in jail for two and one half years as a political
prisoner.
Mr. Lutsenko stated that his office has the following units under his purview:
Police Department
Fiscals
Secret Service
Investigative Department
Mr. Lutsenko stated that his office has recovered several billion dollars and has had two thousand six hundred
thirty-seven [2,637] verdicts of corruption. Mr. Lutsenko went on to explain that there is a unit called
Specialized Anticorruption Prosecutors Office (SAP) which has under its purview National Anticorruption Bureau
Ukraine (NABU) which investigates corruption cases that involve public figures from Mayors upward. He stated that
the current U.S. Ambassador protects SAP and NABU.
He feels they are good organizations but have terrible leadership. His office has absolutely no control over
SAP or NABU and can't even ask what they are working on, however they fall under his 'control'.
He further state[s] that he believes Mr. Viktor Shokin, the former Prosecutor General, is honest.
Mr. Lutsenko went on to say that he began looking at the same case Mr. Shokin was looking at (mentioned above)
and he believes Hunter Biden receives millions of dollars in compensation from Burisma. He produced a document
from Latvia that showed several million dollars that were distributed out of Burisma's account.
The record showed two (2) companies and four (4) individuals receiving approximately sixteen million dollars in
disbursements, as follows [the breakdown is shown].
Mr. Lutsenko feels that the total disbursements can be as high as $100,000,000.
Ambassador Pyatt gave a speech on September 25, 2015 in Odessa against the Prosecutor Generals' Office. Yuriy Lutsenko Continued:
On January 26, 2019, Mr. Yuriy Lutsenko, the current Prosecutor General of Ukraine, was present at 445 Park
ave., New York, NY. [His second day of testimony contained only one specific mention which was not vague and
which had not been indicated previously by Shokin: A "system was set up in order to remove money from the Ukraine,
have it laundered, and then collect the laundered money.
These companies were all headed by one Chief Financial Officer.
Mr. Lutsenko stated that about twenty (20) to forty (40) of these companies were shell companies. He further
stated that there were twenty-three (23) companies located offshore, and that two of them had approximately seven
billion dollars that were placed in the Templeton Fund. The system ran similar to a 'pyramid' scheme and all of
the beneficiaries were pro-Russian [which was undefined but presumably meant associated with the pre-coup
Ukrainian Government].
Zlochevsky is actually the decoy, but the real person who has majority-ownership of Burisma, after Zlochevsky sold
to him most of his shares in 2011, is the key Ukrainian billionaire who had backed Obama's February 2014 coup, Ihor
Kolomoysky. And Kolomoysky is now far more interested in recovering a few billions from his bankrupt PrivatBank,
Ukraine's largest bank, than in trying to extract the relative pittance that might still be entailed in Burisma
(which probably isn't much, now that
no established fracking company has found it
to be worth developing).
Apparently, Trump hasn't yet decided whether to continue the Obama-installed regime in Ukraine or else to expose
it and to go after both Obama and Kolomoysky, and to abandon the cover-story of Biden and Zlochevsky. If he does
decide to go after the principals in the case, then he'll have to expose whom were the actual principals, and whom
were merely their agents.
Thus far, in the American press, all of the attention has been only on actual agents, no principals. Given the way
in which Trump's State Department buried the release of that data-dump, Trump has not been particularly eager to get
the real story out there. Nor, of course, are the Democratic Party billionaires whose "American Oversight" has
likewise done nothing to facilitate the exposure of the actual historical narrative in this case.
Dec. 9, 2015
: Hunter Biden and business partner Devon Archer meet at State
Department regarding Burisma Holdings prosecution. [But no online record is provided, no documentation here, of
what was said.]
Feb. 11, 16, 19, 2016
: VP Biden holds series of phone calls with President Poroshenko to check
on status of pending items from their December 2015 meeting. Removal of general prosecutor raised again. [But,
again, no online record is provided. No evidence is provided of any mention of replacing the prosecutor.]
March 15, 2016:
Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland demands
Ukraine "appoint and confirm a new, clean Prosecutor
General, who is committed to rebuilding the integrity of the PGO, and investigate, indict and successfully
prosecute corruption and asset recovery cases -- including locking up dirty personnel in the PGO itself." She
offers no proof that special prosecutor's [General Prosecutor's] office is corrupt.
March 22, 2016:
VP Joe Biden engages in a phone call from Washington DC with Ukrainian
President Poroshenko about U.S. loan guarantees [there is actually no indication in the official readout regarding
any "loan guarantees"].
It is believed in this call that Biden renews his demands that the president fire Prosecutor General Shokin,
but this time Biden warns Ukraine risk[s] losing the next $1 billion in U.S. loan guarantees [and, yet again,
Pompeo's State Department falsifies, because
the official readout
says nothing of the sort].
[The only useful information that's provided there is that seven days before Shokin was fired, Biden did phone
Poroshenko, and that Pompeo's State Department isn't to be trusted in anything it asserts, because it
misrepresents here what that readout says. Therefore, the "Dec. 9, 2015" entry also isn't to be trusted, since no
accompanying documentation is provided for its allegation.]
I thought that the Republicans and Democrats decided to, essentially, kill the impeachment (hoax) in
order to protect the entire political class. I mean, Really, the contest between Republicans is phony so
that development is not surprising. Also, according to Alexander Mercouris (who wants to see Trump
re-elected!), both Shokin and Lutsenko (who doesn't have a lawyer background) were doing dirty work on
behalf of their respective oligarch patrons. That's Ukraine now and peviously.
It does seem that
there's a lot of dislike for Trump by the Dems and many Repubs but there's an even stronger dislike by
those enemies of Trum, together with the rest of the political class, of democracy. And there's a culture
of criminalit and impunity which members of the American political share or the exposure of Russiagate
would have seen a chastening of the Democratic Party et al instead of a doubling down on whatever lies
might help remove Trump. Neither is Trump chastened by his brush with the tainting of his crown as he
signs laws that codify the lie that peaceful protest and honest criticism of Israel is antisemitism.
Antonym
,
Imagine the confidence the Democrats
still have today
that with
"Ukrainegate" they can criminalize sitting president Trump instead of their own much more guilty
opposition leaders: US deep state is almost 50 rooted with many appointees in all power branches.
ttshasta
,
Three billion dollars of USAID money sent to Ukraine over 3 years is not accounted for, no documents, no
audits.
The Clinton Foundation has received $10 million in donations of $500K and up from Ukraine this century.
Igor Pasternak had a fundraiser in Washington for Adam Schiff; $1000/plate- guest, $2500/plate-sponsor.
Ukranians and US taxpayers should like to know where did our dollars go, and who else in addition to the
Bidens are at the trough.
Ukraine is not quite the most corrupt country on the planet, but it gives Afghanistan and Somalia some
pretty stiff competition.
Many tens of billions have been poured into the country by the US and EU
taxpayer, via the IMF, CIA, NED, and similar organisations. It has promptly vanished into thin air. There
is nothing to show for it. Ukraine is a Big Black Hole. It is now just a CIA/ NATO playground in the
grand scheme of things to install an openly Fascist Regime in Kiev to encircle and destabilise Russia.
The main players in Ukraine are Levantine oligarchs like Kolomoisky and his ilk, who have stolen
everything that wasn't nailed down in Ukraine since independence. And everything that was nailed down.
Just like Russia in the 1990s. They were joined by a whole host of all the usual suspects, dual/ triple
national Jews with a visceral hatred of Russia. The Nulands, the Vindmans, the Ioanovitches and all the
rest. Ukraine has been a happy hunting ground for these people. There has been a virtually unlimited
bonanza of western taxpayers' money to divvy up between them. Together with a few goy stooges like the
Bidens, who were also allowed to wet their beaks. There was enough to go around, after all.
No wonder they hate Trump so much for spoiling the party. Over to Schiff, Nadler, Cohen, Cohen and
Cohen. Reacting with all the fury of a dog that has had its bone taken away.
Dungroanin
,
So the documents were released three weeks ago?
Giuliani had the evidence in JANUARY?
So the Quid Pro Quo kerfuffle was manufactured thereafter?
So the QPQ is actually by Dems' trying to stop prosecution of Biden and above? Clinton and Obama?
Which is why the impeachment bs? Or is it to stop the prosecution of the chiefs of the 3 letter agencies in their manufacturing of
Russiagate?
And their 5+1 eyed cohorts? In a conspiracy against the potus? Now just fit in Syria, White Helmets and Skripals and all the dots join up.
It can lead to the immediate collapse of the new bozo house of cards and clear the swamp in one
Herculean flushing! You may even be able to save Assange from martyrdom in the British dungeon.
What's it to be Me Zuesse?
George Cornell
,
Thanks for this. It is surely complex and after all why shouldn't Miss Vicki decide who should lead the
Ukraine. And why should anyone begrudge the right of an exemplar sovereign state to deep six a prosecutor
who went after criminal corruption? But even the incognoscenti can appreciate that Hunter Biden, the
cokeheaded nitwit who was shoehorned into the Navy, by his fathers' friends, was unable to forgo the coke
till his urine got tested. His length of service could be measured in hours or days (how long does it
take to get the urine test results) as he was immediately dishonourably discharged. Further, that he
could not possibly provide service to Burisma that was not corrupt, simply because he had no demonstrable
expertise in their affairs. Unless Biden Jr's expertise in marital infidelity, fathering children out of
wedlock with strippers, and spending his marital income on lap dancers and drugs (according to his
ex-wife) dovetailed with Burisma's undeclared interests.
It was reported in the NYT that Bidens presence on the Burisma board gave it respectability. Of course
it must have, although presumably by error, Burisma was left out of any of the lists of most admired
companies. Perhaps these were compiled before Jr. was taken on board, so to speak. Ukrainians can hold
their heads high, such an incredible coup it was to have Biden Jr. grace their country. And he picked the
Ukraine over the horde of other countries which must relentlessly vie for his services, whatever they
might be. Just his accepting their cheques is surely enough.
It is not difficult to appreciate how the Democratic Party leapt at the chance to show the American
public how those big meanie Republicans have wagged their tongues so uncharitably against the upstanding
and virtuous seed of the loins of their leading 77 yr. old presidential candidate. After all, boys will
be boys. Say what you like about the Dems but you can't deny their canny shrewdness and ability to sniff
out talent.
Jimmy1969 says: December
19, 2019 at 2:12 pm GMT 200 Words Golden Tree Asset Management bought up Post Media in
Canada at a fire sale years ago from the bankrupt Asper family. Post Media is a conglomerate
that controls dozens and dozens of media outlets in all of Canada including 95% of all the
major Newspapers in every large city. Therefore Canadian news is de facto controlled by an
American New York Jewish hedge fund. That fact has been known for years and is joked about on
all of the bar stools in Canada where reporters hang out .but not in the Press. No one writes
about it none of the Nationalistic Professors, Journalists, Members of Parliament no one. One
fact is certain you will never ever see a single bad word in any of their papers critical of
Israel, or any actions of Israelis. Any comment critical of Israel or Zionist power, no matter
how objective or moderate is immediately deleted. And sadly this is no joke. The world should
take note of how Canada is strangled. Read More Replies: @bike-anarkist
Replies: @the
grand wazoo , @eah
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All
Comments
@silviosilver
Paying what you owe is perfectly fine and moral. Paying double of what you owe on account of
inflated fees and interest is blood sucking. Doing this to developing nations is downright
cruel.
Let's say Congo owes $10 billion. A finance firm buys that debt for $8 billion, collects
the full $10 billion (which already includes interest) and make a $2 billion profit. That's
not too terrible.
But to buy the debt for $8 billion and then force Congo to pay $60 billion is Jewish.
Playing the victim while accusing Congo of financial mismanagement and forcing them to close
their schools and hospitals – very Jewish. Evading the ethical implications of one's
actions and seeking cover behind legalism like a coward –> Jew level –
Godlike
Jews see themselves as the ingroup, and the "goyim" as the outgroup. Since Whites are the
"outgroup" it's not just acceptable, but praiseworthy, to exploit them. To "beat" them at
war.
The problem is that Whites wrongly do not see Jews as an outgroup – something that
Jews themselves take great pains to discourage via their various front groups like the
ADL.
There is no "technical" fix, there is no objective "system" that can change this dynamic.
There is no "level playing field."
Whites need to ostracize Jews at all levels. Boycott, Divest and Sanction – not just
their apartheid regime of Jew bigotry in Zionist-occupied Palestine, but at every level of
society, business, civil institutions, etc.
Jews are destroying the world. Everywhere they go, they leave behind nations in ruins.
Look at Europe, Africa and the Americas, Jews have left their ugly footprints. Corruption,
prostitution, drugs and human trafficking are their trade.
Reading the (obvious) Jews commenting here on their various financial swindle-systems is a
lot like reading zionists defending Israel. The basic tactics are always the same:
1.) Focus on some small aspects or most recent events and make a comparison to Gentiles or
other events with similar micro-narratives. "See? Everyone else does it! Why single out us
poor, persecuted Jews?"
2.) Use these minute distractions to drown out the overall issues, underlying concepts,
long history or guiding ideology in noise and minutiae.
3.) Never start at the beginning of the story and follow the trajectory though; always
start in the middle and focus on some trivial detail, use it to defend the (never stated)
sicko ideology that started the problem in the first place. Completely ignore any timelines
or larger perspectives.
David Icke calls it (or used to call it -- - back when his backbone was healthy) the
Reptilian Brain. The ability to manipulate trivial minutiae while never addressing underlying
concepts or timelines.
It is hard to feel sorry for WASPs, they struck a deal with the Jews centuries ago
Catholic political powers have been "striking deals with Jews" for two thousand years.
There is a synagogue in Rome right next to the Vatican which has been legally privileged
since the days of Christ. As E. Michael Jones detailed in his book, Jewish Revolutionary
Spirit , the Catholic Church itself defended Jews from the angry mobs time and time again
throughout their history, to the point bishops and priests would harbor Jews in the
cathedrals and lock the doors before the peasants could arrest them.
Indeed, the infighting among Whites promoted by the likes of Jones is yet again another
assist from Catholic powers to their partners, the Jews.
The popular "neo-reactionary/NRx" movement, started by the Ashkenazi Curtis Yarvin, is yet
another "right-wing" fad that blames Calvinists for all the problems in the world.
Jews are blameless, yet again another White ethnicity/religion is at fault.
No wonder Jews get away with what they do. Whites are too busy infighting over false
history demonizing various rival cults.
So, the "vultures" flew out to the West after devouring the Russian empire and now with the
help of the likes of the homeboy or more like a two bit whore, Ben Sasse, they've descended
on America and have started gutting it out.
Where will they fly next? White Christians don't want them and black/brown Muslims can't
stand them but perhaps China is their next destination being that they have shipped most of
the jobs out there and the whole lot of them are marrying "Chinese-American" women in droves
for good measure.
In the coming battle of the titans, the one who's name can't be pronounced, viz. Yahweh,
hopefully has better guns than Jehovah and Allah, for it sure is gonna need it when the
latter two gang up on it maybe Buddha will give it a helping hand being that they're
practically in-laws now!
My question is how do entities like Puerto Rico get so far in debt in the first
place?
For the same reason individuals get into debt, financial incompetence and sometimes a bit
of bad luck.
I've personally never understood how people can take out loans from companies like Wonga
or QuickQuid (both Jewish owned incidentally) seeing as they quite clearly advertise their
exorbitant interest rates.
Look up income by ethnic group in the UK and US, you will find that Indians and Chinese
(South Asians) are the richest in both countries (except for Jews of course).
What I have found is that these two groups come from a debt-averse culture, their kids
actually live with their parents until they have saved enough money for a house and other
such things required to start a family.
Whites meanwhile are WAY to trusting of these faceless financial institutions, they get
into debt very easily and thus become slaves, if you have kids, the first thing you should
educate them about is finance and debt, don't throw them out to the dogs either, it's tragic
to see some getting into debt and then having other problems like drugs and alcohol
addictions.
I came out of that book with the utmost admiration for Bill Browder.
You don't seem to be serious, if I understood what you want to say. Even Der Spiegel has
published a critical article in English about Browder, Browder is the one who pushed for
sanctions against Russia because of the case Magnitsky:
Questions Cloud Story Behind U.S. Sanctions
The story of Sergei Magnitsky has come to symbolize the brutal persecution of
whistleblowers in Russia. Ten years after his death, inconsistencies in Magnitsky's story
suggest he may not have been the hero many people -- and Western governments -- believed him
to be.
@Anonymous
Sure, but you're talking utopia. The reality is that public entities issue bonds to finance
special projects or even their operations. Somebody then buys the bonds and expects to be
paid back.
@Realist
There is something especially deficient with Whites when it comes to money matter, how can
such a large number of Whites take short-term loans from companies like Wonga and QuickQuid,
when the nature of their business (usury) is very clearly advertised. I was around 10 years
old when I was astounded at the 5000% APR loans advertised on TV, and wondered if I
understood interest right.
Parents, especially White ones, really need to educate their children on personal finance
and debt, it seems a lot of Whites these days do not actually own anything and all their
flashy gadgets and whatnot are being loaned out (buying Iphone on contract for example),
these people are the hardest hit as they can't scrape together even a couple of hundred
pounds/dollars/euros when hard times come. Its farcical albeit tragic.
Wow what a confused mess. Here's a summary: Vulture capitalism is bad for no particular
reason but only an evil anti-Semite (like you) would dare criticize capitalism.
And they want the island of Puerto Rico for themselves, save a few thousand able bodies to
serve as maids and gardeners. But what about the triple-raced residents of the island itself?
Well, that's easy! Dump them in states like Florida and New York and let the suckers pay for
it. After all, it's not like they are going to vote for the other side we get to eat the cake
and keep it too!
An article that appeared in Goebbels newspaper, Der Angriff (The Attack) titled
"The Jew", a short excerpt that is relevant to your comment;
The Jew is immunized against all dangers: one may call him a scoundrel, parasite,
swindler, profiteer, it all runs off him like water off a raincoat. But call him a Jew and
you will be astonished at how he recoils, how injured he is, how he suddenly shrinks back:
"I've been found out."
I think the term "vulture capitalism" is calumnious to vultures, who, as carrion birds,
perform a useful and purifying function in nature.
The Jews as a collective, i.e., the Jews who identify as such, concur in the death
sentence of Christ handed down by their Sanhedrin and espouse the Talmudic mitzvah of killing
the best of the gentiles (which naturally implies elevating the worst of the gentiles to
power and prominence) are more to be likened to plague bearing rodents. Unlike vultures, rats
feast on corruption and putrescence, spread disease and also kill the living.
We embrace the finance capitalist worldview at our peril. In its essence, it is nothing
but the worship of money making and profiteering as the supreme aspiration of life,
irregardless of its horrible effects on our compatriots and fellow humans. In doing so, we
become Jews at heart.
There is nothing wrong with industry and the profit motive per se. Predatory finance
contributes nothing to the well being of a nation and the needs of the physical economy- it
is supremely toxic and corrosive of both. It must be expunged and its champions expropriated
and exiled. People like the odious Peter Singer have no place in a moral world; they ought to
be first expropriated, then exiled as far away from their host societies as possible.
I was personally wounded by the anti gay rhetoric peppered across this article. I can't help
making the association that Paul singer's son came out as gay and that this must be the
source of the author's animus against him and the others. Shakespeare, who was also
homosexual, described this state of mind as "a green eyed monster," i.e. jealousy. I'm
mortified that other members of the commentariat have not taken issue with this. Maybe we
would be more compassionate to the denizens of middle America if they allowed our most basic
civil rights.
@J
Adelman Oh those kind jews have always been for the working class? But there is a white
working class and jews want them extinct from the face of the earth. Read 'Abolishing
whiteness has never been more urgent.' By Mark Levine
@silviosilver
You make several good points but you don't address the issue of capitalists manipulating the
politicians with campaign contributions. If a fund gets paid off by public money due to
politicians putting the fund owners ahead of the taxpayers, that's corrupt. What happened to
the 'creative destruction' principle by which large IBs like Goldman would have been allowed
to collapse and their principals carried off in leg-irons in 2008? Oh -- they are "too big to
fail and too big to jail." So much for the free market myth.
Moreover, most Jews support endless free money for "victim groups" to be forcibly
extracted from the middle-class. Never mind if Mr. Jones has a lengthy criminal record, let's
pay for him to go to college, let's pay his rent, let's pay his medical bills, etc. Why then
take such a hard line on people who foolishly get into debt?
Moreover, the economic downturn that caused many mortgagors to default was CAUSED BY the
big Wall Street firms' irresponsible behavior.
Also, most people do tend to temper economic contracts with a degree of compassion.
Gentile capitalism does not exist in a vacuum.
I recall reading about a young female environmentalist who was refusing to leave a
venerable redwood tree that was scheduled to be cut down. The WASP businessman who owned the
tree was extremely patient with the girl, tried to win her over, threw her food and drinks,
and so on. The land with the tree was then sold to some Jewish firm. At that point the
article left off. The tree was cut down with no further negotiation.
The greatest jewish vulture fund is the zionist privately owned feral reserve aka the FED ,
is creates money out of thin air and feeds this money to the otherwise bankrupt zionist banks
and not just here in the ZUS but in Europe, and the BIS is the vulture fund of vulture funds
owned by the zionists, the biggest scam in the history of the world.
By the way, Tucker Carlson said that 911 truthers were nuts, that says it all about
him.
Mass immigration for cheap labor, the weaponization of the grievance industry against
white majority/European nations and the use for the production of anti-white race baiting
media.
Much great work!! Very impressed. Would recommend to Moses himself.
@Colin
Wright I remember seeing a clip where Jared Taylor was on some talk show. He was calmly
citing statistics on how blacks are over represented among violent criminals. A sassy black
women broken in with "Jeffrey Dahmer Ted Bundy they were all white!" Not her exact words but
something to that effect. Naxalt, in other words.
I don't think Joyce is suggesting that all unscrupulous capitalists are Jews, or vice
versa. It is true that gentiles can be scumbags (the Enron boys.)
Now most Muslims are not terrorists, and many terrorists are not Muslims.
And yet it seems like there are many people who will notice patterns among other groups,
rightfully roll their eyes when they hear PC arguments in favor of those groups, and then
pull out the naxalt and what-about-isms when you notice patterns in Jewish behavior.
@Dutch
Boy Your statement: "maximizing shareholder is the holy grail of all capitalist
enterprises" statement is spot on.
I've been saying that for decades.
Labor is never given value, but is a commodity-a "necessary evil" according to the Wall
Street types and is to be minimized and marginalized at all costs.
Adolph Hitler's Germany monetized labor and gave it value. THAT is the reason that the
jews went after Germany. Post WW1 Germany was successful in its economy due to throwing off
the shackles (and shekels) of the internationalist banksters.
Henry Ford CREATED a market which had not existed when he paid his employees $5.00 per day
when the average wage of the day was around $1.25 per day. His premise was not entirely
altruistic as assembly line work was monotonous; a way had to be found to retain employees as
well.
Of course, the wall street types and the banksters howled that Ford's wage rates would
destroy capitalism (as they knew it-those at the top reap all of the benefits while the
proles are forced to live on a bare subsistence wage, due to the machinations of those at the
top).
Guess what??
The OPPOSITE happened. Henry Ford knew one of the basic tenets of a truly free,
capitalistic society, that a well-paid work force would be able to participate and contribute
to a strong economy, unlike what is taught in business schools today-that wages must be kept
to a bare minimum and that the stockholder is king.
Our "free trade" politicians have assisted the greedy wall street types and banksters in
depressing wages on the promise of cheap foreign labor and products.
A good example of this is the negative criticism that Costco receives for paying its
employees well above market wages. These same wall street types praise Wal-Mart for paying
its employees barely subsistence wages while assisting them in filling out their public
assistance (welfare) forms.
Any sane person KNOWS that in order for capitalism to work, employees need to make an
adequate wage. Unfortunately, this premise does not exist in today's business climate.
Henry Ford openly criticized those of the "tribe" for manipulating wall street and
banksters to their own advantage, and was roundly (and unjustly) criticized for pointing out
the TRUTH.
Catholic priest, Father Coughlin did the same thing and was punished by the Catholic
church, despite his popularity and exposing the TRUTH of the American economy and the
outsider internationalists that ran it . . . and STILL run it.
Our race to the bottom will not be without consequences. A great realignment is necessary
(and is coming) . .
@lavoisier
I'm not sure I'd put Buffett in that category. For example, in one of the companies he
bought, he kept a factory with declining profits open as long as he could to avoid throwing a
large chunk of people out of work overnight. He has mostly made his money by avoiding dopey
fads and a disciplined buy-and-hold approach to stocks.
@J
Adelman' Jewish people have always stood against tyranny against the working class,
the poor and other people of color." '
Right. I'd say Jews actually collaborated extensively in the imposition of tyranny
on the working class in Eastern Europe from 1917 to 1991. That'd be one counter-example.
Should we explore others? The role of Jews in the medieval slave trade? After all,
somebody had to castrate all those Christian boys who were to serve as harem
guards.
No reason to dredge up ancient history -- except here you are, making a blatantly false
claim about it. 'Always stood against ', my ass.
They are gunning for India now who do you think that brought in the Turks who ruled as the
Moguls to exploit the Hindu wealth and later on who did in the Muslims?
Disraeli and his ilk always knew that India was poor but their temples were rich with gold
and it's that they are after one can't build one's own "Third Temple" without it.
Why are the black cohens being promoted (South Brahmins the most pliable ones) at Google,
Microsoft and Pepsi etc.? Because the waterboys, and girls, will help rope in what's left of
the Indian carcass for thirty pieces of silver!
@secondElijah
You are probably the most antisemitic troll I have ever met online.
So, when did Epstein and Weinstein become the standard bearers of the Jewish community?
It is your jealousy of the Jewish people that makes you spew such vile hatred here.
Smug, obnoxious white people like you who have always considered this country their private
preserve are an endangered species. The demographic trends cannot be denied.
In less than 25 years white folks will become a minority in this country. So enjoy it while
you can, Bubba, your days of driving the bus are numbered.
You and other whites here are like the bad guys in every horror movie ever made, who gets
shot five times, or stabbed ten, or blown up twice, and who will eventually pass -- even if
it takes four sequels to make it happen -- but who in the meantime keeps coming back around,
grabbing at our ankles as we walk by, we having been mistakenly convinced that you were
finally dead this time. Fair enough, and have at it. But remember how this movie ends. Our
ankles survive.
YOU DO NOT.
@Saguaro
The soup has boiled over, the horse has bolted and the barn has burnt down and yet you
Yankees haven't woken up.Your politicians are whores who cannot function without funding from
the jews. And Jeffery got them all for Mossad. Enjoy
@Vaterland
The "standing up for People of Color" schtick is particularly disingenous, as all the Jews
have really done isuse their disproportionate control of the media to peddle false narratives
and distort history. One good example of this is the case of then president of the Atlanda
chapter of B'nai B'rith, Leo Frank. Frank had raped and murdered 13 year-old Mary Phagan and
when he was found out, he used his connection with New York Jews to get lots of money and
hire the best defence lawyers, his lawyer then launched vicious racial attacks on a Black
semi-literate janitor who worked in the factory that Frank was in charge of (and where Phagan
worked) to try and convict him of the horrible crime.
Jews will be friends of POC when it suits them. The funny thing about the Frank case is
that the Jewish media has made it out that Frank was innocent and wrongly lynched (only after
his death sentence had been commuted by a judge who was suspected to have been bribed by
powerful New York Jews), and that the Black janitor was the guilty one. This is absurd seeing
as the racist Southern jury would never favour a "White" man over a Black man (anti-semtism
wasn't that big in the South, and especially so considering this was before the Bolsheviks
took control of Russia), and that if Frank had truly been White, this case would be a
landmark case in which the evil rich White man was tried and the Black man was given
justice.
"Gentlemen! I too have been a close observer of the doings of the Bank of the United States.
I have had men watching you for a long time, and am convinced that you have used the funds of
the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided the
profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank. You tell me that if I
take the deposits from the bank and annul its charter I shall ruin ten thousand families.
That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin
fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin! You are a den of vipers and thieves. I
have determined to rout you out, and by the Eternal, (bringing his fist down on the table) I
will rout you out!"
Islam stands in their way of usury-ripping of mankind of their
resources and defrauding mankind via bank thefts.
Bring on the Shariah Law. I would much rather live under Shariah, God's Constitution than
under Euoropean/Western diabolic, satanic, fraudulent monies, homosexual, thievery, false
flag hoaxes, WMD's, bogus wars, Unprovoked oppression, tel-LIE-vision, Santa Claus lies,
Disney hocus pocus , hollywood, illuminati, free mason, monarchy, oligarchy, millitary
industrial complex, life time congressman/senators, upto the eye balls taxation, IRS
thievery, Fraudulent federal reserve, Rothchild/Rockerfeller/Queens and Kings city of London
satanic cabal, opec petro$$$ thievery, ISISraHELL's, al-CIA-da hoaxes, Communist, Atheist,
Idol worshippers, Fear Monger's, Drugged and Drunken's oxy crystal coccaine meth psychopath,
child pedeophilia, gambler's, Pathological and diabolical liars, Hypocrites, sodomites ..I
can't think of any right now, because my mind is exploding with rage because of these
troubling central banker's satanic hegemony!
Quran Chapter 30
39. The usury you practice, seeking thereby to multiply people's wealth, will not multiply
with God. But what you give in charity, desiring God's approval -- these are the
multipliers.
40. God is He who created you, then provides for you, then makes you die, then brings you
back to life. Can any of your idols do any of that? Glorified is He, and Exalted above what
they associate.
41. Corruption has appeared on land and sea, because of what people's hands have earned, in
order to make them taste some of what they have done, so that they might return.
@Really
No Shit Jews are doing to White countries what Whites and Jews did to India, no honour
amongst thieves, the ones with the higher verbal IQ wins.
Also it is important to note that the reason India came under the sway of Anglo-Zionist
banking cartels so easily was because how divided it was, I reckon that is why they are
promoting mass immigration. Import lots of different groups, then run lots of race-baiting
stories to distract the plebs from their financial machinations.
This is why Jews are well represented in non-antisemitic White Nationalist organisations
like Jared Taylor's AmRen, they are great at playing both sides.
And he funded the building of the Peace Palace ("Vredespaleis") in The Hague, presently
the seat of the International Court of Justice, an institution not held in high esteem in
the home country of the generous donor.
@Wally
You can act confused all you want, you know exactly what I am talking about, the fact of the
matter is Whites like you and Joyce would be laughing it up at countries/territories like
Puerto Rico, Congo, Vietnam etc etc being carved up and financially enslaved if Whites were
also allowed a piece of the pie along with Jews (as was the case in the days of the British
Empire when WASP's and Jews worked together), but now that the low-IQ countries have been
looted, the Jews have turned on the Whites and the latter are now crying that their criminal
comrades have now betrayed them.
You quite clearly have a clue, you are just terrified and trying to divert because I am
right, the Jews will do to the White nations what the White nations and Jews did to the
non-White nations. All I can say is that you WASPs should have kept to youselves like Eastern
Europeans and Eastern Asians, they didn't really engage in lofty ambitons to dominate the
world and as such are intact at the moment and seem like they will remain that way for a long
time, they are the true conservatives, WASPs have always had a Jewish streak within their
corrupt souls and are now paying the price for engaging with a criminal race.
Why do you think Epstein has all these Gentiles in his pocket? You think do-gooding
gentiles just randomly decided to get into bed with Epstein and Co.? How many East Asians and
Eastern Euros do you see terrified of being outed as paedophiles.
Don't deceive yourselves, all debts are paid in the end, especially when the creditors are
Jews.
@Adrian
They are a function of Empire in Hague, who protect empire criminals, and assume a non
existent legitimacy and jurisdiction as a private entity to take down empire opponents.
It is the very same kangaroo court as the IMT or Tokio show trials.
In the book "Heaven is for real" a 4 year old boy who supposedly is dead for a short period,
but actually visits heaven; when he returns, is asked : what is the meaning, the purpose of
life on earth?
His response is so simple, that it could only be true. And it could only come from
knowing
Don't deceive yourselves, all debts are paid in the end, especially when the creditors
are Jews.
It is a mathematical impossibility due to interest. The FED probably goes negative
interest like ECB mafia.
Chances are higher they do a reset and start anew with an electronic ponzi scheme.
No one seriously plans to pay these "debts", they can't be paid, and are actually a nothing
burger, pure fiction.
" it is truly remarkable that vulture funds like Singer's escaped major media attention prior
to this ."
Not really. The Jew's grip is starting to slip now, though. More and more people are
becoming aware that they are virulent parasites and always have been.
@Mulegino1
Real capitalism is the competition of ideas, innovation, efficient manufacturing and quality
products made and produced by honest companies. That competition can, in theory at least,
make people (and companies) "try harder". But only when a company's success is determined by
the strength of its products, not by the "deals" it cuts with Jewish financial, advertising,
"marketing" and swindling rackets, designed to line the pockets of the Jew while destroying
honest competition by Gentiles who struggle to play fair and innovate.
Jewish vulture "capitalism" contributes NOTHING of value to any company or any culture. It
never has and never will.
You and other whites here are like the bad guys in every horror movie ever made, who
gets shot five times, or stabbed ten, or blown up twice, and who will eventually pass --
even if it takes four sequels to make it happen -- but who in the meantime keeps coming
back around, grabbing at our ankles as we walk by, we having been mistakenly convinced that
you were finally dead this time. Fair enough, and have at it. But remember how this movie
ends. Our ankles survive.
YOU DO NOT.
Talk about deflection. Any nation, empire, culture or civilization wherein the Jewish
collective gains critical mass and ultimately absolute power turns into a real horror,
not a movie. The Jews may be said to be the true prototype of the "bad guys in every horror
movie", since they can only be gotten rid of by very rigorous means taken in the healthiest
and most vigorous cultures and societies. Indeed, antisemitism itself is the healthy
immunological reaction of a flourishing culture, and its lack thereof the pathology of a
moribund one.
Woke Christians of European provenance have nothing to envy the Jew (the archetypal Jew)
over. We realize that the true measure of success is not primarily monetary or the
fulfillment of cheap ambitions, but a spiritual and cultural one. On the contrary, the Jewish
hatred against Christian Europe and the civilization that it constructed is engendered out of
sheer envy and malice, because Jewry understands that is would never be capable of
constructing anything similar, and never has. In all of the arts, Jewry has produced nothing
of note.
This is not to say that individual Jews have not made contributions to the arts and sciences,
but they have done so only by participation in gentile culture, not qua Jews. Jewry only
tears down and deconstructs; it is not creative in the sense of high art, and can thrive only
in the swamp of gentile decadence and moral putrefaction. Whatever Jewry touches, it turns to
merde.
European Jewish IQ has only gone 1/2 a standard deviation above the white norm in the last
100 years. Interesting to know why, but the belief Jews have always been more intelligent is
just lack of data.
bias for co-operation
Nazis did this too – they worked reaaally well with each other. The issue was how
they thought of and treated others.
That aside, I think we daily meet plenty of individuals who'd sell their mothers, and
maybe kill lives, for pennies. They are like machines not even conscious of what they are
doing.
Your 1 data point aside, are you saying all humans act in identical ways, regardless of
how the ideologies they embrace ask them to act?
Take the ideology of Islam – it does not allow for aggressive war, surprise attacks,
the killing of women or children (unless they take up arms)..
Judaism allows for aggressive war, surprise attack, and demands the killing of all
when a state of war is declared.
Do you believe these declarations lead to identical actions by their practitioners? (in
other words – people act how they would wish to act, and don't really engage in any
belief systems beyond what pulls their own selves?)
So, it's the usual with Joyce (and not only Joyce of course). You take something that is
human, talk of Jews, point to that something in Jews, and pretend, trusting that your
readers will pretend the same, that it's a Jewish-specific something.
Yes, correct – no ideology is perfect at taming human action, and corruption is a
human action, not a Jewish action. But we could still engage in comparative ideology, and
this is what Joyce (and not only Joyce, of course) engage in.
Saying 'well, all peoples engage in force and deceit, so is there any actual difference
between them and their beliefs?' is absurdism. In such a world, I will build a nation of
priests, fashioned along the lines of the Aztek priesthood. Give me your children so I can
rip out their hearts and make it rain – after all 'we are all the same'!!
The argument is that, for the proportion of the population, the fraction of monopoly power
in Western economies that is taken up by Jewish power is much disproportional to other
nations/belief systems.
It is fair to ask whether people who engage in other belief systems have the same level of
desire for monopoly, just less skill to get it due to their belief systems.. I would say yes,
they have the same level of desire (we are all human after all (not that if you read chapter
1 of the Tanya, you will be offered that point of view)) – but that their belief
systems specifically push them away from materialism and desire for money and power, even at
the expense of others. That is the exact point of religion (self-improvement) btw, so
the next question is – is the Jewish religion effective?
At which point, the Jewish ideology becomes the wolf in the hen house – because it
fails to tame the human away from such materialistic desire (as it btw claims it does
best).
Should the hens be allowed to point out what they see as a wolf? Yes.
That the supposed wolf then obfuscates and justifies their actions by pointing to others,
mostly, betrays that it is, in fact, a wolf.
I have become totally disenchanted with the SEC. Stupid, Evil, Crazy! It would not surprise
me if they are the ones that have been terrorizing me, with stupid, evil, crazy chants
through appliances after illegallly implaced RFIDs, microchips, or sensors illegally
implanted in my ears and nose that started after my first phone was hacked in 2017! Can't
expect stupid people not to be stupid, evil people not to be evil, and crazy people not to be
crazy! They were just born that way!
@J
Adleman brookings.edu : "The US will become minority white in 2045 Census projects "
:
"During that year [2045] whites will comprise 49.7 per cent of the population in contrast to
24.6 per cent for Hispanics , 13.1 per cent for Blacks , 7.9 per cent for Asians and 3.8 per
cent for multi-racial populations " Are these projections good or bad for the "Jewish people
" ?
Nov 22, 2013 Thomas DiLorenzo – The Revolution Of 1913
From the Tom Woods show Loyola economics professor Thomas DiLorenzo discusses three events
from 1913 that greatly escalated the transmogrification of America from the founder's vision
(limited government) to its current state (unlimited government).
@silviosilver
Yes, and just because you can doesn't mean you should. And if there's a predilection among
jewish men to engage in predatory lending and collecting tactics that is disproportionate to
their of the population, there's something about their genes or their culture that shapes
them to be this way.
Also, notice how you left out the part where they jack up the interest rates and debtor's
fees to grossly inflate their income. Is there a reason to do this other than as a quick way
to make money off already impoverished people? It's kind of like opening up a rent to own
place in a low income place. The people who do that shit know exactly why they should set up
among poor people; low wealth and bad decision making abound.
And yes, it does seem to be particularly jewish given how many jews are involved in its
practice and given that it used to be frowned upon in Christian Europe. Hell, God himself (as
Jesus) went and beat the shit out of a bunch of jews for their money lending in the temple.
That's the best part of the Bible, frankly. God gets so sick of the his own chosen people
that he sends himself to chastise and whip them for their greed and hubris. No lesson was
learned.
And then they killed him. And they lost their homeland for 2000 years. And then were
kicked out of a hundred plus kingdoms, cities and countries. And then a miserable liberal
shows how vile and stupid their children are:
You know, maybe instead of making excuses, you can just acknowledge the wrongdoing and
acknowledge that some jews are particularly malicious. Cuz eventually, people are
gonna get sick of the shit jews pull and see jewish (or gentile zionist) people defending
their obvious misdeeds and get pissed at them as well. Remember, the well is open to
everyone.
Besides being retardedly wrong, the broader point is likewise retarded: when
English-speaking Jews name their businesses they shouldn't use English words. Naming a
company "Oaktree" should be limited to those of purely English blood! Jews must name their
companies "Cosmopolitan Capital" or RosenMoses Chutzpah Advisors."
Telling that you go with hyperbole here: the only two options must be Albion
Whyteman Capital or Foreskin-Chewing Pornographers Incorporated!
There are two interesting things about the onomastics of the prepuce-free business world.
One is that far fewer sons of Abraham name their businesses after themselves (I'm sure this
will insincerely be attributed to some fear of native kulaks' repressed urge-to-pogrom, even
in Finland or Japan.) The other is an observation made by an associate of a famous Austrian
landscapist: even merely remarking on their origins causes these guys mental distress.
Here in the melting pot, the difference couldn't be any starker. You can make small talk
with any flavor of goy based on it: that's a Polish name, isn't it? Yeah, how did you
know! Try this one with Levy or Nussbaum down at The Smith Group or The Jones Foundation
and watch them plotz.
Jews have always weaponized usury. Long before Christianity, Jews operated the East/West
mechanism on donkey caravan trade routes. Silver would drain from the West, and Gold would
drain from the east, while Jewish caravaneers would take usury on exchange rate differences.
This operated for thousands of years.
Haibaru donkey bones have been discovered outside of Sumer. The Aiparu/Haibaru (Hebrew)
tribes were formed as merchants operating between city states. In those days, psychopaths and
criminals would be excommunicated from civilized city states, and would take up with the
wandering merchant tribe.
Why do you think the Jew is always interested in owing the money power? Why do you think
the Jew perpetually stands outside the walls of the city state, plotting its destruction?
History tells us things, and we had better listen. That is – real history, not what
you learned in (((public skool))). There are two ways to deal with the Jew: 1) Remove him
from your country. 2) Limit him.
Limiting was done by Byzantium under Justinian. The Jew was limited FROM money
counting/banking; limited from participation in government; limited from access to pervert
young minds – especially as school teachers and professors.
It takes a King or Tsar who cares about his population, and is willing to eject or filter
out toxins from the body politic. (((Democracy))) is a failed form of government, whereby
monied Oligarchs control the polity by compromat and pulling strings.
You are not going to be able to vote your way out of the Jew problem.
@Colin
Wright Echoing words once supposedly used by Hermann Goering: whenever I here the word
'philanthropist' these days, I instinctively reach for my revolver!
Take the ideology of Islam – it does not allow for aggressive war, surprise
attacks, the killing of women or children (unless they take up arms)..
Ilya,
There is deception in Islam. Sorry. You cannot make claims about Islam not allowing for
aggressive war and surprise attacks.
These concepts even have names and doctrine that support them. Wahabbi/Salafist Islam is
exactly in alignment with Islamic teachings, especially when using abrogation techniques.
Taqiyya is lying with intent to deceive. The analog in Judaism is the Kol-Niedre, which
allows one pre-forgiveness for lying, cheating, even murder of Goyim.
Hudnas is are used to lay in wait, build up strength, to then attack the enemy.
Islam has derogatory terms to demean e.g. Kaffirs, which is similar to Goyim.
There is also deception in Christianity, but this deception is OUT OF ALIGNMENT WITH
DOCTRINE. The doctrine of super-session means the old testament is superseded, completed, a
historical record.
In Islam the doctrine of Abrogation means that the more pacific Meccan verses are
abrogated (made less relevant) that post Medina. Ergo, Wahabbi Islam and the Takfiri's are
doctrinaly correct, while Judaizer Christians (those that worship the old testament) are out
of alignment and heretics.
Judaism is actually a new religion that came into being after 73 AD, when the verbal
tradition (Caballa) became written down into Talmud.
Our Jewish friends have always been practicing usury, going back to since forever.
Our Jewish friends, I count as worse that Islamics. However two wrongs don't make a right.
Islam badly needs reform or to be expunged. Talmudic Judaism is by far the worst religion on
the planet, and its adherents must malfunction by definition.
o ..kill all the Jewish, er, "vulture capitalists" , right? Or should we go "easy" on
them all and merely ship them all off to special "re-education" camps? Or am I missing
something here ?
You are missing something because you are unwilling to adapt and learn with new
information. This makes you an ideologue.
Lolbertarianism IS A JEWISH CONSTRUCT.
There are no such things as free markets. Money's true nature is law, not gold. Money
didn't come into being with barter and other nonsense lolbertarians believe.
Most of the luminaries that came up with "libertarian" economics are Jews, and it is a
doctrine of deception. The idea is to confuse the goyim with thoughts and ideas that make
them easy pickings.
A determined in-group of predators operating in unison, will take down an "individual"
every-time.
Don't expect anything to improve with Jay Clayton as SEC Chair, and his wife and her father
Gretchen Butler Clayton who was CEO of CSC and mysterious WMB Holdings which share the same
address in addition to many Goldman Sachs divisions. Gretchen was employed by Goldman Sachs
as an attorney from 1999-2017. Many companies affiliated with the Panama Papers share the
same address as well.
Jewish people have treated me better than my own White Euro family.
Jews are tribal, gee what a surprise after 1000's of years of people trying to wipe them
out . and so their charity is within the tribe, but there is no charity within the tribe
among Whites.
Jews, along with Asians and at least some Africans, believe in not just climbing the
ladder, but in actually helping others – at least family – up it also. Whites
believe in climbing the ladder and then pulling it up after them.
I was explaining to a friend recently: My (relative) has proven that if I showed up at
their door, starving, they'd not give me a cheese sandwich, while in my experience, strangers
have been overall a fairly kind lot and a stranger, 50/50, might. Therefore, while I find the
idea of robbing or burning down the house of a stranger abhorrent, I don't mind the idea so
much when it involves a person who's proven to be cold and evil.
For more on this, see the book Angela's Ashes. The Irish family could have stayed in New
York where they were being befriended by a Jewish family. There was a ray of hope. The Irish
kids, at least, would have been fed, steered into decent schooling, etc. But foolishly they
went back to Ireland, to be treated like utter dogshit by their fellow White family and
"people".
Most of the predation going on in the US and worldwide is being done by WASPS who are
using Jews as a convenient scapegoat.
@tono
bungay Feel free to offer us some counter-examples, tono. How many such funds to you know
of that aren't disproportionately Jewish? We're all ears!
@Robjil
This is an example of what I was saying. Less Euro whites in the world is not going to be a
good world for Big Js. Non-Euros believe in freedom of speech.
Jewish Bigwigs can't get control of businesses in East Asia. They have been trying. Paul
Singer tried and failed. In Argentina he got lots of "success". Why? Lots of descendants of
Europeans there went along with "decisions" laid out by New York Jews.
Little Paulie tried to get control of Samsung. No such luck for him in Korea. In Korea
there are many family monopolies, chaebols. A Korean chaebol stopped him. Jewish Daniel Loeb
tried to get a board seat on Sony. He was rebuffed.
I was moved to reflect on the universality of this theme recently when surveying media
coverage on Korean and Argentinian responses to the activities of Paul Singer and his
co-ethnic shareholders at Elliott Associates, an arm of Singer's Elliott Management hedge
fund. The Korean story has its origins in the efforts of Samsung's holding company, Cheil
Industries, to buy Samsung C&T, the engineering and construction arm of the wider
Samsung family of businesses. The move can be seen as part of an effort to reinforce
control of the conglomerate by the founding Lee family and its heir apparent, Lee Jae-yong.
Trouble emerged when Singer's company, which holds a 7.12% stake in Samsung C&T and is
itself attempting to expand its influence and control over Far East tech companies,
objected to the move. The story is fairly typical of Jewish difficulties in penetrating
business cultures in the Far East, where impenetrable family monopolies, known in Korea as
chaebols, are common. This new story reminded me very strongly of last year's efforts by
Jewish financier Daniel Loeb to obtain a board seat at Sony. Loeb was repeatedly rebuffed
by COO Kazuo Hirai, eventually selling his stake in Sony Corp. in frustration.
Here is how the Koreans fought off Paul Singer.
The predominantly Jewish-owned and operated Elliott Associates has a wealth of
self-interest in preventing the Lee family from consolidating its control over the Samsung
conglomerate. As racial outsiders, however, Singer's firm were forced into several tactical
measures in their 52-day attempt to thwart the merger. First came lawsuits. When those
failed, Singer and his associates then postured themselves as defending Korean interests,
starting a Korean-language website and arguing that their position was really just in aid
of helping domestic Korean shareholders. This variation on the familiar theme of Jewish
crypsis was quite unsuccessful. The Lee family went on the offensive immediately and,
unlike many Westerners, were not shy in drawing attention to the Jewish nature of Singer's
interference and the sordid and intensely parasitic nature of his fund's other
ventures.
Cartoons were drawn of Singer being a vulture.
Other cartoons appearing at the same time represented Elliott, literally, as humanoid
vultures, with captions referring to the well-known history of the fund. In the above
cartoon, the vulture offers assistance to a needy and destitute figure, but conceals an axe
with which to later bludgeon the unsuspecting pauper.
ADL got all worked about this. The Koreans did not care. It is reality. Freedom of speech
works on these vultures. The west should try some real freedom of speech.
After the cartoons appeared, Singer and other influential Jews, including Abraham
Foxman, cried anti-Semitism. This was despite the fact the cartoons contain no reference
whatsoever to Judaism – unless of course one defines savage economic predation as a
Jewish trait. Samsung denied the cartoons were anti-Semitic and took them off the website,
but the uproar over the cartoons only seemed to spur on even more discussion about Jewish
influence in South Korea than was previously the case. In a piece published a fortnight
ago, Media Pen columnist Kim Ji-ho claimed "Jewish money has long been known to be ruthless
and merciless." Last week, the former South Korean ambassador to Morocco, Park Jae-seon,
expressed his concern about the influence of Jews in finance when he said, "The scary thing
about Jews is they are grabbing the currency markets and financial investment companies.
Their network is tight-knit beyond one's imagination." The next day, cable news channel YTN
aired similar comments by local journalist Park Seong-ho, who stated on air that "it is a
fact that Jews use financial networks and have influence wherever they are born." It goes
without saying that comments like these are unambiguously similar to complaints about
Jewish economic practices in Europe over the course of centuries. The only common
denominator between the context of fourteenth-century France and the context of
twenty-first-century South Korea is, you guessed it, Jewish economic practices.
The Koreans won. Paulie lost. Good win for humanity. The Argentines were not so lucky.
They don't have freedom speech like the Koreans and East Asians have.
In the end, the Lee strategy, based on drawing attention to the alien and exploitative
nature of Elliott Associates, was overwhelmingly effective. Before a crucial shareholder
vote on the Lee's planned merger, Samsung Securities CEO Yoon Yong-am said: "We should
score a victory by a big margin in the first battle, in order to take the upper hand in a
looming war against Elliott, and keep other speculative hedge funds from taking short-term
gains in the domestic market." When the vote finally took place a few days ago, a
conclusive 69.5% of Samsung shareholders voted in favor of the Lee proposal, leaving
Elliott licking its wounds and complaining about the "patriotic marketing" of those behind
the merger.
@jack
daniels Now that I think about it, it was unfair to make an anecdotal judgment that
Jewish lenders are less forgiving. There are plenty of examples, I'm sure, of compassionate
Jews and flinty gentiles.
Finally! An intelligent criticism of Trump for a change. So tired of the brainless
Democrat/MSM impeachment circus. They make me feel like a reflexive MAGAtard just for
defending the constitution, logic, etc., from their never-ending stream of inanities.
Meanwhile, the real problem with Trump is not that he's Hitler; it's that he's not Hitler
enough!
I am also so tired of Zionist-loving cucks bleeting on about the evils of the CRA without
ever considering the role played by the (((profiteers))) who lobbied such policies into law
in the first place. Realize that what Paul Singer does for a living used to be illegal in
this country up until recently. That's right: US bankruptcy law used to forbid investors from
buying up debt second-hand at a discount and then trying to reclaim the entire face
value from the debtor. But I see all kinds of people even on this thread blaming the victim
instead -- 'Damn goyishe deadbeats!' Whatever
What Singer and the other Jewish vultures engage in is not productive, and isn't even
any recognisable form of work or business. It is greed-motivated parasitism carried out on
a perversely extravagant and highly nepotistic scale. In truth, it is Singer and his
co-ethnics who believe that money can be printed on the backs of productive workers, and
who ultimately believe they have a right to be "showered by free stuff promised by
politicians."
To what extent is Jewish success a product of Jewish intellect and industry versus being
a result of a willingness to use low, dirty, honorless and anti-social tactics which, while
maybe not in violation of the word of the law, certainly violate its spirit?
The last Gentleman on WS was not a Jew. Bring back the WASP. You can maintain your honor,
and manners and still succeed. Jews take the easy low road of deception and cheating. WASP
take the higher road of harder work and ethical business practice.
[MORE]
The courtly Mr. Jenrette, who has been dubbed "the last gentleman on Wall Street" earned this
sobriquet largely for his reputation of being particularly sensitive to the human dimension
in an industry where such matters often get sidestepped. Nonetheless, despite Mr. Jenrette's
modest demeanor, he's risen to the top in an often cutthroat business. He remained with
Donaldson Lufkin through good times and bad, guiding it after its two other founding partners
departed for other ventures and, next month, he will step down as the chairman of the
Securities Industry Association, the brokerage trade group.
"Dick has been the one who carried the firm from its original promise through to closure,"
said Samuel Hayes 3d, an investment banking professor at the Harvard Business School.
"Dick's more in tune with human values and that's not frequently found on Wall Street."
Richard Jenrette, 89, Wall Street power, Raleigh native, dies https://www.wral.com ›
richard-jenrette-89-wall-street-power-and-preserva
Apr 23, 2018 – A courtly, soft-spoken North Carolina native whom The New York Times
once called the "last gentleman on Wall Street," Jenrette (pronounced
Wall Street's 'last gentleman' left behind these 24 lessons about life and success: At the
time of his death late last month due to complications from lymphoma, these couple dozen
rules to live by were left on his desk.
Stay in the game. That's often all you need to do -- don't quit. Stick around! Don't be a
quitter!
•Don't burn bridges (behind you)
•Remember -- Life has no blessing like a good friend!
•You can't get enough of them
•Don't leave old friends behind -- you may need them
•Try to be nice and say "thank you" a lot!
•Stay informed/KEEP LEARNING!
•Study -- Stay Educated. Do Your Home Work!! Keep learning!
•Cultivate friends of all ages -- especially younger
•Run Scared -- over-prepare
•Be proud -- no Uriah Heep for you! But not conceited. Know your own worth.
•Plan ahead but be prepared to allow when opportunity presents itself.
•Turn Problems into Opportunities. Very often it can be done. Problems create
opportunities for change -- people willing to consider change when there are problems.
•Present yourself well. Clean, clean-shaven, dress "classically" to age. Beware style,
trends. Look for charm. Good grammar. Don't swear so much -- it's not cute.
•But be open to change -- don't be stuck in mud. Be willing to consider what's new but
don't blindly follow it. USE YOUR HEAD -- COMMON SENSE.
•Have some fun -- but not all the time!
•Be on the side of the Angels. Wear the White Hat.
•Have a fall-back position. Heir and the spare. Don't leave all your money in one
place.
•Learn a foreign language.
•Travel a lot -- around the world, if possible.
•Don't criticize someone in front of others.
•Don't forget to praise a job well done (but don't praise a poor job)
•I don't like to lose -- but don't be a poor loser if you do.
•It helps to have someone to love who loves you (not just sex).
•Keep your standards high in all you do.
•Look for the big picture but don't forget the small details.
"Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation and I" care not who makes its laws"
That is what Mayer Amschel Rothchild said in the 1750s. Now, is it a stretch of my
imagination to believe the Central Banks of the West, all Jewish controlled, would unfairly
favor their 'own' when issueing or disbursing the money they are permitted to create.
We are not allowed to audit the Federal Reserve, so we know not what they do with it beyond
what they tell us. In 2016 it was discovered that between the year 1999 and 2016 well over
$23 trillions had been stolen from just 2 departments of our government, the DoD and HUD.
(Someone should look at NASA). Is it possible the seed money, for not only Venture
capitalists schemes but also buying governments and law makers, has been diverted, shoveled
out of the back door of these corrupt central banks and into the hands of their fellow
jews?
Anyway, the more exposure articles like this get the closer we get to ending their reign.
As I noted in my previous examination of contemporary Jewish usury, Jews have been at
the forefront of innovation in debt for many centuries, and remain its most adroit auteurs.
Although obviously rooted in centuries of Jewish financial practice, Singer and his
co-ethnics (all four equity partners of Elliott are Jewish, and its COO is the
charmingly-named Zion Shohet) pioneered the finer points of the vulture-fund concept. The
firm was born in 1977 when Singer pooled $1.3 million from family and friends,
His firm's first big "win" was the pillage of Panama in 1995.
but it only really took off in October 1995, when Elliott Associates L.P. purchased
$28.7 million of Panamanian sovereign debt for the discounted price of $17.5 million. The
banks holding those bonds, a group that included heavy hitters like Citi and Credit Suisse,
had given up on repayment from Panama. To cut their losses, they sold their holdings to
Elliott which, like a medieval tax farmer, went in with a heavy hand. When Panama's
government asked for a restructuring of its foreign debt in 1995, the vast majority of its
bondholders agreed – apart from Elliott. In July 1996, Elliott Associates,
represented by one of the world's most high-profile securities law firms, filed a lawsuit
against Panama in a New York district court, seeking full repayment of the original $28.7
million – plus interest and fees. The case made its way from a district court in
Manhattan to the New York State Supreme Court, which sided with Elliott. In the end,
Panama's government had to pay the Jewish group over $57 million, with an additional $14
million going to other creditors. Overnight, Singer's group made $40 million, and the
people of Panama found their original sovereign debt had more than doubled.
@Mefobills
If you could point to a verse in the Quran that allows for aggressive war, it would help me
learn – when I read it I saw an explosive self defence at any infringment on the Ummah,
but not much beyond that.
Of course the origination story of the faith is one of fighting, and without any wise men
to guide the laypeople, the faith has an issue in that it is easy for people to not follow
what it teaches.
Islam has been assaulted for a millennium, and so the self defence aspect of its faith has
become more active than the rest.. it needs reform I agree (and not in the direction the
Salafists have taken it), but more so there is a need for the Ummah to have a few generations
of non-aggression from the outside world.. without it the pressure will only be towards
violence – for any nation or faith!
Judaism has monopolized for millennia though, and still acts as a victim. Different kettle
of fish.
Also, you can debate the positives and negatives of Islam with a Muslim (not as a rabid
ignoramus of course – you must be polite, and have learnt something, as well as be open
to learning more). Almost every debate with a Jew about Judaism has started with, continued
with, and ended with name calling for me however.
Judaism fails as a religion because it does not encourage the practitioner to look at
themselves when confronted with error, Islam still does imo.
Does anyone here remember how John Leibowitz aka John Stewart spent months ripping Mitt
Romney to shreds? Remember? Evil white man vulture capitalism at Bain? Remember? Romney was
Adolf Hitler, and look he put his golden retriever on the roof once?
Say. How come that Mr Leibowitz never talked about the Jews who basically destroyed yes
the entire Rust belt by acquisition and outsource?
That Mr Johnny Leibovitz sure did hate the goy a lot and all. He never talked about his
own people. What a fair fellow Mr Johnny Leibovitz was. He even changed his name. Why change
the name?
Remember. Bain Capital and that kind of merger pump and dumps is all done by Mormons
goyim.
@Colin
Wright Your statement: "Jews actually collaborated extensively in the imposition of
tyranny on the working class in Eastern Europe from 1917 to 1991" not only applies to Europe,
but the united States of America as well.
It's the JEWS it's always the JEWS
[MORE]
Our present situation and the devolving into the morass of "multiculturalism" and "diversity"
is no accident. The jewish talmud and that jewish invention-communism has "rules" for the
debasement of (white) civil society.
The following statements are a result of personal experiences–your mileage may
vary
I came of age during the first so-called "civil-rights" movement and saw for myself the
underhanded dealings, the demonization of decent, law-abiding whites, and in general, the
deterioration of civil society.
Almost all of the "civil-rights" workers and demonstration "handlers" were of one
persuasion–New York based leftist communist jews. They cared not one wit about true
"civil rights", but were there to create hate and discontent among their black charges (who
were too stupid or naive to see that they were being used to suborn and destroy legitimate
government and society–a favorite communist tactic).
These New York-based "carpetbaggers" fomented their hate and discontent, only to become
future "civil-rights" attorneys, race-hustlers, and America-hating leftist communists and the
ADL and $PLC being invented.
Those of us whites who were in the middle of this "civil-rights" revolution had a saying:
" Behind every negro, there is a jew ". No truer words were spoken.
Let's not forget their infestation of the nation's education and entertainment systems,
(which continues to the present day), in which they can spread their jewish supremacist
poison.
The so-called "non-violent civil-rights demonstrations" were anything but "non-violent".
Robberies, rapes, and other criminal acts were common, but never reported, as even the
"mainstream media" was "in on the game" and conveniently turned off their cameras during the
acts of violence. You see, even then,"creating crises" was a part of the agenda.
The "beginning of the end" of America was the use of federal troops against white
Americans, which, in itself was a violation of "posse comitatus"–the prohibition on the
use of federal troops for domestic "law enforcement" purposes. As most whites were (and still
are) law-abiding, they (we) were "steamrollered" by the use of federal troops to crush honest
dissent. We never recovered from those unconstitutional actions. It was all downhill from
there
The next step may be "civil-war" in which us whites will have to take back our birthright
by force.
"Foreign Policy described the court's decision as "a groundbreaking moment in the modern
history of finance." By taking the case to a New York district court, Elliott broke with
long-standing international law and custom, according to which sovereign governments are not
sued in regular courts meant to deal with questions internal to a nation state. Further, the
presiding judge accepted the case – another break with custom. It set the stage for two
decades of similar parasitism on struggling countries by Elliott Associates, a practice that
has reaped billions for Jewish financiers. "
A year later after the ground breaking decision. Paulie tries this scam on another nation,
Peru.
Just one year after the Panama decision, Singer spent about $11 million on
government-backed Peruvian bank debt in 1996. After Singer took Peru to court in the U.S.,
U.K., Luxembourg, Belgium, Germany, and Canada, the struggling nation finally agreed in
2000 to pay him $58 million. That meant he got better than a 400 percent return.
In 2001, the victim was Argentina.
In 2001, Elliott Associates purchased an Argentinian default for $48 million; the face
value of that debt today is $630 million. The fund wants repayment for the full value of
the debt to all of Argentina's creditors, as it did in 1995 with Panama. This amounts to
$1.5 billion, which could rise to $3 billion including, again, that all-important interest
and fees.
Another victim was the Congo in 2002-03.
..specific activities of Elliott Associates in Congo, where it originally bought $32.6
million in sovereign debt incurred by that country for the knockdown price of under $20
million. In 2002 and 2003, a British court (tactically chosen) forced the Congolese
government to settle for an estimated $90 million, which included that all-important
interest and fees. Elliott Associates rapidly became known as the quintessential "vulture
fund."
1. Re Sidney, Nebraska: Maybe I'm missing something but wasn't it Cabela's owners, for
example co-founder and chairman Jim Cabela, who sold Cabela, not Elliot Management (Singer et
al)? I gather Elliot Management owned only 11% of the company. Was that enough to force them
to sell?
2. The article confuses honest straightforward loans with tax farming and government
corruption. Loans can be very useful, e.g. for a car to get to a job, or for a house so you
build up equity instead of paying rent.
@Hapalong
Cassidy Bain's not much of an exception to Joyce's pattern: although Mitt, like the other
three founders, was a goy, there were plenty of Chosen Ones associated with the company right
from the start:
In addition to the three founding partners, the early team included Fraser Bullock,
Robert F. White, Joshua Bekenstein, Adam Kirsch, and Geoffrey S. Rehnert Early investors
included Boston real estate mogul Mortimer Zuckerman and Robert Kraft, the owner of the New
England Patriots football team.
@BannedHipster
According to the Talmud, we goyim are not the descendants of Adam and Eve, like the
Jews. No, we are the bastard progeny of Adam's first wife, Lilleth, who eloped with the demon
Samael. So we goyim are really all half-demons and therefore we are an abomination in the
sight of Jew-hova, and we get what we deserve at the hands of his 'chosen people'.
improving the quality of life and access to opportunities for all Israeli citizens so that
they may benefit from the country's prosperity
Read 'all Jewish Israeli citizens'. I doubt they're going to do any life-enhancing
or make opportunities available to any of the grunting subhuman goyim .
It's important not to get carried away with this. Figures such as Andrew Carnegie, while
impeccably gentile, were hardly paragons of scrupulous ethics and disinterested virtue.
Andrew Carnegie built something that made life better for people. Making steel is a
beneficial thing.
These evil vulture Jews build nothing – they make people poorer. They suck the
wealth out of people who have little. They know 100% what they are doing.
Jesus expressed anger against the money changers on the temple steps.
It is OK for you to have natural human feelings and be angry at these Jew bastards.
@Anon
Romney is a Mormon, one of the church officials. The Mormons are closer to the Jews pattern
of worshiping money and using charity donation for business investments.
Mormons arent considered Protestants .
"Although the church has not released church-wide financial statements since 1959, in
1997, Time magazine called it one of the world's wealthiest churches per capita.[147] In a
June 2011 cover story, Newsweek stated that the LDS Church "resembles a sanctified
multinational corporation -- the General Electric of American religion, with global ambitions
and an estimated net worth of $30 billion." A whistle blower within the church reported them
to the IRS for using their status as a non taxable religious groups to invest in business
ventures instead of charities.
@anon
Maybe I can answer your question.
I studied and befriended many jews as a student (Imperial College, London etc) – none
were above average intelligent, and although they were very geeky, they only got average
grades.
When I moved to LA – most of my friends were jews and again, none were very bright
(even though a few were famous). Most of these LA jewish friends were probably psychopaths
– thinking back – very manipulative, exploitative and they lied a lot.
I think it's mostly through their cultural nepotism – they work on their own unity
(they help promote each other) while at the same time they work on destroying unity in their
host and everyone else.
Many have changed their Eastern European names.
And they go out of the way to help other jews (only) – a Serbian friend in Toronto
looks very jewish (but is not religious) told me several times here in Toronto, other Jews
(his boss etc) just offered to help him for no reason ("Is there anything I can do for you?"
etc). He did not understand why they did that – then I realized he actually looks like
a Jewish stereotype (as does his twin brother). So he thought he was helping his own
tribe.
When I went to Cuba with a Jewish 'friend' from LA – he was actively looking for
anything jewish (and nothign else – he did not want to see anything famous like a
beautiful cemetery in Havana etc) – only synagogs etc – where he gave some money
to jews he never even met. I was there with him and saw it. He was even angry if I suggested
we see something nice , historical and not-jewish. We met a NY jew there and we gave his a
ride in the car we rented – they immediately teamed up against me – for no reason
– I regretted going with him on this trip. It was an awful experience –
consistent with all the books I read on psychopaths and also that book Jewish History, Jewish
Religion, the weight of 3000 years
Another very wealthy American mother of a friend asked her South African friends (also jews)
to help her book trips in South Africa (and they of course recommended only their Jewish
friends) – it's their son who told me this.
So a lot of backstabbing, cultural nepotism and actively (but in a hidden way as most
psychopaths like to do) they do at wakening and isolating their host. That's their only
advantage – not intelligence (at least in my experience )
I recently learned that from about 1790 to 1967 the USState department refused to issue US
passports to people who held foreign passports. State also didn't hire any dual citizens for
any job from cafeteria dishwasher to ambassador.
Then in the mid sixties, an Israeli immigrant who became a US citizen applied for a US
passport. State refused to issue the US passport. So the Israeli immigrant practiced lawfare.
In 1967 the Supreme Court issued one of its usual detrimental and dangerous rulings. State
was ordered to start issuing US passports to dual citizens.
Soon there were numerous applications to State depot jobs from Israeli citizens residing
in the US. Knowing lawsuits loomed, State caved.
And that children is how and why State, commerce, DOJ CIA treasury, top security civilian
departments in the Pentagon and other federal agencies became flooded with dual American
Israeli citizens who divert money to Israel. Plus they work for Israel instead of the US.
Mysterious how the only Whites who manage to make it past affirmative action barriers are
jews.
Maybe there's a special affirmative action quota for Israelis residing in America.
@J
Adelman Adelman, be careful what you wish for, as in a debate you will be drowned.
Being labeled an ANTISEMITE is the new badge of honor and courage.
Central banks and their fiat fractional reserve banking system is slowly collapsing, as more
and more nations avoid using the BIS. Joyce's article fully explains why Russia is being
promoted as some type of arch-enemy.
@DaveE
I don't even know what capitalism means anymore. It doesn't seem like it's an actual free
market system. Seems like it is slavery for the little guy, and parasitism for the rich.
Maybe we should ditch the word capitalism for usuryism.
"'It was very gratifying to see Tucker Carlson's recent attack on the activities of Paul
Singer's vulture fund, Elliot Associates '"
I am going to avoid the Jew is bad mantra here. I read that article. But it was not an
expose' of hedgefunds, at least not at the level i was expecting. They merged two companies
and sold off or closed that which was least profitable.
In that article there was no clear discussion – about what could have prevented the
closure. So it was hard to respond positively in favor of not closing. I am advocate of
keeping work in the US, but I don't think it is unreasonable that companies be sustainable. I
would have liked that exposure, that the hedge had no intention of exploring possible profit
making alternatives.
And that is where Mr. Carlson lost me. He did not link the companies as you have. Nor
provide the examples you bring to the fore.
What distresses me about Islam is that the pacific practitioners, e.g. Suffi's, many Shias
and Sunnis are out of alignment, and hence are subject to violence from their coreligionists.
I happen to believe there are many wonderful people within the religion what I am saying is
that there is an elephant in the room, and it has a name: abrogation.
I'm going to use a smoke there is fire analogy using data.
If a religion launches repeated attacks against civilizations, then there is something
"in" the religion that is used for justification of said aggression. I'm of the opinion that
data matters, and you have to adjust your position to come into accord with real world
data.
Between 632 and 1922, Islam launched 548 offensive battles against classical
civilization
These attacks were often brutal, especially with rapes being used to "convert women"
rapidly.
In Islam (as in other religions as well) the Imam can turn knobs and get an output. This
means that abrogation is used to pick and choose verses depending on situation, to maneuver
the sheeple in the direction Imam's or political authority want them to go – including
offensive war. I used the term political authority on purpose, because Islam is more than
just a religion, it is a political-theocratic construct that is all-encompassing.
There may not be a specific verse allowing aggressive violence, but there is something
going on based on the data. (I admit to being a lay-man and not an expert on minutia of
Islam. I don't want to go there based on what I already know to be true.)
In Christianity, if there are calls for aggressive violence it is OUT OF ALIGNMENT because
of super-session. Christian adherents who do this are Judaizers, and have to use the old
testament for justification.
@Digital
Samizdat Who the heck is Lillith? Where did she come from? Adam's apple? At least Samael
is a step up from a talking snake. Talk about rewrite. Almost on par to the silly ones on the
daytime soaps. Oh wait . probably same writers.
@Rebel0007
"This won't end well."
-- They cannot help themselves. Two components make it impossible for the tribe to behave in
a preservation mode:
1. the victimhood complex, despite all the recently displayed data about Jewish murderous
ways in the host countries
2. the disproportionate number of psychopaths who are approved by tribal epos and mentality
Perhaps the only solution is to make the aggressive Jews become confined to their Jewish
country. Like an infectious disease that needs to be quarantined. Otherwise, the Jewish
psychopaths will continue leaching and destroying.
Not only the vulture bankers but a complete set of ziocons-infested stink-tanks should be
relocated (with their immediate families) to the Jewish State and prohibited from crossing
the Jewish State borders. Plus the limitations on their involvement in international commerce
and banking. Let the Jews be finally in Jerusalem today, not "next year." Let them enjoy the
company of other Jews.
Jew billionaire globalizer money-grubber Paul Singer has bought and paid for politician
puppet whore Marco Rubio.
JEWS ORGANIZED GLOBALLY(JOG) -- of which Paul Singer is a shady participant -- have plans
for after Trump and they involve the US Senators Marco Rubio and Josh Hawley and Tom Cotton
and others.
Paul Singer pushes mass legal immigration and mass illegal immigration. Paul Singer wants
to continue to use mass legal immigration and mass illegal immigration as demographic weapons
to attack and destroy the historic American nation.
Paul Singer wants to continue to use the US military as muscle to fight endless wars on
behalf of Israel.
I wrote this in February of 2019:
I just got reminded that Marco Rubio won a lot of the GOP billionaire Jew donor money away
from Jebby Bush in the 2016 GOP presidential primary because the Jew billionaires -- Paul
Singer in particular -- were not too thrilled with Jebby Bush's connection to James Baker.
James Baker was a factor in the Jew billionaire decision to back Marco Rubio.
George W Bush had dragged the American Empire into a war in Iraq on behalf of Israel and
the GOP Jew billionaire donors were still not convinced of Jebby Bush's slavish devotion to
Israel.
Marco Rubio signalled his willing whoredom to the ISRAEL FIRST foreign policy of endless
war on behalf of Israel in a way that left nothing to chance for the GOP Jew billionaire
donors.
Marco Rubio is nothing more than a filthy politician whore for the GOP Jew billionaire
donors who want to continue to use the US military as muscle to fight wars on behalf of
Israel.
New York Times article:
Mr. Rubio has aggressively embraced the cause of wealthy pro-Israel donors like Mr.
[Sheldon] Adelson, whom the senator is said to call frequently, and Mr. Singer, who both
serve on the board of the Republican Jewish Coalition, an umbrella group for Republican
Jewish donors and officials. Mr. Bush has been less attentive, in the view of some of these
donors: Last spring, he refused to freeze out his longtime family friend James A. Baker
III, the former secretary of state, after Mr. Baker spoke at the conference of a liberal
Jewish group.
The lobbying of Mr. Singer intensified in recent weeks as Mr. Bush's debate stumbles and
declining poll numbers drove many donors to consider Mr. Rubio anew. Last week, Mr. Bush's
campaign manager, Danny Diaz, and senior adviser, Sally Bradshaw, flew to New York to make
personal appeals on Mr. Bush's behalf, in the hopes of heading off an endorsement of Mr.
Rubio, according to two people close to the former governor's campaign.
This is a timely article for me as I have been pondering the relationship between Jews and
neoliberalism for some time now.
At university I studied under a brilliant Neo-Marxist professor who showed me some theory
and arguments that went a long way towards explaining how to make sense of the global power
structure. (Just a quick not for those who recoil at the mere mention of Neo-Marxist: the
academics that use a marxist lens as a tool to criticize the powerful are not all the cuckold
communist SJW types – some of these individuals are extremely intelligent and they make
very powerful arguments backed by loads of data.) One of the theories I was introduced to was
the notion of the Transnational Capitalist Class in this article called Towards A Global
Ruling Class? Globalization and the Transnational Capitalist Class:
http://media.library.ku.edu.tr/reserve/respring18/Intl313_ZOnis/3_Historical_Structuralism.pdf
The authors write the following:
Sklair's work goes the furthest in conceiving of the capitalist class as no longer
tied to territoriality
Inherent in the international concept is a system of nation-states that mediates relations
between classes and groups, including the notion of national capitals and national
bourgeoisi. Transnational, by contrast, denotes economic and related social, political, and
cultural processes – including class formation that supersede nation-states
What distinguishes the TCC from national or local capitalists is that it is involved
in globalized production and manages globalized circuits of accumulation that give it an
objective class existence and identity spatially and politically in the global system above
any local territories and polities.
Since reading your (Dr Joyce) work on the JQ I began to see the connection between age old
complaints of Jews, and what Ford referred to as "The International Jew". In fact, replace
the term "transnational capitalist class" from my passages quoted above (and many others) and
what you have is perfect mirror image of the argument.
This question has come up often lately, synchronistically (or maybe not). I'm somewhat new
to the JQ, having consumed many hours of work (including much of your own) after being sent
down the rabbit hole by the ongoing Epstein case. I was pondering that perhaps, Jews take the
blame for what the predatory capitalists are doing. Not even a week later you addressed this
precise question in your piece about Slavoj Ziszek and now with "vulture capitalism" it is
coming up yet again in Carlson's segment followed by the article right here. It also came up
on the "other side" in the blog I follow of a professor of globalization in this article:
https://zeroanthropology.net/2019/11/27/global-giants-american-empire-and-transnational-capital/
The link above is a review of the book Giants: The Global Power Elite . The review
provides a summary of the book which once again could be a text about Jews if one were to
replace the term "transnational capitalist class" with "Jews". Why I mention it, though, is
the following: "Chapter 2, "The Global Financial Giants: The Central Core of Global
Capitalism," identifies the 17 global financial giants -- money management firms that control
more than one trillion dollars in capital. As these firms invest in each other, and many
smaller firms, the interlocked capital that they manage surpasses $41 trillion (which amounts
to about 16% of the world's total wealth). The 17 global financial giants are led by 199
directors. This chapter details how these financial giants have pushed for global
privatization of virtually everything, in order to stimulate growth to absorb excess capital.
The financial giants are supported by a wide array of institutions: "governments,
intelligence services, policymakers, universities, police forces, militaries, and corporate
media all work in support of their vital interests" (p. 60).
Chapter 3, "Managers: The Global Power Elite of the Financial Giants," largely consists of
the detailed profiles of the 199 financial managers just mentioned.
This caught my eye because I immediately wondered how many of those 199 directors are
Jewish. It also pertains directly to this exact article because I am confident that the
vulture capitalists you targeted here are profiled in the book, probably with many
others.
Now, I am not in the business of writing about the JQ, so I wanted to suggest to anyone
out there that is that if they were to obtain a copy of this book and determine how many of
the 199 directors are jews. What this could accomplish is a marriage of the major two
theories of the "anti-semites" (for lack of a better word) and the "Neo-Marxists". I would
argue that perhaps both sides would learn they are coming at the same thing from two
different angles. Most would ignore it, but maybe a few leftist thinkers would receive a much
needed electric shock if they were to see the JQ framed in marxist terms. Perhaps some
alliances could be forged across the cultural divide in this struggle. Personally I believe
that both angles are perfectly valid, and that understanding one without the other will
leaves far too much to be desired when studying the powerful.
@the
grand wazoo Reagan relaxed the laws on takeovers and as a result what Galbraith called the technostructure (modern
corporation in which the business was run by not with an eye on shareholder value but in the
interests of everyone involved) was ripped apart.
However the technostructure had come about in the 30s when the Depression led to mass lay
offs, which had began to cause social unrest. The Chinese are have already cutting a swath
through Western productive capacity, and now they are coming for the rest to the extent that
the European Union is tightening the limits of foreign direct investment and takeovers. Trump
is calling for negative interest rates, which were not adopted even during the 1930s when
one-quarter of the labor force was idle.
Prospects for severe economic pain being imposed on ordinary working people and the
consequent (eventual) establishment of a new technostructure are excellent. I hate to sound
like an accelerationist, but Jews like Singer are bringing that day closer.
@Ghali
'Everywhere they go, they leave behind nations in ruins. "
-- They always find the willing local collaborators ready to make a big profit. Who can
forget Dick Cheney, the Enemy of Humanity? The same kind of unrestricted criminality and
amorality lives on in Tony Blair the Pious. The fact that this Catholic weasel and major
criminal Tony Blair is still not excommunicated tells all we need to know about the
Vatican.
Assange is rotting in a prison, while Tony Blair and Ghislaine Maxwell are roaming free. The
Jewish connections pay off.
I know some Torah Jews who are angry that Mischlings have no right of return to Israel,
and apparently now aren't part of the ruling American Jewish nation, or American, or have
anywhere to go now. They're also angry at what they see as a repeat of the cycle of
international Jewish action and inevitable reaction they will have to bear the brunt of.
They referred me to this website: The Institute for Historical Review where they
apparently contribute.
" Although Jews make up no more than three or four percent of Russia's population, they
wield enormous economic and political power in that vast and troubled country. "At least half
of the powerful 'oligarchs' who control a significant percentage of the economy are Jewish,"
the Los Angeles Times has cautiously noted. (See also: D. Michaels, "Capitalism in the New
Russia," May-June 1997 Journal, pp. 21-27. )"
So that was the context of who owned capital in Russia, what was the effect?
" According to Harvard University scholar Graham Allison, who is also a former US
assistant Secretary of Defense, ordinary Russians have experienced, on average, a 75 percent
plunge in living standards since 1991 -- almost twice the decline in Americans' income during
the Great Depression of the 1930s. But in the midst of this widespread economic misery, a
small minority has grown fabulously wealthy since the end of the Soviet era ."
But how is that possible? Swashbuckling international capitalists like Bill Browder were
bringing their Ivy League MBA's to more efficiently manage all those assets. And he said how
much he wanted to save the Polish Train-yards.
What happened? A Putin arose. He took the capital from the Jews, and the Jews were
dispatched to the United States. Putin also aligned himself with a different Jewish faction
less virulently dismissive of the needs of the people they ruled.
What do they do in the United States? Something similar as the economy careens towards
another financial crisis and living standards, mortality rates, and the middle class
plummet.
"Jewish power in Russia, Galushin continues, has resulted in millions of homeless
children, widespread tuberculosis and cholera, a shortage of medicines, cheating retirees of
their pensions, suicide in the armed forces, and the death of science. What do the Gusinskys,
the Berezovskys, the Chubais, the Nemtsovs, the Kiriyenkos, the Smolenskys, the Livshits, and
the Gaidars say about this? Millions of Russians have perished under their rule. Are the
Russian people ready to judge these scoundrels for their crimes, Galushin ask",
Robert Maxwell was a Chezch Jew – he also robbed hundreds of millions worth of
pensions. How is it possible that all these Jewish capitalists can be linked to readily to
Jeffrey Epstein?
How did Robert Maxwell get his seed money?
Here is a letter sent to Boris Berezovsky nee Abramovich.
"In sharp contrast to the intense feelings expressed by such Russian writers over the
catastrophic situation in their country today is the seeming indifference of American and
German taxpayers who have unwittingly channeled billions of dollars and marks to the
oligarchs -- who in turn have transferred this largesse to secret Swiss accounts. Who
monitors the distribution of these billions through the World Bank, the IMF, the financial
houses, and various banks? Who is responsible for this terrible injustice?"
That's really strange, because isn't that what the Russians accused Browder of doing? They
say that he channelled billions of dollars out of Russia into the United States. Then we had
the great Russian menace that is still ongoing in the media, and failing.
But Browder said that the Russian collusion story that was created by Fusion GPS, and then
the FISA court warrants issued on the basis of the fabricated Steele 'pissgate' dossier and
media stories was 100% true.
And Steele worked for the Russia desk of British Intelligence, and was being paid by the
Democrats.
Even the proto-Shabbos goys at the National Review had to distance themselves from it.
They showed that the date the FBI and Justice said it was verified it couldn't possibly have
been verified.
So why did so many Jewish capitalists like Browder support it?
And why aren't the Russians being permitted to trace Russian monies into Cyprus if Bill
Browder and now Jewish captialist ever has every done a thing that is wrong?
Because literally to the letter what is said about Donald Trump, the Democrats were
actually doing.
"" It got almost no attention, but in May [2018], CNN reported that Sens. Robert
Menendez (D-N.J.), Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) and Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) wrote a letter to
Ukraine's prosecutor general, Yuriy Lutsenko, expressing concern at the closing of four
investigations they said were critical to the Mueller probe. In the letter, they implied that
their support for U.S. assistance to Ukraine was at stake. Describing themselves as "strong
advocates for a robust and close relationship with Ukraine," the Democratic senators
declared, "We have supported [the] capacity-building process and are disappointed that some
in Kyiv appear to have cast aside these [democratic] principles to avoid the ire of President
Trump," before demanding Lutsenko "reverse course and halt any efforts to impede cooperation
with this important investigation ."
And yet Trump pulls the Jews ever closer. A ruling race of ubermenschen now.
'No reason'.
Can you imagine what American Blacks and savage Hispanics let alone whites are going to do
if the US economy craters like the Russian economy, and everything is transferred to the
banks?
@Old
and grumpy Yeah . fine idea. I've always maintained there are two uses of the word
"capitalism" industrial capitalism or competition of ideas vs. financial capitalism, the
Darwinian struggle for the most ruthless bankster to rig the "markets" most efficiently.
Whether we give it new terminology I don't care much . but I sure wish people would
understand the difference, one way of another !
Trump and the Republican Party puppets are nothing more than nasty politician whores for
billionaire Jews such as Seth Klarman and Paul Singer and Shelly Adelson and Les Wexner and
Bernie Marcus and many other money-grubber Jew donors.
The Republican Party Jew donors want to continue to flood the USA with mass legal
immigration and mass illegal immigration and the Jew donors want to continue to use the US
military as muscle to fight unnecessary wars and endless wars on behalf of Israel.
The Republican Party Jew donors also want to have all their shady money-grubber scams
protected by the Republican Party politician whores.
I wrote this in October of 2017 about Seth Klarman and Puerto Rican government debt:
Puerto Rico must be allowed to go belly up. The bond owners who own Puerto Rican debt must
go tits up. The US government must not bail out the investors who purchased Puerto Rican
government debt, or any debt whatsoever connected to Puerto Rico. Seth Klarman has been
revealed as a person who has bought Puerto Rican bonds in hopes of cashing out big.
SETH KLARMAN must be given a salt shaker to sprinkle salt on his worthless Puerto Rican
bonds before he eats them. Klarman must lose 100 cents on the dollar for his greedy purchase
of Puerto Rican debt. Klarman has loads of loot, and the Puerto Rican government debt was
purchased for one of his funds. I am sure his investors won't mind getting soaked by Seth for
a bit of money -- it is not even a whole billion dollars, only close to it.
David Dayen says:
Klarman, who has been described as the Oracle of Boston, has a history of buying
unpopular or distressed assets on the cheap in hopes of a payday. Baupost manages over $30
billion in assets. He is known as the top campaign contributor in New England and has been
a major donor in Republican politics in Massachusetts, including largely secret support for
2016's Question 2, an ultimately unsuccessful effort to lift a state cap on charter
schools. Klarman supported Hillary Clinton in 2016, calling Donald Trump "completely
unqualified for the highest office in the land."
Klarman's involvement in Puerto Rican debt will surely come as a surprise to activists
in Massachusetts and Puerto Rico, who have never mentioned him among the "vultures" who are
causing undue pain for the island's U.S. citizens.
Jewish people have treated me better than my own White Euro family.
White Euro people are/were evolved for small tribes. They were hunter gatherers, and
evolved concurrently with dogs. In my opinion the pathological altrusim of whites has to do
with the close relations to dogs, pets and later livestock. The whole "good shepherd" is more
of a Western Construct of Cro-Magnon white people, than the insular goat-herding types of the
middle east.
For example, in Scandinavia and most white countries, a 'baby sitter' can be a neighbor,
while in middle eastern cultures, a baby sitter can only be from a family member.
In other words, white people extend trust to one another, while middle-eastern ethos is
more familal then tribal. Ice age evolution, especially the fourth ice ages, selected for
pathological altruism is whites; which is why whites extend their grace to foreigners, brown
people, and are easily duped by Jews.
All you can do is try to rise above your own families failings. White people have to think
it through intellectually, as it does not come naturally.
Jews are tribal, gee what a surprise after 1000's of years of people trying to wipe them
out . and so their charity is within the tribe, but there is no charity within the tribe
among Whites.
Yes, but what is being debated here is how Jews use their ethnocentrism and in-group
methods to practice usury against out-groups. Euro-whites are a perfect host for the
parasite. The parasitical methods EVOLVED over millenia to operate the usury mechanism, to
take rents and unearned income. This is why they have been kicked out of 109 countries,
because what they do is seen as immoral and against the common good. (Euro whites eventually
smarten up and it always takes a King to eject the Jews.)
For more on this, see the book Angela's Ashes. The Irish family could have stayed in New
York where they were being befriended by a Jewish family.
Let's not get cause and effect reversed. The potato famine in Ireland was devastating
because high-value crops were being exported to England to pay for wait for it . usury on
debts the Irish owed the English. The English in turn were operating the state sponsored
usury system of the Bank of England, which came into being in 1694. The BOE in turn was
JEWISH in construct, being maneuvered into place by Sephardic Jews from Amsterdam.
The Irish, being trusting souls, fell into the usury trap and could not keep up with the
exponential debts.
A general statement: White people can build high trust civilizations that benefit all of
their people, but are easily subverted when the wrong type of predators infiltrate. If your
family was extended, and had aunts and uncles and cousins, who lived in the general area for
centuries, then there would be a network to fall back on.
See slaughter of the cities by Jones:
And yes, the FIRE sector and impetus behind the destruction of your extended family was
JEWISH. The breakdown of neighborhoods and ethnics was on purpose.
The Jew is anti-logos, and whatever he touches he destroys. (There are exceptions of
course – but these people no longer possess a negative Jewish spirit.)
Sorry your family was destroyed. When whites become un-moored they don't know how to
act.
@J
Adleman Quite bizarre post. First,he makes a half ass defense of Jew
character.(Weinstein,Epstein don't represent jews! Well,they kind of do. Any jew who is
called to accounts for his crimes automatically does not represent jews!
You are a used condom. Do you represent the jews? Id day yes.)
Your diatribe sounds like an alt righter's view of jews. Are you real?
if you think it's wrong to buy or try to collect on defaulted debt, what is the
alternative set of laws and behavior you are recommending? If debts can simply be
repudiated at will, capitalism cannot function.
Capitalism includes money. You can't separate the risks in lending from other risks. Bad
investors should be punished and good investors rewarded. Resources should be well allocated.
Otherwise it's not capitalism.
These insane Boomers seem to think that there is a Jewish coup underway to remove Trump
because of all the things that Jews are saying in Jewish publications and every single person
involved being Jewish and stuff.
@Germanicus
About the Carnegie donated "Peace Palace" in The Hague, presently the seat of the In
ternational Court of Justice:
Germanicus claims:
They are a function of Empire in Hague, who protect empire criminals, and assume a non
existent legitimacy and jurisdiction as a private entity to take down empire opponents.
Such as this ruling for instance:
Guardian 3 Oct.2018:
International court of justice orders US to lift new Iran sanctions
Mike Pompeo indicates US will ignore ruling, after judges in The Hague find unanimously in
favour of Iran
@silviosilver
"What Joyce regards as a defect of "vulture" funds, others might regard as an benefit. "
-- Of course. I hope you did not miss the fact that the Jewish vulture funds -- ruthless,
unethical, and leaching on goyim -- contribute to the Jewish Holocaust Museum.
Is not it touching that the same bloody destroyers of nations demand from the same nations a
very special reverence -- out of ethical considerations, of course -- towards the Jewish
victims of WWII? But only Jewish victims. All others were not victims but casualties. See
Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Ukraine. See the unlimited hatred of ziocons towards Russia.
@Anonymous" but maybe a few leftist thinkers would receive a much needed electric shock if they were
to see the JQ framed in marxist terms " – I would not count on the effect of the
electric shock on the leftist thinkers. The role of Jewish Bolsheviks in the Cheka, NKVD,
GULAGs, genocides by famine has been known from the very beginning and yet it left no impact
on the leftist thinkers.
"According to Harvard University scholar Graham Allison, who is also a former US
assistant Secretary of Defense, ordinary Russians have experienced, on average, a 75 percent
plunge in living standards since 1991 -- almost twice the decline in Americans' income during
the Great Depression of the 1930s. But in the midst of this widespread economic misery, a
small minority has grown fabulously wealthy since the end of the Soviet era."
"Although Jews make up no more than three or four percent of Russia's population, they
wield enormous economic and political power in that vast and troubled country. "At least half
of the powerful 'oligarchs' who control a significant percentage of the economy are Jewish,"
the Los Angeles Times has cautiously noted. (See also: D. Michaels, "Capitalism in the New
Russia," May-June 1997 Journal, pp. 21-27.)"
It's interesting how the appeal of Eduard Topol to Jews in Russia is now starting to echo
Jewish calls in the United States for Jews to stop the path they are currently on.
Here is the complete text of Topol's extraordinary "Open Letter to Berezovksy,
Gusinsky, Smolensky, Khodorkovsky and other Oligarchs," translated for the Journal by Daniel
Michaels from the text published in the respected Moscow paper Argumenty i Fakty ("Arguments
and Facts"), No. 38, September 1998:
Magnitsky and Bill Browder is also really interesting.
It turns out that a large measure of the Russiagate story arose because Russian lawyer
Natalia Veselnitskaya, who traveled to America to challenge Browder's account, arranged a
meeting with Donald Trump Jr. and other Trump campaign advisers in June 2016 to present this
other side of the story.
Then we had Democrats actually literally word for word doing what they accuse Trump of
doing in Ukraine.
"It got almost no attention, but in May [2018], CNN reported that Sens. Robert Menendez
(D-N.J.), Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) and Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) wrote a letter to Ukraine's
prosecutor general, Yuriy Lutsenko, expressing concern at the closing of four investigations
they said were critical to the Mueller probe. In the letter, they implied that their support
for U.S. assistance to Ukraine was at stake. Describing themselves as "strong advocates for a
robust and close relationship with Ukraine," the Democratic senators declared, "We have
supported [the] capacity-building process and are disappointed that some in Kyiv appear to
have cast aside these [democratic] principles to avoid the ire of President Trump," before
demanding Lutsenko "reverse course and halt any efforts to impede cooperation with this
important investigation."
What's the first rule of Communist and Satanist Saul Alinsky? Always accuse your opponents
of what you are doing.
Imagine having a Grandfather as the literal Chairman of the American Communist Party, and
all the amazing lessons you would learn about political maneuvering and ideology.
And it's amazing.
Browder's story is that Russian officials stole his companies seals and then fraudulently
formulated a tax avoidance scheme with a complete paper trail that they fabricated against
him in totem. Precisely matching the amount of money he was trying to remove from their
country, like those other Jewish Oligarchs who imposed conditions that were multiples worse
then even the American depression.
When under oath it turns out that Magnitsky wasn't even a lawyer at all, and didn't go to
law school. Why did the media owned by Mormons of course keep saying that Magnitsky was
Browder's lawyer?
Why did the Russians fraudulently fabricate a paper-trail for another Jewish Oligarch to
steal money out of Russia? Just like they colluded with Trump when a Russian lawyer sought to
explain what happened. Because that totally happened.
Maybe the problem isn't Capitalism. Maybe, when even the ur-Shabbos goys at National
Review are shaking their head and washing their hands like Pilate, maybe it's a different
problem.
Yet Trump holds these people ever close to his beating heart.
And then there are all these connections to Jeffrey Epstein that are like an explosion
linking all these people.
Poor old Russia. Even Putin isn't worse then what came before.
The link above is a review of the book Giants: The Global Power Elite. The review
provides a summary of the book which once again could be a text about Jews if one were to
replace the term "transnational capitalist class" with "Jews". Why I mention it, though, is
the following: "Chapter 2, "The Global Financial Giants: The Central Core of Global
Capitalism," identifies the 17 global financial giants -- money management firms that
control more than one trillion dollars in capital.
From the review .
"Robinson's claim that nation-states have become, "little more than population containment
zones," while "the real power lies with the decision makers who control global capital" (p.
26). Both propositions are unconvincing: first, populations are clearly not being
contained; second, if states matter so little, and the real decision-makers are global
capitalists, then why do the latter need states
That is such stupid reasoning it blows the mind. He is trying to shift the global problem
to institutions .. instead of the people who head those institutions
Institutions, agencies , financial firms, etc .are ALL run by PEOPLE .who make the
policies,laws, take the actions.
Why does the 'transnational capitalist class' need states? well duh because
people/labor/consumers are indeed "contained' in states subject to the states laws and
system. The transnational capitalist class created the institutions he speaks of 'from
within' those states thru their control of its system and their same goal partners who do the
same from within their respective states.
That the capitalist class is not tied to any territory has been observable since 1960.
I don't have time now to look up how many of 199 directors are Jews . but I know enough of
the economic history of various countries to know that Jews were the first business and
finance globe trotters,,,,.from Spain to Amsterdam, France to Africa , etc.etc. Jew were
first hired as reps and facilitators by the gentile business owners especially because of
their breather tribal contacts in many countries ..that was their stepping stone to becoming
transnational capitalist themselves.
Understanding our global capitalist ruling elite and who they are is not rocket
science
Buy your loans from another lender,
change the terms (add fees, penalties, underhanded stuff),
reposses your collatteral.
Outta be illegal.
White Gentiles, you must infiltrate and take over big business and big finance to help
protect your people from predation .and to give all peoples principled, fair financial
services. To help our society, and even others. Paul Singer doesnt seem to care about most of
his fellow men. We could do better, and help the world be a better place.
Yet more evidence is piling up that Donald J Trump is the Great Betrayer.
A man who had the biggest mandate in post war history to clean up the Swamp that is D.C.,
reform Immigration to save America and reform the economy for American workers.
He has squandered all of it while pandering to Jews.
When the Donald is revealed as the Great Betrayer where will Jews run? Yes, they have
several back up plans. Patagonia, Ukraine and Israel.
Imagine that. They have their own country and 2 back up plans. It is really tough being a
hated, oppressed minority.
@Anonymous
Thanks for your comment. You've come to the right place. Unz is an ideal hangout for
left/right fusionists who don't fit in perfectly with either side, but are interested in
hearing from both. In addition, if you're looking for other good right-wing sites that aren't
libertarian, Zionist or overly Christian, I can also heartily recommend Dr. Kevin MacDonald's
Occidental Observer ,
where Dr. Joyce himself usually posts.
What this could accomplish is a marriage of the major two theories of the "anti-semites"
(for lack of a better word) and the "Neo-Marxists". I would argue that perhaps both sides
would learn they are coming at the same thing from two different angles. Most would ignore
it, but maybe a few leftist thinkers would receive a much needed electric shock if they
were to see the JQ framed in marxist terms.
Or, more correctly, it would be a re -marriage of anti-Semitism and Marxism. If you
have a background in Marxism yourself, maybe you recall reading or hearing about Karl Marx's
pre-Kapital classic, On the Jewish Question , where he basically identifies
finance-capitalism as a Jewish phenomenon in essence and origin. Money quote
:
"Let us consider the actual, worldly Jew – not the Sabbath Jew but the everyday
Jew. Let us not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion, but let us look for the
secret of his religion in the real Jew. What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical
need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his
worldly God? Money. Money is the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other god may
exist. Money degrades all the gods of man – and turns them into commodities . The
bill of exchange is the real god of the Jew. His god is only an illusory bill of exchange .
The chimerical nationality of the Jew is the nationality of the merchant, of the man of
money in general.[ ] The Jew has emancipated himself in a Jewish manner, not only because
he has acquired financial power, but also because, through him and also apart from him,
money has become a world power and the practical Jewish spirit has become the practical
spirit of the Christian nations. The Jews have emancipated themselves insofar as the
Christians have become Jews. [ ] In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the
emancipation of mankind from Judaism."
Marx himself, of course, came from a family of rich conversos, so he knew whereof he
spoke.
Perhaps some alliances could be forged across the cultural divide in this struggle.
Personally I believe that both angles are perfectly valid, and that understanding one
without the other will leaves far too much to be desired when studying the powerful.
As a third-way national socialist, I hope so, too. Libertarianism/capitalism and mainline
socialism are dead-ends, having both been thoroughly co-opted (founded?) by the Jews. Both
fail to address the pink elephant in the corner; both put some hopelessly abstract ideology
before the welfare of my people–while benefiting another. And so, as the original NS
used to say: 'Neither godless Bolshevism nor soulless capitalism!'
Reality: Contrary to popular mythology, not all serial killers are white. Serial killers
span all racial and ethnic groups in the U.S. The racial diversity of serial killers
generally mirrors that of the overall U.S. population. There are well documented cases of
African-American, Latino and Asian-American serial killers. African-Americans comprise the
largest racial minority group among serial killers, representing approximately 20 percent of
the total. Significantly, however, only white, and normally male, serial killers such as
Ted Bundy become popular culture icons.
@Lot
Your defense of bond holders do not hold water. They agreed to take the risk at the given
price. If the debtor can't pay back, they have the eat the losses, period. Usury law needs to
be put in place to outlaw these vulture funds. Then the bond funds will adjust by demanding
better terms that truly reflects the risk from the get go, and the debtors will adjust by
being much more cautious in their borrowing since the borrowing cost is so high.
Instead, this current arrangement basically uses bond funds to put up a false front,
telling a debtor they can borrow at 2% when the real rate should be at 20% given the known
risks, then the debtor goes crazy borrowing because it's so cheap to borrow, and when they
can't pay back, the bond gets sold to the vultures who come collecting at 20% or they seize
assets. This is no different than the subprime mortgage crap, except now that is regulated so
they go after sovereign debt and corporate debt instead. These vultures need to go die
period.
Trump is now essentially funded by three Jews -- Singer, Bernard Marcus, and Sheldon
Adelson, together accounting for over $250 million in pro-Trump political money. In return,
they want war with Iran.
Hmm -- The day after Trump in inaugurated for his second term -- will Iran be in his
crosshairs?
@Jimmy1969
This is a great, concise overview of Canadian media influence by the "silent" Jewish
overlords via Golden Tree.
I tried copy/paste of your comment on CBC, but it did NOT last 2minutes before being
suspended!!
I am sorry to have used your comment without your permission, but I am going to "misspell"
some words to defeat the algorithm to get your message across.
@Lot
For points 1 and 2, I think that you would learn a lot from reading his previous article (
https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2015/08/01/paul-singer-and-universality-of-anti-semitism/
) on vulture capitalism. It is not just that they are recovering assets from defaults. These
vulture groups will use the courts to increase the size of the debts and sue for extra "fees"
on top, even when all other lenders are against it. They typically manage to get US courts in
NYC to try these cases, which also is apparently abnormal (apparently it would be more normal
to use international courts). This is what Joyce refers to here:
"This type of predation is so pernicious and morally perverse that both the Belgian and UK
governments have taken steps to ban these Jewish firms from using their court systems to sue
for distressed debt owed by poor nations. "
These funds do not do something that normal investors do, especially not to the bonds of
governments of struggling third-world countries.
As for 3, you are misunderstanding. Joyce never demanded that they name their charities
anything in particular, but it is obviously the case that your typical normie thinks that
"white males," presumably golf-playing Episcopalians or something, are the ones running
finance, and these golfy-sounding names (Elliot, Monarch, GoldTree, OakTree, Canyon, Tilden
Park) fit the perception. We whites receive the society's hate for the wealth disparities
created by high finance.
4. No, it is not difficult to do finance differently. Every other investor has higher
patience for poor countries in Central America and Africa, and they all look at Elliot with
confused scorn.
And, things would probably run fine without hyper-aggressive multi-billionaires in pushing
the courts to f- over those who default on debts they owe to the maximum degree. Japan and
Norway do quite fine with businesses that are run by gentle and humble goys who feel ashamed
at the thought of getting "too rich."
@J
Adleman You will be thrown out.
You will have to choose between Israel, Ukraine and Patagonia. No one else will take you.
You have destroyed our politics, media and economy.
You are not respected.
You buy compliance with money.
You have bankrupted the U.S. dollar with debt pursuing Israel's enemies.
Do any of you goys remember when the Jewish funded Democrats through the US State
department gave Russia one third of the US strategic uranium reserve and also funnelled
military tech to Russia's Skolkovo Valley? At a time when they were working on the Hypersonic
ballistic missile engine?
It's almost like there was this plan for people to move back into Russia, just like China,
but for some reason the Russians and Chinese didn't cooperate.
Remember when David Spengler wrote about this a few years back hence?
Do you think disloyal Jews had anything to do with 18 American CIA assets getting captured
and murdered by the Chinese Intelligence services through 2010 to 2012?
Could it be that there were loyal Americans who were interfering with Chinese pay for play
with the Jewish nation in the United States? Or might have come upon it?
Imagine being an American military service member knowing that your Jewish commanders and
Jewish senior officers have got your back.
It's amazing isn't it.
Clinton was receiving tens of millions of dollars from Skolkovo Valley Syndicate owners in
Russia, and in exchange all she gave them were military secrets that may have given Russia
for example it's lead in hypersonic military technology.
And then we're told China had a duplicate version of her emails in China, in exchange for
what?
US Taxpayer money funded the Russian weapons program.
How much China tech was also funded by US taxpayers?
And then these people accused Trump of collusion with Russia, because the Russians were
telling the Trump family that the Magnitsky Act was unjust because the Russians were trying
to secure their assets against the kind of predatory practices that lowered Russian mortality
to where it's headed in the Midwest. Right now. For the same reasons.
Yeah – this trend is absolutely going to be permitted to continue.
The American nation forewarned and forearmed is simply going to allow itself to go the way
of the Russian Slav under a century of Jewish and proto-Jewish (the man who was made to call
himself Stalin) leadership.
Maybe, just maybe, an American President might consider a Magnitsky Act the subjects of
which were different. Maybe Trump is the last civic-nationalist President, maybe.
Look at how loyal the ruling nation in the United States is to their fellow Americans.
There aren't enough hours in the day to trace the labyrinthine set of Jewish betrayals and
asset transferrals – remember the Panama Papers? Remember the Samson Option?
Why won't Browder let the Russians investigate Cyprus?
Maybe good old fashioned local corruption with noblesse oblige is preferable to this
international corruption.
The Jews got out-leveraged by the Russians, and now, finally, the Empire might be able to
take back Korriban from the Jewdi.
Of course that's impossible. You have to trade one for the other. Just one set for the
other set.
If you want to find a list of these capitalists – you just look at who attends the
World Jewish Congress Galas.
" Ira Rennert (net worth $3 billion, previously, $6 billion, investor, known as a "junk
bond billionaire," found guilty of corruption in 2015, placed a mill in Baltimore's outer
harbor into bankruptcy, causing more than 2,000 workers to lose their jobs, owes Baltimore $8
million in unpaid city water bills, allegedly used money he looted from his business to build
a 29-room mansion & compound – a garage holds 100 cars)
Dick Parsons (former Time Warner CEO, CBS chair, & Citibank chair; in 2012 shareholders
filed a lawsuit against Parsons and some other executives for "stuffing their pockets while
running the bank into the ground")
Ben Ashkenazy (net worth $4 billion, Israeli American real estate tycoon, a benefactor of the
2015 AIPAC Real Estate Luncheon at New York's Grand Hyatt Hotel)
Jack Chehebar (real estate mogul, sued for alleged breach of contract, accused of beating his
son)
Ray Kelly (longest serving commissioner in the history of the New York City Police
Department, for a period was an Interpol vice president, charged by Muslim groups of
discrimination: "The commissioner oversaw a spying program that targeted Muslims based solely
on their religion, showed poor judgment by participating in a virulently anti-Islamic film,
and approved a report on terrorism that equated innocuous behavior such as quitting smoking
with signs of radicalization."
What did God say once?
In Genesis 18:32 He said he would spare Sodom and Gamorrah if Abraham could find just 10
honourable men. He couldn't find them. Only the family of Lot.
There isn't much time left. It might simply be the case that the rot goes too deep and too
dark.
Valhalla is a worthy place. I think there might be some Russians there, along with the
souls of those 18 Americans who were tortured and murdered in China for reasons unknown.
Capitalism includes money. You can't separate the risks in lending from other risks. Bad
investors should be punished and good investors rewarded. Resources should be well
allocated. Otherwise it's not capitalism.
There are different kinds of capitalism. It is part of today's hypnotism that people don't
know the different types.
For example, there is finance capitalism, industrial capitalism, and what Andrew Joyce
calls vulture capitalism.
Vulture capitalism is a subset of finance capitalism.
Industrial capitalism was invented in the American colonies, especially Massachusetts bay.
The American system of economy (industrial capitalism with mixed economy and sovereign money)
has since been lost to America, as it imported Jewish/British finance capitalism as the
operating construct after 1913.
You can separate risks in lending. That is more hypnosis that you have been imbibing on.
The entire corpus of Classical economics goes about trying to separate unearned from earned
income, how to tax properly, what is site value, and it also is able to separate risk
types.
The fact that you do not know these things is not surprising, as most of western man is
living inside of a Jewish inverted reality bubble. The agents of mammon won, and classical
economics is not even taught in university.
Homosexuality is present in our society, but doesn't register much in demographics and as
such, I am happy to call gays as homosexuals. Tackling animus towards homosexuals requires
NOT trying to enforce new nomenclature of gender etc., otherwise an unexpected nasty backlash
can occur. Within your "ingroup", you can say what you like, but do not try and force ingroup
dynamics on the majority that are not interested.
Otherwise, you are behaving by identity politics, just like the Jews force their identity
upon the majority.
@sally
" Time after time I have asked my Jewish friends are you are Zionist, and most say they do
not really know what Zionism is? "
Zionism is a name which is more well known as an identifier by the critical (among the
Goy), carrying by now negative connotations. Broadly it is not an ism which is well known to
the man in the street. It could well be that among Jews, the name Zionism is only handled by
certain groups.
The question should have been rephrased asking what position these Jewish friends take with
regard to Israel. It comes down roughly to the same thing.
To not know of Zionism might be strategically a good thing, it refers to convergent
interests, actually a power block, you don't want to throw around such things, it could make
people aware Keep it diluted, diversity, obfuscation.
Ben Franklin and the American revolution was almost put in a similar pinch by the Amsterdam
banker Jean DeNeufville. In a letter to John Adams, 14 December 1781*, Franklin explained
that DeNeufville wanted as security for a loan "all the lands, cities, territories, and
possessions of the said Thirteen States, which they may have or possess at present, and which
they may have or possess in the future, with all their income, revenue, and produce, until
the entire payment of this loan and the interests due thereon."
Franklin considered that "extravagant" but Newhouse rejoined, "this was usual in all loans
and that the money could not otherwise be obtained". Franklin retold in this lengthy letter,
"Besides this, I was led to understand that it would be very agreeable to these gentlemen if,
in acknowledgment of their zeal for our cause and great services in procuring this loan, they
would be made by some law of Congress the general consignee of America, to receive and sell
upon commission, by themselves and correspondents in the different ports and nations, all the
produce of America that should be sent by our merchants to Europe."
Talk about shooting the moon
While Wikipedia says DeNeufville was Mennonite, Franklin concluded with this colorful --
and bitter -- remark , "By this time, I fancy, your Excellency is satisfied that I was wrong
in supposing John de Neufville as much a Jew as any in Jerusalem, since Jacob was not content
with any per cents, but took the whole of his brother Esau's birthright, and his posterity
did the same by the Canaanites, and cut their throats into the bargain; which, in my
conscience, I do not think Mr. John de Neufville has the least inclination to do by us while
he can get any thing by our being alive. I am, with the greatest esteem, etc., ✪ B.
Franklin."
Perhaps it was just an expression based on an earlier stereotype?
*Bigelow, 1904. The Works of Benjamin Franklin, Vol. 9 Letters and Misc. Writings
What our Jewish friends have done to Argentina, through maneuvering the elections, killing
dissidents, and marking territory, is a cautionary tale to anybody woke enough to see with
their own eyes.
Zion had the opportunity to go to Uganda and Ugandans were willing, but NO Zion had to
have Palestine, and they got it through war, deception, and murder. It was funded by usury,
as stolen purchasing power from the Goyim.
The fake country of Israel, is not the biblical Israel, and it came into being by
maneuverings of satanic men determined to get their way no matter what, and is supported by
continuous deception. Even today's Hebrew is resurrected from a dead language, and is fake.
Many fake Jews (who have no blood lineage to Abraham), a fake country, and fake language.
These fakers, usurers, and thieves do indeed have their eyes set on Patagonia, what they call
the practical country.
Unz is an ideal hangout for left/right fusionists who don't fit in perfectly with either
side, but are interested in hearing from both
You just described me to a tee. I defy categorization, especially ideological ones
(although I half jokingly refer to myself as a free-thinkist), and I feel this makes me
weird.
I've been to TOO. However I can't bring myself to start commenting on a white nationalist
website. I will admit I am unable to articulate this discomfort presently.
As to your point about Marx – I actually forgot about his work on the JQ. The Saker,
who is a columnist on this site, referenced Marx's essay on the JQ some time ago. I must have
not read the whole thing or I'd have remembered it. I didn't know that Marxism originated
with anti-Semitism, but that is fascinating. I have encountered some Marxists in my time and
they focus exclusively (predictably) on the cis-white-male patriarchy, or whatever occupies
their brainwashed minds after an Introduction to Gender Studies class.
@Anon
"If debts can simply be repudiated at will, capitalism cannot function."
Is this children's capitalist theory class time? throwing around some simple slogans for a
susceptible congregation of future believers?
Should be quite obvious that people, groups of people, if not whole nations , can be
forced and or seduced into depths by means of certain practices. There are a thousand ways of
such trickery and thievery, these are not in the theory books though. In these books things
all match and work out wonderfully rationally
Then capitalism cannot function? Unfortunately it has become already dysfunctional, if not
a big rotten cancer.
Isaiah 1:4 4 Alas, sinful nation, A people laden with iniquity, A brood of evildoers,
Children who are corrupters! They have forsaken the LORD, They have provoked to anger The
Holy One of Israel, They have turned away backward.
Ezekiel 21:25 25 'Now to you, O profane, wicked prince of Israel, whose day has come, whose
iniquity shall end
Jeremiah 5:9 Shall I not punish them for these things?" says the LORD. "And shall I not
avenge Myself on such a nation as this?
As Jesus said which of the prophets have you not killed or persecuted? The truth hurts. As
for me I do not hate Jews ..I feel terribly sad for a people that are capable of greatness
and squandered the gifts given to them by God. Are you a holy nation? Don't make me laugh.
Repent. Your time is coming. No more running and hiding. Deception will no longer save you
only acceptance of the Messiah.
Hey! Don't mention anything a Jew ever did, especially usury, or else the entire cult will go
up in a holocaustal mushroom cloud of emo nasal whining. In Judaism you've got a fanatical
sect that systematically selects and brainwashes its members to inculcate extreme values of
two Big Five personality axes: high neuroticism and low intellect (where intellect means
open-mindedness.) Note the existential crisis triggered by a straightforward lecture from The
Society for the Study of Unbelievably Obvious Shit.
Of course Israel is holocausting the Palestinians. This is what happens when the founding
myth of a nation is, We wiped em all out and then they wiped us almost all out so now we
gotta wipe em all out etc., etc., etc.
Well, the only difference between a narcissist and a psychopath is that the former need
people to like them whereas psychopaths genuinely could not care less (although they learn
early that acting as if they do can be very helpful , as can always trying to elicit sympathy
etc).
As I noticed while reading a few books on psychopathy (I was inspired to after reading Steve
Job's biography) – their whole 'culture' is structured as a (collective )
PSYCHOPATH.
It seems that (collectively) they cannot care about others even if they wanted to. Due to
their sickness
I am not saying they are all that way – but overall their 'culture' seems to be that
way
@Digital
Samizdat Indeed I cannot agree more. I quote from a 1923 interview of Hitler:
"Why," I asked Hitler, "do you call yourself a National Socialist, since your party
programme is the very antithesis of that commonly accredited to socialism?"
"Socialism," he retorted, putting down his cup of tea, pugnaciously, "is the science of
dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The
Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from
the Socialists.
"Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain
lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to
disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private
property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is
patriotic.
@Colin
Wright The Sacklers occupy a hoity-toity rung in the philanthropy universe, as they have
given enough $$$ to Harvard for H to paste their name on its museum housing I believe its
whole Asian art collection. Students have now protested Harvard's high-profile gift of
probity and cultural status to the Sacklers via, literally, an "Aushangerschild" on a major
university museum. Harvard protests back: Jeez, if we don't take the Sacklers' dough we might
be obliged to stop taking the dough from Exxon, etc.
@Anon
you are right about repaying the loan
but Banksters have managed over decades I think starting with Clinton to remove protection
laws (which were stating how much interest was the maximum a bankster could charge his pray
etc). They also removed the rules of how much was the maximum they could lend (according to
how much their victim makes a year etc).
So even though you are right that loans should be repaid – it is immoral to allow a
well connected mafia to change all the laws and remove protections while pushing up prices of
everything because it suits the lender (who has a licence to print).
They basically lend money that does not exist and get interest for that. So the more sheeple
are tricked into borrowing the better for them, but the worse for everyone else
They should not be allowed to bribe politicians to remove all the protection that was there
since 1920s I think.
It's a marriage from hell: easy to bribe Anglosheep meets the masters of predatory bribing
who own the printing press
That stupid cuck Trump just got impeached by the House. Thats a good lesson to everybody
how much good Jew-ass kissing does for you .you get stabbed in the back anyway lol
Couldn't have happened to a more deserving and treacherous scumbag!
But he should have been impeached for his treachery to the constitution and to the
American people for his slavish devotion to all things Jewish!
@Digital
Samizdat True, but irrelevant. The Jews that matter don't read the Talmud or believe in
"Adam and Eve."
It's 2020. The Jewish religion is "The Holocaust" and we're all "Nazis."
Frankly, it's these traditional religious notions of "anti-semitism" that get in the way
of understanding what is, at the core, an ethnic issue. It's Sheldon Adelson, the Zionist
entity in Palestine, and the ADL that are the problem, not some looney-tunes rabbi living in
Brooklyn.
The other side of the expalnation is the laking of reaction of the victim,the american
people.
The least that the people that loot the world trough and with the USA power should do, is ,at
least ,let us,the american people, a free ride.
Not illegal in the Talmud either but most certainly illegal in all of the countries that
DynCorp was caught profiting from this type of business. For some reason they never seem to
suffer for their exposure suggesting that they may be wielding the same influence that
Epstein had over our elected officials.
We dont have to get back to the Singer of this world but to our own politicians ,that allowed
them to do this to us,and to the world.In this kind of abusive realtionship the 2 sides are
to blame.
@Just
passing through "Look up income by ethnic group in the UK and US, you will find that
Indians and Chinese (South Asians) are the richest in both countries (except for Jews of
course)."
And why is that? Think about it. These are members of the Indian and Chinese elite who the
multinational corporations are doing business with.
In order to do business in China, the Chinese stipulated that the western corporations had
to give one of the members of the Chinese elite half ownership in the company. They were also
required to turn over the western technology to the China-based company. Western technology,
western money, cheap Chinese slave labor, ability to pollute to your heart's content. For
both sides, it was a win-win. The Chinese elite got filthy rich and then moved over to the
West with their newfound gains, buying up properties, forcing prices up for the natives. The
western corporations not only wanted cheap products to export back to the U.S., but they were
also developing a whole new market – Chinese consumers who would buy their products as
well. Double plus good!
And once in the West, the Chinese and the Indians stick to their groups. They hire their
own, promote their own, do business together. A lot of corruption, money laundering,
cheating, taking advantage of and bending laws. Rule of law? Code of ethics? Morals? Do unto
others? They never learned it. Opportunistic dual citizens.
I would not count on the effect of the electric shock on the leftist thinkers. The role
of Jewish Bolsheviks in the Cheka, NKVD, GULAGs, genocides by famine has been known from
the very beginning and yet it left no impact on the leftist thinkers.
It unfortunately has not had much of an effect on a lot of people in the West, who remain
ignorant or in denial of the role played by Jewish Bolsheviks in historic mass murders and
totalitarian repression.
Waiting for the Hollywood movie to tell the story.
This is an expensive, weighty, and important book, which will take some time to
digest.
Classical economists re-learn the science of money, starting with Prodhoun and even Marx
in Das Kapital volume 3. (Leftists are often correct about money, but wrong on social
issues.)
The jew Marx does do some deception in volume 3 with a sneaky equation that does not
compound interest, but otherwise he is pretty accurate. Marx was probably beholden to his
finance masters.
This is why you need to start with Zarlinga, as there is no BS to lead you astray. Hudson
tends to drill the bulls-eye too. There is so much deception in the field of money and
economy, that it is easy to get caught up in false narratives, like one-born free
libertarianism. Usury flows fund the deception, even to the point of leaving out critical
passages in translations, such as in Aristotle's works. Or, important works are bought up and
burned.
Michael Hudson is the leading economist resurrecting Classical Economics. Reading all of
Hudson and Zarlinga will take some time and effort, but it is good to take a first step.
@Anon
I respectfully disagree that "Kenya was given up [by Great Britain] before there was even an
anti-colonial movement in Kenya ."
According to Wikipedia : " The armed rebellion of the Mau Mau was the culminating response to
Colonial rule . Although there had been previous instances of violent resistance to
colonialism , the Mau Mau revolt was the most prolonged and violent anti-colonial warfare in
the British Colonial colony. From the start the land was the primary British interest in
Kenya ."
Just as the Kenyans suffered the consequences of British colonialism , the "Palestinians will
suffer
the consequences of Zionist colonialism until Israel's original sin is boldly confronted and
justly remedied " foreignpolicyjournal.com
@anon
A particular distinction of Jewish investors versus gentile investors – on average, of
course – is their use of bribery to get the force of government behind them. Rather
than taking a bet about some group being able to pay back some bonds and letting the chips
fall where they may, Jews start bribing or influencing politicians to force that group to pay
back the bonds.
Buy some bonds, charge outrageous fees, bribe officials in some form or other, get govt to
force the payment of bonds and outrageous fees. Rinse and repeat. Jews have been doing this
in some form aor another for 1500 years. It's why the peasants get a tad angry at both the
Jews and their bribed politicians/nobility.
@lavoisier
"But he should have been impeached for his treachery to the constitution and to the American
people for his slavish devotion to all things Jewish!"
A purely political impeachment, right down party lines. I hear Schiff has got his hands
full of Ukrainian-Jewish oligarchic money. Dear me, wait until that comes out.
Trump is in league with the Jews? Yeah, who isn't? Obama's lips are still sore from
kissing Jewish Wall Street bankers' asses (notice that none of them went to jail). Same with
the Clinton's.
You can get politicians to pass all sorts of laws in your favor if you've got enough dirt
on them. After all, your side owns the media, Hollywood, academia, the courts, the banks.
If dirt doesn't work, you can always threaten to impeach them in order to get what you
want.
But Trump is also revealing every last dirty one of them (accidentally or on purpose).
People see them now.
@J
Adelman J Adelman comes out swinging. He's such a tough guy. But does he make sense? Does
he care if he makes sense? The writer is talking about those Jews who are vulture
capitalists. He's not talking about every Jew. Isn't it a little odd that nearly all of these
funds are run by Jews? Can your corrupt mind accept that fact and address the question? Or
are you going to bore us with your religion and by that I mean your obsession with
anti-semitism, which is your religion.
@PCA
Stop splitting hairs. Is this the best you can do? Are you one of Lot's cronies? I don't
normally address petty matters of this kind but Joyce is describing a multitude of sins and
misconduct orchestrated by various Jewish financiers around the globe. It is not merely one
phenomenon; thus, 'phenomena' fits. Go troll someone else.
Lobelog ran some articles in Singer, Argentina, Iran Israel and the attorney from Argentina
who died mysteriously . Singer is a loan shark. Argentinian paid dearly .
Google search –
NYT's Argentina Op-Ed Fails to Disclose Authors – LobeLog
https://lobelog.com/tag/paul-singer/
Paul Singer NYT's Argentina Op-Ed Fails to Disclose Authors' Financial Conflict of Interest
by Eli Clifton On Tuesday, Mark Dubowitz and Toby Dershowitz, two executives at the hawkish
Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), took
The Right-Wing Americans Who Made a Doc About Argentina
https://lobelog.com/the-right-wing-americans-who-made-a-doc-about-argentina/
Oct 7, 2015 One might wonder why a movie about Argentina, in Spanish and . of Nisman's and
thought highly of the prosecutor's work, told LobeLog, FDD, for its part, has been an
outspoken critic of Kirchner but has From 2008 to 2011, Paul Singer was the group's
second-largest donor, contributing $3.6 million.
NYT Failed to Note Op-Ed Authors' Funder Has $2 Billion
@mark
green Mark green the queen of self rightousness.
There are many non jews runny vulture funds worldwide with at least 100 in china
alone.
The list joyce provided is selective and politically motivated.There are many more non
jews who are guilty of financial crimes.The jails are full of them.
The vulture funds are a product of a system that punishes failure.Do not blame the
funds,blame the system.
This story and like many that appear here is designed to pressure israel to change
politically.Israels future lies in the hands of God not some mutt with a serious case of
mutters.
@Lot
venture capital funds are only made necessary because we have a federal reserve.. which is a
private bank and private banks want to earn interest.
consider the difference between when a private lender makes loans to the USA
(treasury)
on the books of the feds is the following
due from the USA $11,000
new cash printed and given to dumb clucks at the USA $10,000
profit on the loan $ 1,000
what happened here is the fed printed $10,000 in new bills.
Assume the loan made at 10% interest and it is due in 1 year.
Ok so what is the loan on the USA books
cash $10,000
amount payable to the Federal Reserve $11,000
loss on the deal $ 1,000
this loan becomes the loan on the local bank books
the government gives the bank its loan and its obligation to repay the principal plus
interest
If there were no interest (that is the government printed its own money and made
venture loans to entrepreneurs at 0% interest the entries would look like this )
Amount due in one year from venture borrower $10,000
new cash printed and loaned to venture $10,000
so if the venture guy spent the $10,000 and then went broke the treasury would still gets
its money back in taxes from those who earned profit the money the venture paid.. no one has
to beat somebody to pay the interest (the economy does not have the extra $1000 dollars in
interest so somebody has to lose)
When interest must be paid its like musical chairs.. each time the music stops there are
not enough chairs to go around, someone is left standing ( its like that in money lending,
the debtors dance until the music stops, but because the private bank only put the principal
amount $10,000 in circulation the guy needs $11,000 to pay the loan back where does he get
the extra $1,000? <=If ten $10,000 loans are made, and 1 guy goes broke, there will be
enough cash in the system for the 9 others to pay the interest they each owe and enough for
the local private bank and lawyers to get paid for handling the bankruptcy. . <= we
started with 10 loans, one loan went broke the 9 remaining borrowers each pay $11,000 to
retire the debt , there are 9 loans "$99,000 to repay them and $1000 to pay debt service
costs and legal fees.
if there were no interest on the loans, the bankruptcy would not matter.
What makes the venture capitalist have a business at all is the Federal reserve is a
private profit making bank. Lending printed money from the Federal reserve requires interest
to be paid, and that requirement of interest makes the economy horde its capital and the
economic players playing king of the mountain to get the extra money they need to pay the
interest . ..
Zionism brought private banking to the USA and the USA wrote a tax law to collect the
money from the Americans it governs to pay the interest on the debt.
this is a really simplistic description of what is happening to our economy so don't rely
on it but instead use its simplistic idea to model the impact of having interest on the
national debt is having each year. If our government reversed what it privatized to the
Federal Reserve, we could make the economy run more or less as we please. \we could eliminate
the national debt and with it income tax es.
Typical Jew baiting article. Mitt Romney isn't a "Jew" Ashish Masih isn't. Many more examples
of gentiles taking advantage of their brothers. May as well consider the Walton family of
Wal-Mart to be vultures as well since they benefit the most from this system, they're so
called Christians, not Jews. The problem is capitalism. Author seems to suggest that a moral
economic system has been corrupted. The system was designed in an era of widespread slavery
folks. Its an immoral system that requires theft, slavery, war, immigration, all the things
you hate, to survive. The system is working exactly as it is designed to work. Exploit
workers, the environment and resources, shift all the profits from workers to the owners of
capital, period. Welcome to the late stage, it eats and destroys itself
From the days of the colonists slaughtering the Injuns and stealing their land. The days
of importing African slaves, and indentured servants. The days of child labor and factory
owners hiring Pinkertons to gun down workers who protested shitty wages and working
conditions. The good ol days of the gilded age. Now the age of offshoring to China or some
other lower wage nation. Overthrowing leaders not willing to let their resources and people
be plundered and enslaved, driving refugees to our borders fleeing violence and poverty.
Importing H1B workers to drive down wages. It was always a corrupt system of
exploitation/theft/slavery. This is nothing new and doesn't require "Jews" to be immoral.
And all these so called "Christians" like Pastor Pence approve. Usury and capitalism run
amok. I'm sure Jesus is smiling down on all these Bible toting demons who allow their fellow
man to be exploited by the parasites. Sad!
Good for Tucker. He has his moments I'd watch his show if he wasn't a partisan hack. But
that will never happen working for Fox or any other corporate media.
@Colin
Wright I doubt Trump promised to go to war with Iran before he was elected. In his
Inauguration Speech, Trump said he wanted to bring the troops home and stop the wars. He
didn't have to say these things, he had already won the election, but he said them anyway.
One of the few times the media has laid off Trump was when he sent some missiles into
Syria (after he gave them hours of warning ahead of time that the missiles were coming). If
Hillary had been elected, Syria would have been leveled by now and flying an Israeli
flag.
Obama brought us the destruction of Libya and the murder of Gaddafi, the coup in Ukraine,
and through ISIS, which the U.S. armed, trained and paid for, tried to destroy Syria.
I don't really blame Obama or Bush Jr. or Clinton. They were all puppets who did as they
were told. If they hadn't, in the words of Chuckie Schemer, there would have been "six ways
from Sunday of getting back at them".
If you don't do what they want, you're impeached, some of your dirty laundry is aired, or
they purposely crash the stock market on you. If you still don't get the message, maybe
you're just assassinated.
Trump loves his daughter and she is married to a Jew. If they're not getting their way, I
could see them telling Trump: "Sad what happened at the Pittsburgh synagogue, isn't it? Sure
hope nothing like that happens to your daughter."
I don't envy Trump. He not only is up against the Democrats, but he is also fighting the
globalist neocons in his own party. Both parties want open borders and more war, something
Trump does not believe in. As far as I can see, he's throwing them bones in order to shut
them up. If he gets elected again, which I think he will, we might see a different Trump. Who
knows.
@Jimmy1969
I think this deal has already taken place. Israel has given away to China for 99 years the
hall commercial incomming This deal has taken place 2 or 3 years ago
Don't blame it on the Talmud. These Jews act in accordance to their Torah: "If Yahweh your
God blesses you as he has promised, you will be creditors to many nations but debtors to
none; you will rule over many nations, and be ruled by none" (Deuteronomy 15:6). "feeding on
the wealth of the nations" (Isaiah 61:5) is Israel's destiny according to Yahweh.
@mcohen
I took a squint at both your own and Mark Green's comment history. Your comment history
cannot even begin to compare in value, but I should have already guessed that from the
name-calling in the first line of your comment. Just weak, extremely weak.
Rather amusing to read our resident Jewish apologists carrying on about the absolute sanctity
of the necessity of collecting debts to the functioning of the capitalistic system. These
nations and corporate entities that are now in thrall of the Wall Street Jews , were herded
into debt by that other faction of the capitalist system, the dealers in easy money.
Snookering the rubes into lifelong debt, telling them that money is on the tap, promoting
unsustainable spending habits and then let the guillotine come down, for the vultures to feed
on. They are two sides of the same coin.
Its damned funny that the rich Jews nowadays are absolutely addicted to usury, rentier
activities, and debt collection, when the Bible itself condemns such activities. But they are
our elder brothers in faith according to some.
@Colin
Wright Carnegie was a Protestant. The Protestant cancer serves it's Jewish masters. Read
'The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit' by E. Michael Jones. There is definitely a revolutionary
nature to the international Jew just as there is to their Protestant dupes. Jewish nature is
to subvert the natural order and the west was built by the guidance of LOGOS. The Catholic
Faith created by God guided the creation of the west. These Jewish exploits are a result of
the Wests rejection of its nature and its enslavement
1. rich or poor, creditor or debtor, in the final analysis, ultimately, all will become equal
in the grave. the filthy rich might decide to lay their corpses in coffins made of gold, but
it will be in vain. the sorrows and the joys of this fleeting world shall quickly pass like
the shadow.
2. talmudics feel the need to accumulate money in order to have sense of security since they
were stateless for two millennia. paradoxically, amount of wealth is indirectly proportional
to a sense of security, provoking backlash from aggrieved host people.
3. establishment of State of Israel did not reduce the need for the accumulation but has only
heightened it since now talmudics feel the need to support it so that she could maintain
military superiority over neighbouring threats.
4. as long as Palestinians are not free and Israel does not make peace, talmudics will
continue to meddle in American politics. if you don't want to save the Palestinians for the
sake of humanity and truth or justice, at least you should do it for your own sake.
5. loan sharking, vulture whatever, etc., is the ugliness of big capitalism with capital C,
what is beyond sickening is the promotion of sodomy. if one becomes poor or homeless, it's a
pity. to go against nature is an abomination.
6. by using such words as "homosexual" you have accepted the paradigm of the social engineers
and corruptors, and are therefore collaborating with them. words have consequences since that
is how we convey ideas unless you own Hollywood and can produce your own moving pictures
too.
7. talmudics is a better word than as a great American scholar says, since people who promote
sodomy are absolutely opposed to the Torah (O.T.). those who still struggle to follow it
couldn't care less what happens to benighted goyim, only becoming reinforced in pride of
their own purity as opposed to disgraced nations. thus, practically, they too are talmudics,
alien to the spirit of the ancient holy fathers and prophets of Israel. the word "Orthodox"
has been stolen and now has lost all meaning or it means the exact opposite of what it
originally meant.
8. Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth. Matthew 5:5
@Colin
Wright Well there's nothing wrong in principle about specialists in valuing distressed
debt and managing it nuying such debt and using the previously established mechanisms for
getting value out of their investment. So the problem is how they go about enforcing their
rights and the lack of regulation to mitigate hardship in hard cases.
Still it is notable that it should, overwhelmingly be a Jewish business and such a
powerful medium for enriching Jewish causes and communities at the expense of poor
Americans.
While Whites theoretically still have the numbers to affect/determine the outcome of
elections, a majority of Whites usually stay home because they are tired of the 'evil of two
lessers' choice they are offered -- even voting for Trump got them little/nothing.
@Colin
Wright George Bush needed Tony Blair's support to attack Iraq , Donald Trump now has the
support of Boris Johnson to attack Iran : "Boris Johnson refuses to rule out military
intervention on Iran ." metro.co.uk
It is said that the "deep state " removed Theresa May from office as she was "too soft" on
Iran . As you suggest the attack will not happen until Trump's second term unless, in the
meantime , there is a false flag attack like 9/11 which can be blamed on the Iranians .
East Asians have freedom of speech. That is all that is needed to end Jewish Mafia vulture
capitalism. If it was Italian Mafia vulture capitalism, the west would end it a few seconds.
When one is in a "no see, no say, no hear" tribal group one can get away with everything.
East Asians don't believe in hiding reality.
Here is more on how Samsung fought back against little Paulie.
Samsung published controversial sketches in response to row over merger
Jewish U.S. hedge fund boss Paul Singer was trying to stop a Samsung business deal
In response the firm released cartoons on its website depicting Singer as a vulture
A row has broken out in South Korea with media there describing Jews as 'ruthless' with
money
Merger between Samsung C&T and Cheil Industries was approved today
This is how Paulie's row with Samsung started.
These are the extraordinary cartoons Samsung posted on its website which reportedly
depict a Jewish hedge fund boss as a money-grabbing vulture.
The row between Samsung and one of its major shareholders, Paul Singer, has sparked an
anti-Semitism row in South Korea.
Harvard-educated Mr Singer, 70, whose hedge fund Elliott Management owns a seven per
cent stake in Samsung C&T fell out with the company after he objected to a merger
deal.
Cartoons shown what Paul's company did to the Congo, just one of many nations he
pillaged.
In response Samsung posted a number of inflammatory cartoons on its website showing Mr
Singer as a long-beaked vulture, which have since been taken down.
In one of the sketches a poor-looking man goes, cap in hand, to the vulture who has an
axe hidden behind his back.
The caption reads: 'Elliott Management's representative method of earning money is,
first of all, to buy the national debt of a struggling country cheaply, then insist on
taking control as an investor and start a legal suit'
In another people appear to be dying in the desert from dehydration. Underneath is the
caption: 'Because of it, Congo suffered even more hardship'.
This is believed to refer to Elliott Management's business dealings in the Congo.
Samsung wanted to keep their company in the Lee family. They did not want a Jewish Mafia
tribal group take over.
The bitter fall out came because Samsung Group's founding family wanted to complete a
merger with its holding company Cheil Industries and Samsung C&T to shore up its
control of the firm as its chairman, Lee Kun-hee's health is in decline.
In the End, Samsung won. Paul lost.
The Lee family, who control Samsung, owns 43 per cent of Cheil Industries. The
controversial merger was finally approved today.
South Koreans are not shy to express reality as it is. The west has to learn the value of
freedom of speech before it too late for the west.
But the row has sparked an outpouring of anti-Semitism in South Korea.
One columnist described Jewish money as 'ruthless and merciless'.
And on Tuesday the former South Korean ambassador to Morocco Park Jae-seon expressed his
concern about the influence of Jews in finance.
In an extraordianry outburst he said: 'The scary thing about Jews is they are grabbing
the currency markets and financial investment companies.
'Their network is tight-knit beyond one's imagination,' Park added.
The next day, cable news channel YTN aired similar comments by local journalist Park
Seong-ho.
'It is a fact that Jews use financial networks and have influence wherever they are
born,' he said.
Neither Park Jae-seon and Park Seong-ho were available for comment.
In a piece published a fortnight ago, Media Pen columnist Kim Ji-ho claimed 'Jewish
money has long been known to be ruthless and merciless'.
While Whites theoretically still have the numbers to affect/determine the outcome of
elections, a majority of Whites usually stay home because they are tired of the 'evil of
two lessers' choice they are offered -- even voting for Trump got them little/nothing.
I said nothing of an electoral solution to America's problems the problems will not be
solved that way.
@Art
That scary thought has crossed my mind, too, Art. I've even started wondering if this whole
impeachment circus is really part of an elaborate plot to guarantee Trump's re-election. I
mean, would Pelosi's insane actions make the slightest sense otherwise? And everyone has
noted how this is such a 'Jew coup,' haven't they? It all looks so suspicious
What our Jewish friends have done to Argentina, through maneuvering the elections,
killing dissidents, and marking territory, is a cautionary tale to anybody woke enough to
see with their own eyes.
True, but irrelevant. The Jews that matter don't read the Talmud or believe in "Adam and
Eve."
Whether they believe it or not, they act as though they do. That shows it is an ancient
and essential part of their ethnic subculture. Who knows? Maybe Kevin MacDonald is right and
it's actually genetic .
It's 2020. The Jewish religion is "The Holocaust" and we're all "Nazis."
The holo-hoax is just their modern version of 'chosenness'. Pretending to be the
biggest victims evah! is just another way of making themselves appear collectively as
morally superior to the rest of mankind–even the darkies:
But whether it's being wielded by the Zionists or the lefty Social Jewish Warriors, it's
really just a power play down deep. It's really just another way of reminding us
goyim–white and colored–that we are all just half-demons (so to speak) compared
to The Chosen.
@Wally
It is rather entertaining watching you kvetch, Jewish colonialism over WASP nations will be
glorious.
Vietnam & Congo can choose as they wish, it is they who vote for their leaders.
In fact, Congo was better off with colonialism.
America voted for Zion Don, he is now receving hundreds of millions of dollars from Jews
to do their bidding. It is hilarious that you can't see the irony of your comments.
In fact, it is even more funny what the Jews will do to WASP nations, enjoy your future of
transexualism and fast food, WASPs totally deserve everything that is coming at them.
Then you change the subject to Epstein. Pathetic.
If you had an IQ above room temperature, you would realise my segue into the Epstein
affair was a response to your question of "What deal was supposedly struck".
You killed Lumumba," she roared at the Belgian officials on the platform, before being
escorted away by the police. The music and speeches resumed.
She was right: they did. Belgium was heavily implicated in the 1961 killing of the
radical, first prime minister of an independent Congo, now the war-torn Democratic Republic
of Congo. In 1975 a US inquiry also pointed conclusively to CIA involvement in the
execution carried out by a Katangan police unit under a Belgian officer.
Paul Singer, a Jewish Mafia vulture capitalist did some "work" on the Congo too.
He also bought some of Congo's debt for $10m and sued for $127m. The Congolese
government was found to be corrupt and under US racketeering law, Singer may be able to
claim triple damages, reaping as much as $400m.
On March 9, 2016, Department of Justice (DOJ) oversight personnel learned that the FBI
had been employing outside contractors who had access to raw Section 702 Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act (FISA) data, and retained that access after their work for the FBI was
completed.
This information was disclosed in a 99-page FISA court ruling on April 26, 2017, that was
declassified by Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats.
That wasn't an isolated incident and the improper access granted to outside contractors
"seems to have been the result of deliberate decisionmaking" (footnote – page 87).
The FISA court noted the "FBI's apparent disregard of minimization rules" and questioned
"whether the FBI may be engaging in similar disclosures of raw Section 702 information that
have not been reported."
"This is bigger than Watergate + 9/11 + the Bay of Pigs + almost every other conspiracy
theory you can name combined. It is also why you're seeing definite signs of panic and
desperation everywhere from the House of Representatives to the mainstream media to the
boardrooms of the Fortune 500. This reaches from the heart of the Swamp in Washington DC to
Silicon Valley and Seattle, Washington. In East Germany, it came out after the Wall fell that
one-fifth of the population was involved in the surveillance of the other four-fifths of the
population; now keep in mind that due to the mathematical reach of the FISA warrants, the 825
million surveillance orders issued actually exceeds the 320 million population of the
USA.
Now we know how and why Google and Amazon and Facebook got so big, so fast. They were the
corporate arm of the surveillance state."
You disloyal Jews used government resources and private contractors to surveil the entire
country.
I wonder what's going to happen next?
Also why haven't you responded to any of the comments about what the Jews did in
Russia?
@RealistI said nothing of an electoral solution to America's problems
And I said nothing about an "electoral solution", or any other kind of "solution", to
"America's problems" -- I said/implied that blaming Whites, or the way they vote, more or
less exclusively, as you did, for the way things are, was not exactly a genius take -- there
is literally no one for a race conscious white person, eg a WN, to vote (affirmatively)
for at the moment -- and it is hard to imagine anyone emerging in the near future.
For the record: I (also) do not think just voting, especially in the current
one two party system with the usual 'evil of two lessers' choices offered,
will do anything for Whites.
What We abrogate (of) a sign or [We] cause it to be forgotten, We bring better than it
or similar (to) it. Do not you know that Allah over every thing (is) All-Powerful?
2:106
The verses on abrogation read as to only allow Allah to abrogate, so any human action on
this is stepping over the line imo.. maybe other than when 100% of the Ummah agree on
something, I read that could remove a surah of the Quran, like a voice of God. That rhymes
nicely imo.
Of course how to judge which ruling to use? I agree, it brings in a casuistry into the
faith that generally helps to confuse.. I don't know much about it though yet.
I think Islam preaches a decent message, but the average practitioner is open to
misinterpret it quite a bit. This is a failing of the teaching.. but I think Mohammed's
message was corrupted like Christ's message pretty much straight after his death. Gospel of
Thomas and Tolstoy's rewrites all the way for something closer imo.
venture capital funds are only made necessary because we have a federal reserve.. which
is a private bank and private banks want to earn interest.
Sentiments are correct and you are hovering over the target, but some details are
needed.
The federal reserve is the tail on the dog, not the dog. The Fed was created as a part of
the corporate banking money trust. Before Fed the reserve loops of banks were not tied
together, and they had to use treasuries (T bills or Lincoln Green-backs) to balance their
ledgers.
Banksters wanted to extend their money power beyond their region. In the days before
federal reserve bank money power would fall off the further you got away from the bank. Banks
hypothecate new bank credit, and the credit has to swim home to the debt instrument. This
"swimming home" is done easily when the ledgers are all connected through reserve loops (also
called the overnight market).
After Federal Reserve (1913) and before Wright Pattman, the Federal Reserve was recycling
its profits made on public debt back to its stock owners and member banks. The member banks
especially, were guaranteed profits no matter how the economy did. After Wright Pattman (mid
60's) Fed has to rebate to treasury they couldn't face up to the allegations they were
stealing from the commons, which they were.
Today, the FED rebates interest on TBills and public debt back to Treasury. The private
banks within the system continue to hypothecate new money at interest, as that is their
business model. This business model does not include morality, nor does it work in the public
interest. It works to enrich finance at the expense of the working/laboring economy.
So, central banks are not profit centers, but instead they ensure profit lower down
– within the private banking system. Central banks are backstops to prevent instability
within the already unstable debt money system.
Recent Example: The Repo Crises, whereby FED is monetizing repurchase agreements. Non bank
actors such as hedge funds, REIT's and others have been given access to the overnight market
(where reserves are supposed to be traded). The FED now swaps new keyboard dollars for
various finance paper to keep the non bank actors in the repo market liquid.
This action is artificial and props up the finance sector at the expense of the normal
working economy, and hence it is usurious.
Usury is a word that has been normed out of our language. Why? Because our (((friends)))
are agents of mammon, and they cannot help themselves. It may be genetic.
Usury is a power relation, where you steal from others because you can. Laws are changed
to enable the thefts.
In the case of the FED it was taking 6 percent from the people on public debts. Public
debts were funded by taxpayers. This money was then funneling backwards from FED into their
crony banks and paid off sycophants.
We don't know what the FED is doing today because the bad guys won't allow an audit. The
general statement is that private corporate banking is usurious, and was born in iniquity,
and that is where your eye should gaze, not necessarily at the FED or any central bank.
The debt money system and finance capitalism is state sponsored usury, and is a Jewish
construct.
Vulture capitalism is simply vultures buying up or creating distressed assets and then
changing the law, or using force to then collect face value of the debt instrument or other
so called asset. Vultures will use hook or crook to force down what they are buying, and hook
or crook to force up what they are selling. God's special people can do this because when
they look in the mirror, they are god, and are sanctioned to do so.
Maybe the vulture should replace the bald eagle as America's favorite bird since our dear
shabbos goy President Trump and cohorts are undermining the First Amendment and trying to
make it a crime to criticize Jews and/or Israel. Oh and don't think I am promoting the other
Zionist and their shabbos goy on the demshevik side. The Jew CONTROLS both sides and "our"
two party system has become Jew vs. Jew, not republican vs. democrat. Lenin said that the
best way to control the opposition was to lead it and (((they))) are at it AGAIN.
I think Islam preaches a decent message, but the average practitioner is open to
misinterpret it quite a bit. This is a failing of the teaching.. but I think Mohammed's
message was corrupted like Christ's message pretty much straight after his death. Gospel of
Thomas and Tolstoy's rewrites all the way for something closer imo.
The line of good and evil runs down the middle of each person's heart, and they have to
decide.
My line of attack on Judaism, Islam, Christianity, or whatever, has to answer the
question: "Is it good narrative for high civilization." Does the narrative make people
malfunction?
There are branches of Islam that are good narrative – where people choose the better
side of Islam.
The point is that these good branches, say the Suffi's, have to keep the crazy aunt in the
basement.
Abrogation allows what comes later, to gain power over what comes earlier. And what comes
earlier is the best part of Islam.
Christianity has the same problem, it does not do a good job of policing its crazies, who
twist scripture. Judaism, especially Talmudic Judaism is Kabala and utterances of the sages,
and it morphs and changes over time. For example, after Sabatai Sevi, the Kol-Neidre was
weaponized, and this construct is used by today's Zionists to wreak havoc. Before Sabatai,
there was Hillel, who weaponized usury.
Yes, I agree about Christianity changing quite a bit. In the first 300 years it was much
different than today, especially after the Arien controversy was settled by Constantine's
maneuvering of Bishops at council of Nicea. For example, before; reincarnation was part of
Christian doctrine, and after; reincarnation was excluded.
Trump should be impeached and convicted. But not for the reasons in the two Articles passes
by the House.
He should be for
Violating the Symington and Glenn amended 1961 Foreign Assistance Act to ban any aid to
clandestine nuclear powers that were not NPT signatories. Trump increased aid to Israel.
Moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem in violation of numerous UN Security Council and
General Assembly resolutions.
The abuse of Office via Nepotism in having totally unqualified Jared and Ivanka Kushner
serve as US Government respresentatives.
Executive Order classifying Jews as a Nationality protected from Free Speech criticism of
them, in violation of the First Amendment.
Of course those in Congress, that facilitated and cheered on the Israeli centric Trump
acts, should all be voted out forever.
I have long maintained that libertarianism/capitalism is really like a kind of Calvinism
for atheists. Calvinists used to assume that, since whatever happened was God's will and
God's will was invariable good, then whatever happened was good. Likewise, many modern cucks
seem to have just substituted The Market for God. Morally speaking, it all lets man off the
hook for anything that results–especially when those men happen to be Jewish
financiers!
No, boys and girls, The Market is not inherently good. It requires that a moral system be
superimposed on top of it in order to make it moral.
@Anon
After reading the book of this MI6 asset (and potential killer) who tried to fleece Russia,
you probably can benefit from watching a movie by Nekrasov about him. See references in:
It looks like it was Browder who killed Magnitsky, so that he can't spill the beans. And
then in an act of ultimate chutzpah played the victim and promoted Magnitsky act.
I suspected that Deep State has at least two opposing factions. The Realistists want him to
break up the empire, turn back into a republic; the Delusionals want to extend the empire,
continue to exploit and destroy the world. If so, the contradictions, reversals, incoherence
make sense. IMO as I said.
Gary Weglarz ,
I predict that all Western MSM will begin to accurately and vocally cover Mr. Binney's
findings about this odious and treasonous U.S. government psyop at just about the exact time
that -- "hell freezes over" -- as they say.
Jen ,
They don't need to, they have Tony Blair's fellow Brit psycho Boris Johnson to go on
autopilot and blame the Russians the moment something happens and just before London Met
start their investigations.
All pretense of our country being a representative democracy@snoopydawg
is gone. Our two party uniparty government has completely turned its back on serving
the needs of the vast majority of the people of this country, and of the wider world. Profit
sits at the head of our government. The monikers "Fascist" and "Totalitarian" are apt
descriptors of the direction of our current trajectory. A dystopian future surely awaits us on
this beautiful, fragile and life sustaining planet that we are trashing with such abandon.
Other than that, things are going quite nicely. Nancy is wearing her power pants and fools
are applauding.
It still amazes me... that people actually think impeachment accomplishes anything other
than diverting attention from the Dems giving Trump everything he wants.
Kayfabe.
Impeachment without conviction means next to nothing.
The Senate will not convict. Trumps chances of being re-elected are continuing to improve as
Democratic Party insiders work overtime to see to it that Bernie Sanders has to fight the
Republican Party, a MSM that either dismisses or ignores his candidacy, AND the Democratic
Party which has, once again, stacked the deck against him.
... Never-Trump conservative Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin released a scorching
assessment ... "Even Trump knows he will be lumped in with the 'losers' in the presidential
history rankings such as Richard Nixon and Andrew Johnson," wrote Rubin. "Impeachment will
define his presidency, dwarfing any other foreign or domestic action. No wonder he rages
against a speaker he is powerless to stop. His worst nightmare is to be humiliated, and if
not now, history certainly will regard him as a pitiful, damaged man utterly unfit for the
role he won through a series of improbable events ... Just as Watergate figures ... were
lionized as defenders of the Constitution, so too will Pelosi and House Democrats ... be
among those admired for their lucidity, intellect and character. ... For every clownish,
contemptible, screeching and dishonest House Republican, there is a sober, admirable,
restrained and honest Democrat.
"No letter, no tweet, no Fox News spin can repair the reputations of Trump enablers," Rubin
wrote. The right-wing media that cheered them on will, like outlets that rooted for Jim Crow
and demonized Freedom Riders, be shunned by decent, freedom-loving people who reaffirm
objective reality. The Republican Party will be known not as the Party of Lincoln but the
Party of Trump, a quisling party that lost its bearings and its soul to defend an unhinged
narcissist.
I think if Russians adopt a similar to IHRA definition of thier own and then pursue
trangressors through the courts, the Guardian would be shut down within a month or so.
How would it fly if Trump's EO instead forbade criticism of Russia in schools and colleges in
USA?
Very strange that something like this could ever be written and signed. A fast budding and
explicit "Judeo lese majetse" is unfolding before our eyes. And if it is meant to protect
Jews as a race and nation, then that will naturally induce people to see them as exactly
that: a separate nation. Will this quell concern about loyalty or raise more doubt?
p.s. In 2018, Israeli army expert snipers made a turkey shoot of Palestinians marching on
the 70th anniversary of their people being ethnically cleansed from their ancestral homeland.
A "shoot to cripple" policy only murdered several score but, with high speed dum dum bullets,
they blasted bloody wreckage through the flesh and bones of many thousands of unarmed people.
You may not see them on your porno channels and game shows, but a large number will be
crippled for the rest of their lives.
This is a good example of a very recent state sponsored atrocity on a large scale.
Students in our schools and colleges might want to examine this in a variety of ways. The
history, legality, ethics, demographic dilemmas etc. Sure, it might roll over into some
criticism and activism, e.g. DBS Israel, but is that to be prohibited by our government? What
sort of citizens are our schools and colleges supposed to be cultivating if students are not
permitted to exercise their freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and freedom of
conscience?
At the moment there is no way for concerned, affected or just plain good humans to either
eradicate the stench or to jail and make liable the producers, inventors, distributors,
publisher or the liars that deny the wrongful facts often found in smelly propaganda..
It is a violation of basic human rights to produce false, deceptive or misleading
propaganda.. Maybe there will someday be a war on wrongful propaganda and those involved will
find themselves labeled Terrorist.
What just happened was an inverted U.S. selection. In the U.S., a confused rich man got
elected, because the alternative was a psychopathic war criminal. In the U.K. a confused
upper class twat got elected, because the alternative was too good to be true.
"...Obama did sign H.R. 4310 into law, also passing the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of
2012. But the bill did not make it legal for independent, private-sector media outlets to
present outright false information to the public. Instead, it allowed government-sponsored
news like Voice of American to be broadcast in the United States. It removed restrictions
on U.S.-generated news from being presented to American audiences.'''"
Oki doki so what about those < cough > "independent, private-sector media outlets"
that are blatant 'governement funded fronts' that only 'claim' to be our independent,
private-sector media...
"Share On Twitter" target="_blank"
href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=So+your+argument+consists+essentially+of+name-...+&url=https%3A%2F%2Foff-guardian.org%2F2019%2F12%2F12%2Fwill-pelosi-have-the-votes-to-impeach%2F%23comment-105752">
So your argument consists essentially of name-calling to exercise your own demons. You make
Trump look good, like the other stark raving lunatics opining on this , many in the
Democratic Party. You have zero chance of unseating Trump by impeachment and by the looks of
things that might not be such a bad thing, he said, making the sign of the cross and mouthing
pagan incantations, begging forgiveness from the ether.
You recall Bill Maher's comment before a previous election. "The Republicans have shifted
to the right and the Dems have shifted right into the insane asylum."
This whole Schiff-Show is just bizarre. Why are the Dems doing this? In an election
year to boot? There is just zero chance that the Senate will remove Trump from office, and
the case against him is a total laughing stock anyway. All that's going to happen is that the
senators are going to start discussing L'affaire Biden openly and loudly, thereby
killing the Dem's current front-runner. Is that what Pelosi wants? Meanwhile, none of their
other three dozen or so candidates are going to get any media at all, once this impeachment
sucks all the oxygen right out of the room. Is that intentional?
Notable quotes:
"... Stating that he had not voted for Trump in 2016, GWU Law P rofessor Jonathan Turley who is a registered Democrat (as is yours truly) opened with a brilliant statement as he set the tone for an extraordinarily compelling testimony throughout the day, carefully explaining to the Democrats why they had not met a credible legal threshold for impeachment. ..."
"... Factually concise with rational, impartial explanations, Turley effectively disputed Democratic claims that an abuse of power stemming from a presumed effort to help one's own re-election is " inferred " and does not constitute proof of intent or direct knowledge of what was in the President's mind. ..."
"... What the Democrats fail to grasp is the double-standard that every politician makes decisions based on what is best for their reelection just as the Dems are hoping to benefit electorally in 2020 with the farcical impeachment. ..."
"... After his testimony, Mr. Turley tweeted. " Before I finished my testimony, my home and office were inundated with (death) threatening messages and demands that I be fired from GW. " ..."
"... For instance, Rep. Martha Roby (R-Ala) asked the defining question regarding the purpose of the hearing with "no fact witnesses " via a process that has been " insufficient, unprecedented and grossly inadequate ." Roby pointed out that the Dems had apparently not considered: that a constitutional law panel should come " only after specific charges have been made known and underlying facts presented in full due to an exhaustive investigation. How does anyone expect a panel of law professors to weigh in on legal grounds for impeachment prior to knowing what the grounds brought by this Committee are going to be ? ..."
"... Did any of those 31 notice when the Constitutional law experts were asked by Rep. Matt Gaetz " Can you identify one single material fact in the Schiff Report? – all four remained silent. ..."
"... As the Democratic party appears to have lost whatever is left of its sanity and integrity, the question remains why are the Democrats willing to sacrifice losing some of those 31 House seats in 2020? ..."
"... You recall Bill Maher's comment before a previous election. "The Republicans have shifted to the right and the Dems have shifted right into the insane asylum." ..."
"... It is always good to hear of committed political activsts demanding that their own party stick to fundamental principles of justice, adherence to the Constitution etc etc. There does come a point when you have to ask whether this is temporary insanity or metastatic terminal cancer. If it is the latter, America needs new political parties ..."
Despite an inadequate performance last week by Constitutional law experts before the House
Judiciary Committee, Chair Jerrold Nadler released a unilateral committee report on Saturday
entitled " Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment ." The Report came the day after
Speaker Nancy Pelosi's press conference
in which she directed the formation of Articles of Impeachment.
As has become apparent to any objective observer; that is one who prefers facts over
fiction, the Democrats remain locked in an imaginary world struggling to maintain relevance, a
stature of standing that no longer exists.
Presumably with no Quid Pro Quo, no allegation of criminal conduct, no legally substantial
evidence or factual basis and no bipartisan support, in defiance of previous impeachment norms,
the Democrats are hell bent on making public jackasses out of themselves.
In a hearing with
Constitutional legal experts expected to score big legal points in support of impeachment,
the witnesses instead turned out to be smug, hyper partisan activists as they were consistently
unpersuasive and unimpressive .
All three displayed not a wit of objectivity or neutrality while touting their own personal
political agenda with a foreign policy ax to grind, leaving the unmistakable impression that
their testimonies were nothing short of conflated.
Condescending as if pontificating to a class of mediocre law students,
Professor Noah Feldman had suggested in 2017 that Presidential tweets could be grounds for
impeachment, indicative of the depth of his thinking as he repeatedly impressed himself with
his own rhetoric.
Professor Pamela Karlan opened with a shrillness that grew into a hyperbole spewing
divisiveness among the American people and went on to revisit the Russiagate and foreign
electoral influence myth ad nauseam. Those dim witted Democrats on the committee repeated the
mantra as if held in a spellbound trance whenever "Russiagate" was mentioned. There was no
mention of Israel interference in US elections. Testimony of
Professor Michael Gerhardt .
Stating that he had not voted for Trump in 2016, GWU Law P
rofessor Jonathan Turley who is a registered Democrat (as is yours truly) opened with a
brilliant statement as he set the tone for an extraordinarily compelling testimony
throughout the day, carefully explaining to the Democrats why they had not met a credible legal
threshold for impeachment.
Factually concise with rational, impartial explanations, Turley effectively disputed
Democratic claims that an abuse of power stemming from a presumed effort to help one's own
re-election is " inferred " and does not constitute proof of intent or direct knowledge of what
was in the President's mind.
However, it did not appear that any of the Democrats had the acute sensibility to understand
Turley's point as there is an edge of lunacy to the collective Democratic mind these days.
What the Democrats fail to grasp is the double-standard that every politician makes
decisions based on what is best for their reelection just as the Dems are hoping to benefit
electorally in 2020 with the farcical impeachment.
After his testimony, Mr. Turley tweeted. " Before I
finished my testimony, my home and office were inundated with (death) threatening messages and
demands that I be fired from GW. "
While it was surprising that there was no Democratic Star on either the Intel or Judiciary
Committees who stepped forward to make a credible, cogent case for impeachment, it was somewhat
surprising that the Republicans had an energetic array of participating Members not limited to
Intel ranking member Devin Nunes (Calif), Judiciary ranking minority Rep. Doug Collins (NC),
Rep. Jim Jordan (Oh), Rep. John Ratcliffe (Texas) and Rep. Mark Gaetz (R-Fla) all of whom can
be expected to continue their Bulldog approach as the Committee begins preparing Articles of
Impeachment.
For instance, Rep. Martha Roby (R-Ala) asked the defining question regarding the purpose of
the hearing with "no fact witnesses " via a process that has been " insufficient,
unprecedented and grossly inadequate ." Roby pointed out that the Dems had apparently not
considered: that a constitutional law panel should come " only after specific charges have been
made known and underlying facts presented in full due to an exhaustive investigation. How does
anyone expect a panel of law professors to weigh in on legal grounds for impeachment prior to
knowing what the grounds brought by this Committee are going to be ?
At her news conference the day after the Judiciary committee hearing, Pelosi was asked by a
reporter " Do you
hate President Trump ?" Pelosi responded with a shaky false piety as if she knows the votes
are not there:
We don't hate anybody. Not anybody in the World. And as a Catholic, I resent your using
the word 'hate' in a sentence that addresses me. I don't hate anyone. I was raised in a way
that is full – a heart full of love and always pray for the president, And I still pray
for the president. I pray for the president all the time, So don't mess with me when it comes
to words like that.
It is a curiosity that with the 2020 election a scant twelve months away, the Democrats have
not made the case for the urgency of why impeachment needs to occur right now, immediately,
before the Christmas holidays when the Spirit of Good Cheer, Universal Love and Peace for all
Americans should take precedence over the Democrat's divisive animosity, pitting one American
against another.
In 2018, thirty-one new Democrats were elected to the House; predominately from districts
that voted for Trump in 2016 assuring a tough 2020 re-election campaign.
Let's assume that every one of those 31 newbies have been paying very close attention to the
Intel and Judiciary committee hearings with two questions in mind:
Is there sufficient legal evidence to convince my constituents to support Articles of
Impeachment and is this flawed impeachment campaign worth losing my seat in Congress?
House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-0SC) has already indicated that he does
not intend to 'whip" the Dems in preparation for an Impeachment vote on the House floor and
that the Dems "expect to lose some votes."
Let's do the math: With 233 Dems and 197 Republicans, if 18 of the 31 House newbies do not
vote to impeach, the Democratic Motion to approve Articles of Impeachment will fail with a tie
of 215 votes. Whether the Dems lose 18 votes or less, the damage will be irreversible.
As the Democratic party appears to have lost whatever is left of its sanity and integrity,
the question remains why are the Democrats willing to sacrifice losing some of those 31 House
seats in 2020?
Seamus Padraig ,
This whole Schiff-Show is just bizarre. Why are the Dems doing this? In an election
year to boot? There is just zero chance that the Senate will remove Trump from office, and
the case against him is a total laughing stock anyway. All that's going to happen is that the
senators are going to start discussing L'affaire Biden openly and loudly, thereby
killing the Dem's current front-runner. Is that what Pelosi wants? Meanwhile, none of their
other three dozen or so candidates are going to get any media at all, once this impeachment
sucks all the oxygen right out of the room. Is that intentional?
All I can say is, you have to really dig all the way to the bottom of the tinfoil-cooler
to find an explanation for this one. Others it makes no sense whatsoever.
wardropper ,
This person has made herself ridiculous by refusing to impeach GWB in 2003, when she knew he
was lying about Iraq's weapons.
What has Trump done which is comparable to that death toll?
Proof enough that Washington has nothing more to say to human beings.
The place belongs in The Book of Revelation – and not in the optimistic part
George Cornell ,
So your argument consists essentially of name-calling to exercise your own demons. You make
Trump look good, like the other stark raving lunatics opining on this , many in the
Democratic Party. You have zero chance of unseating Trump by impeachment and by the looks of
things that might not be such a bad thing, he said, making the sign of the cross and mouthing
pagan incantations, begging forgiveness from the ether.
You recall Bill Maher's comment before a previous election. "The Republicans have shifted
to the right and the Dems have shifted right into the insane asylum."
Rhys Jaggar ,
Would Ms Parsons like to write an OpEd on the US Senate pushing forward false narratives that
Russia is 'a promoter of terrorism'?
The biggest promoter of terrorism workdwide since 1945 is the USA, be it through OSS, CIA,
or other outsourced channels of coup-promoting violence .
Is it not time a motion were voted upon in the UN on precisely that postulate?
wardropper ,
Unfortunately, as you know, the UN, like NATO, to all intents and purposes actually IS the
USA, and vetoes all criticism of itself. And if vetoing doesn't work, it just ignores the
criticism. Other recent farces at the UN show the US and Israel sitting alone while the rest
of the world condems them, and the condemnation is simply shrugged off.
Astonishing that educated adults put up with it, but there it is.
Rhys Jaggar ,
It is always good to hear of committed political activsts demanding that their own party
stick to fundamental principles of justice, adherence to the Constitution etc etc. There does come a point when you have to ask whether this is temporary insanity or
metastatic terminal cancer. If it is the latter, America needs new political parties
wardropper ,
This person has made herself ridiculous by refusing to impeach GWB in 2003, when she knew he
was lying about Iraq's weapons.
What has Trump done which is comparable to that death toll?
Proof enough that Washington has nothing more to say to human beings.
The place belongs in The Book of Revelation – and not in the optimistic part
"I wish that people would realize that to interfere, in any way shape or form in wars that
occur in Islamic States is pissing into the wind.
We simply cannot and do not understand the religious/tribal and feudal component of these
societies.
It is better that we just let them go at each other. Sooner or later one despot will end
up being top dog - so be it."
Hmm. Do you know the history of colonialism in MENA? I did not think so.
My guess is that your 'knowledge' of Afghanistan and its history is based on your obvious
xenophobia aka Islamophobia and lofty Western superiority complex. Don't feel alone, that's
what folks use to make themselves feel better and able to sleep at night. Check this out:
"Despite close relations to the Axis powers, Zahir Shah refused to take sides during World
War II and Afghanistan remained one of the few countries in the world to remain neutral. In
1944 and 1945, Afghanistan experienced a series of revolts by various tribes.[13] After the
end of the Second World War, Zahir Shah recognised the need for the modernisation of
Afghanistan and recruited a number of foreign advisers to assist with the process.[14] During
this period Afghanistan's first modern university was founded.[14] During his reign a number
of potential advances and reforms were derailed as a result of factionalism and political
infighting.[15] He also requested financial aid from both the United States and the Soviet
Union, and Afghanistan was one of few countries in the world to receive aid from both the
Cold War enemies.[16] In a 1969 interview, Zahir Shah said that he is "not a capitalist. But
I also don't want socialism. I don't want socialism that would bring about the kind of
situation [that exists] in Czechoslovakia. I don't want us to become the servants of Russia
or China or the servant of any other place."[17]
Zahir Shah was able to govern on his own during 1963[9] and despite the factionalism and
political infighting a new constitution was introduced during 1964 which made Afghanistan a
modern democratic state by introducing free elections, a parliament, civil rights, women's
rights and universal suffrage.[14]"
"... The Pentagon’s entire budget operates in much the same way: unprecedented amounts in unnecessary appropriations resulting in hundreds of billions of dollars in waste, fraud and abuse. Yet Congress continues to throw more and more money at the defense department every year without ever requiring it to account for how it spends the money. In fact, the war in Afghanistan is small potatoes by comparison. ..."
The easy answer is that there’s a long tradition in Washington, particularly among the foreign policy establishment, that self-reflection,
taking responsibility and admitting failure is a big no-no. Heck, you can get convicted of lying to Congress about illegal arms sales,
and cover up brutal atrocities and
still
get a job at the state department. Did you torture anyone?
No problem.
While DC’s culture of no culpability certainly plays a role in this case, the more compelling answer lies somewhere near the fact
that once the American war machine kicks into gear, no amount of facts undermining its very existence is going to get in the way.
Indeed, the United States has so far doled out nearly one trillion dollars for the war in Afghanistan (the true cost of the war
will be trillions more) and everyone’s on the take: from defense industry executives, lobbyists and US political campaign coffers
to Afghan government officials and poppy farmers to anyone and anything in between.
What’s more is that this
military-industrial-congressional complex is largely insulated from public accountability, so what’s the incentive to change
course? The Pentagon’s entire budget operates in much the same way: unprecedented amounts in unnecessary appropriations resulting
in hundreds of billions of dollars in waste, fraud and abuse. Yet Congress continues to throw more and more money at the defense
department every year without ever requiring it to account for how it spends the money. In fact, the war in Afghanistan is small
potatoes by comparison.
The bottom line is that the Afghanistan Papers clearly show that a lot of people were killed, injured and subject to years, if
not lifetimes, of psychological trauma and financial hardship because a bunch of men – yes, mostly men – in Washington didn’t want
to admit publicly what they knew privately all along. If we don’t start holding these people to account –
and it’s not just
about Afghanistan – the DC foreign policy establishment will continue to act with impunity, meaning that it’s probably more likely
than not that in 50 years there’ll be another batch of “papers” revealing once again that we’ve failed to learn obvious lessons from
the past.
As Tony Kevin reported (watch-v=dJiS3nFzsWg) at one small fundraiser
Bill Clinton made an interesting remark. He said that the USA should always have enemies. That's absolutely true, this this
is a way to unite such a society as we have in the USA. probably the only way. And Russia simply fits the
bill. Very convenient bogeyman.
Notable quotes:
"... The experience of the USSR in that country should have sent up all kinds of red flags to the invading US military but it apparently did not. Both USSR and America lost thousands of military lives -- but nothing has changed in the country. Life in Afghanistan is actually worse now than before the multiple invasions. The only think which has improved is the cultivation of poppies and the export of opium. ..."
One aspect of this report in the NYT is very troubling but not a great surprise to those who
pay attention to Asian affairs.
The reports that US military leaders had no idea of what to
do in Afghanistan and constantly lied to the public should rouse citizens in America to take
a different view of military leaders. That view must be to trust nothing coming from the
Pentagon or from spokespersons for the military. Included must be any and all secretaries of defence, and all branches of the military.
It is totally unacceptable that 1-2 trillion dollars and several thousand lives were spent
by America for some nebulous cause. This does not include many thousands of civilians.
During the Vietnam disaster, it became obvious that American military was lying to the
public and taking many causalities in an unwinnable war. Nothing was learned about Asia or
Asian culture because America entered Afghanistan without a real plan and no understanding of
the country or it's history.
The experience of the USSR in that country should have sent up
all kinds of red flags to the invading US military but it apparently did not. Both USSR and
America lost thousands of military lives -- but nothing has changed in the country. Life in
Afghanistan is actually worse now than before the multiple invasions. The only think which
has improved is the cultivation of poppies and the export of opium.
The Washington DC foreign policy establishment are too busy appearing before the impeachment
inquiry and telling them how the orange man hurt their feelings.
File under: Tell us something that we didn't know already!
The reality is of course: that the media knows and understands that we are being lied to
all the time about these interventions, be it in Iraq, Libya, Syria, Honduras, Venezuela and
soon Iran, but they go along with it all because they are in the regime change echo
chamber club!
As George Carlin said: "It's a big club...but you ain't in it!"
The USA "Full Spectrum Dominance" doctrine requires weakening and, if possible, partitioning Russia.
Retired Australian diplomat Tony Kevin tells the audience that Skripals poisoning was a false flag operation. 7:00
He also point several weak points in Western politicians narrative about MH17
Notable quotes:
"... Cold War patterns of thinking about Russia show no sign of weakening in America ..."
"... Putin made it clear when he said the next war would not be fought inside Russia. The troglodytes in the West are unable to grasp not only what that means, but why he said it. ..."
"... The latest efforts at attacking Russia via smear, allegation and Doublespeak have been, are via that US supported supposed oversight committee, WADA which has done what the US-UK wanted: banned Russia for four years from international sporting events including the upcoming Tokyo Olympics and World Cup (Football – soccer to Americans). ..."
"... I am really sick of the smearing of Russia done by the US and UK. The Skripal as well as the MH17 case are plain ridiculus. Anybody can see through these silly plants. US and UK obviously don't feel obliged to respect any international rules any more. (The one person who is suffering most at the moment from the decline in respect is Julian Assange, an Australian citizen!) ..."
"... There is "cause." Russia was our latest vassal under Yeltsin. Putin stopped the looting, and worked to benefit average Russian citizens. Just watch "The Magnitsky Act, behind the scenes" to know the "cause". ..."
"... Much of the West (i.e. Germany) has been dragged by force into damage control mode. The Magnitsky Act monster, the election interference hysteria, are just 2 crying examples met with shock and disbelief across the pond. The Fiona Hill testimony was a very telling moment for the inner workings of a self perpetuating logic. ..."
"... "Russia is no lightweight by any means, and not always friendly. But it has regularly done the right thing in international conflicts which the Kremlin seems to understand better than all of "the Western" intelligence combined." ..."
Retired Australian diplomat Tony Kevin, in conversation with former Australian Foreign Minister Bob Carr, says the West is unnecessarily
determined to undermine Russia.
A t an event last week in Sydney, Kevin and Carr discussed how the West, led by the United States, has been on an aggressive campaign
to destabilize Russia, without cause.
When Kevin said he returned to Russia after more than 40 years in 2016 he realized he "had to take sides" in the U.S.-Russia standoff
when all Nato countries boycotted the Moscow celebrations of the 70th anniversary of the end of the Second World War.
"I had to take a moral position that it is not right for the West to be ganging up on Russia," Kevin says in his conversation
with the former Australian foreign minister.
The New Cold War can traced back to a broken promise made to Moscow on Nato expansion eastward. "London and Washington are orchestrating
a disinformation" campaign today against Russia, as the New Cold War has heated up over Syria, Ukraine, NATO troops on Russia's borders
and Russiagate.
Watch the hour-long in depth discussion which was filmed and produced by Consortium News' CN Live! Executive Producer Cathy
Vogan.
Putin & the Russian citizenry play chess on this 3-dimensional world.! The Americas and their inane elites attempt checkers
on their flat Earth . Pity, some such as Noam Chomsky are admirable world citizens..! Pity again.! WE will miss men of this honest
calibre and down- to-earth intelligence. Bob Carr is of this cohort.
Eugenie Basile , December 10, 2019 at 03:36
The 'Russia did it' mantra is a gift for the powers in the Kremlin. It rallies most Russians behind their leaders because they
are proud of their country and don't accept the West's moral hypocrite grandstanding.
Just recently the WADA proclaimed sporting ban against Russia is a perfect example. It excludes all Russian athletes because
they happen to represent their country while U.S. athletes who have been caught cheating in the past are allowed to participate
.
It is very encouraging to know there are good people like Mr. Tony Kevin and Mr. Bob Carr alive and sharing their powerful
wisdom at this dangerous historical point on planet Earth. Mr. Kevin and Mr. Carr's immensely important and courageously honest
discussion should become – immediately, and for many years to come – required study in university classrooms and government halls
around this world.
Peace.
ElderD , December 9, 2019 at 15:03
Tony's (especially!) and Bob's sane and sensible view of this dangerous and destructive state of affairs deserve the widest
possible distribution and attention.
George McGlynn , December 9, 2019 at 13:27
A quarter century has passed since the fall of the Soviet Union, and little has changed. Cold War patterns of thinking
about Russia show no sign of weakening in America. The further we distance ourselves from the end of the Cold War, the closer
we come to its revival. Hostility to Russia is the oldest continuous foreign policy tradition in the United States. It is now
so much of a part of America's identity that it is unlikely to be ever cured.
It is a dangerous miscalculation to think the "New Cold War" will end like the first. Russia (the USSR) had a buffer zone then,
it doesn't today. For Moscow the coming war (world war) will be about survival. All that is left is the fall-back position of
nuclear deterrence doctrine – annihilation. I don't think western capitals see how perilous the situation is.
Lois Gagnon , December 9, 2019 at 17:30
I agree. Putin made it clear when he said the next war would not be fought inside Russia. The troglodytes in the West are
unable to grasp not only what that means, but why he said it.
AnneR , December 9, 2019 at 07:48
The latest efforts at attacking Russia via smear, allegation and Doublespeak have been, are via that US supported supposed
oversight committee, WADA which has done what the US-UK wanted: banned Russia for four years from international sporting events
including the upcoming Tokyo Olympics and World Cup (Football – soccer to Americans).
Then there were allegations – of those "highly likely" (therefore one knows to be untrue and unadulterated propaganda to increase
Russophobia) sort – about Russian hackers (always giving the impression that the "Kremlin" is behind itl) being the Labour Party's
source of the Tory party's US-UK trade deal which would/will deliberately and finally destroy the NHS and replace it with (of
course) US "health" insurance company profiteering.
(Always the Tory intention from the NHS's initiation in May of 1948; only its popularity among many Tory party supporters among
the working and lower middle classes prevented them from a full-frontal killing off the NHS; the Snatcher's government began the
undermining, via installing a top-heavy bureaucratization, siphoning off a sizable proportion of the funds that would otherwise
have gone to medical care, demanding that hospitals not "lose" money – a concept completely beyond the remit of the NHS as originally
conceived and constructed and like exactions.)
Then there are snide remarks about the meeting today concerning the Ukrainian Azov (Neo-Nazi) attacks on the Donbass (NOT how
either the BBC or NPR speaks of this of course) in France. This struggle, between the Russian-speaking Donbass peoples and the
neo-Nazis of western Ukraine, has killed many thousands of people (most likely mostly those of the Donbass). The Donbass fighters
are spoken of as "Russian-supported" in an attempt to deny them and the reasons for their struggle *any* legitimacy (meanwhile
the support for the neo-Nazis goes unmentioned, leaving the listener with the impression that they are the Ukrainian military,
thus legitimately fighting a foreign funded and manned insurgency).
Someone even suggested that President Putin needed to be diplomatic. Really? From what I've read the man is the most diplomatic
and intelligent politician (not just political leader) along with Xi Jinping and the Iranian government that exist on the world
stage. None of them are hubristic, solipsistic, eager beaver killers of peoples in other countries. Unlike their western "world"
political counterparts.
Jeff Harrison , December 8, 2019 at 18:30
Mad Dog Mattis spoke the truth when he said that an opponent wasn't defeated until they agreed they were defeated. The US merely
assumed that Russia agreed that they were defeated and are doubling down when they now suddenly realize that Russia never said
any such thing.
St. Ronnie's whole thing back in the 80's was to outspend Russia militarily and it worked well. We're trying to
do it again but Russia isn't playing the same game this time and now it is the US that has a mountain of debt and Russia that
doesn't.
SIPIRI tags US military spending at $650B and Russian military spending at $62B. But we know that the $650B number is
bogus because it doesn't include our in-violation-of-the-NNPT nuclear program which is in the energy department or our veteran's
expenses which are in HHS. I don't know what's missing from Russia's $62B but I'll bet they can sustain that a whole lot better
than we can sustain our $650B and rising bill.
Antonio Costa , December 9, 2019 at 13:17
Good point regarding Russia's downsizing the Soviet Union. From Gorbachev to Putin there was NEVER a surrender, intended in
any way. The intent has been multilateral partnerships. For Russia the US/West won nothing at all except the opportunity to live
and work in peace. (By the way this policy has a long Russian history.)
They gave up the Warsaw Pact and America with our worthless "word" expanded NATO.
The US foreign policy has lost even the semblance of sanity. Our naked aggression is clear as never before, a mad man throwing
a global fit armed with megaton nuclear projectiles on trigger first strike alert. What could go wrong?
nondimenticare , December 8, 2019 at 15:56
If, magically, Consortium News/CN Live! were a mass-distribution network/magazine (hence universally consulted), allowing the
light in for the mass of the viewing and listening public, it could change the world – both an exalting and despairing thought.
Lily , December 8, 2019 at 09:52
It is a great joy to listen to this conversation!
I am really sick of the smearing of Russia done by the US and UK. The Skripal as well as the MH17 case are plain ridiculus.
Anybody can see through these silly plants. US and UK obviously don't feel obliged to respect any international rules any more.
(The one person who is suffering most at the moment from the decline in respect is Julian Assange, an Australian citizen!)
I wish people would have the courage to break away from the group pressure originated by a nation which has been started by
killing more than 90% of the indigenous people in their country and since then has turned the worl into a very insecure place.
Chapeau, Tony Kevin! Thanks to Bob Carr and Consortiums News.
Lily , December 9, 2019 at 01:18
It seems that some facts are beginning to be realized in the military department.
"At an event last week in Sydney, Kevin and Carr discussed how the West, led by the United States, has been on an aggressive
campaign to destabilize Russia, without cause."
The American establishment's problem with Russia is simply that Russia is the only country on earth capable of obliterating
the United States. Not even China has yet reached that capacity.
"Carthago delenda est"
Skip Scott , December 9, 2019 at 06:13
There is "cause." Russia was our latest vassal under Yeltsin. Putin stopped the looting, and worked to benefit average Russian
citizens. Just watch "The Magnitsky Act, behind the scenes" to know the "cause".
Bruno DP , December 8, 2019 at 02:34
The West is ganging up on Russia? Replace "West" by "United States of America", and I will agree.
Much of the West (i.e. Germany) has been dragged by force into damage control mode. The Magnitsky Act monster, the election
interference hysteria, are just 2 crying examples met with shock and disbelief across the pond. The Fiona Hill testimony was a
very telling moment for the inner workings of a self perpetuating logic.
Russia is no lightweight by any means, and not always friendly.
But it has regularly done the right thing in international conflicts which the Kremlin seems to understand better than all
of "the Western" intelligence combined.
I'm German, living in the US, and I agree with your comment. I especially love the last two sentences:
"Russia is no lightweight by any means, and not always friendly. But it has regularly done the right thing in international
conflicts which the Kremlin seems to understand better than all of "the Western" intelligence combined."
Just as was true when the Mueller investigation closed
without a single American being charged with criminally conspiring with Russia
over the 2016 election, Wednesday's issuance of the long-waited report from the
Department of Justice's Inspector General reveals that years of major claims and narratives
from the U.S. media were utter
frauds .
Before evaluating the media component of this scandal, the FBI's gross abuse of its power
– its serial deceit – is so grave and manifest that it requires little effort to
demonstrate it. In sum, the IG Report documents multiple instances in which the FBI – in
order to convince a FISA court to allow it spy on former Trump campaign operative Carter Page
during the 2016 election – manipulated documents, concealed crucial exonerating evidence,
and touted what it knew were unreliable if not outright false claims.
If you don't consider FBI lying, concealment of evidence, and manipulation of documents in
order to spy on a U.S. citizen in the middle of a presidential campaign to be a major scandal,
what is? But none of this is aberrational: the FBI still has its headquarters in a building
named after J. Edgar Hoover – who constantly blackmailed elected officials with dossiers
and tried to blackmail Martin Luther King into killing himself – because that's what
these security state agencies are. They are out-of-control, virtually unlimited police state
factions that lie, abuse their spying and law enforcement powers, and subvert democracy and
civic and political freedoms as a matter of course.
In this case, no rational person should allow standard partisan bickering to distort or hide
this severe FBI corruption. The IG Report leaves no doubt about it. It's brimming with proof of
FBI subterfuge and deceit, all in service of persuading a FISA court of something that was not
true: that U.S. citizen and former Trump campaign official Carter Page was an agent of the
Russian government and therefore needed to have his communications surveilled.
started by an unemployed Englishman named Eliot Higgins
Good on him – being able to create a thing that rises to such prominence in such a
short space of time speaks volumes about this Higgins guy's entrepreneurial ability. And if
he wasn't mobbed-up to begin with, he sure as fuck is now – which is a double-
mitzvah (for him).
If he did so starting from being unemployed, then anybody who turned down a job
application from the guy must be kicking themselves. (' Unemployed ' is obviously used
pejoratively in the blockquote; 'Englishman' is purely-descriptive).
.
Also, the entire article accepts Bernays' conclusion, but disagrees as to which objectives
should be pursued.
Bernays' conclusions are hardly controversial: most people are gullible imbeciles .
It's not clear to me how much more empirical evidence we need before that becomes just a
thing that everyone with an IQ above 115 accepts.
So the question then becomes " OK, now what? ".
As usual, the right answer is " Depends " – and not just for those with
bladder control problems.
If you want to do things that are just , exploiting gullible imbeciles would appear
to violate the playing conditions. It would be hors jeu ; not done; just not
cricket .
As the Laconian famously said . " IF ."
For those for whom the 'if' condition returns 'false', it does very little to bleat about
how awful they are. You're not going to cause a little switch in their brain to flick on (or
off?), whereupon they realise the error of their ways and make a conscious decision to leave
the gullible imbeciles unexploited.
It's even unlikely to affect their victims (remember, they're imbeciles) – because
otherwise some infra-marginal imbeciles would have to process their way through quite a bit
of cognitive dissonance, and they're not wired for introspection (or processing).
So the sole real purpose (apart from κάθαρσις
catharsis ) is prophylaxis (προ +
φύλαξις – guarding ). Both good enough aims
obviously the writer is the one who gets the cathartic benefit, but who is going to be on
heightened alert as a result of this Cassandra -ish jeremiad -ing?
Non-imbeciles don't need it; imbeciles won't benefit.
Here's the thing: the gullible imbeciles are going to be exploited by
someone .
.
This is something that people of my persuasion struggle with. It boils down to the
following:
Let's assume that a reprehensible thing exists already, and is unlikely to be overthrown
by my opposition to it. Should I just participate and line my pockets?
The resources used are going to be used whether I participate or not, so it may as well
be me who gets them. After all, I will put them to moral uses – and while inside, I
can do things that are contrary to the interests of the reprehensible thing.
There is no satisfactory counter-argument to that line of reasoning, and yet I reject
it.
Then again: I was dropped on my head as an infant, so YMMV.
The US lied about the Gulf of Tonkin in order to justify attacking North Vietnam, it then
proceeded to lie about the conduct of the war and the terrible genocide it was committing. No
lesson learned because in a heartbeat the US was lying about Chile, Brazil, Argentina,
Colombia, Nicaragua and El Salvador, committing a wide range of atrocities in each.
Add Somalia, Libya, proxy wars in Angola and Yemen, efforts to destabilize Cuba, Venezuela
and Iran, illegal wars in the Lebanon and Syria, the annihilation of Afghanistan in
retaliation for what was actually a Saudi terrorist act, the destruction of modern Iraq and
her people using trumped up claims, to say nothing of Clinton's cheery disregard for the
welfare of Balkan residents when the US rained (illegal) uranium bombs down on the hapless
inhabitants.
And now the WP and Congress are worked up over spending a trillion dollars when plainly
they could care less about the Afghan casualties and American war crimes. Heck this goes back
to Theodore Roosevelt seizing Cuba claiming he was saving it from the ravages of Spain or
even further back to government backed settler land grabs "saving their white women from the
savages". Savages, indeed. Zero accountability and Britain still playing faithful lap
dog.
My take on this is that the American Department of Defense war machine remained in a state of
perpetual excitement after their successes in WW11.. almost as if they had to continuously
invent an enemy in order to maintain their war time budget.. (and therefore demonstrate their
ongoing prowess etc etc) in a cycle of wars starting with Korea and bringing us up to date
with Afghanistan.. so that's nearly 70 years worth of international hubris on display.
All on the excuse of spreading their version of democracy.. is money talks!!
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted
influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential
for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the
weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take
nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper
meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods
and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
That both the Afghan war and the invasion of Iraq could happen at all tells us that the UN
Security Council is not fit for purpose. These wars also told us that British pretense at
being the voice of reason or the steadying hand that prevents US foreign policy being
subsumed by the visceral and synthesised reactions of a US public is no more than empty cant.
If the US is unable to prevent foreign and defence policy being captured by money
interests and remains inclined to deliver revenge to its public on demand howsoever it might
be misdirected then the US should not be on the UN Security Council at all. They are fast
becoming the number one major rogue state. And the outlook suggests this is more likely to
get worse than improve. Whatever happens to Trump One more (and likely smarter) Trumps are
coming down the track. More Dick Cheneys too. More Bushes, more Rumsfelds, more Nixons,
Boltons, Kissingers, Johnsons and a host of others we'd all much rather were one offs. The US
is the biggest extant threat to world peace. It is too powerful and far too easily played by
warmongers and terrorists of every stripe and every persuasion. And by those seeking to
profit from war.
To call war profiteering and murder a geopolitical "mistake" is to EXCUSE criminal activity.
Anyone responding to this latest revelation of military dishonest as a "mistake" is
actually part of the crime. They are aiding the abettors. Everyone in Congress knows what
everyone in this comments section knows: our military and its global actions are, first and
foremost, a financial fraud.
But not American oil companies which were basically shut out outside of a few minor service
and procurement contracts. Looks like all the "Blood for Oil" poster were BS.
The Iraq War was only partly, however, about big profits for Anglo-American oil
conglomerates - that would be a bonus (one which in the end has failed to materialise - not
for want of trying though).
Yes, and it made no conclusion as to whether the war was legal or not.
" The inquiry did not reach a view on the legality of the war , saying this
could only be assessed by a "properly constituted and internationally recognised court", but
did make a damning assessment of how the decision was made."
Just think - the USA spends more on its military then the combined amount of the next 10
nations in the list (incl. China/Russia/India). That is a major major spend commitment. A
small percentage of that could be used for US citizens to fund their healthcare - but I
suppose they prefer to spend it to threaten and bomb other nations to their will.
Just to think - a similar report was produced post Vietnam and in the 50's even Eisenhower
was worried about the US military backed by private companies becoming a perpetual spending
machine.
But there's one big question the Post report raises but does not address: why? Why did
so many people – from government contractors and high-ranking military officers, to
state department and National Security Council officials – feel the need to lie about
how the war in Afghanistan was going?
Because "how the war is going" is not the operating question. Because it does not matter
if the war is just or unjust, whether it's winnable or not winnable, nor whether it's
supported in the "homeland" or not. No, the operating principle is that there is a war. By
its existence, the war creates funding and jobs and profits for the people that matter, the
people the author mentions, from the Security/Military complex corporations all the way to
careerists in the Pentagon and State.
So, it is NOT a waste of $1 trillion dollars ... it is just as it was supposed to be. That
is why the war president (W), the peace president (Obama), and the swamp drainer (Trump) have
all supported it. The war is doing what it's supposed to do.
In time, the US national debt will force them to rein in their military spending. By lowering
taxes while continuing to spend like drunken sailors on military adventures the national debt
is ballooning. US government debt is currently rated AA whereas Canada is AAA. US debt to GDP
is significantly higher than Canada's. (and that's just Canada vs the US). Trump is trying to
create a mafia style protection racket to force other countries to subsidize reckless US
military spending. "Pay up or who knows what might happen?" It is high time US taxpayers ask
why the US can't lower its' out of control military spending rather than pressuring others to
match their profligate ways? Some US citizens say they pay low taxes but it seems they get
nothing in return; no health care, no equal access to education, decaying public
infrastructure, etc. The rest feel overtaxed when they realize they get nothing in return but
don't question the elephant in the room. If other countries maintain responsible levels of
military spending the US will dig itself deeper into debt until the debt markets force them
to see sense.
Military spending is a fine way to transfer wealth from the general population to the rich.
War has always been a fabulous business opportunity, but what has never been so very clear is
how, even for the winning side, it represents a major defeat as wealth is transferred from
the common good into the hands of the rich.
In such matters always consider 'Who will prosper'.
Follow the money...
Considering the United States has been involved in one war or another, directly or
indirectly, for all but about 20 years of its existence, this latest revelation shouldn't
shock anyone. We're a violent country with a violent history and never more so than now, with
our built-on-conflict empire losing steam. We point fingers ("It's the Russians!" "It's the
Chinese!" It's the Iranians!") to deceive ourselves and others, but we're the real threat to
peace. Us. The United States.
Every time I see a person on the street nobly collecting 50ps or the odd fiver for a good
cause like Cancer Research or some other charity, I wonder why they have to do this when the
US has spent over a USD$1 trillion on the Afghan war and other militaries continue to soak up
massive amounts of funding. How much more could we have achieved by now for the real good of
humanity if these funds were focused on research and real human need?
Te US military has been practicing genocide around the world since WW2, millions have been
murdered and still are. But hey, they are the leaders of the free world, the corruption in
the US government, corporations, and military has no bounds. Their own poorer members of this
society are dying in their thousands for lack of medical care, innocent black people are
murdered by police, yet the greed must go on nothing else matters. The only question now
being, which country will they invade next, which government will they plot to overthrow. How
many will be murdered in the process, not that it matters, greed cannot be measured in dead
people.
World peace and the safety of the American public has never been a priority. Entirely the
opposite. Standard procedure: foment fear to wage immoral, endless, profitable war.
This isn't conjecture or "conspiracy theory"; it's as obvious as the sun rising. Anyone
casting this in any other way is either behind the curve or dangerously soft pedaling -- or
lying to stave off actual accountability.
Please stop pretending that our "leaders" are mistaken. They aren't They're doing the jobs
for which they were paid.
It's worse even than a crime... it's insanity to keep excusing a failed 18 year strategy
costing a trillion dollars, resulting in the death of more than 100,000, and the country
ending up worse than when they started. The military, politicians and the media are all to
blame. The military for being too frightened and too stupid to admit they were losing and had
no idea how to correct it.. the politicians for being too frightened to call out their
beloved but incompetent military, and for not "getting it" after more than a trillion dollars
had already been spent; the press and media for being embedded (sometimes literally) with the
military and acting as no more than unquestioning cheerleaders for a self-evidently failed
strategy. It is a terrible indictment of the US on so many levels... where were the public
anti-war protests or activists? Couldn't they see or didn't they care? Either way it's
pathetic.
Almost every year US generals stood before the media and politicians, jutting jaws and
feeble minds, to say that this year was going to be decisive against the Taliban. The fact
is, after Al Qaeda was scattered in 2001, the US picked on the Taliban pointlessly. They
stayed pretending they were engaged in countering the return of al Qaeda (that was never
going to happen) but actually made a new enemy of the Taliban by picking the wrong side in
what was a civil war. The US never understood what it was trying to do so it lied and lied
out of fear of being found out. I find it sickening that this country -the US - pretends it
is a force for good in the world when they are quite prepared to keep killing innocent people
in order to mask the generals' cowardice about facing the truth of their own
incompetence.
A terrible but interesting dichotomy. You have Governments and a broad part of the public
fiercely opposed to public spending and any kind of redistribution. It is all about the
individual.
Yet they sport and actually worship an institution where the individual counts for naught.
In the military it always is about the collective. They throw huge swaths of money to the
military. Which is the only place in the US where dreaded universal healthcare, pensions and
free education exists. Not only that, even the army shops sell goods as subsidised prices,
something unthinkable outside the barracks.
Entirely intentional according the PNAC document Rebuilding America's Defences, Orwellian for
we're going to make a lot of pointless weapons with huge mark-ups for profit by bombing the
shit out of foreigners.
I was listening to NPR about how Veterans turned against the Vietnam war. The people of south
Vietnam would collect shells and explosives that did not detonate and gave to US troops for a
small financial reward. In one such case - the shell exploded killing few kids and injuring a
girl. That girl was refused treatment from US medics because she was one of them. That
soldier involved later joined the anti war movement.
All the veterans were surprised with the image that soldiers coming back from war were spat
at and disrespected by the anti war protesters - this could not have been further from truth.
Back in Vietnam you were taught how to destroy a village, poison drinking water sources
etc. And understandably many GIs fought back.
There are similar stories out of Afghanistan - the naked prisoners with soldiers acting as
if they are engaging in a sexual act and many such shameless incidents. These soldiers were
acquitted which is another way of saying - An Afghan and his life and honor are below us. It
has de-stabilized the region for many decades.
There is a bright side to Donny and his conmen - maybe there will be less intervention and
more introspection - which can only be good for the World.
I think it should have been seen as a thirty year campaign and the same with Iraq and Libya.
The northern Ireland campaign took 30 years and many people are as bitter as they ever were
much of it secondhand from younger people who weren't even alive during the conflict. The
idea of a quick war is a very big mistake I think and flawed short-term thinking.
The West and the USA in particular have always taken the stand that their ideology is the
only right one. That they have a right to interfere in the interns, affairs of other
countries but their own internal affairs are sacrosanct.
So - USA, with UK support decided that Saddam Hussein had to be removed. They moved in to
do so - they killed Saddam but had no plan to return the country to a functioning nation.
Instead they facilitated the unleashing of internal wars and have now left the citizens of
that country in utter turmoil.
& then went and repeated the exercise n Libya.
Decades ago, Britain decided that Palestinians could be thrown out of their homes to make
way for the creation of Israel and laid the foundation for the Middle-East turmoil that has
caused untold misery and suffering. They followed that up with throwing out the Chagosians
out of their homes and making them homeless. Invited Caribbean's to the 'Mother Country' to
serve their erstwhile lords, ladies, masters and mistresses only to then drive to despair the
children and grandchildren of the invitees who had contributed to the 'Mother Country' for
decades.
We are 18 years into an illegal invasion and occupation of Afghanistan. We are the invaders,
the terrorists. The Taliban are fighting for their country, they may use brutal methods but
so did the French, Dutch, Russian freedom fighters during the Nazi invasions. America's
puppet regime in Afghanistan is reminiscent of the Quislings of WW2. And to use drones to
kill Afghans and to say it is progress that there is more transparency is the height of
hubris. All it does is show the corrosive effect of unfettered power in America and it's
military. Why do we tolerate this inhuman action on another country's society? America is by
far the greatest contributor to the rise in terrorism in the world and if not somehow stopped
the greatest threat to world peace. It keeps on invading country after country with it's MSM
propaganda machine claiming it is spreading Democracy throughout the globe. Thank you America
!
It's almost a century since Smedley Butler wrote his incisive pamphlet War is a Racket.
If you've never read it, it takes about 15-20 minutes to do so. It will astound, anger and
depress you that the only thing that's changed is the number or zeroes on the eye waterering
profits. Oh, and the players. What is it exactly that makes the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
untouchable? (Answers on a postcard C/O Beelzebub.)
Smedley Butler knew of what he lectured about, being the most decorated officer in the
history of the Marine Corps.
A brief insight into this insightful all American action man man Hollywood seems to have
overlooked:
"I spent thirty-three years and four months in active military service as a member of this
country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks
from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time
being a high class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In
short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.
"I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I
helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues
in.
I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall
Street.
"The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international
banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for
American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its
way unmolested.
"During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket.
Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could
do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."
There's been a century of endless war and profits since then with this century shaping up
nicely for the racketeers, whose finest day might well have been September 11th, 2001.
Anyway, here's a link to a pdf file of War is a Racket if you're interested.
A few days ago, veterans' group VoteVets endorsed Pete Buttigieg. It has previously supported
Tulsi Gabbard. Details:
New York Times, "Liberal Veterans' Group Endorses Pete Buttigieg in 2020 Race":
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/04/us/politics/pete-buttigieg-votevets-endorsement.html
And this is where we must listen to the wisdom of Trump..
"As of a couple of months ago, we have spent $7 trillion in the Middle East. Seven
trillion dollars. What a mistake. But it is what is," Trump said Monday at a White House
meeting on with officials and lawmakers on infrastructure. "We're trying to build roads and
bridges and fix bridges that are falling down, and we have a hard time getting the money.
It's crazy."
"Think about it: As of a couple of months ago, $7 trillion in the Middle East and the
Middle East is far worse now than it was 17 years ago when they went in and not so
intelligently, I have to say, went in. I'm being nice.'' 2/13/18 Newsweek
''..when they went in and not so intelligently, I have to say, went in. I'm being
nice...''
Any particular American war has no purpose, but the USA waging it does. The main points of
what war does:
1. Transfers wealth from social services to the military industrial complex. Americans
don't have education, infrastructure, or healthcare, but they do have a generation of
soldiers with PTSD, national debt, worldwide hatred, and an ever increasing sense of
exceptionalism.
2. Traps Americans in a cycle of fear and persecution. Americans don't need a bogeyman,
but our corporate overlords do, its how they monetize the populace. Find some disparate
population of brown people who want self autonomy, send in the CIA to fuck them up, and when
they retaliate tell Americans that people who live in a 3rd world land locked country several
thousands of miles away are a threat to their very existence and way of life because they
don't like God and Walmart.
Sadly the US uses the MIC to keep a large chunk of its population under control, as well as
providing a convenient coverup of the actual numbers of people who are unemployable or would
be unemployed if it were'nt for the taxpayer funding humungous spending in the so-called
defence sector, which needs a a constant supply of conflict to keep going. The frankly
moronic 'thank you for your service' soundbite drives me insane but it shows how much the
American public has been brainwashed.
For years my home state of Washington had a New Deal Democrat Senator named Henry Jackson,
AKA the Senator from Boeing.
He did good things for the state & was hugely popular here. One reason being that because
he brought the Federal pork back home.
IMO the things Gen. Butler wrote about in the 1920s are still the modus operandi of US
foreign policy.
If the Afghanistan war ends, the USA will go to war with someone else. You cannot spend so
much on military & not be at war. America must have an enemy. And, don’t forget,
they always have “God on our side!”
The neocons in power during 2001 were hell bent on taking out Saddam Hussein. When 9/11
happened, they were looking for avenues to blame Iraq so that they could launch the war on
that nation. Since things could not be put together, and all evidence pointed to Afghanistan,
they took a detour in their war plan with a half hearted approach.
In fact Afghanistan was never the problem - It was Pakistan that held Afghanistan on the
string and managed all terror related activities. Everything related to 9/11 and beyond
pointed directly at Pakistan. Whatever threat Bush and his cronies projected about Iraq was
true in the case of Pakistan. The war was lost when they made Pakistan an ally on the war on
terror. It is like allying with Al Capone to crack down on the mafia.
Pakistan bilked the gullible American war planners, protected its assets and deflected all
the rage on to the barren lands of Afghanistan. They hid all key Al Qaeda operatives and
handed off the ones that did not align with their strategic interests to the US, while
getting reward for it. War in Iraq happened in a hurry because the Bush family had scores to
settle in Iraq. Pressure was lifted on Afghanistan. This is when the war reached a dead
end.
The Taliban knew time was on their hands and waited it out. Obama did understand the
situation and tried to put Af-Pak together and tightened the grip on Pakistan. He got the
troops out of Iraq. Pakistan is almost bankrupt now for its deep investment on terror
infrastructure. The US has drained billions of dollars and lives in Afghanistan due to
misdirected goals. I am surprised Bush and Cheney have not been sent to jail on lies to
launch the Iraq war and botching the real war on terror.
he American people have known that the war in Afghanistan was a lost cause for quite some
time. According to the Pew Research Center, Americans' views of the war
started to go south right around the end of 2011, until eventually a majority started
seeing the writing on the wall about two years later.
That's why the Washington Post
report this week on the so-called "Afghanistan Papers", detailing how US officials
"deliberately mislead the public" on the war's progress, is almost sort of unremarkable. If the
piece took away any shred of innocence left from this ghastly enterprise, it's that perhaps
some of us thought our leaders, while failing miserably at building a nation thousands of miles
away, were at least acting in good faith.
At the same time, the Post report is rage inducing, not just because of the sheer stupidity
of American leaders continuing to fight a war they knew they could not win, but also how their
unwillingness to take responsibility for a failed policy caused so much death, destruction and
heartbreak, particularly among those American families who have admirably dedicated their lives
to serving their country, and the countless number of Afghan civilians trapped in a cycle of
endless war they have nothing to do with.
Of course, the "Afghanistan Papers" immediately recalled memories of the Pentagon variety
leaked to the New York Times nearly a half century ago because they too were government
documents outlining how numerous American administrations had lied to the public about Vietnam
– another long, costly and unnecessary war with no military solution.
But there's one major difference: the war in Afghanistan doesn't have as direct an impact on
the lives of everyday Americans as the Vietnam war did, when the military draft meant that
everyone had to deal with the cold war proxy conflict in south-east Asia
one way or another . Therefore, it's entirely possible, likely even, that this major and
important report from the Post will drift into the wilderness just like the dozens of Trump-era
stories that would have,
for example , taken down any other US president in "normal times".
But there's one big question the Post report raises but does not address: why? Why did so
many people – from government contractors and high-ranking military officers, to state
department and National Security Council officials – feel the need to lie about how the
war in Afghanistan
was going?
The easy answer is that there's a long tradition in Washington, particularly among the
foreign policy establishment, that self-reflection, taking responsibility and admitting failure
is a big no-no. Heck, you can get convicted of lying to Congress about illegal arms sales, and
cover up brutal atrocities and still get a job at the
state department . Did you torture anyone? No problem .
While DC's culture of no culpability certainly plays a role in this case, the more
compelling answer lies somewhere near the fact that once the American war machine kicks into
gear, no amount of facts undermining its very existence is going to get in the way.
Indeed, the United States has so far doled out nearly one trillion dollars for the war in
Afghanistan (the true cost of the war
will be trillions more ) and everyone's on the take: from defense industry executives,
lobbyists and US political campaign coffers to Afghan government officials and poppy farmers to
anyone and anything in between.
What's more is that this
military-industrial-congressional complex is largely insulated from public accountability,
so what's the incentive to change course? The Pentagon's entire budget operates in much the
same way: unprecedented amounts in unnecessary appropriations resulting in hundreds of billions
of dollars in waste, fraud and abuse. Yet Congress continues to throw more and more money at
the defense department every year without ever requiring it to account for how it spends the
money. In fact, the war in Afghanistan is small potatoes by comparison.
The bottom line is that the Afghanistan Papers clearly show that a lot of people were
killed, injured and subject to years, if not lifetimes, of psychological trauma and financial
hardship because a bunch of men – yes, mostly men – in Washington didn't want to
admit publicly what they knew privately all along. If we don't start holding these people to
account – and it's not just about Afghanistan
– the DC foreign policy establishment will continue to act with impunity, meaning that
it's probably more likely than not that in 50 years there'll be another batch of "papers"
revealing once again that we've failed to learn obvious lessons from the past.
Since you bring up the issue of educating schoolgirls, it's worth remembering that when the
U.S. connived to drag the Soviet Union into its own Afghanistan conflict, one of the tactics we
used to inflame the mujahedeen was to remind them that, under Afghanistan's communist
government, girls were being educated as a matter of policy.
Why did so many people -- from government contractors and high-ranking military officers, to
state department and National Security Council officials -- feel the need to lie about how
the war in Afghanistan was going?
This is because it's easy cash cow for the old boys club by sending working class kids
to be killed in a far off land.
The pentagon with the full cooperation of MSM will sell it as we are defending our ways of
life by fighting a country 10,000 kms away. This show the poor literacy, poor analytical
thinking of US population constantly brain washed by MSM, holy men, clergy, other neo con
organisations like National rifle club etc.
I never knew USA dropped 2.7 millions tons of bombs and now so many left unexploded and
its same in Vietnam, Cambodia as neutral,
but i met so many injured kids etc from the bombs,.
the total MADNESS OF USA IS NAZI SM AT ITS BEST,.NO SHAME OR COMPASSION FOR THE
VICTIMS.
I cannot comprehend the money it cost USA,. AN ALSO PROFITS FOR SOME,.
With the exceptions of two attacks on American soil-Pearl Harbor and 911- the American people
and for the most part their legislative representatives in Congress- will always remain
cluless what the United States Government does overseas.
This country runs on its own drum beats. The ordinary man on the street needs to take care
of his economic needs. The Big Boys always take care of themselves. That includes the
military establishment, that is always entitled to an absurd amounts of monies, fueled by an
empire building machinery, pushed by the elites that control the fate of economic might, and
political orchestra that feeds its ego and prestige.
Time and again, our American sociopaths in power have a strangle hold on us, regardless of
the destruction and animosity they heap on distant peoples and lands the world over in the
name of national security and the democratic spiel, as they like to tell us ....
Richard Nixon, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson- Vietnam and the South East Asian countries of
Laos , Cambodia, are an example .
Years later, the establishment manufactures blatant cover-ups with lies upon lies to accuse
on record, as general Powell eloquently presented at the United Nations: That Iraq has
weapons of mass destruction and needs to be held accountable.And now, this report on
Afghanistan with all this pathological violence.
Is it reasonable to conclude that our democracy and its pathological actors in government
and big business will always purchase it by demagoguery and self vested interest, because the
ordinary man whose vote should count will never have the ultimate say when it comes to war
and destruction!
"... The FBI agents and lawyers intentionally lied to the court. Their violations were not mistakes. All 51 of them were in favor of further spying on members of the Trump campaign and on everyone they communicated with. ..."
"... The FBI has used the Steele dossier to gain further FISA application even after it had talked with Steele's 'primary source' (who probably was the later 'buzzed' Sergei Skripal ) and after it had learned that the allegations in the dossier were no more than unconfirmed rumors. ..."
The FBI agents and lawyers intentionally lied to the court. Their violations were not
mistakes. All 51 of them were in favor of further spying on members of the Trump campaign and
on everyone they communicated with.
The FBI has used the Steele dossier to gain further FISA application even after it had
talked with Steele's 'primary source' (who probably was the later
'buzzed' Sergei Skripal ) and after it had learned that the allegations in the dossier were
no more than unconfirmed rumors.
By now Steele's credibility is zero. Time to revisit Steele's involvement with the debunked
"Russia bought the soccer World Champion games", the Litvinenko polonium poisening and the
Skripal novichok poisening. The timing of the Skripal matter deserves some scrutiny in
relation to Skripal possibly being Steele's source for the infamous Trump dossier. There
might be a motive hidden there.
As early as
August 2018 , there had been speculation that the Skripals were being held at USAF
Fairford airbase, based on audiovisual evidence in the background garden scene where the
interview took place. Helmer's sources (they requested anonymity) spotted a chicken coop in
the background which they say is a crow ladder trap. This is one indication that the garden
scene was located near a runway. Background noises included the roar of jet engines.
If Helmer's information is correct, then we can now understand why the British government
never gave Russian embassy staff access to the Skripals: London was in no position to do so,
the Skripals were on US territory.
One implication of this new information is that the Skripals may no longer be in Britain
and may now be living in North America somewhere with new identities. Should something happen
to them (or have happened to them already), they will not be missed by their new neighbours.
The Skripals will never be allowed to return to Russia and Sergei Skripal will never see or
be allowed to communicate with his elderly mother again.
It really does look as if Sergei Skripal may have had something to do with that Orbis
dossier after all, even if as a minor source or as a reference rather than the primary source
of disinformation about Donald Trump's past activities in Moscow. What other work has Skripal
done for his American masters?
It looks as if Sergei Skripal may not be the primary source of the disinformation in
Christopher Steele's dossier. Perhaps the person who is the primary source
is not a Russian at all.
JR | Dec 11 2019 19:41 utc | 20 brings up a revisiting of the Litvinenko polonium poisoning.
It is worth mentioning that a tiny but crucial and virtually never mentioned detail of the
official inquiry (considered the last word on the matter) is that those conducting the
official inquiry were never allowed access to the autopsy report -- which should have been
(which would have been, in any honest effort at inquiry) the bedrock starting point. The
report has right along been sequestered by Scotland Yard in the interests of... you guessed
it: national security. Go figure...
It strikes me that the best explanation of the attack on the Skripals is not that he was
responsible for the Steele Dossier in any way, but that he could easily prove that it was a
fantasy. And was planning to do so.
He knew better, though, than to say so in the UK which suggests that he was on his way
home with his daughter when MI6 caught up with him and poisoned them both.
Steele, Pablo Miller and Skripal were old partners in crime.
I'm wondering whether the mistake Sergei made was not to leave the house -- probably worth
lotsa rubles -- behind and just go. On the other hand he was almost certainly under constant
surveillance.
@50 The Official Report to which you refer was also very careful to enter extensive
caveats regarding its conclusions for which there was almost no real evidence.
It seems important to note that Mr. Lavrov refers to administrations in his
comments, not presidents per se. As there are many staff in presidential
administrations, it seems entirely possible that 1) the requests from the Russians never
reached Obama or Trump personally, and 2) either or both presidents were therefore not even
aware of the requests. In the case of Trump, that would be consistent with the fact that many
members of his administration have been revealed to have operated contrary to his wishes.
@Jen #42
The Skripals residing on US territory would definitely indicate that the US has been the
senior partner in the "Skripal operation". This seems to be part of a general pattern.
@Jackrabbit #48
For the Steele dossier to be intentional bullshit (meaning its creator(s) knew it was
false when they created it) doesn't seem all that surprising. Intelligence agencies promote
disinformation all the time. That in no way means that Trump is in on the game.
Both Putin and Lavrov have stated that they talked directly with Obama and Trump about the
issues involved with their relations, so there's no excuses or obfuscation possible is this
case.
A long time ago I watched "Manufacturing Consent" and have since assumed that what passes
for mainstream "news" is nothing more than propaganda, and that Mark Twain was entirely
correct in his observation that if you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed, if you do
read the newspaper you are misinformed. Though it is sad when I see the likes of the once
great Nature engage in such, all things must pass and I am sure they will too, most of what I
read these days comes straight off arxiv.org so they have already been disintermediated in my
life.
@32 c1ue
That will be £1,000,000 for linking to my post, please pay within 24 hours or legal
action will be taken!
"... In regard to our suggestion, the latest move against Damascus was predominantly a UK project, a link was sent to us today to an article by Thierry Meyssan on Voltairenet that's certainly interesting. ..."
"... It's not "the US", it's an international grouping of ideologues and other cranks, focused as much, maybe even more, in the UK as in America. If Meyssan is right these people are highly placed, but operating subversively within their own governments. Of course we have always known these thing are true to some extent, but this latest event seems to be taking this subversion to a new level. ..."
"... Seventeen years ago a small group of highly placed individuals in the US government may have engineered or at very least allowed 9/11 to happen for their own geopolitical ends. We'd be naive to consider a second such event to be impossible. ..."
"... The real danger isn't that a group of ubermenschen or Bond-villains want to incinerate humanity for vague and unspecified reasons, it's that the deep heart of the Russophobic cabal is too dogma-driven and infested with idiots to understand the real world results of their plans. ..."
"... „Wasser verstärkt die oxidative und ätzende Wirkung von Chlor" (WATER exacerbates the corrosive effect of chlorine (because hydrochlorid acid is formed through the moisture) So why would medical experts then hose down these alleged „chlorine" victims? Of course they would not. So this too, seem to confirm that the whole scene was staged. ..."
"... Another article by Mr Meyssan http://www.voltairenet.org/article200375.html refers to the British regime " is elaborated by an elite gathered around the monarch, outside of any form of popular control " The idea of a deep state seems too convenient. In every sphere the regime exploits the population for it's own requirements, if indeed the regime adheres to a nationality. Cold war, hot war are regime terms, all that matters is knowing who not to trust. ..."
"... There is a very powerful deep state in the UK. I think its leadership is hidden deep in the Privy Council and enforced by MI5/MI6. It runs a hidden economy financed through crime – fraud against UK taxpayers, foreign countries etc, It controls the judiciary when need be. This speech by Gerald James although old gives some idea; ..."
"... Catte, we do know for absolute certain that WTC-7 came down by controlled demolition, not by fire – it's a matter of science – and that fact means inside job, however much it was also an outside job. It's fine to be rigorous but if the facts are staring you right in the face that's rigour enough. I simply do not understand reluctance to call things out when they're in your face. It's not as if a court hearing is necessarily going to give you a better answer, is it, but hopefully there's going to be one soon where the truth will be revealed, at least as much as necessary. ..."
"... According to the 52-page petition, which is accompanied by 57 exhibits, federal statute requires the U.S. Department of Justice to relay citizen reports of federal crimes to a special grand jury. The unprosecuted crime alleged to have taken place on 9/11 is THE BOMBING OF A PLACE OF PUBLIC USE OR A GOVERNMENT FACILITY -- as prohibited under the federal bombing statute or 18 U.S.C. § 2332f -- as well as a conspiracy to commit, or the aiding and abetting of, said offense. ..."
In regard to our suggestion, the latest move against Damascus was predominantly a UK project, a link was sent to us today to an
article by Thierry Meyssan on Voltairenet that's certainly
interesting.
Published March 20 it puts forward the idea the Skripal affair was a false flag intended to be the launch pad for a wholesale
diplomatic attack on Russia that Meyssan suggests would initiate a "new cold war."
While it's possible to question this terminology (many would suggest we already have a "new cold war" and are on the verge of
it becoming hot), his narrative offers a valid interpretation of recent events, and indeed looks more persuasive today that when
it was written.
What Meyssan suggests is as follows:
Back in March a projected coup was planned between the UK government and the neocons in Washington to create an irresistible drive
to a) launch a full blown assault on Damascus and b) get Russia removed from the UN Security Council.
The means was to be first the Skripal incident and immediately thereafter a large scale false flag chemical weapon attack on
Ghouta.
Rex Tillerson, then US Secretary of State, was involved in this plan.
However by some means (Meyssan doesn't say how) the Syrian and Russian intelligence services became aware of the plan, and
realised it was not the Pentagon behind it, but "some other agency."
The Russians immediately alerted the media to a possible false flag.
At the same time, bypassing diplomatic channels (because he was concerned to avoid others who were siding with the "plotters"),
Russian Chief of Staff, General Valeri Gerasimov contacted his American counterpart General Joseph Dunford to inform him of his fears
of a game-changing intel-sponsored event in Syria. Dunford in turn informed Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, who told Trump.
Since this apparent plot was going on without the knowledge of the White House & Pentagon, Trump then told Mike Pompeo, the
head of the CIA, to investigate.
As a result Trump became convinced Tillerson was involved and soon after, fired him.
This, in essence, is Meyssan's story. He cites no source for the claims about back-channel communications, and we can't verify
them even slightly. But we all know Russia did indeed warn of a pending false flag in Syria several times throughout March, and developments
since the time of Meyssan's writing lend credence to the broad thrust of interpretation.
The orchestrated & hysterical response of the UK state machine to the Skripal event doesn't just hint at agenda rollout, it shouts
it. The idea this was indeed the first act of a make or break plan is certainly more than believable. Indeed we all heard the suggestion
about removing Russia from the UNSC repeated in the
media at the height of the hysteria.
Whether Meyssan is right or wrong, we absolutely did just see an orchestrated, high level operation unfold, apparently
designed to discredit Russia finally and forever.
It suggests new levels of idiot-insanity going on. Not only is such a plan amateurish in conception (kicking Russia off the UNSC,
even if achievable, is not going to suddenly neutralise their political and military power), it would seem to have been doubly so
in execution.
The Skripal story is a farce. But the apparent attempts
to go forward with the "chemical attack" when all rationale for it was gone and when Douma itself was about to fall, shows stupidity
beyond comprehension. If this was the UK, as the Russians claim, rather than rescuing themselves they simply added another embarrassing
failure to the list, and dug themselves even deeper into easily-exposed crime.
The entire situation must be a warning, and not just the usual cliché about the US being a danger to world peace.
It's not "the US", it's an international grouping of ideologues and other cranks, focused as much, maybe even more, in the
UK as in America. If Meyssan is right these people are highly placed, but operating subversively within their own governments. Of
course we have always known these thing are true to some extent, but this latest event seems to be taking this subversion to a new
level.
Seventeen years ago a small group of highly placed individuals in the US government may have engineered or at very least allowed
9/11 to happen for their own geopolitical ends. We'd be naive to consider a second such event to be impossible.
It also seems clear those enacting this plan initially had little idea how dangerous it really was, and were to some extent astounded
by the Russian reaction, and the horror expressed by the more sane elements in international government. This is also significant.
It's a cliché in some alt media now to say the elites want WW3 and to talk about "population reduction" or some other meme. But,
while it's certainly true there is a strong eugenicist de-population cult in the upper echelons, it's highly improbable any of them
would choose a thermonuclear war as a viable method.
The real danger isn't that a group of ubermenschen or Bond-villains want to incinerate humanity for vague and unspecified
reasons, it's that the deep heart of the Russophobic cabal is too dogma-driven and infested with idiots to understand the real world
results of their plans.
We can be sure they won't have learned from this and won't be deterred from more of the same or worse in future. And if their
next remedial scheme doesn't get stymied by circumstance or nifty footwork, no one will be more surprised than they are when it kicks
of WW3.
But they do have some opposition within the state machine, and always have. There were people in the US and UK intelligence agencies
who didn't want to lie about WMDs, and there are people today in the UK FCO who off-record told Craig Murray about the lies being
forced on them regarding the Skripal case. These are people with enough smarts to want to avoid real confrontation with Russia, however
prepared they are to play the public word games.
I think it's important we address this more nuanced reality rather than opting for the security of familiar memes.
Pt. 2: WHY WOULD ASSAD DO IT?
The French govt also argues that the use of CW in East-Ghouta was both in a tactical and a strategical sense a (sort of) military
stroke of genius but I'll spare you the BS except for one argument:
The „strategic" aspect was that Assad wanted to punish the civilians in „rebel-held" areas and by creating „terreur et panic"
they achieved their aim of surrender.
„Because the war is not over for Assad, he wants to demonstrate thru these ruthless attacks that resistance is futile "
This is bollocks of course because the Russians and the SAA are winning and have painstakingly negotiated with the „rebels"
and arranged for them to be evacuated in buses to Idlib. (Can anyone imagine the US-military doing such a thing after 7yrs of
war?)
AND President Assad knows very well that the civilians in rebel-held areas were captives, treated like slaves, starved for
food (sold by the synthetic "rebels" at exorbitant prices) and brutally executed if they refused to live under Sharia-law or supported
Assad. So there was absolutely no need to „punish" them for anything.
Coincidentally, high-ranking former British military officers totally disagree with the French "assessment"
„Given the operational situation in Eastern-Ghouta on April 7, we estimate with high-confidence that the responsibility [for
the non-existent CW-attack] can be attributed to the Syrian Regime". (Sound familiar?)
And finally they put in this kind of „disclaimer" when they say „Les services francaises are not in the possession of any information
which would support the thesis, that these armed groups in East-Ghouta have endeavored to acquire CW for themselves or that they
were already available to them."
(Now that is a BIG Lie even the MSM has reported that the "rebels" DID use CW ( i.e. see Carla del Ponte, Seymour Hersh and
Scott Ritter on this)
„Furthermore we regard a manipulation of the released pictures as implausible, because the groups present in Ghouta had no access
to the means necessary to exercise a communication-manoeuvre of this magnitude" (!)
(this ridiculous claim does not even deserve a comment their "PR" has been highly effective since it was directed and organized
by MI6 see voltairenet for more)
The biggest lie comes at the end when they claim that Assad has not declared all his CW to the OPCW, has kept a CLANDESTINE
CW-programm all the time (since 2013), has intensified the use of CW continually and that the Russians are in on this.
And then follow the (by now familiar) highly-manipulative phrases which are supposed to be imprinted on our brains now:
"Undoubtedly a chemical attack was launched against civilians on April 7 in Douma"
"THERE IS NO OTHER PLAUSIBLE SCENARIO then the action of the SAA (CW-attack) as part of a major offensive to retake East-Ghouta"
"Russia has undeniably actively supported these operations and the clandestine policy of the SARG for the use of CW"
As Sergei Lavrov recently said to the BBC "the proof is (apparently) in the punishment" .. it is crystal clear that neither
the Briitsh nor the French gov't is interested in a thorough, forensic investigation (whether in Salisburgy or in Douma) and the
fact they have acted as prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner BEFORE any impartial investigation took place is proof enough
of their duplicity
What I find extremely puzzling is this: The Russians now say they have "irrefutable evidence" that Britain has instigated a
false flag Douma (and obviously in Salisbury as well) . SO WHY don't they show it to us???? Why not publish the findings of the
Swiss lab? Is this some weird diplomatic code of conduct they adhere to?
Cassandra ,
President MACRON recently stated that he has „proof" that CW were used in Douma and that it was the Syrian Army. Now the French
govt has released the „evaluation nationale" but it seems no-one is paying attention to it.
After reading the document carefully one can only reach one conclusion:
There is NO PROOF whatsover in this evaulation and it is obviously addressed to an audience considered to be incapable of critical
thought. The format of the document is rather revealing because it contains no offical ID from a French „service" or ministry
(just „Republique Francaise") and the authors are unknown (so no official takes personal responsibility for its content, like
the phony „assessment" on CW released by the WH in 2017)
In order to find out who committed a crime, forensic evidence is extremely important, as we all know from detective thrillers
and court-room dramas. But in this case, there is NO FORENSIC EVIDENCE (no criminal investigation by a CSI-unit). There are only
unverified pics and videos posted on YouTube by the White Helmets (WH).
It is impossible to verify WHERE these pics/vids were taken and also WHEN because the metadata have been tempered with. The
WH of course have NO CREDIBILITY whatsoever, being a cover for the massive „strategic information" (incessantly demonizing Assad)
created by MI6, who also ran the massive PR for the artificial „rebels" in Syria. (See voltairenet.org for more on this).
And yet this is the basis for the „assessment" of the French govt. They write that „French experts have analyzed the symptoms
(visible in the pics and vids) which can be described as follows (respiratory distress, asphyxiation, cyanosis, skin-burns, excessive
salivation, etc.) Taken together, these symptoms are characteristic für a CW-attack, especially for suffocating-agents. The use
of asthma-sprays supports the thesis that such agents were used."
So instead of a forensic examination and autopsy, all we get is an interpretation of symptoms to fit the frame of the Assad-gasses-his-own-people
horror-narrative. To this, they add statements from anonymous people working (in Douma) for medical NGOs like UOSSM (created in
France in 2011, PR-front group) and SAMS (US directed front group) who claim that about a hundred people „stormed" their health
facilities in Douma and at least 40 died as a result of the CW-attack.
They use medical staff of course as „CREDIBILITY-ENHANCERS" because in general people tend to trust doctors, nurses and paramedics,
hence the „White Helmets" (and the faux „nurse" telling the heart-wrenchning, invented tale of the incubator-babies in Iraq in
1990)
I asked a friend who works for one of the biggest chemical companies in Germany (BASF) about the symptoms and he said they
are consistent with a chlorine-exposure but that does NOT mean that it could ONLY have been chlorine. Very similar symptoms occur
when people have been exposed to SMOKE-INHALATION (German: Rauchgasvergiftung)
And now it gets really interesting because a video has been released by Russian and Syrian TV stations in which two medical
students who work for the emergency department of the Douma hospital, say that the people shown in the WH-video had indeed been
exposed to SMOKE-INHALATION.
A house in Douma had been hit by an airstrike which caused a fire in the lower floors and the partial collapse of the upper
floors. So these people had breathing difficulties and were taken to the emergency dept of the hospital where they were given
first aid. Suddenly some men appeared and shouted „this was a gas-attack!". They then began to douse the patients with cold water
(from a hose), which caused panic (children screamed of course). These „dramatic" scenes were filmed then the strangers disappeared
as quickly as they had arrived.
I cannot verify if these medical students told the truth, but given the political context, I have much more reason to believe
them than the White Helmets or the French DGSE.
Just one more thing, the brochure from BASF about the dangers of chlorine contains one sentence that caught my eye:
„Wasser verstärkt die oxidative und ätzende Wirkung von Chlor" (WATER exacerbates the corrosive effect of chlorine
(because hydrochlorid acid is formed through the moisture) So why would medical experts then hose down these alleged „chlorine"
victims? Of course they would not. So this too, seem to confirm that the whole scene was staged.
Mulga Mumblebrain ,
This is NOT a 'French' report. It is an Israeli Zionist pile of black propaganda, no doubt dictated by the CRIF, the de facto
government of the slave state formerly known as 'France'.
Doing a little more tunnelling into the Rabbit hole.
A Bill Clinton reference to Karl Rove led to some interesting events surrounding the recently pardoned Scooter Libby.
@KarlRove https://bit.ly/2HFtLlh opposing Military Industrial Complex isn't
equal2 Putin Apologism. War(s) Crimes of aggression started for false reasons With no proper Investigative & War reporting from
corporate media how 2 hold http://bfy.tw/AKAh #warmongerstoaccount
5:26 PM – 17 Apr 2018
The criminal group led by the red clown and the old Mare with the skewed muzzle continues the provocations. On Monday, the British
representative in the OPCW accused the Russians of non-admission of OPCW experts in Duma. At the same time, the OPCW experts while
in Damascus were expecting a solution of the Security Department of the UN, because controlled by the Britons the bandits were
instructed to fire at the place where the white helmets organized the performance with a "chemical attack". At the same time,
the United States began to yell that Russian do not allow the OPCW experts to the Duma, seeking to eliminate traces of the "chemical
attack". This gang HIGHLY LIKELY thinks we're all idiots.
The world is already clear that no poisoning of the Tablets was not, as there was no chemical attack by Assad. Clown and Mare
managed to negotiate with the Russians and they did not respond to the shelling of Syria. Seeing that the Russian did not respond,
the bandits completely insolen. And now they can arrange another chemical provocation and hit in Syria already on the Russians.
And is not the fact that the Russian will not answer. This is war. I do not want because of a bunch of idiots, teasing the Russian
bear, to a slaughter in which no one will survive.
The funniest part of Meyssan's story is that Trump asked DCI Pompeo to investigate the false flag. What a nube.
Think it through. They didn't say cabal, they said agency. DoS is not an agency, it's a department. 'Ideologues and cranks?'
'Highly placed, but operating subversively within their own governments?' You are describing CIA.
That small group of highly placed individuals who did 911? That was CIA and their moles in key departments: Brennan, Blee,
Cofer Black, Wilshire, Bikowsky, Bowman. The deep heart of the Russophobic cabal is not some secret society, it's a longstanding
CIA program. These programs look international because CIA uses eyes-only intelligence liaisons to conceal the dirty work they
delegate to other countries' agents.
The opposition within CIA is also institutionally chartered. CIA has a routine: dewy-eyed boy scout analysts secretly decry
the insanity of the operations people. Then when the shit hits the fan, CIA publishes the analysis and uses it to blame somebody
else. That's how they blamed Vietnam on the Pentagon, with their tongue-in-cheek Pentagon Papers. And that's how they blamed Tillerson
for their very own CIA plan and conspiracy for war.
milosevic,
This is a very promising thesis. I hope you can expand on it.
Another angle might be Nixon/Watergate/WaPo. Or Reagan/IranContra/North. Of course, JFK/Vietnam/Oswald goes without saying.
Here's a lecture given to FSB (KGB) students by a Russian professor. He says the world is governed by a "Conceptual Power" that
exists above elected governments and that this template has been in place since 1350 B.C.. Very interesting at the very least:
Another article by Mr Meyssan http://www.voltairenet.org/article200375.html
refers to the British regime " is elaborated by an elite gathered around the monarch, outside of any form of popular
control " The idea of a deep state seems too convenient. In every sphere the regime exploits the population for it's own requirements,
if indeed the regime adheres to a nationality. Cold war, hot war are regime terms, all that matters is knowing who not to trust.
Re BZ (British Zyklon?) the following lengthy clip from Saker's "Curious Incident" discussion reflects OffG's raison d'etre: that
Facts Really ought to be Sacred. The MSM have abandoned this principle, as have the Leaders of F, UK and US regimes among others
in the Western world. This is a huge reversal of human progress, and extremely dangerous for the world because the West now has
runaway Technology without Ethics. BTL Saker:
vot tak on April 16, 2018 · at 1:09 am UTC 14.04.2018
Embassy Press Officer comments on the findings of the Swiss experts regarding the Salisbury incident
"Q. Is there any new information regarding the findings of experts from Switzerland in connection with the Salisbury poisoning?
A. According to information from the Swiss Federal Institute for NBC-protection in Spiez, its experts received samples collected
in Salisbury by the OPCW specialists and finished testing them on 27 March.
The experts of the Institute discovered traces of toxic chemical called "BZ" and its precursors. It is a Schedule 2 substance
under the Chemical Weapons Convention.
"BZ" is a chemical agent, which is used to temporary incapacitate people. The desired psychotoxic effect is reached in 30-60
minutes after application of the agent and lasts up to four days. According to the information the Russian Federation possesses,
this agent was used in the armed forces of the USA, United Kingdom and several others NATO member states. No stocks of such substance
ever existed either in the Soviet Union or in the Russian Federation.
In addition, the Swiss specialists discovered strong concentration of traces of the nerve agent of A-234 type in its initial states
as well as its decomposition products.
In view of the experts, such concentration of the A-234 agent would result in inevitable fatal outcome of its administration.
Moreover, considering its high volatility, the detection of this substance in its initial state (pure form and high concentration)
is extremely suspicious as the samples have been taken several weeks since the poisoning.
It looks highly likely that the "BZ" nerve agent was used in Salisbury. The fact that Yulia Skripal and Detective Sergeant
Nick Bailey have already been discharged from hospital, and Sergei Skripal is on his way to recovery, only supports such conclusion.
All this information was not mentioned in the final OPCW report at all. Considering the above, we have numerous serious questions
to all interested parties, including the OPCW."
Sushi on April 16, 2018 · at 3:04 am UTC
That statement on the part of RF embassy is good to see as it confirms my own supposition as recorded in Part X.
It is always nice to go out on a limb and then discover the rest of the world supports the finding rather than sawing off the
limb 🙂
But I believe the big take-away from this event is the fact that the state is no longer held in check by the MSM. This means
that the ordinary citizen is paying for an entity which is actively acting to subvert the interests of the citizenry. This is
very dangerous.
These [truther] articles each get about 10,000 page views. This is a drop in the bucket in comparison to the total voting population
of the UK, or France, or FRG or US or CA. If you believe this information is valuable then you should share it. You do not have
to agree with all that I have written. It is quite possible I have made errors, drawn incorrect conclusions from the evidence
etc, etc.
The key issue is that the MSM is not engaged in a review of an incident which, on any degree of review fails on the merits
and is quickly exposed as false, deceptive and grounds for vilification of another state which I believe to be innocent of
the allegations made against it. If I could find evidence of RF involvement I would gladly write that. But I cannot locate
any such evidence. This event is likely to be used to further justify illegal use of force in Syria. If the public comes to
the belief that "Bad Vlad" is pulling all the strings then they will accept the march toward global war. The problem is that
the person really pulling all the strings is located at Number 10. If bad things happen they have a taxpayer financed bunker
to retreat to. The ordinary citizen is not even assured of a working NHS. _So if you find this series of value then address
it with your family and other contacts._ Cheers!
There is a very powerful deep state in the UK. I think its leadership is hidden deep in the Privy Council and enforced by MI5/MI6.
It runs a hidden economy financed through crime – fraud against UK taxpayers, foreign countries etc, It controls the judiciary
when need be. This speech by Gerald James although old gives some idea;
Excellent post Catte. Thanks. There is certainly serious dissension within the ranks of the U.S. establishment or we would not
be seeing the various fits and stops and starts that have characterized both Trump's appointments, and his subsequent removal
of various appointed advisors, as well as his erratic foreign policy actions since he entered office. Trump himself was never
"the problem" for the collective U.S. deep state, it was Trump's stated goal of "getting along with Russia" that has prompted
close to open warfare between factions of the U.S. ruling class and institutional structures. What is amazing to behold is watching
almost the entirety of the leadership of the most powerful Western nations on earth morph before our eyes into a group of slapstick
carnival clowns selling snake oil and war as if they were some sort of magic elixir sure to prolong their much cherished Western
hegemony. Recent events have pulled the mask off of the facade of "Western democracy" to reveal the grinning death mask of a dying
elite power structure, delusional, paranoid and grandiose to the bitter end.
Seventeen years ago a small group of highly placed individuals in the US government may have engineered or at very least
allowed 9/11 to happen for their own geopolitical ends
???
May have? Allowed?
How many articles has OffG published on 9/11 that show unequivocally that it was an inside job? Seventeen years later with the
vision of hindsight for those of us who did swallow the lies we can see how utterly silly we were. We can see so clearly how steel
frame skyscrapers do not collapse symmetrically due to fires, how a band of men armed with boxcutters cannot negotiate the most
restricted airspace in the world without an effective stand down – provided so very conveniently by 21 drills occurring on the
morning of 9/11, some of which exactly matched the alleged real life events.
No further investigation needs to be conducted to know that 9/11 was an inside job – only to sort out the guilty and exactly what
happened. In fact, all you need to know that 9/11 was an inside job is the undisputed 2.25 seconds of free fall acceleration in
the collapse of WTC-7. That tiny piece of information is all you need. For free fall, the 82 steel support columns must have given
way at virtually the same time and for that to have happened only controlled demolition could have been the cause and controlled
demolition can only mean inside job.
Catte,
We've successfully proved the official story is a lie, but we haven't uncovered what actually happened beyond there being foreknowledge
and pre-planning of some kind. Who did the planning, how many people knew how much how long before it happened, we do NOT know.
Do we?
Let's be as rigorous about the sceptical argument as we are about the official story.
Catte, we do know for absolute certain that WTC-7 came down by controlled demolition, not by fire – it's a matter of science –
and that fact means inside job, however much it was also an outside job. It's fine to be rigorous but if the facts are staring
you right in the face that's rigour enough. I simply do not understand reluctance to call things out when they're in your face.
It's not as if a court hearing is necessarily going to give you a better answer, is it, but hopefully there's going to be one
soon where the truth will be revealed, at least as much as necessary.
10 April – Lawyers and Victims' Families File Petition for Federal Grand Jury Investigation
According to the 52-page petition, which is accompanied by 57 exhibits, federal statute requires the U.S. Department of Justice
to relay citizen reports of federal crimes to a special grand jury. The unprosecuted crime alleged to have taken place on 9/11
is THE BOMBING OF A PLACE OF PUBLIC USE OR A GOVERNMENT FACILITY -- as prohibited under the federal bombing statute or 18 U.S.C.
§ 2332f -- as well as a conspiracy to commit, or the aiding and abetting of, said offense.
We don't know who exactly but we know for absolute certain that rogue elements within government were involved. We definitely
know it was an inside job, whatever outside involvement there was.
Mulga Mumblebrain ,
How do you explain the 'five dancing Israelis' filming the attack as it happened, from Liberty Park in New Jersey?
"Not excluding it, jut saying it's not an inevitable conclusion they were involved at all, and certainly no indication there were
at the center of anything."
No one is saying they are at the centre of anything. That they were in a position to film, were reportedly celebrating, their
story changed multiple times in interviews with law and enforcement and that they were possibly Israeli intelligence all adds
up to making it an interesting detail.
Especially when all the other evidence of 9/11 is investigated and puts the dancing Israelis in context.
Mulga Mumblebrain ,
LUDICROUS! They knew of the attack, before it happened. Others filming the atrocity were NOT wildly celebrating the deaths of
thousands. They were attempting to pose as 'Arabs' to defame them. One told one of the arresting police that 'Your enemy are the
Palestinians'. The police found traces of explosives in their van. One or more failed lie-detector tests before they were simply
released and allowed to go home to Israel, where they appeared on TV, one admitting to being MOSSAD.
Steady on. The source quoted above doesn't say anything about wild celebration, it just says the five men were looking happy and
smiling. That's a bit weird of itself but don't exaggerate it into something else. Thats just replacing memes with other memes.
Maybe they were involved, but there are many other possibilities, including them simply watching the event with no direct connection
at all.
What significance do you see in the traces of explosives? Are you suggesting these guys are the ones who wired the WTCs for demolition,
and that they had brought the RDX/thermite there in that van, which they didn't ditch but continued to drive around in?
Five guys with no known specialist knowledge, wiring three massive towers for demolition from one small van?
You don't think it was likely a bigger more professional outfit that would do that? One – say – with permits to enter and renovate
the towers/enter the lift shafts?
Mulga Mumblebrain ,
Your diversionary tactics are interesting. They were described as 'dancing, jumping and giving each other 'high-fives'. Obviously
they were overcome with grief. The presence of explosive traces plainly has nothing to do so with the controlled demolition. It
just seems odd, and suspicious. No-one at any time suggested that these five did the placing of the controlled demolition charges.
Of course it was others, probably Israeli Death Force sappers. And they were NOT 'just watching'-they were filming it, and from
the first aircraft strike. Pretty prescient of them.
Mulga Mumblebrain ,
9/11 irrefutably, I would say, was a MOSSAD operation, with US sayanim, and Sabbat Goy involvement, the US side centered on that
Zionist Israel First cabal, the 'neo-conservatives'. Christopher Bollyn does an excellent job of outlining the Zionist ' Clash
of Civilizations' and 'War on (Islam) Terror' projects, the latter, in particular, an endeavour of Netanyahu's for decades. Everything
that flowed from that event, the genocides in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and the destruction inflicted on those unlucky lands,
the crucifixion of Syria, the regular, ritual, massacres in Gaza, are all creations of the Zionist elite, and follow closely the
strategy outlined in the Oded Yinon Plan of 1982, which was reiterated by Netanyahu in the 'A Clean Break' manifesto.
Zionist control easily explains May's involvement, as she is a groveling toady of the Netanyahu regime and the Holy State that
sits above mere 'International Law'. Apparently, when Netanyahu visited Putin in Sochi a year or so ago, and made certain demands
on Russia in regard to Syria, and Putin rebuffed him, so great was Netanyahu's distress at this insubordination by a mere goy
that he lost self-control and went a little hysterical. Hence the renewed determination to keep the vivisection of Syria going,
and prepare for Holy War on Lebanon and Iran. Of course Bibi's path is that of the Masada Complex, he being a wannabe zealot 'hero',
and he seems oblivious to the reality that unending Israeli aggression will only bring about Israel's destruction, in the manner
that it has inflicted ruination on its neighbours for 70 years.
bevin,
"..Let's be as rigorous about the sceptical argument as we are about the official story."
Absolutely agree.
It is quite reasonable for someone to be convinced that, to use a popular argument on this thread, Corbyn is an MI 6 agent but
if there is no evidence of this cited not only is it impossible to insist on the 'irrefutable' nature of the assertion but to
do so is to discredit oneself, the discussion in question and, fairly quickly, the blog in its entirety.
It is one of life's little ironies that off guardian, which insists that we weigh evidence rigorously where claims by the state
are concerned, is becoming something of a refuge for assertions based on evidence just as sketchy and circumstantial as those
put forward by the likes of Freedland and the BBC.
So 9/11 might have been a Mossad operation, just as Putin might have ordered the attack in Salisbury and the White helmets could
be well meaning humanitarians discovering gas attacks.
Let us see the evidence before we agree that something is irrefutable, even when it is something as clear cut as the fact that
Corbyn (already revealed to be a Czech spy, having once had tea with one) has had tea with an MI 6 agent and is therefore, connecting
the dots, completely unreliable and no more to be supported than, say, Boris Johnson. The proof being that he did not oppose,
we are told the Magnitsky Act, sponsored by his fellow agent (and PLP member) Ian Austin.
At any rate the Israeli Embassy can now call off their campaign against Corbyn who is revealed to be almost as big a friend of
Israel as Blair- who even Roman Polanski knew was a CI Agent.
It is one of life's little ironies that off guardian, which insists that we weigh evidence rigorously where claims by the
state are concerned, is becoming something of a refuge for assertions based on evidence just as sketchy and circumstantial
as those put forward by the likes of Freedland and the BBC.
Excuse me? Since when have we been guilty of that?
There is nothing elaborate whatsoever in claiming WTC-7 came down by classic, controlled demolition, aka, an implosion. It's irrelevant
how substandard its material, how much fire was in it, or how much damage it suffered. The manner of its collapse tells all. Pre-
and during- explosions, kink in middle at start, beautiful symmetry, near and partial free fall, complete dismemberment of steel
frame and molten metal are all unique characteristics of controlled demolition while there is not even a lick of flame to be seen
in videos of the collapse. WTC-7's collapse by "fire" is the greatest case of the Emperor's New Clothes the world has ever seen.
I've done an Occam's Razor exercise on the collapse of WTC-7 and offered $5,000 to those who support the official story to produce
an equivalent exercise favouring the "fire" hypothesis. No one has been able to respond. http://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/911.html
Bevin: if this comment is aimed in part at me, you are deliberately misrepresenting my assertions. No one on this thread, makes
the accusation that Jeremy is an MI6 agent except you. As you say, there is no evidence for this and personally, I do not believe
he is. What I have empirically and objectively shown (previously with links) is that he can be co-opted by the Cabinet Office
and JIC to conduit faulty intelligence fed to him. That does NOT make him part of the intelligence apparatus, only ancillary to
it. To this end, it was interesting to note his actions this weekend: commenting on Syria. For this he sought, but did not get
an intelligence briefing as a Privy Councillor. This was quite clear on the Marr show: he talked about "other parties" that may
have perpetrated the Douma provocation but he said "I don't know, I don't know" quite a few times. Corbyn "unbriefed" wants an
OPCW investigation and a UN mandate to act: which is perfectly reasonable and legal. And probably clears up any false assertion
that he is in the full-time employ of MI6?
Re: the Magnitsky ammendment. Not only did Corbyn "not oppose" this: he actively promoted it at every opportunity. As I have tried
to make clear we already have "Unexplained Wealth Orders" which are analoguous to Magnitsky sanctions. We do not need another
Magnitsky ammendment. This was the government position before 6th March. I do not claim that Jeremy is pushing this Act because
he IS an MI6 agent: but I can quite clearly show he is pushing it FOR an MI6 agent. Thank if you do not conflate and impute meaning
for me.
And no, I have not produced "evidence" that Browder is an agent for SIS: but if he is not, he might as well be? Or perhaps you
think him an innocent human rights activist as he styles himself. What is irrefutable, empirical, and objective is that this one
man is the source of much of the character assassination of Putin (from his "Enemy No1") and Jeremy is pushing his agenda. Why:
I do not know – naivety? Beyond that, I leave the speculation to you.
If Ian Austin is an agent, he would be a Mossad agent but I make no such claim.
As for the Israeli Embassy: I have covered that elsewhere in depth. No, they will not call off their campaign. Yes, they already
have a hold, and they are not far off gaining a veto control of the Labour disciplinary process: whereby anyone can be suspended
on false accusations of anti-semitism: a position Jeremy has backed himself into by his strategy of appeasement.
All in all: I would say my assertions are grounded in empiricism, and I have not claimed anything I cannot back up. So facts are
sacred: even if that means you do not like them?
Mulga Mumblebrain ,
I suggest immersing yourself in Christopher Bollyn's excellent videos regarding Israeli planning for just such an operation, to
be undertaken to provide the 'New Pearl Harbor' that the fanatic Zionist 'neo-conservatives' declared presciently would be needed
to get the USA to do Israel's dirty work in destroying the Moslem countries of the MENA. The evidence of Israeli and US sayanim
involvement is huge, most circumstantial, but other parts, like the 'five dancing Israelis' seen filming the atrocity in real
time, are rather more convincing.
I read one of Bollyn's books, can't remember the title. I take on a lot of his points: but I personally frame such events as transnational,
or better still: supra-national. To say it was this or that country alone is not how I view it: the perpetraitors were ultimately
working for a "higher cause"! Caitlin Johnstone just did a piece about this: the ultimate beneficiaries form a globalised superclass
that is totally amoral and has no allegiance to any particular cause or country. Zinoviev termed this the Westernised "supra-society".
Certainly not every individual: but at the corrupted core – all Western Intelligence agencies serve a cause that transcends the
national interest. National security is a line they feed us: the UK as a whole benefits little from our involvement in Syria,
and less still, from being embroiled in a Cold War with Russia on the grounds of national defence. It's all a con!
Mulga Mumblebrain ,
The Zionist elite support other states and their elites only in so far as they serve Israel's interests, or rather the interests
of the Israeli and Diaspora elites. These interests are not those of much of Jewry, or, of course, of any goyim but the collaborative
type like May, Micron, Cheney et al. The Zionist elite most certainly do possess global ambitions rooted in Talmudic doctrine.
Mulga Mumblebrain ,
Please don't misrepresent me. I have stated over and over again that the culprits are the Zionist elites in Israel and the Diaspora,
NOT Jews as a whole. Many Jews oppose the nefarious activities of the Zionist elites, and many others are passive, just like all
other communities. But in the matter of 9/11 proposing that the Zionists not be mentioned is quite bizarre. In my comments immediately
above (the last seven or eight) there are eight 'Zionists' and one 'Jewry' and that was in the context of asserting that not all
Jews support Zionist crimes or benefit from them.
I am sad to see you write that.
I have not seen anyone here claiming Corbyn to be an MI6 agent, and it reads as inflationary misrepresentation to say that people
have.
The Labour bureaucracy is simply overpowered/ outmaneuvered by a very well organised, well connected and well resourced psywar
operation, – one that has at least some links to Israel and zionist sympathies.
Too many on the Corbyn Left cannot engage with this for fear of being branded racist.
Do you refute the accusation of Corbyn's appeasement?
Evidence for Mossad involvement in 9/11 ?
There is a heap of evidence, arguably no conclusive evidence, but not far off:
'First, Bergen, NJ residents saw five people on a white van filming the attacks and visibly celebrating. They had set up their
cameras before the first plane hit. Police arrested them. All were Israelis (now referred to as the "dancing Israelis"). Bomb-sniffing
dogs reacted as if they had detected explosives, although officers were unable to find anything. The FBI seized the van for further
testing. All five were later released at the instigation of Israeli & American Jewish leaders, some in the US Government. Details
are still classified. This incident quickly disappeared from the mainstream media, following a brief mention in the New York Times
three days after the attacks, that was not followed up.
A second van was stopped on the approaches to the George Washington Bridge. As CBS's Dan Rather said in his live report: "Two
suspects are in FBI custody after a truckload of explosives were discovered around the George Washington Bridge. That bridge links
New York to New Jersey over the Hudson River. Whether the discovery of those explosives had anything to do with other events today
is unclear, but the FBI, has two suspects in hand, said the truckload of explosives, enough explosives were in the truck to do
great damage to the George Washington Bridge " Those suspects –also Israelis -- and the incident then seem to have disappeared
from the public record and mainstream media "examinations" <sic.> of 9/11, just like discussions of the first van, the secondary
explosions at ground level within WTC-1 and WTC-2, and the precipitous collapse into its own footprint of WTC-7.'
I think that Kevin Ryan has done some of the best work in trying to identify legitimate suspects for 9/11, and proposes a 'private
intelligence network' which spans several countries (e.g. Saudi Arabia, UAE ).
I think there is a strong case made by Sabrosky and others that 'The Big Wedding'
' wedded Neocon philosophy with 500 years of Atlanticism'.
I keep banging the drum that seeks to sound out the need for the Left to come to terms with this history. I contend that they
will not 'get anywhere' in the 21st century unless or until they do.
mog ,
@Admin
Does this network include the US/UK or any NATO countries?
Yes.
absolutely agreed. the more nuanced reality is where Karl ROVE delivered us..("We are empire now we create new realities..") which
is why the adults in Moscow have so far deflected these egregious false flags generated by the MI6 Britprop WhiteHelmets®.con
atrocity troupe.
Because they KNOW whats going on.
Thierry Meysson wrote one of the very first books on false flag 911, the event beginning WW3 (911. The big LIE) He is a voice
highly regarded. The ugly intentions of the anglozionist hegamon, loudly expressed as they slapped the Patriot Act into homeland
'Law' – to smash the middle East by all and any means (Strategy of Tension [NATO:GLADIO] YINON and 'Full Spectrum Dominance' methods/R2P,
P2OG, IIO) ushered in on the LIE of 911 casus belli; was not lost on Russian and Chinese intelligence ; nor on anyone listening.
There has been quite a lot recently in RT about the sports doping scandal and how WADA are
threatening to exclude Russia from all sorts of events. I get the impression that Russia may
be trailing its coat here, at a time when the OPCW news comes out in drips and drabs. So
maybe some bargaining is going on behind the scenes.
On quite another tack I came across this lovely conversation - translated from a
contemporary record on papyrus - between the Roman Emperor Commodus and the head of the
Alexandria Gymnasium (main school.) I think this is 2nd century AD.
Emperor: Do you know who you are talking to?
Head: Yes I know, I am speaking to a tyrant.
Emperor: No, to a monarch
Head: Do not say that. Your divine father Marcus Aurelius had the proper qualities of an
emperor. Listen! - First, he was a philosopher; second, he did not love money; third, he
loved the good. In you there are the reverse of these qualities: tyranny, hatred of the good,
common ignorance.
(He was then led off to be executed). (From City of the Sharp-Nosed Fish, by Peter
Parsons)
Makes you think about our current rulers. In the UK, Clement Attlee seems to comes closest
to the ideal.
@ Montreal | Dec 8 2019 18:32 | 17
"sports doping scandal and how WADA are threatening to exclude Russia"
There is some suggestion that the LIMS database had been hacked, with
the hacks / changes being ascribed to Russia, but in fact originating
from parties intent on discrediting Russia..
STUXNET was a sophisticated Government (Israeli / US ) effort to
attack Iran's centrifuge program. Stuxnet's design and architecture
are not domain-specific and can be adapted to other industrial targets.
Such as a LIMS system - often a unprotected visual interface to an SQL database
It is unlikely that the very capable team that gave us Stuxnet has been sitting around
bored and idle, with such a juicy target available
A British Ministry of Defence document, issued on March 12 but unnoticed since then,
reports the ministry has searched its files and records of the blood sampling and testing
for Novichok in the blood of Sergei and Yulia Skripal, but "failed to locate any
information that provides the exact time that the samples were collected."
The Ministry of Defence (MOD) is the parent organization for the Defence Science and
Technology Laboratory (DSTL), the UK's chemical warfare centre at Porton Down. Porton Down,
as the laboratory is usually known, is the source of British evidence that Novichok was
detected in the bloodstreams of the two Skripals. [...]
If Gardiner's report of March 12 is true, then this is MOD's official admission there
is no chain of custody for the blood samples on which the Novichok allegation has been
based. If Gardiner is lying, then the ministry's reason is obvious: the samples which were
taken from the Skripals in Salisbury Hospital did not reveal that their blood was
contaminated by what Porton Down and Prime Minister May later claimed was Novichok.
[...]
Exciting new product intro from Max Blumenthal: Maddow's Tears™, a new formula that
produces soothing, cooling moisture in politically convenient circumstances.
"I am at a loss to see what motive the Kremlin might have to commit murders on foreign
soil during the buildup, let alone the enactment, of a sporting event that is of mammoth
chauvinist significance to Russia."
"The most obvious motive for these attacks would surely be from someone out to embarrass
the Russian president, Vladimir Putin – someone from his enemies, rather than from his
friends or employees. But once again we have no clue."
The blogger Eliot Higgins made waves early in the decade by covering the war in Syria from a
laptop in his apartment in Leicester, England, while caring for his infant daughter. In 2014,
he founded Bellingcat, an open-source news outlet that has grown to include roughly a dozen
staff members, with an office in The Hague. Mr. Higgins attributed his skill not to any special
knowledge of international conflicts or digital data, but to the hours he had spent playing
video games , which, he said, gave him the idea that any mystery can be cracked.
...
Bellingcat journalists have spread the word about their techniques in seminars attended by
journalists and law-enforcement officials. Along with grants from groups like the Open Society
Foundations, founded by George Soros, the seminars are a significant source of revenue for
Bellingcat, a nonprofit organization.
Looks like Brown Noser Eliot Higgins and his Bellingcrap organisation may have finally met
their match in a real investigative journalist, Dilyana Gaytandzhieva, who (some of us may
recall) has done sterling work in tracing movements of weapons from the Balkan countries to
Turkey and Azerbaijan with their ultimate destination being Syria to be used by ISIS jihadis,
and for which she was sacked by her newspaper employer in Bulgaria.
Does anyone imagine that the Brown Noser will have the courage and fortitude to respond to
legal action brought against him and Bellingcrap? Will his Atlantic Council employers support
him or has he passed his use-by date and become a liability?
"... "The 'chemical incident' has likely been faked. It suspiciously happened just a few days after U.S. President Trump had announced the he wanted the U.S. military to leave Syria. A year earlier a similar incident was claimed to have happened after a similar announcement by Trump. The U.S. had responded to the 2017 incident by bombing an empty Syrian airfield." ..."
"... Once the dust, smoke, and the fog of war had cleared, it became apparent that this, was yet again a choreographed move, same as the missiles on Shayrat airfield. ..."
"... I may well be wrong, as I do not go along with group think here, but this strike seems a preemptive move by Trump to prevent a push for for US military action in Syria that will take us to WWIII. ..."
OT but very relevant to the Skripal/Douma incidents.
The Guardian has an
article today headlined
" The taboo on chemical weapons has lasted a century – it must be preserved " which is a bare-faced lie as the Guardian
should know because the British used chemical weapons against the Russian in August, 1919, less than a century ago, and the Japanese,
among America's closest allies used them against the Chinese in World War 2.
The strongest case for Churchill as a chemical warfare enthusiast involves Russia, and was made by Giles Milton in The Guardian
on 1 September 2013, which prompted this article. Milton wrote that in 1919, scientists at the governmental laboratories at
Porton in Wiltshire developed a far more devastating weapon: the top secret "M Device," an exploding shell containing
a highly toxic gas called diphenylaminechloroarsine [DM].
The man in charge of developing it, Major General Charles Foulkes, called it "the most effective chemical weapon ever devised."
Trials at Porton suggested that it was indeed a terrible new weapon. Uncontrollable vomiting, coughing up blood and
instant, crippling fatigue were the most common reactions. The overall head of chemical warfare production, Sir Keith Price,
was convinced its use would lead to the rapid collapse of the Bolshevik regime. "If you got home only once with the gas you
would find no more Bolshies this side of Vologda."
A staggering 50,000 M Devices were shipped to Russia: British aerial attacks using them began on 27 August 1919 .Bolshevik
soldiers were seen fleeing in panic as the green chemical gas drifted towards them. Those caught in the cloud vomited blood,
then collapsed unconscious. The attacks continued throughout September on many Bolshevik-held villages .But the weapons proved
less effective than Churchill had hoped, partly because of the damp autumn weather. By September, the attacks were halted then
stopped.
"The 'chemical incident' has likely been faked. It suspiciously happened just a few days after U.S. President Trump had announced
the he wanted the U.S. military to leave Syria. A year earlier a similar incident was claimed to have happened after a similar
announcement by Trump. The U.S. had responded to the 2017 incident by bombing an empty Syrian airfield."
Watching reports coming out of Syria in real time, I thought it was a genuine strike.
Same as I thought the JK build up was the real thing and also the 59 missiles a year ago.
Once the dust, smoke, and the fog of war had cleared, it became apparent that this, was yet again a choreographed move,
same as the missiles on Shayrat airfield.
I may well be wrong, as I do not go along with group think here, but this strike seems a preemptive move by Trump to prevent
a push for for US military action in Syria that will take us to WWIII.
"... "There can be no doubt in the international community's mind that Syria has retained chemical weapons in violation of its agreement and its statement that it had removed them all. There is no longer any doubt ," Mattis told reporters. ..."
"... there's absolutely No Doubt that the Outlaw US Empire's mouthpieces are lying yet again. ..."
"... Perhaps the more disturbing alternative is Mattis is fully aware of everything surrounding the run up to the 2003 Iraq war and is thinking to himself: "Declaring there is no doubt worked last time..." ..."
"... The particular genius of our oppressors has been to erode the public's collective memory. With a dumbed-down educational system, a 24-hour propaganda, and an utterly vacuous popular culture, we are deprived of precisely that faculty on which following Burke's admonition depends. With our "post-literate" reliance on the Internet, it's a wonder any of us can remember what happened last week. ..."
"... If the Syrians used them, then clearly they have them. Did the Syrians use them? The US does not recognize that as a valid question. That is where Mattis goes astray. It is a valid question. We were fooled by false flag use before. There are signs it may have happened again. It is not clear enough to be sure, but it is not clear enough to be sure the other way either. ..."
"... That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history. ~Aldous Huxley ..."
"There can be no doubt in the international community's mind that Syria has retained chemical weapons in violation of its
agreement and its statement that it had removed them all. There is no longer any doubt ," Mattis told reporters.
Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them
to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us. And there is no doubt that his aggressive regional ambitions will
lead him into future confrontations with his neighbors ...
"Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it."
And there's absolutely No Doubt that the Outlaw US Empire's mouthpieces are lying yet again. Makes me even more curious
as to what Putin said to Tillerson, as both Putin's and Lavrov's remarks about the global situation are blunter and more accusatory
than ever before. Given the info provided by Lavrov at the press conference following the meeting of their Foreign Ministers Astana,
I must assume the SCO nations are on the same page regarding the entire International Situation. In June in Astana, the SCO Summit
will admit India and Pakistan as full members and begin the process to enroll Iran. Here, again, is the link to that press release,
http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/-/asset_publisher/cKNonkJE02Bw/content/id/2734712
Perhaps the more disturbing alternative is Mattis is fully aware of everything surrounding the run up to the 2003 Iraq war
and is thinking to himself: "Declaring there is no doubt worked last time..."
The particular genius of our oppressors has been to erode the public's collective memory. With a dumbed-down educational system,
a 24-hour propaganda, and an utterly vacuous popular culture, we are deprived of precisely that faculty on which following Burke's
admonition depends. With our "post-literate" reliance on the Internet, it's a wonder any of us can remember what happened last
week.
If the Syrians used them, then clearly they have them. Did the Syrians use them? The US does not recognize that as a valid
question. That is where Mattis goes astray. It is a valid question. We were fooled by false flag use before. There are signs it
may have happened again. It is not clear enough to be sure, but it is not clear enough to be sure the other way either.
Therefore, Mattis is wrong to conclude anything either way. However, given the official position of the US, he can hardly
say anything different in public.
We ought to be looking at this very closely, but we vetoed such a close look by the international body that would do it. That
would put into question the missile strikes we launched based on assumptions.
Pepe Escobar evokes T.S. Eliot's Hollow Men in his latest enumeration of Russia & China's strategic relationship. Oh, and
I forgot to mention in #1 that BRICS also stands with Russia regarding all events Syria and Ukraine; and despite many efforts
to destabilize it, BRICS still stands in solidarity and continues its work to economically counter the Outlaw US Empire, which
Pepe also reminds us about,
https://sputniknews.com/columnists/201704211052866086-washington-terrified-of-russia-china/
Why would insignificant village be intentionally "gassed by Assad" while he has an absolute upper hand on the field? - is the
question nobody in the Western media asks, nor has an answer to it.
Bio-chem weapons would be last resort to use on the battlefield in a desperate situation - was an original thought of making
and having them.
Me and probably all of us here have no doubt that it is just a false flag perpetrated, oversaturated and pathetically served
to us to validate continuation to oust Assad for Saudi's concessions, oil and money. Pure con and a rather amateurish one.
As expected, no doubt. :)
Which state is Iran's greatest enemy? - Israel .. Where was the statement made? .. Who are the greatest financial political contributors
in America? Res Ipsa Loquitur.
The importance of Mattis's pronouncement, as well as some "
tilling of the soil " in the prestige press, is that another false flag attack is coming. The Hillary-McCain directive to
take out Syrian airfields is going to be implemented.
@1 karlof1
Talking Lavrov, talking history... The comprehensive history lesson Lavrov delivers to Tillerson is worth watching a number of
times. It is an absolute shut down, in Tillersons face...rolling straight off the tongue. Tillerson: 'trust us, we are sure, beyond doubt, Assad has chemical weapons' Lavrov: 'here have this 5 minute history lesson you
cabbage. '
SmoothieX12 Difference this time is Syria has Russian backing and the BRICS [almost half the population of the World].Russia knows
Syria is the key to the Middle East, if Syria fell, Hezbollah could not resist the head choppers from the North and East and attacks
from the aparthied state from the South. Iran would then be exposed and attacked financially and militarily. Of course its a huge
gamble, will those nutcases in Washington take it? These are existential stakes for many states in the region.
Assad's recent announcement about wanting to buy more Russian air defense systems comes close to addmiting that the Russians
will not be defending Syrian airspace.
To paraphrase tRump:
...the submarines, even more powerful than the carriers...
So, all the assets are in place. We're starting to see the accusation swarm against Assad occur at a rate that's too fast to
refute individual charges against the Syrian president.
Don't be surprised if the decapitation strikes against Syria and N.Korea happen simultaneously.
@18 This probably won't appear in the MSM so I'll post it here...
"Emmanuel Macron fears this as well. The 39-year-old presidential candidate – an unknown quantity here just two years ago–
is campaigning for the Jewish vote, keenly aware of the threat. But when France goes to the polls on Sunday, its Jews will face
a unique choice: To vote in the spirit of Jewish Americans, prioritizing principles of welfare and liberal democratic values,
or in the Israeli posture, with security first in mind.
Macron is betting on the former, appealing to Jewish community values shared with the French Republic of liberty, equality
and fraternity.
"He knows there is a real danger from a double extremism – from the far-Right with Marine Le Pen, and from the far-Left," said
Gilles Taieb, a prominent member of the French Jewish community who joined Macron's En Marche! campaign in August. "He understands
the specific needs of the Jewish community.""
Assad's recent announcement about wanting to buy more Russian air defense systems comes close to addmiting that the Russians
will not be defending Syrian airspace.
This is rather a confusing (in BBC's or NYT vein) statement, since Russia, through a number of her high ranking representatives
openly stated that she will upgrade Syria's AD. Syria IS NOT going to buy them, since has very little precious money, but what
Syria is doing already is letting a truck load of Russia's extracting and construction companies on her market. Google Translate
will do the job (link is in Russian)
Iran would then be exposed and attacked financially and militarily.
I have a different opinion about this dynamics and I will not be surprised if Iran "suddenly" will become a full member of
ODKB. At least for a little while.
Fog of war warning and all, but Assad definitely mentioned price as a factor in getting New AD systems in a sputniknews interview.
Of course, mechanism of what in Russian is called vzaimoraschety (mutual "payments" or "coverage") is always established. The
price of military technology may be compensated through other means, such as contractual preferences or any other privileges.
I think Russia's oil companies will be quite happy and so will be weapons' manufacturers. Come to think about it--they already
are.
The question of Russian air defence missiles to Syria should not even be asked, Israel has nuclear weapons, the US don't care,
the US supplies Israel with the latest OFFENSIVE weaponry and aircraft [f35, f16 ect]plus Iron Dome. It would be the height of
folly for Russia not to give Syria the means to defend themselves.
Just as an FYI, I'm unable to access this site when I use a VPN server based in Canada, however VPN servers located elsewhere
connect without issue. Anyone else experience this?
what's the sound of one mad dog jarhead barking? if it sounds off in the media echo-chamber, does it make a noise? it only echoes
in the tnc msm. every american knows he's howling at the moon. it may well be that there's plenty of energy among those clipping
coupons on american war bonds for more war, and no energy among those who fruitlessly opposed empire in the face of those same
coupon-clippers.
its all-war, all-the-time with tee-rump just as it was with obama, bush, and clinton before him. people who are surprised at
this are no more acute than those who might salute the flag the mad dogs have again run up the flag pole.
it would be exceptionally keen if all those cruise missiles unleashed on syria and/or north korea not only turned around, but
struck their origin. wouldn't that be the end?
The American public has to be the most ignorant and gullible group of ass-hats on the planet, if they fall for this BS being shoveled
at them again. God-almighty this crap gets old!!!
All for the sake of global hegemony, and more wealth for the Trumps of the world.
First of all, I don't know how you can tell those speeches are the same though I heard them both mention WMDs. But here's the
kicker, that's not the Canadian PM, not on that date, he was the Leader of the Opposition at that time. Harper became PM later.
Jean Chretien was the PM and he kept Canada out of Iraq. End of story.
b cites Edmund Burke "Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it."
There is also this little ditty:
"If at first you don't succeed try and try and try again. Never stop trying."
It works very well for TPTB who hold the sheeples are too dumbed down and will never recall moving lips.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
@ Perimetr 16
Israel needs to take the other side of the Golan - that's where the oil bubbles bigly. Ask Genie HQ NJ and while at it check
out their Board of Directors, Strategic Advisory Board. Hint, it's the gang and No One dares to spank
[Alert: page may load slowly but a worthy wait].
So forget about it. The op word is Strategic
Israel can strike Syria with 10 MOABs per second 24hr/7 and lips will be festiviously sealed tighter than a crabs rear-end.
A long essay by Robert Kennedy Jr Feb 2016:
"[W]e may want to look beyond the convenient explanations of religion and ideology and focus on the more complex rationales
of history and oil, which mostly point the finger of blame for terrorism back at the champions of militarism, imperialism and
petroleum here on our own shores," Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., intoned in an April editorial for
Ecowatch
thanks b... waiting for the exceptional empire to collapse.. not holding my breathe here.. the same game is being played and the
same folks are hoping for the same results.. they are already getting them when it comes to money thrown into war and prep for
war.. they are winning regardless if they can convince everyone to go deeper..
@17 wwinsti.. could be a head fake... no one knows for sure other then assad and russia.. welcome to the world of endless speculation..
@28 ia... this canuck is not having any issues accessing moa.. who nose.. maybe trudeau and freeland have set up a firewall to
protect us from a different perspective then the 'rah, rah, rah - war 24/7 we support twitter mans agenda'..
The verdict on the chemical attack was swift and certain. When it comes to the recent bus bombing, somehow it is so different:
We are investigating, but I don't have any specific ... But we think it's exaggerated . Inqury on Syria. Security Council Stakeout, 21 April, 2017
Those people have no shame. They are not going to investigate the Khan Sheikhoun chemical attack. All the want is the flight
plans from the Syrian government to finish their "work".
"No doubt" is not a statement about an objective reality out there (in country x); it is a statement about the subjective reality
in the mind of the speaker (observer). A cunning ploy to speak a non-falsehood (about the mental conditioning of speaker and audience)
that is merely opinion implying it is fact about a situation lacking empirical evidence.
This hype is getting so tedious.
The WMD crap from The International (Christian Colonial) Community isn't about 'manufacturing consent'. It's about manufacturing
CONSENSUS within the Christian Colonial Community itself. The Jew-controlled MSM takes care of the brainwashing. We already know
that bribed politicians are paid to disregard the Will Of The People.
"Those people have no shame. They are not going to investigate the Khan Sheikhoun chemical attack."
They're just plugging stuff into the dossier so that historians will be able to look back and see how reasonable and restrained
the U.S. was before deciding to bomb the crap out of Assad and his country.
Here's how they can do that : They say " Look , we admit that proving guilt absolutely is next to impossible in these events
, and that we may have been a bit hasty in bombing Syria's airfield before the investigation was done. We'll even concede the
odds in Assad's favor , say 3:1 , or only a 25% chance he was guilty for any given sarin attack , even though we're pretty sure
he's been the culprit. Just know this , when we're sure - let's set a higher standard here and say 90% certainty - when we're
sure about his culpability for just one use of sarin , big or small , that's our red line, after that he gets the full Gaddafi
, no questions asked. OK ? Understand ? "
Everyone nods , probably including some here. When there's any uncertainty , which there always is , he gives Assad the benefit
of the doubt , and then requires a higher threshold to hold him accountable. You can't get more reasonable than that.
Well , maybe somewhat predictably , false-flag activity picks up - two sarin attacks per month over the following two months
, always with the typical doubts about who dunnit. The U.S. keeps their word , with no significant escalation. With the next event
, as soon as sarin is confirmed but well before we think we know who was guilty , the U.S. announces breach of the red line and
launches a full-scale attack on Assad and his partners , demanding that he step down immediately or watch as his country is turned
to rubble. Why ?
Counting the three sarin attacks to date , and the five more that follow , the probability that the rebels committed all eight
attacks is .75^8 , or 10%. That means there's a 90% chance that Assad was responsible for at least one attack - i.e. , he crossed
the red line.
That's why the false-flags will continue , and why a regime-change war with Syria is inevitable , and why the buy-in by the
public when it happens will be nearly unanimous.
That could just as easily be interpreted as Russia planning to intervene while claiming that "Syrian" air defenses have shot
down US aircraft/tomohawaks. I certainly don't know for sure that Russia has actually decided to take it to that level. Perhaps
the Russians will never do that, or perhaps they themselves have not yet decided but want to keep that option open to them if
later they do. At any rate, there is no advantage at all to reassuring the Americans that they will NOT intervene. It is best
to keep Mattis and McMaster guessing just like we are.
I do not know to what degree US planners are confident of easily overcoming serious air defenses. They probably feel that if
they defeat the S400s then US military dominance will remain unchallenged for a very long time. I'm not sure if they've gamed
the opposite outcome. If "Syria" shoots down a few F22s or 35s the US is in deep trouble and any victory (to the extent bringing
jihadists to power can be called a victory) would be a Pyrhic one.
Well, fuck! Here we go again; U.S. is blitzing the international airways with propaganda and lies.
Zieg heil, zeig heil, herr Trump...
You bloody, rotten, bastard!
Karlof1 and Harrylaw: talking about BRICS'support to Russia, never trust Brazil. After Lula and Rousseff,the right-wing president
Michel Temer has transformed the country in just another latin american lackey of Trump...
Of course, there's no way to predict the outcomes of certain actions or read minds of any of the various actors involved with
this sarin drama, but the events in Syria since Sept. 2015 or even Sept. 2001 do allow us to lean our interpretations a certain
way, don't you think?
At the end of the day, an increasingly desperate USA has available 4 Ohio class submarines that carry just short of 200 cruise
missiles each. They are, with some quibbling, decapitation weapon systems designed to overwhelm nearly any defense. I can't see
the US not making use of such a capacity if they are as hell bent on regime change as they claim.
Because the strike on Syrian territory was against International law
http://www.dw.com/en/us-missile-strike-on-syria-a-violation-of-international-law/a-38389950
Putin has to make up his mind, if the US strike Syria again or repeatedly without harming Russial personnel or assets and
without a military response, Russia should sue for peace and get the hell out of Syria, thereby acknowledging that the US are
the only Nation that can decide the fate of Nations with regard to International affairs. In other words the unanimous agreement
of the 5 veto wielding members of the UNSC will no longer be applicable and article 2 of the UN Charter is null and void.
Article 2. [3] UN Charter All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international
peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
[4] All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity
or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
Are you the NEW York Times commentator. I really enjoy your comments their. I hardly drop by NYT however this week you were
the only sane poster on North Korea. Your a jem keep it up. In fact I think cut and pasted you comment onto a Australian paper.
Bravo.
Yes, the US has an enormous amount of cruise missiles. But judging by the damage done by the last 60 tomohawaks, it does not
have enough to destroy Syrian air power with tomohawaks alone. In past invasions, they were used to destroy radars so that the
subsequent air campaign can be conducted without contending with air defenses. They are not an end in and of themselves. In this
case, that isn't possible unless the US plans on attacking Russian forces on both land and sea directly. The US is so far extremely
reluctant to kill any Russian personnel and that is not likely to change. And this reluctance is not because of good sportsmanship.
Add to that, the Russians have shut down the deconfliction line. It means the US can't warn the Russians to get out of the
way during the next attack. In other words, the Russians are prepared to be human shields to protect Syria. That does not scream
"we are backing down" to me. There are also indications that US and allied sortie rates over Syria have dropped in number quite
substantially since communication has been shut down.
While I agree the US is absolutely determined to destroy Syria, it is not at all clear that Russia plans to step aside while
the US does it.
OT but LA, SF, NYC all experience power outages at the same and only RT makes the connection while MSM oblivious. Meanwhile exercises
for an EMZ attack over a major US city ongoing. Strange
Peter AU @52. Sorry Peter I was being a little sarcastic. I think it has already been established that any US attack on Syria
must be countered in the first instance by Syrian forces, since Russia was invited into Syria to help put down terrorism, it might
not be in Russia's interest or anybody's [unless their forces are hit] to start WW3. Hence my point about arming Syria up the
same way the US does with Israel and Saudi Arabia.All 5 veto wielding powers are of course above International law for all time,
so that if the other members of the Security Council propose a Resolution condemning US aggression, the US simply uses its veto
and that Resolution goes down the memory hole. Here is an excellent article on the veto..
http://www.david-morrison.org.uk/iraq/ags-legal-advice.pdf
"Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it" does not appear in the complete 12-volume set of Works of Edmund Burke,
and Bartlett's books of quotations have never included it, but the allegation nowadays is common that Burke said this, because
many writers say things that are false. Anyone who trusts a mere allegation, like gossip, is not reliable and cannot be trusted
in what that person alleges, because falsehoods mix in with truths for any such person. The person isn't necessarily fabricating,
not necessarily intentionally falsifying; the person just doesn't care whether what he or she alleges to be true IS true. Any
such person is untrustworthy to cite on anything.
Furthermore, that alleged Burke-quotation doesn't even sound like Burke's writing-style, which was a very distinctive style.
So, anyone who has actually read Burke would suspect that this apocryphal statement from him was probably never said by him. Only
pretentious people would allege that Burke said it -- people who pretend to have read Burke.
@54 lysander, 'In other words, the Russians are prepared to be human shields to protect Syria.'
i don't think that's the message sent or that it's indicative of the action to be taken in the event of another us attack on
syria. as it stood pre-tee-rump-attack the us could call the russians and 'warn' them that the cruise missiles were theirs ...
now they can no longer do that, and the russians have made a point of stating that an attacking aircraft/missile - and the originating
vessel/station - are going to be shot down/taken down ... that the russians will not waste time in trying to figure out just whose
attacking missiles/aircraft they are destroying.
i think it will be a cold day in hell before the russians 'sacrifice' themselves to make a point.
Eric Zuesse | Apr 22, 2017 7:15:46 AM | 59
"Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it"
This from, of all places, Yahoo answers (blech); however it is referenced;
CITES: George Santayana, The Life of Reason or The Phases of Human Progress: Reason in Common Sense 284 (2nd ed., Charles Scribner's
Sons, New York, New York 1924 (originally published 1905 Charles Scribner's Sons)(appears in chapter XII, "Flux and Constancy
in Human Nature")). George Santayana, The Life of Reason or The Phases of Human Progress 82 (one-volume edition, Charles Scribner's
Sons, New York, New York 1954)(appears in Book I, Reason in Common Sense, chapter 10, "Flux and Constancy in Human Nature").
This information was found at: http://members.aol.com/Santayana/gsguestbook.htm
``Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it,'' said Penton, echoing philosopher George Santayana's famous admonition.
All this lies, fake news, psyop by US, NATO and MSM is possibly just because they rule the world. They refuse any other views,
parties, nations questioning their wars and propaganda. Its quite scary when you think about it.
Like, is there ANYONE condemning this in the MSM nowadays? No one.
Every journalist (MSM) from Germany, to US, to Spain, to Portugal, to Columbia, to Sweden, to South Korea etc, all western MSM
peddle this same propaganda for the american empire and their endless wars.
1984?
@ 60, I don't think sacrifice is the word I would use. The US understands that killing openly Russian soldiers soldiers (vs indirectly
by arming terrorist proxies) would mean Russian retaliation. And therefore will not do it.
@ 60, I don't think sacrifice is the word I would use. The US understands that killing openly Russian soldiers soldiers (vs indirectly
by arming terrorist proxies) would mean Russian retaliation. And therefore will not do it.
well, we're real impressed that you've memorized all 12 volumes of Edmund Burke, but for those of us who haven't, Google does
credit him with this remark. a simple oversight, perhaps? so thanks for the lesson(even if you haven't cleared anything up), and
the mini diatribe, teach, even though your scholarly footnotes have fuck all to do with b's intent.
"no doubt"
Did they get this from Bush's speech to congress in March, 2003?
"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some
of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
Real intelligence left all kinds of doubt especially from the family members of Iraqi scientists who went into Iraq to ask. They
risked their lives for this and were ignored.
"we assess" - recent prepeated mantra from USG declarations. I'm waiting for The Donald or his CIA minion to declare Syrian
WMDs to be a "slam dunk." I think Cheney used to say "we have it on good authority." The rule for most politicians and media is
if their lips move they're lying.
Perhaps after another coalition of the willing has destroyed Syria will the US president joke about searching for WMDs like Bush
did. An insult to us all.
The Oxford Concise Dictionary of Quotations has the quote "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" made
by George Santayana (1863 - 1952) in The Life of Reason (1905) vol. 1, ch. 12
Oxford is fairly reliable sourcing for such questions, FWIW. As far as the western world and history another quote comes to
mind from Dante Alighiere (1265-1321) that translates: Abandon all hope, you who enter! [with regard to history].
We need a Jon Stewart style montage of all these people saying "no doubt" followed by the group No Doubt saying it. (like he did
with the GOP/FNC meme of "It's A Trap")
"Counting the three sarin attacks to date , and the five more that follow , the probability that the rebels committed all eight
attacks is .75^8 , or 10%. That means there's a 90% chance that Assad was responsible for at least one attack - i.e. , he crossed
the red line."
I understand that this was presented as an incorrect reasoning, but perhaps not all readers here see the mistakes. First, probability
is used to describe random events and not historical events. The post that you see here could be written by Piotr Berman, an identifiable
individual, or by an impostor. In itself the claim that it was written by Piotr Berman is true or false, it does not have probability.
However, from the point of view of a reader, it is but one of a large number of comments posted on internet so one can apply some
guessed estimates, like "10% of comments signed with uniquely identifiable names are written by impostors". This of course begs
the question how we arrive at such estimates etc. In short, the probability assigned to a single sarin attack is an exhalation
from someones terminal end of the digestive system and quite hazardous if used.
However, even if we form an abstract model in which a chemical attack is randomly perpetrated by X with probability p and not
by X with probability 1-p, and we have 8 attacks, the probability that X perpetrated at least one attack is anywhere between 0
and 1. The formula (1-p)^8 applies only if the events are independent. For example, if X possesses the means to perpetrate an
attack with probability q, then the probability that it perpetrated any of many attacks is never larger than q.
That said, probabilities have their place in war strategy. If a false flag attack has a random effect on a key decision maker,
that repeating it many times may increase the probability that a desired decision will be made. And Trump's and Obama's behavior
has (and had) a degree of randomness.
You're correct about the technical probability considerations , of course , but I think the real-life effect of each new false-flag
may fall closer to the line drawn by the bad model than by the good. I think all parties involved know that each new false-flag
has an incremental impact driving us closer to war ,in addition to the random one you mention , at least as long as there remains
considerable doubt about the true culprit with each new event.
From Khan al-Assal to Ghouta to Khan Sheikhoun we've moved closer and closer to the real "red line". For the anti-Assad camp
, the false-flag strategy is still working and they'll keep it up , though I'm sure they're getting impatient. For the Assad side
, gaining territory has the opposite effect , moving us away from the red line. Had Assad and Putin doubled-down on battlefield
intensity after Aleppo and made further gains , rather than pausing as they did , I think they'd be in much better shape today.
The usage of "there can be no doubt" is a bit different from what we could learn in English classes. First, "doubt" is a kind
of thought-weed that is at times harmless, and at times seriously detrimental and thus subjected to eradication efforts. "There
is no doubt" declares the success of the eradication campaign while "There can be no doubt" is more like "There should not be
any doubt", i.e. an exhortation to continue and expand eradication campaign. Usually the large fields of major agribusiness companies
are well tended with copious amounts of herbicides, while on the edges, meadows, smaller organically tended fields etc. the weeds
can survive and in isolated places they can even thrive.
From that point of view excessive consumption of, say, NYT or TV news can make people positive for "symptoms of sarin or sarin-like
chemicals" like Roundup when we take swabs from their mucosal surfaces and analyze with sensitive instruments. Smaller but proudly
"mainstream" publications like New Yorker have no doubt either (in this case it is easy, because New Yorker is very compartmentalized,
few individuals are allowed to write on the topic, this way they can keep doubt from showing without mass use of chemicals). The
Nation has some articles written by doubt-free persons (like Katha Pollit) but doubt levels are significant -- kept down mostly
by small number of articles on Syria. And Counterpunch is a weed in itself.
How about this: The US is prime Nazi country/regime, and the Zionist state is modeled after the US, or the European racism.
The settler states are known for its unprecedented violence. Unfortunately, still the phenomenon of extermination is connected
with Germany and not the US.
One of many U.S. state laws that Nazis examined was this from Maryland:
"All marriages between a white person and a Negro, or between a white person and a person of Negro descent, to the third generation,
inclusive, or between a white person and a member of the Malay race or between a Negro and a member of the Malay race, or between
a person of Negro descent to the third generation, inclusive, and a member of the Malay race . . . [skipping over many variations]
. . . are forever prohibited . . . punished by imprisonment in the penitentiary for not less than eighteen months nor more
than ten years."
@78 bp. 'From that point of view excessive consumption of, say, NYT or TV news can make people positive for "symptoms of sarin
or sarin-like chemicals" like Roundup when we take swabs from their mucosal surfaces and analyze with sensitive instruments.'
very nice piotr berman. the metaphor is so well drawn, and in the following cases as well. One has a malady, here, a malady.
One feels a malady.
the dysfunctions all swell from a common source, into a slum of bloom. the wigs despoiling the Satan ear.
Yes, I was apprehensive at first, but the new regime toed BRICS's lines, participated in its functions as usual, and has tried
to use it in its national interest. Brazil's internal contradictions don't allow it to abandon its one big success story. And
as I stated, BRICS policy declarations are all in line with Russia and China's in every area.
While many of the big brains go to Wall St. to front guess Mr. Market, there are others, "no doubt", that build geopolitical
dashboards, models and simulations for the elite to monitor all the countries/governments/militaries/public.
In spite of their visibility of their universe, they are losing control and know it. The absurdity of the ongoing global debt
situation is a tell.
All countries have evolving relationships with both the US and China as well as within the various groups of nations. China
is talking growth and the US/private finance is talking austerity. It is not if but a matter of when growth wins out and global
finance is put under public control.
That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history. ~Aldous Huxley
Afghan officials have said nearly 100 militants and no civilians were killed, but the remoteness of the area, the presence
of Islamic State fighters, and, more recently, American security forces, has left those claims unverified.
British elite is capable to commit any crimes imaginable perusing its goals.
Notable quotes:
"... "The 'chemical incident' has likely been faked. It suspiciously happened just a few days after U.S. President Trump had announced the he wanted the U.S. military to leave Syria. A year earlier a similar incident was claimed to have happened after a similar announcement by Trump. The U.S. had responded to the 2017 incident by bombing an empty Syrian airfield." ..."
OT but very relevant to the Skripal/Douma incidents.
The Guardian has an
article today headlined
" The taboo on chemical weapons has lasted a century – it must be preserved " which is a bare-faced lie as the Guardian
should know because the British used chemical weapons against the Russian in August, 1919, less than a century ago, and the Japanese,
among America's closest allies used them against the Chinese in World War 2.
The strongest case for Churchill as a chemical warfare enthusiast involves Russia, and was made by Giles Milton in The Guardian
on 1 September 2013, which prompted this article. Milton wrote that in 1919, scientists at the governmental laboratories at
Porton in Wiltshire developed a far more devastating weapon: the top secret "M Device," an exploding shell containing
a highly toxic gas called diphenylaminechloroarsine [DM].
The man in charge of developing it, Major General Charles Foulkes, called it "the most effective chemical weapon ever devised."
Trials at Porton suggested that it was indeed a terrible new weapon. Uncontrollable vomiting, coughing up blood and
instant, crippling fatigue were the most common reactions. The overall head of chemical warfare production, Sir Keith Price,
was convinced its use would lead to the rapid collapse of the Bolshevik regime. "If you got home only once with the gas you
would find no more Bolshies this side of Vologda."
A staggering 50,000 M Devices were shipped to Russia: British aerial attacks using them began on 27 August 1919 .Bolshevik
soldiers were seen fleeing in panic as the green chemical gas drifted towards them. Those caught in the cloud vomited blood,
then collapsed unconscious. The attacks continued throughout September on many Bolshevik-held villages. But the weapons proved
less effective than Churchill had hoped, partly because of the damp autumn weather. By September, the attacks were halted then
stopped.
"The 'chemical incident' has likely been faked. It suspiciously happened just a few days after U.S. President Trump had
announced the he wanted the U.S. military to leave Syria. A year earlier a similar incident was claimed to have happened after
a similar announcement by Trump. The U.S. had responded to the 2017 incident by bombing an empty Syrian airfield."
Watching reports coming out of Syria in real time, I thought it was a genuine strike. Same as I thought the JK build up was
the real thing and also the 59 missiles a year ago. Once the dust, smoke, and the fog of war had cleared, it became apparent that
this, was yet again a choreographed move, same as the missiles on Shayrat airfield.
I may well be wrong, as I do not go along with group think here, but this strike seems a preemptive move by Trump to prevent
a push for for US military action in Syria that will take us to WWIII.
"... If you look at Manafort's history, he seems to work for sleazy dictators.who were either put into power by the CIA or taken out of power by the CIA. I would suggest that his ultimate employer was the CIA. ..."
Special Counsel Robert Mueller has finally released his conclusions of the investigation into
Russia's role in the US Presidential Election 2016. The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump
campaign conspired or coordinated with Russians, the press reported.
But there is a curious detail: most people charged have no connection to Russia, as in Manafort's case. The former
Trump campaign manager has been accused of money laundry and illegal foreign lobbying for Ukraine.
Thus, the Mueller investigation findings are leading to Kiev, not Russia. Moreover, Ukraine did admit to
interfering in the 2016 US election helping the Democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton.
In this regard, there are fair questions to raise: why American citizens are indicted and sentenced with less
charges while the evidence of a foreign conspiracy is omitted? Where are fair debates over the issue? Why there were
no special committee hearings to determine the truth?
It is clear: a new investigation is coming. The US prosecutors need to interrogate Ukrainian politicians and
members of the Clinton campaign as well as to probe the activity of Ukrainian lobbyists in Washington.
Thus, the audio recording made public in the Ukrainian media was one piece of evidence of Ukraine's interference.
According to it, a person with a voice similar to the voice of the head of Ukraine's National Anti-Corruption Bureau
(NABU), Artem Sytnyk, admitted that he had supported Hillary Clinton in the 2016 US election.
His office was responsible for publicly disclosing the contents of the Ukrainian "black ledger", which implicated
Paul Manafort, to the media. The document contained a list of secret payments made by Ukraine's Party of Regions to
Manafort.
Earlier, the county administrative court of Kyiv had pledged the director of the NABU Artem Sytnyk, and a member
of the Ukrainian Parliament Sergey Leshchenko guilty of publicizing the pre-trial investigation materials concerning
Paul Manafort and election interference. The information was spread illegally and inflicted damage on the foreign
policy of Ukraine.
Translation:
Admit unlawful acts of the director of the NABU A. Sytnyk and the Ukrainian MP S. Leshchenko concerning the
disclosure and distribution of the information about D. Trump's campaign chairman P. Manafort and the presence of
P.Manafort's name and signatures in the lists of "The Party of Regions' black ledgers" in the materials of the
pre-trial investigation, which was the result of interference in the electoral processes of the United States of
America in 2016 and harmed the interests of Ukraine.
Eventually, a slew of incriminating information forced Paul Manafort to resign as Donald Trump's campaign chairman
in August 2016, just in the middle of election campaign. Serhiy Leshchenko, the Ukrainian MP, intended to share his
gloat with his Facebook followers by posting a message stressing that "after such a blow Trump would not recover".
Translation:
"The Party of Regions' black ledgers" saved the world. Manafort, who was fed from Yanukovich's hands,
leaves with dishonor. Guess, after such a blow Trump will not recover.
P.S. We can clearly see the reaction of the Ukrainian politicians involved in "Yanukovich's black ledgers".
Political culture – you've either got it or you haven't".
Another confirmation of the Ukrainian officials' overt support of Hillary Clinton was the anti-Trump publications
on social media. However, as soon as the Republican had won, the Ukrainian politicians, in particular, the Minister
of Internal Affairs of Ukraine Arsen Avakov and Ukrainian MP Oleg Lyashko began to remove massively their anti-Trump
narratives from their social media pages.
Certainly, the US President did not forgive the Ukrainian leadership actions. On his Twitter page, Donald Trump
criticized the Ukrainian efforts to "sabotage" his campaign.
Moreover, in August 2017, it became clear that on the election day Petro Poroshenko sent Hillary Clinton a
telegram, in which he congratulated her on the victory in the elections even before the announcement of the voting
results. The then Minister for Foreign Affairs of Ukraine Pavel Klimkin personally delivered it. The president
himself did not comment on this at all. His assistants strongly rejected all the suspicions of illegal actions during
the election campaign. However, all these facts speak for themselves.
Despite this, Washington does not refuse financial assistance and cooperation with Ukraine. The intervention in
the US Presidential Campaign 2016 and the leverages issues undoubtedly overshadow the current position of Petro
Poroshenko. Moreover, the growing scandal related to accusations against our diplomat gives us reason to doubt the
trustworthiness of the head of state and his future plans as a presidential candidate for the second term.
OffGuardian does not accept advertising or sponsored content. We have no large financial backers. We are not
funded by any government or NGO. Donations from our readers is our only means of income. Even the smallest
amount of support is hugely appreciated.
Gmason
,
Why is ok to expose Manafort's corruption to take down Trump, but not ok to expose Hunter Biden's?
That is inconsistent and hypocritical.
Robbobbobin
,
Perhaps loads of nation states, as well as busy international bodies like the UN, more or less
continually interfere in the affairs of other states and some of the time those ongoing programs of
continual interference are congruent with elections being held in the interfered-with states and on
some of those occasions those elections provide an exceptional opportunity that's just too good to
pass up?
summitflyer
,
I should send this information to Chrystia Freeland, our illustrious foreign affairs minister for
casual reading .Would love to see her reaction upon reading it .
Paul
,
There was one man – backed by a very powerful organisation who worked tirelessly to prevent Trump
becoming President. That was Christopher Steele ...
Jen
,
Paul Manafort was working as Donald Trump's campaign manager until he had to resign halfway through
the campaign when Ukrainians and Ukrainian Americans linked to the Democratic National Committee
and Hillary Rodham Clinton's election campaign released information that Manafort had done work for
former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych and his party The Party of Regions, whose main support
base was in the Russian-speaking eastern part of Ukraine.
The MSM has played up the notion that
Yanukovych was supported by or was drawing close to Vladimir Putin and Russia, and that he rejected
the EU / Ukraine Association Agreement in late 2013. So by bringing up Manafort's past connection
with Yanukovych, the Democrats were trying to tie the Trump campaign to Moscow.
Ben Trovata
,
It's no mystery;the Russians made a better offer! One that included continuing to supply Ukraine
gas ( even they were woefully behind in their payments)! As far as I can tell, this was almost
totally ignored in corporate medIa.( I learned it from David Pear in a BTL comment.)
summitflyer
,
Yes that is what I heard and read also at the time .That was before the coup .
Mistaron
,
Russia had also arranged a $3 billion loan to Yanukovych govt.
Jen
,
The issue I was alluding to is not whether the Yanukovych government really was drawing
closer to the Russian government and its offer to Ukraine of joining a competing Eurasian
Customs Union – the issue was that the Yanukovych government was made out by Western media
to be subservient to Russia by supposedly rejecting the EU / Ukraine association
agreement.
The Yanukovych government had actually asked for more time to study the EU /
Ukraine AA and its fine print. Moscow had apparently tipped off Yanukovych's government
that complying with the AA would have meant (among other things) a complete overhaul of
Ukraine's entire railway-line network to conform with EU railway gauge standards. This in
spite of the fact that some EU member nations like Finland and Spain don't have
EU-compliant railway track gauges themselves (Finland uses Russian gauge as Ukraine does)
– but then, they joined the EU over 20 years ago. Imagine the billions of euros required
to replace the entire railway-line network and railway carriage stock to conform to EU
standards!
There was also no guarantee in the EU / Ukraine AA that full EU membership and its
attendant benefits would accrue to Ukraine if the country complied with the agreement.
It was probably never Yanukovych's intention not to join the EU but instead to be a
member of both the EU and the Eurasian Customs Union. How that would have worked out, I
don't wish to guess – I can only imagine a lot of juggling would be involved if that had
transpired the way I think Yanukovych might have wished.
Ben Trovata
,
Thanx,for above .btw,it was Ukraine that refused that two-direction trade action.It's
presumed( by me ) that the War Party in Washington D.C. would not have this.Oddly,the
R.F. was okay with it,and,as mentioned above,Ukraine owed the R.F. a lot of money for
what had been keeping them warm all winter!
Savorywill
,
I think the gist is that Ukrainian support for Hillary was behind the disclosure of Manafort's
financial misdealing in Ukraine, to embarrass the Trump campaign as Manafort was the Trump campaign
manager at that time. In addition, Hillary was far more pugnacious to Russia than Trump, and her
assistant, Victoria Nuland seems to have more or less orchestrated the coup against the sitting
president, who wanted to accept Russian help, rather getting funds from the IMF (or something like
that). So, it makes sense the the Ukraine powers that be wanted Hillary to win.
Bob In Portland
,
If you look at Manafort's history, he seems to work for sleazy dictators.who were either put into
power by the CIA or taken out of power by the CIA. I would suggest that his ultimate employer was
the CIA.
After Yanukovich was ousted in a US-backed coup in Ukraine Manafort stuck around there and
helped the people who ousted. Just to refresh anyone's memory William Barr worked for the CIA in
the seventies until he got his JD. He was named Attorney General by President Bush (the first)
during congressional and court investigations of Iran-contra, which was a CIA operation to
illegally support the contras attempt to overthrow the Nicaraguan government while illegally arming
both Iraq and Iran, allegedly in exchange for releasing hostages in Beruit .
The interagency team
investigating the kidnappings in Beruit was on Pan Am 103 and perished returning to the US.
Robert Swan Mueller III has never himself been specifically identified as being a CIA employee.
However, his uncle, Richard Bissell, was an officer high in the CIA. His wife, Ann Cabell Standish,
was the granddaughter of Charles Cabell, Deputy Director of the CIA at the time of the Bay of Pigs
fiasco, who was fired by JFK along with the above-mentioned Bissell and Allen Dulles. Ann Mueller's
granduncle, Earle Cabell, the mayor of Dallas at the time of President Kennedy's assassination
there, was revealed to have been a CIA asset.
Curiously, Mueller's career has been marked with prosecuting cases that touch on CIA covert
activities. He prosecuted John Gotti, who was on trial for distribution of cocaine which has been
identified as having arrived in Mena, Arkansas. He prosecuted Noriega, who was the CIA's point man
in Panama, where the CIA laundered money, moved cocaine and moved weapons for the contras. Mueller
prosecuted BCCI (the international bank which laundered mob and intelligence money). Mueller became
the Director of the FBI a week before 9/11.
Clone
,
Australia gave something like $50 million to the Clinton racket prior to the election. There was no
choice. The next president of the most exceptionally useless nation was scooping up money from
everywhere Hillary and Bill are rotten to the core but heck slipping them $50M under the table was
seen as a nice way to stay on their good side.
Petro 'the pig' Poroshenko and his mate Manafort
lavished cash and black ops media favours on Hillary to buy her support.
The crimes are (1) Hillary selling her prospective presidency, and (2) Petro 'the pig' Poroshenko
conspiring with the Clinton's to assault the democratic process.
They will end up dragging 'the pig' around the streets of Kiev behind a truck with his guts hanging
out. Filthy stinking creature he is.
Graham Hooper
,
John Key the Then PM of NZ Gave them a Big Donation to the Clinton Foundation Pre Elections an
Investment in Future Favours of Meetings ,Trade,5 Eyes,Military Sharing and Service to Protect Each
Other.
bevin
,
The Italian government, defeated in the last elections, also made an enormous 'donation' to the
Clinton Foundation.
Chris Williams
,
Clone – and of course these crimes are ones that need to be listed against the Donbass bloodshed
and the downing of MH17, which the all the governments with victims including Australia have now
gone silent on, knowing that it was a Ukrainian operation.
Michael Cromer
,
Hillary Clinton has actually been 'Bad Mouthing' Assange this week – Beggars belief.
Let us not forget Tony Blair – Teflon Tony aka T B. Liar – How is he able to walk free amongst law
abiding citizens?
Michael McNulty
,
He is free but he can't walk amongst law-abiding citizens. The last time I heard of somebody saying
he was making a citizens arrest of Blair it was a young waiter, serving Blair's family in the
closed-off upstairs of a restaurant with his bodyguards around. That was maybe seven years ago but
I forget where. So he won't even sit amongst diners on a family night out. I suspect others do tell
him he should be in prison.
Actions connected with Kiev may well have influenced US voters, as a key part of the anti-Russian
disinfo networks was "Stop Fake" based in Kiev. That was only the latest in a whole campaign of
propaganda to distort the views of Americans about Russia, and about anyone who wanted to improve
relations with Russia. You can only say it didn't influence voters because Trump won – but if Russia's
knowledge about Clinton had gained more attention he'd probably have won even more convincingly!
As the photo for the article nicely indicates war criminals help each other out.
By hook or by crook
as they say.
By the way did Poroshenko ever sell Roshen chocolate as he promised in his last election campaign?
OK. How did Ukraine interfere with the election? We see another string of allegations that show what?
How did anything done by Ukraine have an impact on the 2016 election outcome? (I would have expected
some focus on the role of the Clintons' business interests in Ukraine on the anti-Russian allegations,
in view of conflicts between Russia and Ukraine.) As for whatever happened in Ukrainian social media,
it had no influence on US voting choices. There was no surge of voters switching parties. We weren't
inundated with foreign propaganda. Americans just can't concede that when their candidate of choice
loses, it might not be due to some "outside factor."
Go back to the election results. Both candidates were opposed by much of their own voting bases,
for some of the same reasons. Roughly half of all registered voters rejected both Clinton and Trump.
They either voted third party or withheld their votes.In the end, Clinton did get more votes, but
Trump got the most electoral votes. All we can say for certain is that a good chunk of the population
forgot what they learned in school about the electoral college process.
Alfred (Cairns)
,
You are saying that Ukraine's so-called government – which was the outcome of a US-orchestrated
putsch – did not succeed in influencing the voting in the USA. I am quite happy with that. However,
they did try to influence the US election and that is another matter entirely.
It's probably money, US and IMF money for which Manafort got a kickback.
He must have operated like that in the Philippines and the Congo to be so sure that he did not
have to register. Even though Manafort was always helping the Republicans only in election
campaigns, the Ukrainians would have been anxious to keep at the $$$teet; so for them Clinton – no
change – was more attractive.
Francis Lee
,
For the purpose of analysis it might be useful to start with US interference in Ukraine rather than
the other way around. The role of US NGOs was one of the key factors in this process. The National
Endowment for Democracy (NED) which was operating quite openly in Ukraine prior to the coup, is
funded by the US government, so strictly speaking it is a GO not an NGO. Also involved was Human
Rights Watch another American NGO.
On the ground in Kiev during the run up and during the Maidan
events, Geoffrey Pyatt, US Ambassador to Ukraine and his neo-con sidekick Victoria Nuland,
Assistant Secretary of State for East European and Eurasian Affairs, strolled around Independence
Square in Kiev offering solace, cookies and support to the insurrectionists. Subsequent to this
Victoria 'f*** the EU' Nuland gave a talk at the press club in Washington openly stating that the
US had funded the whole Ukrainian imbroglio – $5 million was apparently the going rate for this
particular 'colour revolution'. There is also talk that Soros was involved.
The fact that Poroshenko, owed the US and the EU, in the overturning of a democratically elected
government Ukraine is not in dispute. And the fact that Porky made this perfectly clear with his
support for Hilary confirms this.
The degree to which the Ukrainian government meddled in the US election is difficult to gauge,
but what seems clear is that such meddling had no immediate or long term effect on the outcome as
Trump was duly elected.
Jen
,
Victoria Nuland is married to Robert Kagan.
I'll let Wikipedia tell folks all they need to
know about Kagan; I'm too busy holding my nose to stop breathing in the toxic fumes the
couple emits.
The Ukrainians released information about Donald Trump's campaign manager Paul Manafort having done
work for past Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych (perceived by the West to have been close to
Moscow while he was leader) with the implication that Trump was being supported by the Russian
government. The information was released in mid-2016. Had it been released closer to the November
elections, it could have had a greater impact on Trump's chances of becoming President and the
Electoral College could have decided differently.
Savorywill
,
Wouldn't have made any difference. So much so-called 'news' is anything but, most people
probably don't know what to believe. I think Trump's election was more a protest vote as much as
anything, People were just sick of the status quo, seeing the world deteriorating around them.
And then, there were voters like me, who detested what Hillary had done in Libya, most
particularly. Destroyed a functioning country with all of the socialist benefits Bernie Sanders
could only dream about, turning the country into a raging hell-hole with constant civil wars 8
years later. Unforgivable, her role in that disaster. I was so relieved that she got defeated,
actually, and Trump did campaign on not militarily interfering with other countries and so far,
touch wood, he hasn't started any new wars.
"... "This is the official statement from Morgan Stanley. Morgan Stanley is one of the biggest bank holdings in the USA. Here you can see a cash flow of Rosemont Seneca Boa company owned by Devon Archer, for a year and a half (from May 2014 to October 2016). According to the bank statement, starting from May 2014 to October 2015 Burisma company transferred to Rosemont company $4.817 million, and the latter transferred a payment amounted to $871,000 to the account of Biden," ..."
"... When Miss Vicki F*TheEU Nuland was scheming with the American ambassador to insert the American stooge "Yats" as she called him, into the leadership of the Ukraine, there was talk about how all the Ukraine gold was being moved to the US for "safekeeping". Does anyone know what happened to their gold reserves? ..."
"... The only future Ukraine has is an impoverished depopulated backwater, like the Baltics. A source of cheap labour and cheap prostitutes for the EU – the only thing Ukraine produces the EU wants. ..."
The Ukrainian Office of the Prosecutor General has drawn up an indictment against the owner of the Burisma Holdings energy
company, ex-Ecology Minister Nikolai Zlochevsky, that contains information that the son of former US Vice President Joe Biden,
Hunter, as a Burisma board member along with his partners, received $16.5 million for their services, Ukrainian Verkhovna Rada
MP from the ruling Servant of the People party Alexander Dubinsky told a press conference on Wednesday, citing the investigation's
materials. According to him, the money came from duplicitous criminal activity.
Another Rada member, Andreii Derkach, had earlier posted,
to Facebook, on November 11th, what he alleges to
be photos of bank statements and other financial records documenting the flows of money from Ukraine into the partnership that Joe
Biden's son Hunter Biden and his friend the Yale college roommate of John Kerry's stepson Christopher Hines, Devon Archer, had set
up.
The partnership, Rosemont Seneca Boa, is associated with their Rosemont Seneca Partners LLC.
The data on the veiled transfer of funds for lobbying activities personally to J. Biden were obtained during the investigation.
Money in the amount of over USD 900 thousand was transferred to the aforesaid Rosemont Seneca Partners LLC, the resident company,
with an indication of 'Remuneration for consulting services' as payment details.
The person was identified and interviewed as
a witness in the course of the investigation, who has been personally engaged in holding transactions for laundering and legitimization
of funds in favor of M. Zlochevsky and the Bidens. Investigators possess original copies of the payment instruments and engineering
means, whereby the said bargains were performed.
Through making use of the political and economic leverages over new government authorities of Ukraine and intimidating them
with the issue of granting financial assistance to Ukraine, Joe Biden has actively promoted the closing of the criminal cases
against M. Zlochevsky and Burisma Group corporate executives.
Another document:
According to the data from the Financial Intelligence Unit of Latvia, Wirelogic Technology AS and Digitex Organization LLP paid
from July 2012 to December 2015 to Burisma Holdings Limited (Cyprus) account established with AS PrivatBank amounts of USD 14,665,982
+ EUR 366,015 and USD 1,964,375 accordingly 'as payments under the loan agreement.'
Consequently, the part of the aforesaid
funds was charged off in favor of Mr. Alan Apter (EUR 302,885), Mr. Aleksander Kwasniewski (EUR 1,150,000), Mr, Devon Archer and
Mr. Hunter Biden [no amounts specified for either].
A letter
is shown addressed to Derkach from "The Prosecutor Office of Ukraine," the "General Prosecutor Office of Ukraine," and signed
by the Prosecutor General Ruslan Ryaboshapka, dated 30 October 2019. It said:
As a result of the pre-trial investigation on 02.09.2019, the investigator decided to close the above mentioned criminal proceedings
on the basis of paragraph 2 of Part 1 of Art. 284 of the CPC of Ukraine in connection with the lack of corpus delicti [evidence
of a crime]. There are no grounds for re-entering information on the facts stated in your application" for "Pre-trial Investigations.
The Burisma cases would not go to trial.
Among the photos that Derkach showed in his article are a "CLIENT STATEMENT for the Period May 1-31 2015" from "Morgan Stanley
Private Wealth Management" showing, for example, that on "5/13," "Funds Transferred" by "WIRED FUNDS SENT" "BENE. ACCT. ROBERT [Hunter]
BIDEN" were "15,000.00".
Derkach says:
Shokin [the man Joe Biden had fired] has repeatedly called upon the NABU director Sitnik in the criminal proceedings on Burisma
case, but always got the run-arounds.
and asks:
Why was the NABU in such a hurry to close the cases of Burisma, Zlochevskiy and Biden, and for whom did they collect personal
data on Shokin?
Before noting that:
the moment when Shokin demanded from NABU to investigate facts of international corruption coincided with the arrival of US
Vice President Joe Biden to Ukraine. And $ 1 billion of loan guarantees that the United States had to provide Ukraine depended
on Biden.
He shows a time-line indicating that the turning-point to close down the investigation was "Biden's visit to Kyiv" occurring "December
7-8, 2015." On "June 3, 2016," was the "Signing by the Government of the United States and Ukraine of loan guarantee agreement [U.S.
taxpayers to take any loss] worth $1 billion."
Starting from May 2014 to October 2015 Burisma company transferred to Rosemont company $4.817 million, and the latter transferred
a payment amounted to $871,000 to the account of Hunter Biden, son of former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden, reported MP Andriy
Derkach in a video blog on Facebook.
"This is the official statement from Morgan Stanley. Morgan Stanley is one of the biggest
bank holdings in the USA. Here you can see a cash flow of Rosemont Seneca Boa company owned by Devon Archer, for a year and a
half (from May 2014 to October 2016). According to the bank statement, starting from May 2014 to October 2015 Burisma company
transferred to Rosemont company $4.817 million, and the latter transferred a payment amounted to $871,000 to the account of Biden,"
said Derkach adding an official statement from Morgan Stanley.
He noted that in order to help the investigation, he made public new documents on international corruption, which were transferred
to him by investigative journalists in 11 criminal proceedings.
Derkach reminded that in total, according to his data from the report of Financial Intelligence Unit of Latvia, in favor of
two shell-offshore companies, as well as Hunter Biden with partners, the Burisma company paid no less than $16.5 mln.
Kolomoysky is also the chief political benefactor of Ukraine's current President, Volodymyr Zelenskiy. Consequently, Kolomoysky
had supported both the overthrow of Yanukovych and the recent election of Zelensky.
For Kolomoysky, instead of Zlochevsky, to be targeted in corruption investigations that would be supported by Kolomoysky's agent
Zelensky, would be unlikely, unless America's current President, Donald Trump, were to abandon entirely his predecessor's, Ukraine-policy,
and were to require Zelensky to do likewise, and Zelensky then were to obey that command from the U.S. White House.
Those things are, as of yet, not expected to happen.
On November 20th, the U.S.-allied 'news'-agency, Reuters, headlined with the anodyne "Ukraine widens probe against Burisma founder
to embezzlement of state funds" and buried in that 486-word article - and provided no further information regarding - the stunning
15-word statement (the real news in the article), that:
The investigation [by Ukraine's Government, of Zlochevsky] is effectively on hold, however, because the Ukrainian authorities
cannot determine Zlochevsky's whereabouts."
Reasonable presumptions would be that Zlochevsky had received advance notice that he was going to be targeted in yet another 'investigation'
into alleged Burisma corruption and had fled Ukraine, much as he had done when Yanukovych was ousted in 2014.
Consequently, thus far, U.S. President Trump has been adhering to Barack Obama's Ukraine policy (which targeted the pro-Yanukovych
Zlochevsky, instead of the anti-Yanukovych Kolomoysky). However, with the recent firing of Obama's Ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch,
that could change.
Although virtually all of the press says that Mr. Zlochevsky owns Burisma, both of the detailed investigations that have
been done of the matter indicate that Zlochevsky sold majority-ownership of the company in 2011 to a Ukrainian billionaire,
Ihor Kolomoysky.
That's interesting. I didn't know that. Kolomoisky's a slippery bastard. Now it appears he's changing sides yet again, at least
if this latest report
from the NYT is to be believed:
"Mr. Kolomoisky, widely seen as Ukraine's most powerful figure outside government, given his role as the patron of the recently
elected President Volodymyr Zelensky, has experienced a remarkable change of heart: It is time, he said, for Ukraine to give
up on the West and turn back toward Russia."
It'll be interesting to see if Kolomoisky's latest treachery helps to hasten Biden's downfall!
Seamus Padraig ,
Wouldn't it be poetic justice if the Clintonoids' destruction of Ukraine ends destroying them in return? I would laugh my ass
off!
Less than six hours after Bojo's disastrous performance on LBC Radio this morning (
here ) we have a 'terrorist attack' in London. There needs to be a modern-day Nuremberg Trials.
When Miss Vicki F*TheEU Nuland was scheming with the American ambassador to insert the American stooge "Yats" as she called him,
into the leadership of the Ukraine, there was talk about how all the Ukraine gold was being moved to the US for "safekeeping".
Does anyone know what happened to their gold reserves?
paul ,
It's in safe hands now, having been flown out to the US, along with the 140 tons of Libyan gold and the Iraqi gold and the Venezuelan
gold and the gold from the basement of WTC 7. So we can all sleep easy now. Any country taking out IMF loans has to hand over
its gold to Uncle Sam.
Just as well. Can't be too careful when there are all these standard issue Mark 1 Foaming-At- The-Mouth-Radical-Moslem-Terrorists
lurking around London Bridge, as supplied by Central Casting. Luckily they are all on the MI5 payroll so our splendid spook chaps
can keep an eye on them.
paul ,
They have lost their oil/ coal/ steel/ gas/ metallurgy/ chemicals/ engineering/ motor vehicle/ shipbuilding/ aircraft/ locomotives/
armaments/ spacecraft/ agricultural machinery industries, and ten million of their population, so they might as well lose their
gold as well.
George Cornell ,
So what possible expertise or wisdom was Hunt Rhymeswith Biden giving time the board of Burisma? I posed this in an NYT blog and
got the reply that the 100k/month was for "the respectability" Rhymeswith would bring to the board. 'Struth!. It's Saturday Night
Live every night in Washington.
Here it is more officially. Hunter was hired to "boost the reputation of Burisma", as only cokehead sex addicted dishonorably
discharged rejects from the Navy can.
King Herod running a babysitting service would make more sense.
This is surely a type of Will Rogers effect.
George Cornell ,
And just for one more whack at what should be a dead horse, most will have noted that former Polish President Krasniewski, handpicked
for the interview in the Daily Mail linked above, is the same Krasniewski who is mentioned in the article above as receiving 1.15
million euros and a few other millions in loose change from Burisma.
He says earnestly that Biden Jr. never abused his position
on the Burisma board. But says little about what surely is a sham contract with Biden Jr. – as to what Biden's, and his own deliverables
might have been. No mention by the Mail about his conflict of interest, who seem to be after just allowing Krasy to defend the
indefensible, viz. the more appalling of the two Bidens.
No wonder poor Poland stays in NATO and spends money on American arms at the expense of pressing social needs, with leaders
like Krasy.
MichaelK ,
Trump's rubbing his tiny hands together with glee at the thought of Joe Biden running against him in next year's election! Biden's
the 'perfect' candidate and Trump will wipe the floor with him. Apparently Ohama has raised questions about Biden's 'gualities'
as a candidate, that's probably because he's up to his turkey neck in the corrupt swamp of Ukrainian's dire politics along with
his pin-head son, Hunter; or 'Hunt' as I prefer to call him.
Perhaps the Democrats have decided to sit the next election out, because they sense that none of the sanctioned candidates
stand a chance against Trump. Perhaps this is why the billionaire Bloomberg has thrown his golden crown into the ring. The Battle
of the Billionaires should be a 'democratic' spectacle worth watching, from a safe distance.
paul ,
Apart from Afghanistan, Ukraine is probably the most corrupt country in the world. It makes Nigeria look like a model of good
governance.
The income per head there is less than Egypt. It is a failed state, a total basket case.
It is a CIA/ NATO playground to aggressively confront Russia.
Tens of billions have been poured into this poor and egregiously corrupt country by the EU, IMF, and CIA Front Groups like the
National Endowment For Democracy to prop up the Fascist Coup Regime that was installed there in 2014.
Surprisingly enough, all this has promptly evaporated into private foreign bank accounts. There is nothing to show for it.
Ukraine, just like Iraq before it, has been a happy hunting ground for corrupt US politicians and their junkie offspring.
Hence the howls of outrage when Trump threatens their pork barrel by threatening to scale back US involvement in Ukraine.
The only future Ukraine has is an impoverished depopulated backwater, like the Baltics. A source of cheap labour and cheap prostitutes
for the EU – the only thing Ukraine produces the EU wants.
Grafter ,
Corrupt individuals of one fascist regime (Ukraine) handing out billions to their partners of another corrupt fascist regime (America).
"Consultancy fees" for what exactly ? Anyway nothing to see here it's all perfectly normal "business". Move along now.
Vierotchka ,
Ihor Kolomoysky is the hand in the Volodymy Zelensky puppet.
lundiel ,
I was wondering if they would ever get round to investigating Hunter Biden's activities. Let's hope this forces them to do so.
LeRuscino ,
The Dems have gone into full self-immolation mode & handed Trump 2020 on a plate !
Hilarious to watch the "Pavlov's Dogs" who were trained to hate Trump, like good little sheep, see their fantasies go up in
smoke. Don't think for one minute (even second) that I support Trump but I do hate Sheep as their naivety is responsible for 99% of
the World's woes.
wardropper ,
One self-immolator handing the election to another self-immolator.
Let's face it, nobody wants to be President of the United States any more.
It's just too much hard work serving the real owners of the White House.
We've reached the "Caligula" stage of the fall of the American empire.
It's terminal.
Republicans are actually afraid to ask questions about Obama administration smashing constitutional order in Ukraine.
Notable quotes:
"... The Ukraine fiasco should be blown wide open for all to see I hope. I even started emailing my "lefty" NYT reading friends photos of Azov Battalion, Right Sector, and C14 militias and asking why Trump should be sending Javelin anti tank missiles to these folks. ..."
"... Ukraine seems a center for weapons trafficking, embezzlement, money laundering, and hacking. 3 billion in IMF loans with no strings, where did it go, USAID money where did it go? How many weapons purchased by Qatar & co. ended up in Syria via Ukraine? ..."
"... Friends! Bread and circus, all of this! The monsters who rule over us must be having quite a laugh, all the way to the bank. ..."
What was inescapable during the hearing was the absence of parliamentary courtesy or simply personal gracious
conduct on the part of Chair of the Committee who was consistently intrusive as he overstepped his role with
arbitrary, prejudicial
violations of Roberts Rules of
Order.
Schiff
routinely ruled Points of Order
to be out of
order with an inflated sense of magisterial presence. His demeanor proved to be classless and boorish as if he had
been granted special dispensation from the House of Representative's Code of Conduct to treat his colleagues with
disdain and contempt.
Schiff routinely
refused to 'recognize
' a Member,
liberally gavelled his authority to cut off debate and at times,
badgered Republican witnesses
and further treated
Republican Members, who are his peers, as second class citizens in what was once regarded as a collegial body.
Once the dust settles, the House Ethics Committee may ultimately weigh in on Schiff's character and the manner in
which he conducted the Committee's business.
OffGuardian does not accept advertising or sponsored content. We have no large financial backers. We are not
funded by any government or NGO. Donations from our readers is our only means of income. Even the smallest amount
of support is hugely appreciated.
ttshasta
,
The Ukraine fiasco should be blown wide open for all to see I hope. I even started emailing my "lefty"
NYT reading friends photos of Azov Battalion, Right Sector, and C14 militias and asking why Trump should
be sending Javelin anti tank missiles to these folks.
I also forwarded Eva Bartlett's October pice on her
Crimea visit describing 200 new kindergartens and new airports and bridges to my friends who think I'm
crazy for saying Crimea has been part of Russia since 1784 and voted 90+% to rejoin Russia. Max
Blumenthal's Grayzone reports 4 million have left Ukraine, an exodus like Venezuela's. Adam Schiff had a
$1000/$2500 per plate fundraiser at Ukrainian Igor Pasternaks home in D.C. Is Pasternak a weapons dealer,
I'm not sure? Who is involved in Ukraine: Manafort, Biden, Obama's Hochstein, CIA's Woolsey, US Favarov,
Crowdstrike, Firtash, John Kerry, and on and on.
Ukraine seems a center for weapons trafficking, embezzlement, money laundering, and hacking. 3 billion in
IMF loans with no strings, where did it go, USAID money where did it go? How many weapons purchased by
Qatar & co. ended up in Syria via Ukraine?
I do not like and did not vote for Orange Jesus, but it seems the Biden, Kerry, Obama, Clinton apparatus
has more to answer for regarding Ukraine. Adam Schiff drives me crazy with his misleading and witness
coaching; he did propose repealing Citizens United though, of which I approve if it is not a diversion
tactic.
Like anyone expects an Amerikastani to tell the truth about anything, ever, for any reason. Amerikastanis
are genetically incapable of it.
Ken
,
Friends! Bread and circus, all of this! The monsters who rule over us must be having quite a laugh, all
the way to the bank.
Berlin beerman
,
The fact that there are citizens who watch this and then believe that their President actually committed
an impeachable offense in the process is past comic. Its sad because it implies one of two things.
1. The masses who watch and believe are as evil as the woman they tried to elect to the White House.
and/or
2. The masses are complete idiots .
the fact that Mr.Trump may actually be trying to help their sorry asses – by trying to put the
American people ahead of corporate interests – is one thing these haters have no clue about. Instead they
prefer to sit, watch and partake in their elected fools waste time and money on infighting and stupidity
– ironically all the attributes they dislike in their President.
Its rather poetic.
Jack_Garbo
,
Not at all. Obama has impeccable (unimpeachable?) manners but he's a worse war criminal than Bush,
and he'll never be tried. As I said, look up impeachable offenses. Trump is (sadly) innocent, the
inquiry is a failed charade. Once out of office, he's eminently indictable, but that won't happen
either. His crimes are not relevant.
Guy
,
All this crap about impeachment , he said she said , and lets not forget it's all Russia's fault which
leads me to as ,what are they drawing our attention away from .Could it be the whole Epstein affair ,
nothing to see here folks .Move along ..all guilty as sin of course .
Vexarb
,
Seattle's multi-talented Amy Walker tried to do Trump and failed. I bet she cannot do Hilary either.
Their saurian corporate world of primal GREED & cold blooded FASCISM is too primitive for her. But she
can and did create Eunice. Here is Amy Walker's wickedly affectionate sketch, the most delicately
incisive probing of Yankee psyche since Gatsby -- and much more positive, in its well brought up, well
educated, well intentioned and naively earnest simplicity of mind.
PPPPS And finally, Eunice's simpleminded and muddleheaded search for authentic being is
absorbed and overlayed by the mawkish bloated U$ culture typified by this POTU$A election.
But Eunice is blithely unaware of all this; the machinations of Obomba, Killary and
Trumpety-trump are beneath her dignity and above her head.
There is an article of the Mawkish Culture of the U$A in today's Saker Vineyard; but the
creation of Eunice shows that mawkish culture has fine, sensitive, deep penetrating roots.
" Yanukovych when he refused to join the EU " Yanukovych did not refuse to join the European Union. The
Ukraine was not then, and is not now, in a position to join the European Union. What Yanukovych did was
decide to not proceed with an association agreement which the European Union and the Ukraine had been
negotiating.
Vexarb
,
Short list by Asdlkks above: "[Trump] The guy who sucked up to AIPAC and Zionists, who first day
in office goes to the CIA, then makes torture Queen director of the CIA, and former director of
the CIA his Secretary of State replacing Big Oil tycoon, who has stuffed every regulatory agency
with swamp creatures more swampy than Obama or any other President could manage, who INCREASED
military operations in the ME including making the rules of engagement such it is even easier to
slaughter civilians, who ran on a big military buildup including a buildup of nuclear weapons
far greater than Obama's "modernization" who has pledged now to greatly increase the
distribution of military equipment to police departments than has been occurring for decades
already, " plus Trump's association with 911 coverup Mayor Giuliani.
Admittedly not a heinous
crimesheet by POTU$A standards.
Listening to Elise Stefanik, was reminded of George Galloway's famous stoush with the U.S Senate back in
2005.
But as for Adam Schiff?
He is obviously a lettuce leaf short of a salad, a jam sandwich without the jam, and a person who quite
obviously needs to speak to someone wearing a white coat.
And with both being deluded Russophobes, I'm certain he and Fiona Hill would make a great team.
How much longer is This Crap going for??
Yarkob
,
as long as they need to constantly use the phrase "under the shadow of impeachment" throughout the
2020 election cycle
wardropper
,
I give it about 17 years before western civilization implodes under the sheer gravitational force of
the crap with which it has surrounded itself for many decades.
George Mc
,
And just think that, as the mass of population sinks deeper into poverty, how much money is being
thrown at this, as you say, Crap? And I am aware that This Crap is, if I may switch metaphors, only
the tip of the iceberg. How many gazillions are being thrown at destabilising various societies,
grinding out relentless propaganda, piling into bloated military juggernauts, glutinous showbiz,
sporting and royal festivals etc. (shepherd's crook approaches)
Martin Usher
,
My guess is that the committee will produce a report which won't be used to impeach the President but
will form a central plank of next year's election campaign. The Republicans are desperate to have
actual impeachment proceedings, they know that the Senate would not convict Satan himself if that
person was one of them and the resulting noise will draw attention away from some looming issues in
the economy and the world which may well break in Q1 next year.
I know there are a lot of people who
will support Trump no matter what and who are quick to point out the failings in other politicians.
There's plenty of crap to go round, however while Trump has been fiddling Rome has been burning --
remember, what might be good for industry lobbyists or could be construed as "God's Work" may not be
actually good policies and there signs that things might not be as wonderful as they'd like. Three
that spring to mind are the relentless money printing by the Fed, inflationary at best, the likelihood
that the heartland will experience significant job reductions in key industries that can't be papered
over and the fact that the tariffs and sanctions put on China don't seem to have had any significant
effect -- on the Chinese, that is (US companies, that's a different take). This isn't all Trump's
fault, the problems have been brewing up for a lot longer than his Presidency, but the complete lack
of action or even recognition that there are problems (China trade excepted) combined with a crass and
very ham-fisted approach to foreign policy is exacerbating things.
US of A twinned with Ukraine a marriage made in heaven. I'm at a loss to say who has the finest
democracy.
As Rhys said below "I can fuck your wife anytime I want, but you fuck my wife and you're fucked,
dude." . No wonder Victoria Nuland's name has been passed over in this shit show.
I was asked by a Russian today, "Which country has the best democracy?". To which I replied "First you
have to define what exactly a democracy is." And they said, "It's what you have in the West."
To which I could only remark, "I wish I had your innocence."
George Mc
,
"Which country has the best democracy? .It's what you have in the West."
Kind of answered his own question there. Wrongly of course.
George Cornell
,
Thanks for the summary. I did not watch, preferring to gaze at the peacock feathers in my duster. The
Dems are making Trump look less odious, no small feat.
"... Thank you b for this revision of the Skripal hoax. The find of pure Novichok was the fatal flaw from the very beginning. The UK is never to be trusted and inept to boot. ..."
"... "only a small amount of BZ is needed to produce complete incapacitation" ..."
"... Also holds for Novichok: Andrei Zheleznyakov, who had been exposed to a minute amount of Novichok in a lab accident five years prior wrote he was, "seared by brilliant colors and hallucinations." Many other sources mention foaming at the mouth, hallucinations and pinpoint pupils. ..."
"... And Litvinenko. The man who prepared the crucial MI6 secret presentation to the chairman of the public inquiry was a colleague of Pablo Miller, the agent runner of Skripal. His name, Christopher Steele. A man the foreign office told the FBI is not reliable!!! ..."
"... UN is owned by west will not pursue war crimes. Responsible parties should no longer lend it legitemacy. ..."
Thanks to an explosive internal memo, there is no reason to believe the claims put
forward by the Syrian opposition that President Bashar al-Assad's government used
chemical weapons against innocent civilians in Douma back in April. This is a scenario I
have questioned from the beginning. It also calls into question all the other conclusions
and reports by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) , which
was assigned in 2014 "to establish facts surrounding allegations of the use of toxic
chemicals, reportedly chlorine, for hostile purposes in the Syrian Arab Republic."
Besides its activities around dubious 'chemical' incident in Syria there is another
rather famous case in which the OPCW got involved: The alleged 'Novichok' attack on Sergei
and Julia Scripal in Salisbury, Britain.
The Foreign Minister of the Russian Federation, Sergey Lavrov, threw a bombshell at
the British assertions that the collapse of the British secret agent Sergej Skripal and
his daughter Yulia on March 4 in Salisbury was caused by a 'Novichok' nerve agent 'of a
type developed by Russia'. (See our older pieces, linked below, for a detailed
documentation of the case.)
The Skripal poisoning happened on March 4.
Eye witnesses described the Skripals as disoriented and probably hallucinating. The
emergency personal suspected Fentanyl influence.
A few days later the British government claimed that the Skripals had been affected
by a chemical agent from the 'Novichok' series which they attributed to Russia. It
insinuated that the Skripals might die soon.
A doctor of the emergency center at the Salisbury District Hospital publicly
asserted that none of its patients was victim of a 'nerve agent'.
On March 14, after much pressure from Russia, Britain finally invited the
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) to analyze the blood of the
victims and to take environmental samples.
The OPCW arrived on March 19 and took specimen on the following days. It also
received a share of the samples taken earlier by the British chemical weapon laboratory
in Porton Down, which is only some 10 miles away from Salisbury.
The OPCW split the various samples it had in a certified laboratory in the
Netherlands and then distributed them to several other certified laboratories for
analysis.
One of those laboratories was the highly regarded Spiez Laboratory in Switzerland
which is part of the Swiss Federal Office for Civil Protection and fully
certified.
On April 12 the OPCW
published a public version of the result of the analyses it had received from its
laboratories.
A more extensive confidential version was given to the state members that make up
the OPCW.
During a public
speech yesterday Lavrov stated of the OPCW report:
[A] detailed and fairly substantial confidential version was distributed to the OPCW
members only. In that report, in accordance with the OPCW way of conduct, the chemical
composition of the agent presented by the British was confirmed, and the analysis of
samples, as the report states, was taken by the OPCW experts themselves. It contains no
names, Novichok or any other. The report only gives the chemical formula, which,
according to our experts, points to an agent that had been developed in many countries
and does not present any particular secret.
After receiving that report Russia was tipped off by the Spiez Laboratory or someone
else that the OPCW report did not include the full results of its analysis.
According to Lavrov this is what the Spiez Laboratory originally sent to the
OPCW:
"Following our analysis, the samples indicate traces of the toxic chemical BZ and
its precursor which are second category chemical weapons. BZ is a nerve toxic agent,
which temporarily disables a person. The psycho toxic effect is achieved within 30 to
60 minutes after its use and lasts for up to four days. This composition was in
operational service in the armies of the US, the UK and other NATO countries. The
Soviet Union and Russia neither designed nor stored such chemical agents. Also, the
samples indicate the presence of type A-234 nerve agent in its virgin state and also
products of its degradation."
The "presence of type A-234 nerve agent", an agent of the so called 'Novichok'
series, in its "virgin state", or as the OPCW stated in "high purity", points to later
addition to the sample. The 'Novichok' agents are not stable. They tend to fall rapidly
apart. Their presence in "virgin state" in a sample which was taken 15 days after the
Skripal incident happened is inexplicable. A scientist of the former Russian chemical
weapon program who worked with similar agents, Leonid Rink,
says
that if the Skripals had really been exposed to such high purity A-234 nerve agent, they
would be dead.
The whole case, the symptoms shown by the Skripals and their recuperation, makes way
more sense if they were 'buzzed', i.e. poisoned with the BZ hallucinogenic agent, than if
they were 'novi-shocked' with a highly toxic nerve agent.
The OPCW had send blood samples from the Skripals to the Spiez laboratory in
Switzerland which found BZ, a psycho agent 25 times stronger than LSD. The OPCW hid this
fact in its reports.
An attack with BZ on the Skripals would be consistent with the observed symptoms that
bystanders had described. The Skripals were indeed hallucinating and behaved very strange
with Sergei Skipal lifting his arms up to the sky while sitting on a bench. Exposure to BZ
would also explain the Skripals' survival.
The OPCW explained the BZ find by claiming that it had mixed BZ into the probe to test
the laboratory. Something which it said it regularly does. At that time I still believed in
the OPCW and
found that explanation reasonable :
The OPCW responded to Russian question about the BZ and high rate of A-234 in the Spiez
Laboratory probe and report.
OPCW said today that it was a control probe to test the laboratory. Such probes are
regularly slipped under the real probes to make sure that the laboratories the OPCW uses
are able to do their job and do not manipulate their results.
That explanation is reasonable.
I guess we can close the BZ theories and go back to food poisoning as the most likely
cause of the Skripals' illness.
In light of the OPCW management manipulation or suppression of the reports of its own
specialists for the purpose of attributing the Douma incident to the Syrian government I
have to change my opinion. I hereby retract my earlier acceptance of the OPCW's explanation
in the Skripal case.
As we now know that the OPCW management manipulates reports at will we can no longer
accept the 'control probe' excuse without further explanations or evidence.
Here is what seems to have happened.
The OPCW did not send a control sample to Spiez to test the laboratory. It sent the
original samples from the Skripals. Spiez found BZ and reported that back to the OPCW. The
OPCW suppressed the Spiez results in its own reports. Somehow Russia got wind of the Spiez
results and exposed the manipulation.
Acceptance that the Skripals had been 'buzzed', not 'novi-shocked' is central to the
Skripal case. It makes the whole Skripal case as a British operation to prevent the
repatriation of Sergei Skripal to Russia much more plausible.
Posted by b on November 30, 2019 at 19:34 UTC |
Permalink
By the writings from the Wehrmacht soldiers we have today, we can see that it was not
Nazi ideology per se which convinced them to invade the Soviet Union, but the nine
consecutive years of extremely virulent anti-Russian propaganda spread in Germany during
the 1930s (plus the myth Bolshevik conspiracy caused 1918).
The West is preparing its population psychologically to go to war against Eurasia --
Russia + China. They are appealing to irrational propaganda to achieve so: painting the
picture of "Russian deceitulness" (this plus the WADA propaganda warfare) and of "Chinese
asiatic despostism" and "Chinese exotism". They are planning for the long term -- maybe
even 20 to 30 years of consecutive brainwashing of their own population so they can
cultivate unconditional hatred for the Eurasians.
If true, then this option also indicates the Western elites are anticipating their own
decline or even a collapse. If Gramsci's theory on the rise of fascism holds true, then
expect the rise of an Anglo-Saxon version of fascism.
Thank you b for this revision of the Skripal hoax. The find of pure Novichok was the fatal
flaw from the very beginning. The UK is never to be trusted and inept to boot.
b - thanks for reconsidering this Skripal case in light of the OPSW scandal that is being
kept under wraps.. This is another phony edifice erected by the west to create what @1 vk
articulates - an anglo-saxon version of fascism towards eurasia..
the whole skripal affair is now standing on even more shaky ground..
Spiez lab and its staff might not have as much reason to frame Russia or Syria for that
kind of stuff, not being part of NATO despite being in a Western capitalist country.
It's
quite possible that the bulk of the staff has no horses in that game and wants to just do
the job - and it's very possible that one or two people there are pissed off enough to blow
the whistle on one part of the ongoing fakeries.
After all, this occurred to people whose
countries were heavily involved in such shenanigans (Scott Ritter, Craig Murray and Edward
Snowden being good examples), and most probably also happened with the Douma report.
Basically, it will be interesting to see if there's any whistleblowing about the Skripal
analyses in the near future.
@vk in 20 to 30 years the East will have risen. All this propaganda will be for nothing.
With the systems of mass communication and much greater lack of trust in authority and the
MSM, these attempts to paint Russia and China in a bad light won't be as effective as is
hoped. The western govts. and elites are hurting themselves far more than any war can hurt
the new powers arising. I read somewhere, ( I apologise that I cannot find the article ),
that the U.S. is planning a limited yield tactical nuclear weapon attack delivered by
stealth bomber on Iran. I don't know if this is in any way true. However Ultimately Chess
and the Chinese game of Go require far more sophisticated thinking than checkers or poker.
The west is very predictable in it's thinking and the East is advancing faster than the
west can sucessfully react.
@uncle tungsten. The U.K. authorities And management are incompetent and not to be
trusted. Not so the scientists, engineers and others in the employ of the civil
service.
It does makes sense that the Skripal's were buzzed as you write and that it is more
propaganda falling apart. This time it is propaganda that was focused on Russia and I am glad to read that Lavrov
is making the findings of the cover up more public. One can only hope that more threads of propaganda come unraveled and the putrid house of
cards built to cover up the global private finance controlled Western society falls apart
soon. At what point are there prosecutions for this sort of "war crimes" against
countries?
Clueless Joe @ 5 wrote: "Spiez lab and its staff might not have as much reason to frame
Russia or Syria for that kind of stuff, not being part of NATO despite being in a Western
capitalist country."
Actually, the Spiez lab is directly linked to NATO, as is Switzerland, through the smoke
screen of the "Peace Partnership" ("Partenariat pour la paix" in its official French
version).
It already go into big trouble once, quite a while ago, for being used by NATO to
whitewash United States use of uranium/depleted uranium weapons. That, apparently, went
down badly with most of the staff, so, if they are on the up-and-up, one might attribute it
to: once burned, twice shy.
Nailed in the head. All and every work from @OPCW should be deeply investigated, it has,
clearly, shown to be a corrupt organization, would like to see its leaders and key
investigators involved in those many crimes arrested and in jail.
Let us not confuse "The British" with an extreme right wing Tory faction, of which Johnson
is the public face, which, as reports coming out today remind us, has been enormously
financed by Russian kleptocrats.
It is this report chronicling the influence of these oligarchs in funding the Tory party
(hundreds of millions of dollars were raised) which was suppressed when it was due to be
released on the eve of the current general election.
The point is that it is this alliance between ultra right Tories, controlling the party
through their secret financing, and anti-Putin oligarchs of the Khodorkovsy, Browder type,
which has been behind the waves of russophobic propaganda and provocations of which Skripal
is but one, particularly flagrant instance.
This is the wing of the Tory party eighty years on, which was ready to sign a peace
agreement with Germany in May 1940. The terms of which would have preserved their power and
the empire and allied the UK with Germany in the attack on the Soviet Union.
Not to put too fine a point on it- the current leadership of the Tory party under Johnson
are crypto fascists.
@ 7 psychohistorian.. that quote from b - "During a public speech yesterday Lavrov stated
of the OPCW report" is actually from april 2018... it would be very good if lavrov actually
did an update here given the latest info we now know have on the opcw process...
As I said at the time, the OPCW has become a political weapon subject to the whims of the
UK and US's foreign policy. (thus the formation of a new attribution initiative body given
the power to blame to whoever the UK and US wants).
ANYTHING coming from the technical secretariat (in particular whilst under Robert
Fairweather) should be considered compromised.
The only thing with any remaining credibility at all are the direct field reports and
the individual lab reports, both of which are considered confidential to the
secretariat.
1. "It sent the original samples from the Skripals."
No, because that doesn't explain the A-234 found by the lab. They were then not original
following the suggested theory. We have to choose between "adding BZ as test" or "adding
A-234 to deceive".
Checking some OPCW docs like "OPCW on-site and off-site analysis of samples" mention one
authentic sample combined with one control sample containing scheduled chemicals & one
blank sample containing no scheduled chemicals. It also makes sense to have control
substances to exclude grave errors or manipulation. In other words the explanation makes
sense. If not BZ then another scheduled chemical would have been there. Not named by Lavrov
for some reason? The simplest solution here remains that Lavrov was blowing smoke or a rare
misfire.
2. From MoA's earlier article, quoting Science Direct
"only a small amount of BZ is needed to produce complete incapacitation"
This would conflict with "lifting his arms up to the sky while sitting on a bench".
That's not complete at all.
3. "consistent with the observed symptoms "
Also holds for Novichok: Andrei Zheleznyakov, who had been exposed to a minute amount of
Novichok in a lab accident five years prior wrote he was, "seared by brilliant colors and
hallucinations." Many other sources mention foaming at the mouth, hallucinations and
pinpoint pupils.
As for the timing, don't confuse "pure" drops with emulsions, the very reason Novichok
was being weaponized as it could be kept active and applied through gel and other more
static forms. Clearly exposure rate would differ based on application method and its
success. Delays could easily occur when it needs to travel eg through skin.
And Litvinenko. The man who prepared the crucial MI6 secret presentation to the chairman of
the public inquiry was a colleague of Pablo Miller, the agent runner of Skripal. His name,
Christopher Steele. A man the foreign office told the FBI is not reliable!!!
@13 James
I should have added that the oligarchs involved are the Fifth Columnist 'westernisers"
whose objection to Putin is that he is orientated towards Eurasia whereas they see their
allies as Wall St and The City, which is where their ill gotten gains are.
In other words this is not about Russophobia so much as a last ditch stand for the maritime
empire in which they are literally invested heavily. It goes without saying-or should do --
which middle eastern Apartheid state is also allied with the anti-Putin oligarchs. Which is
why Vladimir, who knows what its all about, does everything he can, verbally, to
demonstrate his solidarity with the afore unmentioned Apartheid regime.
@ james #12 with the correction to my claim about the timing of the Lavrov
statement...thanks.
@ bevin # 11 who writes that the British Tory party is a tool of Russian oligarchs...any
documentation of that?
And writing about British Tory obfuscation, I am struggling with reading Web of Debt
that keeps talking about Bank of England when I know it got nationalized in 1946 but where
is the documentation about if/how the City of London Corp still has control behind the
scenes? Or don't they? Your Tory claim seems like it should be about the City of London
Corp folks but I have no data to back it up.
It was disappointing and informing when Amy repeated blatant anti-Syria (Assad the
butcher, etc.) propaganda without any comment or counter. I don;t watch them any more they
seem to be part of the overall apparatus, albeit the "controlled opposition".
They were wrong from the beginning on Syria and showed little to no skepticism. Terribly
disappointing after all this time that they are still so wrong – unwilling to admit
it.
I had no idea they fell for the Russia absurdities.
Who butters their bread these days? Has that changed over the years?
Can I recommend "This is Hell"? It's a fantastic podcast/radio show that does in-depth
interviews with all kinds of authors and thinkers. The show is unabashedly skeptical of
capitalism and the established order. Its host, Chuck Mertz, gleefully jokes that it is
intended to be the opposite of Amy Goodman's show. It keeps a snarky and dark sense of humor
throughout. I'm surprised I've never seen it mentioned here in all my years as a lurker
I used to be a huge enthusiast of DN -- proudly wore their t-shirts, contributed
(modestly), and attended several speaking events to hear Amy Goodman in person.
Now I rarely listen -- unless I'm stuck in a car and it's randomly on the radio. It's 90%
ID politics and Trump Derangement Syndrome. Once I started hearing dubious CIA talking points
on Syria and Ukraine, and Adam Schiff reverbs on Russiagate, I gave up. I can get that stuff
from MSNBC in unadulterated doses.
And Aaron Maté is a treasure in a journalistic wasteland. His interviews with Jimmy
Dore are especially lively because they're a perfect combo: Aaron is informed and thoughtful,
and Dore provides the biting satire, punching way, way, way above his weight class.
Lest we forget, in the fog of circular firing-squad war surrounding the Pacifica board
some 10 years ago, when it was narrowly prevented from monetizing (selling) a radio band or
two, and Free Speech Radio News replaced DN as the strikers' news source, Amy privatized DN,
took ownership of it, and at that time paid herself $400 per annum. Scams have
consequences.
Here in flyover territory, I listened to KPFA, which carries Democracy Now, for about 10
years because it was available on the internet and it kept me sane. DN gave a different
perspective from other news coverage. Stopped listening to Pacifica around the time of the
2016 election because there was so much HRC favoritism expressed and they no longer air a
favorite, "Twit Wit Radio".
We, family and friends, donated heavily to KPFA, >$500 a year each.
Once they started blaming my ancestors, and me, for everything wrong with America and
world history, and then started claiming to represent (only) the interests of "students",
"migrants", "women of color","transgender people" and other iPol nonsense, we stopped
donating.
The above groups can support them.
We now donate to the classical music station KFFC and KPOO, the black entertainment station,
which while spewing African-centric iPol nonsense occasionally, is a great station for music
and is about as local as you can get.
I haven't looked at Znet in a couple of years but I did so this morning and my worst fear
was not realized. They have a ton of articles (I typed Syria chemical weapons into the search
box on their home page and it returned a full page including Pepe Escobar and other writers I
recognized and at the bottom of the page the little forward widget indicated 74 pages
of search results) skeptical of the ruling class propaganda on chemical weapons use
accusations at the Syrian government.
Amy Goodman doesn't read Znet? She doesn't have time?
"... Ivan Nikitchuk, a Communist party deputy, said recent events and the Ukraine crisis in particular have led five MPs, including two from the ruling United Russia party, to ask the prosecutor general, Yury Chaika, to examine Gorbachev, 83. ..."
"... "The consequences of that destruction can be felt today in the conflicts that we have seen," said Nikitchuk. ..."
A group of Russian MPs have formally requested prosecutors to investigate former Soviet
leader Mikhail
Gorbachev for treason over the breakup of the Soviet Union, a lawmaker said on
Thursday.
Ivan Nikitchuk, a Communist party deputy, said recent events and the Ukraine crisis in particular have led five
MPs, including two from the ruling United Russia party, to ask the prosecutor general, Yury
Chaika, to examine Gorbachev, 83.
"We asked to prosecute him and those who helped him destroy the Soviet Union for treason of
national interests," said Nikitchuk, adding that Soviet citizens in 1991 were against the
country's breakup.
Seeking to create a more open and prosperous Soviet Union through glasnost and perestroika,
Gorbachev ended up unleashing forces that swept away the country he had sought to preserve and
himself from power.
"The consequences of that destruction can be felt today in the conflicts that we have seen,"
said Nikitchuk.
He added that this included not only Ukraine but other former Soviet countries over the past
two decades.
In February, a popular pro-Western uprising in Ukraine ousted pro-Moscow president Viktor
Yanukovych, who has since taken refuge in Russia .
The Kremlin responded by sending troops to Ukraine's Russian-speaking peninsula of Crimea
and annexing it as part of Russia last month.
"What is happening in Ukraine can happen in Russia, too," said Nikitchuk. "This pushed us to
write to the prosecutor general, so that professional lawyers rather than historians can
investigate the events of 1991."
He added that lawmakers were also concerned about internal enemies stirring unrest.
"The fifth column in our country has been formed and works in the open, funded by foreign
money," he said.
In a landmark speech marking Russia's takeover of Crimea, President Vladimir Putin called Russians
disagreeing with his policies, such as his decision to occupy Crimea, a fifth column.
There have been previous attempts by the Communist party to have Gorbachev prosecuted but
these have led nowhere.
Nikitchuk said he hoped that the current political climate makes for a more favourable
moment and that prosecutors would launch the investigation this time.
Unlike the previous cases, the current request is backed by lawmakers from the ruling party,
United Russia.
Gorbachev said the lawmakers' initiative was "poorly thought out and groundless from a
historical point of view".
"Such calls only show that some lawmakers want publicity," he told the Interfax news agency.
A spokeswoman at the prosecutor's office declined to comment.
The Soviet Union officially ceased to exist in December 1991 after Russia, Belarus and
Ukraine signed the Belavezha accords dissolving the USSR. Gorbachev resigned two weeks
later.
The fundamental mistake Joe makes in this discussion is thinking neoliberal media is
the same thing as progressive media. Neoliberalism co-opts the language of progressive values
while maintaining the status quo to appear inclusive and representative of popular ideas and
values while doing nothing to support those ideas in any meaningful way. Progressive ideas
inherently oppose the consolidation of information by private industry and monopoly in all
forms and actively oppose neoliberal intellectual dishonesty via appeal to markets through
corporate sanitized language.
57:19 It's not "both sides"
that spread blatant misinformation, only one side (the establishment one) spreads blatant
misinformation while the anti-establishment spreads the truth.
ss="comment-renderer-text-content expanded"> Look, this is all explained by the fact
that we have a One Party system run by and for the billionaires. As Yanis Varoufakis said,
"We live in pure unclad plutocracies that depend for their legitimacy and replication that we
think we live in democracies." When billionaires own the media, the billionaires'
narrative will be the only story told. That means the standing order in these companies is to
spike ANY story that exposes the reality of this real collaboration of the party leaders on
policies that exploit and destroy the regular people. We need a new system and a new party
--> Movement for a People's Party
https://peoplesparty.org/
"We don't have any institutional respect anymore".. When even the broadsheets knowingly
sow falsehoods or subtly mislead the public on a regular basis, you'd better be prepared for
the harvest. You never win back respect from someone who's sussed out your con.
article"> Some thoughts: - You said that you wondered if there really could be that
many people who have a problem with pedophilia, and I think the answer is simply "yes". I
don't think it's at all uncommon. The area I live in is very small, a true Nowheresville USA
that has farms surrounding it, and forests surrounding those farms. All the towns around here
are like that or burned out mining towns that should have been entirely depopulated a
generation ago. And at LEAST 3 times a week there's a story of someone form this general area
trading pictures of little girls online or luring kids, or a teacher having sex with his or
her students. There's nothing at all unusual about those stories showing up. We don't all
gasp in shock because of course some creep fucked a kid, it's Tuesday. I think you should be
careful, then, about trying to find explanations beyond the ordinary to explain Epstein's
"success" as a professional monster. He catered to a robust client base, and I'd bet they're
a fairly normal sampling of the general populace.
- "Freespeech norms in the USA/Gab attracts people who just want to spout off N-bombs":
The trouble with this is the false dichotomy in which we've framed this argument. Speech is
NOT an all or nothing proposition. Free speech absolutism is as equally dangerous as a
fascist crackdown on what "sanctioned" speech is. People should NOT be allowed to just say
anything without repercussions. The problem is the definitions. "Dead naming" is a ridiculous
thing to punish someone for, where as calling a black person a "nigger" is a horrific thing
because of the history behind that word. No other word int he English language even
approaches the weight and violence of what that word represents. (Also why you should ALWAYS
ignore anyone who meows "X is the 'n-word' for [insert group label here]) And for anyone
foolish enough to meow, "Well WHO gets to decide?!"...we do. Like we decide EVERYTHING. Like
I just offered a common sense example of "unsanctioned" speech done wrong, and "unsanctioned"
speech done right. And Gab's attractiveness to alt-right hate mongers is nothing unique. Many
people are absolutely fed up with the PC fascism that is RAMPANT on Reddit. I'm as far left
as you can get without seizing the means of production literally and even I'm sick of being
banned from subreddits simply for asking hard questions because I want to understand the
arguments behind the issues. Being silenced for unpopular speech that causes no harm is
ridiculous. But the equal opposite is Reddit's competition in Voat. It is an alt-right nazi
paradise that makes all of Reddit's mistakes, but in a right leaning form of extremism
instead of a left leaning form of extremism.
- Deplatforming: This is very thin ice, however I don't approve of the notion that we owe
a voice to everyone. The paradox of tolerance(
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance) is the crow bar every fascist or
otherwise totalitarian regime in history has used to pry open public discourse. Yiannopoulos
was not saying merely controversial things. He was advocating for fascism; an ideology that
INHERENTLY leads to FAR more violent and aggressive forms of silencing than merely being
kicked off Twitter. We can not afford to be so liberal with our democracy that we allow that
democracy to sink under the weight of personal liberty. Screaming over free speech absolutism
is immaturity of a very dangerous sort. And to be clear, we tried equality with these
fascists before in the form of the Ku Klux Klan. Towns all over the US had non-engagement
policies where public spaces were open tot hem so long as they filed the appropriate forms to
assemble lawfully. Instead of confronting that hatred, we made sure people weren't there to
challenge their ridiculous ideas. Know what happened? The people who wanted to find them did.
And can you deny, Joe Rogan, that groups like they are enjoying a Renaissance post 2016?
Sorry, not sorry: Some forms of speech erode freedom in a far more dangerous way than merely
deplatforming a few dangerous groups.
While it may be fair to call it a necessary evil, "necessary" IS the key word here. You
don't have to like it, but if you ignore history's lessons on what happens if you don't
engage in a little culling of dangerous ideology from public spaces, you are unqualified to
talk on the subject. - "I think there's a danger with social media not complying with the
first amendment": This is a nonsense statement. It literally has no practical meaning. The
first amendment doesn't grant you ANY rights or liberties. It prohibits the government from
abridging them. It's kind of the entire basis of our legal system that rights and liberties
are assumed to be inherent to the state of being born a human being (God-given). The
government doesn't grant us them, nature/god does. Social media in no way conflicts with the
first amendment. It only applies to government agencies. You do not now, nor have you ever
had freedom of speech in private networks. You KNOW that, having to deal with Youtube's
fuckery on a regular basis, and yet still that nonsense came out of your mouth...
These 2 think that they are being open minded when Twice! in the first 42 minutes they
talk about how Hannity is so one sided - then they add "both sides" as if to sound even, but
this whole discussion is left leaning. I don't watch Hannity but I do know all I heard Rachel
Maddow talk about for 2 years was Russiagate. I really like these two guys but I wish they
could see their own bias.
Rogan said: "There is no free speech platform that is universally accepted". I don't have
extensive knowledge of how reddit governs speech, but my experience is that individual
subreddits have their own rules on what gets moderated. Moderation coming from a specific
community that you can join or not is in line with my view of free speech, rather than
censorship coming from these behemoth corporations.
They also kill stories about Bernie or Bust. We need to get on your show to expose the
truth about how few Sanders supporters will support a Democrat in the general election.
Apologies if someone already posted this but on Nov 16 Joe Rogan and Matt Taibbi discussed
the current state of the MSM in a wide-ranging conversation that I think most Barflies will
find very interesting:
“When the government's boot is on your throat, whether it is a left boot or a right
boot is of no consequence.” - Gary Lloyd. We Americans are willingly blind to truth.
It'll be the death of us.
Matt Taibbi: "they’re trying to sound like legitimate news, but they’re also
completely selling out at the same time " perfectly sums up news outlets today, on both
sides.
When I was a kid, i heard, on live radio broadcast, Oswald shot to death in Dallas Police
Station - still think that's a more blatant murder of Witness.
"We don't have any institutional respect anymore".. When even the broadsheets knowingly
sow falsehoods or subtly mislead the public on a regular basis, you'd better be prepared for
the harvest. You never win back respect from someone who's sussed out your con.
"... Sanders went on to argue that "pressure has got to be put on media" to cover policy issues like income inequality and poverty more heavily, instead of devoting attention to sensational campaign moments and the state of political horse races. ..."
"... 'You know what, forget the political gossip. Politics is not a soap opera. Talk about the real damn issues facing this country.'" ..."
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has not been shy about
his disdain for the mainstream media. But the
Democratic presidential hopeful
has rarely, if ever, articulated it as bluntly as he did in an interview that aired on
MSNBC 's "
The Rachel Maddow Show " on Friday night. Sanders
called out the network for its corporate character in a novel exchange with host
Rachel Maddow .
"The American people are sick and tired of establishment politics and economics, and by the way, a little bit tired of corporate
media as well," Sanders told Maddow in an interview taped in Burlington, Vermont.
Maddow pressed Sanders for specifics on how he would change the media if he were president. "What's the solution to corporate
media?" she asked.
"We have got to think of ways the Democratic party, for a start, starts funding the equivalent of Fox television," Sanders
answered. Of course, MSNBC is a corporate media outlet that is widely seen as a Democratic version of Fox News because of the perceived
sympathies of many of its political talk shows.
Sanders went on to argue that "pressure has got to be put on media" to cover policy issues like income inequality and poverty
more heavily, instead of devoting attention to sensational campaign moments and the state of political horse races.
He then claimed that bringing that pressure to bear would be difficult, since corporate ownership makes it harder for news outlets
to cover issues in a way that conflicts with the interests of top executives. "MSNBC is owned by who?" Sanders asked. "Comcast, our
overlords," Maddow responded with a chuckle.
"All right, Comcast is not one of the most popular corporations in America, right?" Sanders said. "And I think the American people
are going to have to say to NBC and ABC and CBS and CNN, 'You know what, forget the political gossip. Politics is not a soap
opera. Talk about the real damn issues facing this country.'"
"... "the Met Police has refused to answer detailed questions about the allegations and whether they ever spoke to Epstein, his friend Ghislaine Maxwell, Prince Andrew or anyone from the royal household". ..."
"... The duke's decision to step down from public duties last week came after a raft of companies and charities sought to distance themselves from him following his disastrous interview. It is thought that both the Queen and Prince Charles were instrumental in forcing the duke to stand down. Prince Charles is reportedly returning to the UK on Monday after a royal tour, when he is expected to hold crisis talks with his brother. ..."
Victims' tsar to query Force's decision not to act over Prince Andrew claims
The Met has said that its investigators reviewed all 'available evidence' in relation to disputed claims that
a 17-year-old was 'forced to have sex with Prince Andrew'. Photograph: Kirsty O'Connor/PA
The Victims' Commissioner is demanding that the Metropolitan Police explain its decision not to pursue a full
investigation into claims a teenager was trafficked to the UK to have sex with
Prince Andrew
.
The
Observer
understands that Dame Vera Baird QC, a former solicitor general and
chair of the Board of the Association of
Police
and Crime Commissioners, has taken a close interest in the allegations, first examined by Scotland Yard
in 2015.
Baird, who has focused on protecting victims of sexual and domestic abuse throughout her career, is currently
observing election purdah and cannot speak to the media.
However, prior to the election she made her views known to a
victims' rights campaigner
, telling him that she would be requesting a meeting with the Met once purdah was
over.
"Before the election was called I spoke at length with the Victims' Commissioner and we both find it
extraordinary that this matter was not proceeded with," Harry Fletcher said.
The Met has said that its investigators reviewed all "available evidence" after receiving a complaint relating
to claims that were made in court documents. It was alleged that in 2001 a 17-year-old, now known to be Virginia
Roberts, was "forced to have sex with Prince Andrew", purportedly at the London home of socialite Ghislaine
Maxwell, the one-time girlfriend of the late disgraced financier
Jeffrey Epstein
. His victims are now bringing claims for damages against his estate.
It is understood that lawyers for Roberts also independently contacted the force in 2016. But the Met chose not
to pursue a full investigation.
Channel 4 News
reported in August
that "the Met Police has refused to answer detailed questions about the allegations and
whether they ever spoke to Epstein, his friend Ghislaine Maxwell, Prince Andrew or anyone from the royal
household".
How seriously the Met took the claims is expected to form a key part of a
BBC
Panorama
investigation
into the Epstein scandal which will include an interview with Roberts and
is due to be broadcast in December.
The Duke of York denies having sex with Roberts. In his
Newsnight
television interview he said he did
not recall having ever met her.
But a photo of him with his arm around Roberts's waist has been widely circulated. There are claims the photo
is fake. The duke says he cannot remember a picture being taken when he was in Maxwell's house.
It is believed that lawyers for Virginia Roberts Giuffre, above, contacted the Metropolitan police in 2016.
"You would expect the
Crown Prosecution Service
to have provided pre-investigative advice in this matter," said Fletcher, an adviser
to Plaid Cymru and several victims' charities. "It needs to be confirmed whether this happened."
A spokeswoman for the CPS said its lawyers have "confirmed that we cannot comment on any input into
investigations where persons have not been charged".
In a statement the Met confirmed that it had received an allegation of "non-recent" trafficking for sexual
exploitation. "Having closely examined the available evidence, the decision was made that this would not progress
to a full investigation," the Met said. Given the heightened interest in the case, the Met confirmed it had
revisited the decision and concluded that it was the correct one. "Therefore no further action is being taken," it
said.
But speculation about what went on at Maxwell's home is unlikely to die down. Lawyers bringing civil claims
against the Epstein estate are looking to subpoena the duke, obliging him to provide testimony under oath as a
witness. The duke has confirmed that he would be prepared to help law enforcement agencies but has given no
commitment to cooperate with any civil actions.
The duke's decision to step down from public duties last week came after a raft of companies and charities
sought to distance themselves from him following his disastrous interview. It is thought that both the Queen and
Prince Charles were instrumental in forcing the duke to stand down. Prince Charles is reportedly returning to the
UK on Monday after a royal tour, when he is expected to hold crisis talks with his brother.
"... Love the Clapper claim (the same Clapper who lied to Congress) says he was just doing his duty in Russiagate. As GBS said, " when a scoundrel is doing something of which he is ashamed, he always says he is doing his duty". ..."
"... There is also a long and inglorious history of interference in domestic politics from the Zinoviev Letter onwards. Plots to stage a military coup against the Wilson government of the 60s and 70s, with Mountbatten as its figurehead. The more recent Skripal Hoax. The contrived Syrian Gas Attack Hoaxes and the White Helmets. They would not hesitate to do the same to Corbyn if they deemed it necessary. ..."
"... The CIA and FBI conspired with the UK and Ukrainian governments to prevent the election of Trump, and then to sabotage and smear his administration once he had been elected. The UK played a major part in this through MI6 and Steele. This is highly dangerous for this country, irrespective of your view of Trump. ..."
"... The Democrats, the Deep State, the MSM, and the Deranged Left were willing to support these conspiracies and hoaxes, and even suspend disbelief, for the greater good. The ends justify the means. All that matters is getting rid of Trump. Anything goes. The corrosive erosion of trust, credibility and integrity in all the institutions of the state is probably irreparable. The legislature and the political process in general. The judiciary. The spooks and police. About 9% of Americans now believe the MSM. ..."
"... No need to even discuss, until Western societies ALL get a grip on the depths of depravity that lie within the actions and "The History of the National Security State" you have to admit, that Julian Assange could not have picked a better book to firmly grip and signal with, than GORE Vidal's, when being manhandled out of the Ecuadorian Embassy, by Spooks who would sell their own mother, let alone nation, in their utter technological ignorance and adherence to anachronistic doctrines & mentality ! ..."
"... The most important thing for us and deliciously so now the election is happening is the BLOWBACK. Our DS lying murdering arses are going to get new ones drilled by Trump and BoBos bromance exploding in full technicolor. ..."
"... By sharing we disrupt the msm messages. Bernard at MoonofAlabama is also worth a daily visitation – priceless analysis on multiple subjects. ..."
"... I'd have thought that events like the spy in the holdall, the spies caught by farmers in Libya, the Skripal's, and the whole over-the-top reaction to the domestic terrorism threat and consequent successful pleas for extra funding, the obvious danger of creating terrorists by security services, the policy of giving asylum to foreign terrorists of countries we don't like and the whole concept of the 5 eyes and GCHQ needs more than ministerial oversight, a committee of yes men/women and an intelligence services commissioner. ..."
As the Quantum field oversees the disintegration of institutions no longer in service to the public, the Democratic party continues
to lose their marbles, perpetuating their own simulated bubble as if they alone are the nation's most trusted purveyors of truth.
Since the Mueller Report failed to deliver on the dubious Russiagate accusations, the party of Thomas Jefferson continues to remain
in search of another ethical pretense to justify continued partisan turmoil. In an effort to discredit and/or distract attention
from the Barr-Durham and IG investigations, the Dems have come up with an implausible piece of political theatre known as Ukrainegate
which has morphed into an impeachment inquiry.
The Inspector General's Report, which may soon be ready for release, will address the presentation of fabricated FBI evidence
to the FISA Court for permission to initiate a surveillance campaign on Trump Administration personnel. In addition, the Department
of Justice has confirmed that Special Investigator John Durham's probe into the origin of the
FBI's counter intelligence investigation during the 2016
election has moved from an administrative review into the criminal prosecution realm. Durham will now be able to actively pursue
candidates for possible prosecution.
The defensive assault from the Democrat hierarchy and its corporate media cohorts can be expected to reach a fevered pitch of
manic proportions as both investigations threatened not only their political future in 2020 but perhaps their very existence.
NBC s uggests that the Barr investigation is a ' mysterious ' review " amid concerns about whether the probe has any legal or
factual basis " while the
NY Times continues
to cast doubt that the investigation has a legitimate basis implying that AG Barr is attempting to " deliver a political victory
for President Trump." The Times misleads its readers with:
Trump has repeatedly attacked the Russia investigation, portraying it as a hoax and illegal even months after the special counsel
closed it."
when in fact, it was the Russiagate collusion allegations that Trump referred to as a hoax, rather than the Mueller investigation
per se.
Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va), minority leader of the Senate Intel Committee suggested that Attorney General William Barr " owes the
Committee an explanation " since the committee is completing a " three-year bipartisan investigation " that has " found nothing to
justify " Barr's expanded effort.
The Senator's gauntlet will be ever so fascinating as the public reads exactly how the Intel Committee spent three years and came
up with " nothing " as compared to what Durham and the IG reports have to say.
On the House side, prime-time whiners Reps. Adam Schiff (D-Calif) and Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) commented that news of the Durham
investigation moving towards criminal liability " raised profound concerns that Barr has lost his independence and become a vehicle
for political revenge " and that " the Rule of Law will suffer irreparable damage ."
Since Barr has issued no determination of blame other than to assure a full, fair and rigorous investigation, it is curious that
the Dems are in premature meltdown as if they expect indictments even though the investigations are not yet complete.
There is, however, one small inconvenient glitch that challenges the Democratic version of reality that does not fit their partisan
spin. The news that former FBI General Counsel James Baker is actively cooperating with the BD investigation ought to send ripples
through the ranks. Baker has already stated that it was a 'small group' within the agency who led the counterintelligence inquiry
into the Trump campaign; notably former FBI Director James Comey and former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe.
Baker's cooperation was not totally unexpected since he also cooperated with the
Inspector General's FISA abuse investigation which is awaiting public release.
As FBI General Counsel, Baker had a role in reviewing the FISA applications before they were submitted to the FISA court and currently
remains under criminal investigation for making unauthorized leaks to the media.
As the agency's chief legal officer, Baker had to be a first-hand participant and privy to every strategy discussion and decision
(real or contemplated). It was his job to identify potential legal implications that might negatively affect the agency or boomerang
back on the FBI. In other words, Baker is in a unique position to know who knew what and when did they know it.
His 'cooperation' can be generally attributed to being more concerned with saving his own butt rather than the Constitution.
In any case, the information he is able to provide will be key for getting to the true origins of Russiagate and the FISA scandal.
Baker's collaboration may augur others facing possible prosecution to step up since 'cooperation' usually comes with the gift of
a lesser charge.
With a special focus on senior Obama era intel officials Durham has reportedly already interviewed up to two dozen former and
current FBI employees as well as officials in the office of the Director of National Intelligence.
From the number of interviews conducted to date it can be surmised that Durham has been accumulating all the necessary facts and
evidence as he works his way up the chain of command, prior to concentrating on top officials who may be central to the investigation.
It has also been reported that Durham expects to interview current and former intelligence officials including CIA analysts, former
CIA Director John Brennan and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper regarding Russian efforts to interfere in the
2016 election.
In a recent
CNN
interview , when asked if he was concerned about any wrongdoing on the part of intel officials, Clapper nervously responded:
I don't know. I don't think there was any wrongdoing. It is disconcerting to know that we are being investigated for having
done our duty and done what we were told to do by the President."
One wonders if Clapper might be a candidate for 'cooperating' along with Baker.
As CIA Director, Brennan made no secret of his efforts to nail the Trump Administration. In the summer of 2016, he formed an inter-agency
taskforce to investigate what was being reported as Russian collusion within the Trump campaign. He boasted to Rachel Maddow that
he brought NSA and FBI officials together with the CIA to ' connect the dots ."
With the addition of James Clapper's DNI, three reports were released: October, 2016, December, 2016 and January, 2017 all disseminating
the Russian-Trump collusion theory which the Mueller Report later found to be unproven.
Since 1947 when the CIA was first authorized by President Harry Truman who belatedly regretted his approval, the agency has been
operating as if they report to no one and that they never owe the public or Congress any explanation of their behaviour or activity
or how they spend the money.
Since those days it has been a weak-minded Congress, intimidated and/or compromised Members who have allowed intel to run their
own show as if they are immune to the Constitution and the Rule of Law. Since 1947, there has been no functioning Congress willing
to provide true accountability or meaningful oversight on the intel community.
Renee Parsons has been a member of the ACLU's Florida State Board of Directors and president of the ACLU Treasure Coast
Chapter. She has been an elected public official in Colorado, an environmental lobbyist with Friends of the Earth and staff member
of the US House of Representatives in Washington DC. She can be found on Twitter @reneedove31
Martin Usher
I don't think the Democratic leadership wanted a formal impeachment, they would prefer that Trump just faded away quietly before
the 2020 election and were in the process of collecting information to reinforce this. They got cornered into formalizing the
investigation by Trump's defense team baiting them as part of their overall strategy. It really doesn't change anything.
Whichever way you slice and/or dice it Trump is fundamentally incompetent, he's unable to fulfill the duties of the office
of the President. He also refuses to distinguish between private interests and public service. His cabinet, a rag tag body of
industry insiders and special interests, are busy trying to ride roughshod over opposition, established policy and even public
opinion to grab as much as possible before the whole house of cards collapses. Its a mess, and its a mess that's quite obviously
damaging US interests. Many constituency groups will have gone along with the program because they thought they could control
things or benefit from them but as its become increasingly obvious Trump's unable to deliver they've been systematically alienated.
The DNC is playing this with a relatively weak field of potential candidates for 2020. Much as I personally like a Sanders
or Warren they're just not going to fly in a Presidential contest -- as we found from the Obama presidency the ship of state just
doesn't turn on a dime, you're not going to undo decades or generations of entrenched neoconservatism and a politically divided
country overnight by some kind of Second Coming pronouncements. My concern is that if we don't get our collective acts together
we're going to end up with a President Romney after 2020 -- a much more reasonable choice considering the last four years but
also one that's guaranteed to change nothing. We need the journey but its only going to start with a few steps.
( and as for Trump/collusion we've spent the last three years confusing money with nation states. Trump's a businessman in
a business that's notorious for laundering money from dubious sources (this doesn't mean he's involved, of course)(legal disclaimer!).
I daresay that if Russia really wanted to sink Trump they could easily do so but why would they bother when he's doing such a
great job unaided?)
Latest in series of articles by the author re USA – Ukraine connections
"American Ukrainian nationalists don't like democracy. They don't understand the concept of it and don't care to learn. But
they do understand nationalist fascism where only the top of society matters. They are behind the actors of the Intelligence coup
going on in the US today .This is the mentality and politics the Diaspora is pushing into American politics today. Hillary Clinton
and the DNC is surrounded with this infection which even includes political advisors.
Rest assured they all the related Diasporas are in a fight for their political lives. If Donald Trump wins, their ability to
infect American politics might be broken. Many of the leadership will be investigated for attempting to overthrow the government
of the United States."
"My thoughts on all this are that many of us have become distracted and failed to examine the timeline of events since 9/11. We
look at news and conflict in isolation and move on to the next without seeing what is now a clear pattern."
In terms of the Middle East you need to go back further than the fortuitous event of 9/11 – at least to 1997 and the founding
of the Project for the New American Century which was essentially the first explicit formalisation of the agenda for an imperialist
Neoliberal and Neoconservative globalist new world order deployed through the media constructed conflicts of 'good' and 'evil'
around the world and with it the call for the 'democratisation' of the Middle East under the alibi of humanitarian interventionism
against broadly socialist governments, which since the fall of communism were constructed by Neoliberal fundamentalists as being
patently heretical and ideologically illegitimate forms of government. If it is economically illogical to elect a socialist failed
form of government then one can only assume that the election must have been rigged.
I started looking at this all a few years ago when I asked myself the question 14 years after the invasion of Iraq: where was
the liberal outrage at what had subsequently taken place in the ME? The answer was that from the Invasion of Iraq onward in addition
to fully embracing the economics of Neoliberalism as the end of economic history, the progressive 'left' quietly assimilated and
reduplicated the fundamentalist illiberal political philosophy of the Neocons. The progressive 'left' both in the UK and US have
subsequently become the far Neocon 'right' in all but name and their party hosts of Labour in the UK and the Democrats in the
US remain blissfully unaware of all of this. How else can we explain why they would welcome 'Woke' Bill Kristol into their ranks?
Once one accepts this hypothesis, then an awful lot falls into place in order to explain the 'Progressive' open support for regime
change and the almost total lack of any properly liberal objections to what has taken place ever since.
One key point here is that the Neocons have nothing to do with conservatism or the right. What is striking and most informative
about the history of Neo-conservatism is that it does not have its roots in conservatism at all, but grew out of disillusioned
US left wing intellectuals who were Marxist, anti-Stalinist Trotskyites. This is important because at the heart of Neo-conservatism
is something that appeals strongly to the die hard revolutionaries of the left who hold a strong proclivity for violence, conflict
and struggle. If one looks at the type of people in the Labour party who gravitated to the 'progressive' Neoliberal imperialist
camp they all exhibit similar personality traits of sociopathic control freaks with sanctimonious Messiah complexes such as Blair.
These extremist, illiberal fundamentalists love violence and revolution and the bloodier the better. In Libya or Syria is did
not matter that Gadaffi or Assad headed socialist governments, the Neo-colonised progressives would back any form of apparent
conflict and bloody revolution in any notional struggle between any identifiable form of 'authority' or 'oppression' with any
identifiable form of 'resistance' even if those leading the 'resistance' were head chopping, misogynist, jihadist terrorists.
It makes no difference to the fundamentalist revolutionary mindset.
The original left wing who gradually morphed in the Neoconservatives took 30-40 years to make the transition for the 1960s
to 1990s. The Labour party Blairites made the same journey from 1990 to 2003. Christopher Hitchens made the same journey in his
own personal microcosm.
When is this nausea inducing confected pile of crap going to end? Does anyone else think that Adam Schiff has a screw or three
loose, and should be residing in an institution? And imagine if somehow Mike Pence became Prez. Now that would be something to
scare the bejesus out of you.
Tim Jenkins
Adam Schiff should be shot for Treason, of the highest order, along with many others, including HRC, Brennan & Clapper ; and it
should be a public execution, like in Saudi Arabia. This is war on the minds of the masses, that Schiff for brains cares nothing
for.
As for Chuck Schumer, he can have a life sentence, as long as he manages to shut his utterly unfunny dumb vulgar cousin Amy
up & keep her out of the public eye, forever
Gezzah, life may seem bad right now: but imagine if, you were Amy Schumer's Husband and father of her child. Talk about obnoxious
and utterly nauseating 🙂 , with you Gezzah, all the way.
"When is this nausea inducing confected pile of crap going to end?"
"The presidential election in Argentina was a game-changer and a graphic lesson. It pitted the people versus neoliberalism.
The people won – with new President Alberto Fernandez and former President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner (CFK) as his VP.
Neoliberalism was represented by a PR marketing product, Mauricio Macri [a Micron look-alike]: former millionaire playboy,
president of football legends Boca Juniors, obsessed with spending cuts, who was unanimously sold by Western MSM as a New Age
paradigm.
Well, the paradigm will soon be ejected, leaving behind the usual New Age wasteland: $250 billion in foreign debt, less
than $50 billion in reserves; inflation at 55 percent; 35.4 percent of Argentine homes can't make it); and (incredible as it
may seem in an agriculturally self-sufficient nation) a food emergency."
Meanwhile, in the real world, the Denmark's Ukronazi-friendly regime has been brought to heel by Germany's common sense:
Some big natural gas news very significant for Russia, Germany and the Ukraine. The Danish pipeline sector has been stalled
for a while now by anti-Russia, pro-Ukrainian forces within the Scandiwegian NATZO-friendly regimes. But it appears that Nordstream
2 _will_ get completed and that Ukraine's gas transit chokehold on the EU will come to an end when Russia's Nordstream 2 comes
online for Europe.
-- -- -- -
Permit for the Nord Stream 2 project is reluctantly granted by the Danish Energy Agency. Nord Stream 2 AG has been granted
a permit to construct natural gas pipelines on the Danish continental shelf.
The permit is granted pursuant to the Continental Shelf Act and in accordance with Denmark's obligations under the UN Convention
on the Law of the Sea. Denmark has been put under obligation to allow the construction of transit pipelines with respect to resources
and the environment.
In my humble opinion, the Trump stuff is all total nonsense.
Donald Trump was a property speculator in New York (amongst other places) and was heavily involved with the Mafia. Likewise,
Trump was heavily involved with Jeffery Epstein.
There's so much dirt on Trump that they could get him with the snap of fingers; but of course that's not what they really want.
Trump is pure theatre; a ploy to divert the masses. 'RussiaGate', 'UkraineGate' are all utter rollocks.
Trump and Obama, and all the rest going back to the assassination of Kennedy, are just puppets.
American/ deep state policy doesn't change a jot with any of them.
Wilmers31
America is always presentation over substance, wrapper over content, and shoot the messenger if you don't like the message. In
the meantime the adults in this world outside the US have to hold it all together. Why was for instance Hillary Clinton not in
the dock for saying 'Assad must go'?? It was meddling in the highest order.
phree
I guess this just goes to show you that a person can be a member of the ACLU, even a leader apparently, and still be highly biased
in favor of Trump.
Just because a witness is "cooperating" with an investigation does not entail that the witnesses testimony or evidence will
favor any particular side.
And implying that Clapper's comments somehow shows guilt when he clearly says he knows of no wrongdoing is pretty over the
top.
I've read a lot of what's out there about the start of the initial Russia investigation, and it does seem that some of the
FBI personnel leading it (McCabe particularly) were anti-Trump.
Isn't the bigger question whether the investigation was justified based on the reports from the Australians that Trump was
getting political dirt on Hillary from Russia? Is the FBI just supposed to ignore those reports? Really?
George Cornell
Love the Clapper claim (the same Clapper who lied to Congress) says he was just doing his duty in Russiagate. As GBS said,
" when a scoundrel is doing something of which he is ashamed, he always says he is doing his duty".
mark
The Spook Organisations and the Dirty Cops are a greater threat to our way of life than any foreign army or terrorist group (most
of which they created in the first place and which they directly control.) They are a law unto themselves and completely
free of any genuine oversight or control.
This applies equally to the US and UK. "We lie, we cheat, we steal", as Pompeo helpfully explains. They also murder people,
at home and abroad. JFK, David Kelly, Diana, Epstein. They plant bombs and blow people up. Many of the "terrorist atrocities"
from Northern Ireland to the present day, were false flag spook operations. The same applies with Gladio on the continent and
the plethora of recent false flags.
There is also a long and inglorious history of interference in domestic politics from the Zinoviev Letter onwards. Plots
to stage a military coup against the Wilson government of the 60s and 70s, with Mountbatten as its figurehead. The more recent
Skripal Hoax. The contrived Syrian Gas Attack Hoaxes and the White Helmets. They would not hesitate to do the same to Corbyn if
they deemed it necessary.
The CIA and FBI conspired with the UK and Ukrainian governments to prevent the election of Trump, and then to sabotage
and smear his administration once he had been elected. The UK played a major part in this through MI6 and Steele. This is highly
dangerous for this country, irrespective of your view of Trump.
Trump has repaid the favour by meddling in Brexit and interfering in UK politics. It is not in his nature to turn the other
cheek. We have spook organisations claiming for themselves a right of veto over election results and foreign policy. These people
are poor servants and terrible masters. We see Schumer warning against crossing the spook organisations, begging the obvious question
– who runs this country, you or the spooks?
The Democrats, the Deep State, the MSM, and the Deranged Left were willing to support these conspiracies and hoaxes, and
even suspend disbelief, for the greater good. The ends justify the means. All that matters is getting rid of Trump. Anything goes.
The corrosive erosion of trust, credibility and integrity in all the institutions of the state is probably irreparable. The legislature
and the political process in general. The judiciary. The spooks and police. About 9% of Americans now believe the MSM.
The irony in all this is that it very much serves Trump's interests. He is extremely vulnerable, having failed to keep
any of his promises. Building The Wall, Draining The Swamp, Bringing The Troops Home. Sorting out health care. Building "incredible,
fantastic" infrastructure.
All the Democrats had to do was highlight these failures, find a suitable candidate, and put forward some sensible policies,
and they were home and dry. Instead, they provided an endless series of diversions and distractions from Trump's failures by charging
down every rabbit hole they could find, Russiagate, Ukrainegate, Impeachment. It couldn't work out better for Trump if he was
paying them.
Expect to see the Orange Man in the White House for another 4 years. And another even more virulent outbreak of Trump Derangement
Syndrome.
Tim Jenkins
Enigmatic and brilliant synopsis, m8, lol: & surely BigB could only agree. And you never even mentioned HQ.Intel. inside.Israel,
today & their illegal trespass of WhatsApp, via corporate 'subsidiaries' with 'plausible' denial of liability of spying on everything-everything
& any body, that could possibly threaten corporate fascist computerised dictatorship: distributing backdoors, like Promis & Prism,
liberally & worldwide, the Maxwells legacy . . . (yet)
No need to even discuss, until Western societies ALL get a grip on the depths of depravity that lie within the actions
and "The History of the National Security State" you have to admit, that Julian Assange could not have picked a better book to
firmly grip and signal with, than GORE Vidal's, when being manhandled out of the Ecuadorian Embassy, by Spooks who would sell
their own mother, let alone nation, in their utter technological ignorance and adherence to anachronistic doctrines & mentality
!
Glad you mentioned 'good ole' cousin ChuckS.' >>> Lol, just for a laugh and a sense of perspective: yes, he is related to Amy
Queen of Vulgarity & hideous societal distraction. What a family of wimps & morons: the 'Schumers' being perfect fodder for ridicule
& intelligent humour, naturally . . . on a positive note, mark, think yourself lucky that you are not married to or the father
of Amy Schumer's child 🙂
The most important thing for us and deliciously so now the election is happening is the BLOWBACK. Our DS lying murdering
arses are going to get new ones drilled by Trump and BoBos bromance exploding in full technicolor.
Think May's dementia tax and Strong and Stable were bad?
Lol. This is going to be a FUN month of early xmases.
SST is essential reading for anyone concerned with US overseas policy and the corruption of the USA itself in the service of
the security state, so, many thanks for posting this link.
Dungroanin
By sharing we disrupt the msm messages. Bernard at MoonofAlabama is also worth a daily visitation – priceless analysis on
multiple subjects.
lundiel
Since those days it has been a weak-minded Congress, intimidated and/or compromised Members who have allowed intel to run
their own show as if they are immune to the Constitution and the Rule of Law. Since 1947, there has been no functioning Congress
willing to provide true accountability or meaningful oversight on the intel community.
Pretty much a carbon copy of our own oversight. We hear even less about our security services than Americans do of theirs.
I'd have thought that events like the spy in the holdall, the spies caught by farmers in Libya, the Skripal's, and the whole over-the-top
reaction to the domestic terrorism threat and consequent successful pleas for extra funding, the obvious danger of creating terrorists
by security services, the policy of giving asylum to foreign terrorists of countries we don't like and the whole concept of the
5 eyes and GCHQ needs more than ministerial oversight, a committee of yes men/women and an intelligence services commissioner.
"... The modern attempt to evade such deceptions is conventional as much as it is flawed. It questions the very media that was meant to disseminate accounts at speed and attributes traditional monopolies of truth to a Fourth Estate long in tooth and very much on its sick bed. The New York Times , the Washington Post and the Financial Times have looked rather haggish at points. ..."
"... we need to worry about fake news. People dismiss it as frivolous. It's not. I think it's the biggest crisis that we face as humankind because it is dividing us. And as we're divided we're going to get to a point where democracy is no longer functioning." ..."
"... Behind such comments on the fakery of social media news is a paternalistic sneer, one directed against the great unwashed. Sometimes, the sneer targets a specific group, the abominations, the gullible freaks, the marginalised. ..."
"... There is an upside to all of this. It appears that only one part of the political spectrum – the far right – is really the target for extremist, sensational and conspiratorial content. Over social media, moderates and centrists tend not to be as susceptible." ..."
"... The battle over what is the fake and authentic in news easily dovetails into regulations of control and limitations on expression. It emboldens the censor and the police version of history. Laws criminalising it have been passed in countries as diverse as Malaysia, France, Germany and Russia. ..."
"... Singapore's own effort, the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act 2019 , ostensibly targets electronic communications of false statements of facts, the use of online accounts to facilitate such communication and "enable measures to be taken to enhance transparency of online political advertisements, and for related matters." ..."
"... But of course; think-tanks and churnalists justifying their pay-packet with the same old regurgitated topics, year in, year out.. MSM / alt media; 5-eyes non-events.. ..."
"... There is only the one Gramscian Hegemony: and that is the hegemony of language over humanity. Which is invisibilised by the construction of Truth. Apparent truth. Contingent half-truth. The paradox to which is that if all news is fake news: this invites us into the Liar's Paradox. ..."
"... Fake news is false witness and false wits work to mask over truth and so cannot be a true with-ness or workability – and the attempt to make them work is the assertion and demand of denial presented as the sustainability of internalised identity structure. ..."
"... As such 'fake or false communication' represents a sense of separation and disconnecting conflict as derivative 'realities' that operate a weaponised defence set in fear and pain of loss – condensed and focused in a tyrannous mind-framing given power of fear. ..."
"... Fake news is itself the bait to engage reaction within the frame its sets. The mind of the personality does not primarily work through rationalisations, but through trust of its internalised structure – that has externalised reflection in social and cultural mores and institutions. Looking within needs to be the always awake corollary to looking 'out' in relational endeavour – or else we run on surfaces that deny – and so are then denied or undermined by – depth. ..."
"... Understanding that the government and those in the class: elite-wealth-greedy and their interrelated monopoly powered corporations, think tanks, charities and NGOs are constantly conspiring to find ways to deny human rights and to deny the rise to power of democratic forms of governments. ..."
"... Fake news? Was the Skripal/Salisbury farce a cover up for something far more sinister and deadly? ..."
The constipated tedium that follows each call, denial and condemnation after another round of fake news and its giddying effects
has become daily fare. Entire episodes with the sanctimonious and the solemn are being created to show up the citizen journalist,
the blogger, the self-opinionated masturbator of news, in the hope that some high priest set will reclaim the ground.
That ground, supposedly, is "truth", a truly big word merely assumed by its advocates.
None of this is to deny that there is something dreary and depressing about accounts that are fabricated. But this is an age old
matter, and one that centres on the old question: Should you trust what is ever published?
The facility to use language is as much a means of expression as deception. According to George Steiner, humanity's Babel dilemma
– having a multiplicity of languages that seek to confuse rather than clarify – had as much to do with the need to deceive than anything
else. Learn the language, learn the deception.
The modern attempt to evade such deceptions is conventional as much as it is flawed. It questions the very media that was meant
to disseminate accounts at speed and attributes traditional monopolies of truth to a Fourth Estate long in tooth and very much on
its sick bed. The New York Times , the Washington Post and the Financial Times have looked rather haggish at points.
There is a charmingly naïve assumption here: that the old press houses were somehow incapable of deception and censorship. The
influence of media moguls; the cuts and modifications of the editorial boards and government censors, are all historically distant
in such arguments.
All that is Fake is new because – and here an element of snobbery creeps in – it is generated by the vox pops brigade.
That viral freight helped along by social media is being treated as the problem, the medium as dissimulated message. The Four
Corners episode which aired on Australia's national network on Monday is one such example, shrill in its concerns that the fake in
news is undermining to democracy and its institutions.
Its list of interviewed subjects supply us a Who's Who of sceptics and critics about modern journalism and the dark steed called
Fake News.
Claire Wardle, Executive director of First Draft, is one who earns her crust attacking this wave and engaged in the process she
regards as "verification
training for journalists". Her organisation supplies "Training
and resources for journalists in an age of disinformation."
In her interview with Four Corners, she suggests
how:
we need to worry about fake news. People dismiss it as frivolous. It's not. I think it's the biggest crisis that we face as
humankind because it is dividing us. And as we're divided we're going to get to a point where democracy is no longer functioning."
Such a considerable overegging of that pudding is supplemented by other comments.
Veteran journalist John Carlin makes no secret of his
aversion to social media platforms, and their means
of getting the message through an intemperate scream rather than a sober debate.
"What social media does is give more weight and more value to the people who shout loudest."
But years before the clans of shouters got into the social media bubble, the Murdoch empire, through such trusty emissaries as
The Sun , were happy pushing voters with reactionary prods and embellished accounts.
Behind such comments on the fakery of social media news is a paternalistic sneer, one directed against the great unwashed. Sometimes,
the sneer targets a specific group, the abominations, the gullible freaks, the marginalised.
Phil Howard, director of the Computational Propaganda Project at Oxford,
suggested
in February last year that the condition for consuming and gorging the fake in news coverage is limited.
There is an upside to all of this. It appears that only one part of the political spectrum – the far right – is really the
target for extremist, sensational and conspiratorial content. Over social media, moderates and centrists tend not to be as susceptible."
That is all fine, if you treat terms such as "moderate" and "centrists" as fundamentally immutable and immune to the witch's brew
of conspiracy. All groups are susceptible, and the artery busting fury at WikiLeaks in exposing the underbelly of the Clinton campaign
machine in 2016 all suggested that groups of any political persuasion are very happy to entertain dark pulls and urges.
Julian Assange, the celebrated truth sayer one day; pilloried Russian agent the next.
Technological reach has also given birth to a vibrant form of citizen journalism, the very sort frowned upon by conventional,
often regulated networks.
In 2014, Time noted that "the growth of social
media, facilitated by technological advances that allow Internet access even in a war zone, has made detailed, ground-level information
on the war available online".
Such journalism is praised as fresh and fair when it seems to shed good light on a position; dark, bought and compromised when
it does not. The term "fake" is as much tactical as anything else.
But press traditionalists remain wary: the global cutting back of the press corps has led to an increasing reliance on freelancing,
leading to such fears as those of John Owen at City
University in London:
news organisations can't contract out their duty of care and moral responsibility if they choose to air or publish freelancers."
The battle over what is the fake and authentic in news easily dovetails into regulations of control and limitations on expression.
It emboldens the censor and the police version of history. Laws criminalising it have been passed in countries as diverse as Malaysia,
France, Germany and Russia.
Some of this is being done with the connivance of the Fourth Estate, keen to accommodate the interests of state. Much information
and content, as a result, is being
inadvertently blocked .
Singapore's own effort, the
Protection from Online Falsehoods
and Manipulation Act 2019 , ostensibly targets electronic communications of false statements of facts, the use of online accounts
to facilitate such communication and "enable measures to be taken to enhance transparency of online political advertisements,
and for related matters."
It reads like a gentle, sanitised effort, but its implications are beastly, permitting ministerial determinations on what, exactly,
fake news might be.
Such laws, it follows, tend to be used with impunity, targeting any revelations and disclosures that might embarrass the state
and its bumbling officials.
Sandra González-Bailón of the Annenberg School for Communication does
make a sensible and cautionary point on such efforts.
The risk of governments regulating social media is that they will regulate something that we don't fully understand."
Nor, for that matter, do they.
While the authenticity verifiers marshalled across platoons of fact checkers might well be thinking they are doing us a service,
nothing ever replaces the sceptical reader who covers multiple sources to identify an account and question it.
Never just read lines, but between them; never just accept news, but monitor its content and those who produce it. To the informed
sceptic go the spoils of enlightenment.
eddie
But of course; think-tanks and churnalists justifying their pay-packet with the same old regurgitated topics, year in, year out..
MSM / alt media; 5-eyes non-events..
The "nothing to see here, move on" mantra is spot on regarding this dreary scenario, as if the five-eyes nightmare is of any importance
to the other 90% of the Planet.. It isn't..
Doctortrinate
from seed to feed but how much do we need – how much is greed, overfeed, does it mislead in it's speed .to a stampede of the disagreed
.is that the deed, for the masses concede, or do I misread ?
BigB
Verum ipsum factum
"Truth itself is constructed". Giambattista Vico.
There is only the one Gramscian Hegemony: and that is the hegemony of language over humanity. Which is invisibilised by the
construction of Truth. Apparent truth. Contingent half-truth. The paradox to which is that if all news is fake news: this invites
us into the Liar's Paradox.
This is not a mere linguistic paradox – as Nagurjuna demonstrated in the Madhyamika – the more you try to make a language true
(concretise and axiomatise it) the more tautological, inconsistent, and self-contradictory it becomes. Godel and Tarski similarly
showed the inherent limitations of any self-referential language system. And yet consensus reality is shared by all those who
think that language maintains a one to one correspondence from concept to reality with no confession of doubt or inconsistency
(signified=signifier with 100% correspondence and no 'remainder' of indeterminacy).
Which is demonstrably and experientially false. A dog is not a dog. A 'dog' (signified concept) is an entry point into the
psychology of a self-referential sign system (semiotics, semiology) that exists only inside the head of the conceiver. The ignored
deficiency of which gives language a preferential veridical status it neither warrants or deserves. Which ultimately means that
conceptual reality and veridical reality are two separated things. One true and real separated by language. Separated by the differentiation
of an inside and an outside of a non-existent thing (an individuated self). A thing that therefore only takes its existence from
language.
Which is the Zen paradox: if reality is nodual – which it is – why do we continue to believe in a perspective paradox that
is patently false? Duality is not reality. It can be clearly seen concepts do not match reality: on a one to one somatosensorial
experiential or direct perceptive basis. I am not referencing a little standard deviation of reality and duality that can be easily
rectified. Every pillar of our meta-constructivism of a shared paradoxical dualistic imaginary (consensus simulation 'reality'
or apparency-based community) is a 'fallacy of misplaced concreteness'. Or an ontology of apparency replacing the real. No self.
No projected duality.
Which brings me to the paradox of Fake news. Which reduces to various communities of speech and conception vying to make the
more plausible and believable set of half truths/half lies. A battle of control of the right to verificationism of opinions –
or stories about reality – concretised for a non-existent duality.
With the ones that have access to the levers to the major media having more control to shape the narrative. "Those who tell
the stories rule society" said some Greek dude. All the time that 'society' is reduced to a dualist narrative constructivism:
this will remain true. The narrative is the foundation of a society of control. If the voice in the head – the inner narrative
– is held to be 'real' then it can be controlled. Not just controlled, it is already a self-deception if it is believed or believable.
If it is anything like some of the chatter I have to listen to: it's all bollocks anyway.
There is no trivialisation in this. The whole ethos and etiology of suffering is a constructed and concretised fake narrative.
Samsara is a fake news semantic. That's it. Belief in a separate self is the equiprimordial foundation of all fake news. Fake
news is the propogation and prolongation of a fake self. Everyone knows this statement alone is valid.
Yes, it is all rather dense and impenetrable: but the bottom line is that what we think and what we are is not the same. Things
appear in language that have no veridical correspondence in reality. Mind is an obvious example: as in the Bodhidharma saying
"Show me your mind and I will pacify it for you". No mind. No person. No self. No individual. No space. No time. No coming. No
going. No birth. No death. No Being. No non-Being. Sunyatvada.
We take invented and abstract terms, differentiate them, concretise them, then argue about who has the best artificial paradigm.
Where there is merit in this: there is greater merit in exposing the whole process as the Samsaric semanticised Lie. Then perhaps
we can live in peace without creating spurious factions of self and other. No self. No other. No lies. Simples.
Facebook has claimed it is a publisher in legal proceedings. It made the claim to justify its censorship of Laura Loomer. As a
publisher, it does have the right to not publish.
However, as a publisher, it is responsible for all its content, leaving Facebook
open to countless law suits, which would inevitably bankrupt it – precisely why it has always claimed it is not a publisher, but
merely the provider of a platform.
This dilemma confronts all the social media platforms: if they want legal immunity, they have
to be platforms, which means they cannot censor; if they want to censor (as the corporate and political elite want them to), they
have to be publishers, making them responsible for all their content, which would destroy their business model. I wonder how they
will solve this dilemma?
wardropper
I suppose the answer is to ensure that our highest Court is not corrupt. Then it can simply point to the yawning abyss between
claiming you're a publisher sometimes and claiming you are not a publisher at other times, and make it illegal to claim that you
both are, and are not, a publisher.
This sort of solution used to be called "common sense", and all our grandmothers and grandfathers had it. Now it has achieved
the ridiculous status of being debatable. The ignorant fool is now our most revered role model, and we citizens of western society
really ought to be ashamed of that, or, even better, fix it.
Fake news is false witness and false wits work to mask over truth and so cannot be a true with-ness or workability – and the
attempt to make them work is the assertion and demand of denial presented as the sustainability of internalised identity structure.
As such 'fake or false communication' represents a sense of separation and disconnecting conflict as derivative 'realities'
that operate a weaponised defence set in fear and pain of loss – condensed and focused in a tyrannous mind-framing given power
of fear.
That false witness may be seen as absurd or unsubstantiated or the lie of the intent to deny and corrupt truth, is not effective
– excepting we see within ourselves and release allegiance. Because pointing out the errors of another will be interpreted as
attack, and countered in like kind. Extending a true witness is to the willingness and freedom of others to see or hear and not
a weaponising of 'truth' to the frame of the lie.
A mind set in attack is not looking or listening or open to communicate. All that is seen and heard under such a mind is serving
the intent to survive upon the denial of the other. All that is said, shared or given is for the survival or sustainability of
the self in its polarised identification.
Regardless the forms this may take, an underlying polarisation of the mind set against communication for its own 'survival',
operates through the fear of pain of loss associated WITH communication, relationship and the opening and growing of trust.
Polarising corruption of conflicted communication sets fences, walls and tipping points of territory of possession and control
that itself then operates a tipping point into insanity, unworkability, dysfunction, degradation, destruction as a denial of life
brought unto death. There is an intention and act of stealing that reveals a true basis for having and being – the truth of possessing
life is invisible to a mind in things and forces.
Fake news is itself the bait to engage reaction within the frame its sets. The mind of the personality does not primarily work
through rationalisations, but through trust of its internalised structure – that has externalised reflection in social and cultural
mores and institutions. Looking within needs to be the always awake corollary to looking 'out' in relational endeavour – or else
we run on surfaces that deny – and so are then denied or undermined by – depth.
Internalised structure of conditioning beliefs and definitions, usurp and deny living communication of the heart of wholeness,
or seeing and hearing truly. The first Call to correcting our sense of self, reality and world is a transparency to Self in place
of mind-control-reaction. Unless self-honesty has a foundation from which to extend, then lies, passing off as the true of you,
go forth and multiply – to return in their kind and measure – for such is the nature and fruit of idea given acceptance and allegiance
in act.
What could possibly deliver us unto evil but a lie given power of identification as true – and persisted in?
If a polarised 'identity politics' rises to awareness as a tyrannous means of divide and rule, then learning to read our own identifications
of reaction is the key to releasing OUR part in giving power to self-destructive masking illusion of protection from hate and
fear as externalised powers set in opposition to Life. Forcefully expressed or clearly embodied communication is not inherently
coercive or hateful – excepting to an identity set by hateful coercion as possession and control.
Communication is love in action, and not merely words or ideas wrapped around the same attempt to mask in the forms of acceptability
with respect to our current spheres of significance. The desire to exist and to be known to exist is inherent to (our) existence
– and yet the fixation in the FORM of its expression makes a mind-control or dis-possession that is simply NOT in our Right Mind
– and therefore calls ONLY to restore alignment. Persisting in the attempt to GET RID of or overcome or escape dissonance in symptom
works the effective denial of Cause – and therefore of the healing or undoing of effects and symptoms arising from a forcefully
asserted mistaken identity.
I would like to establish some commonality to this discussion of propaganda and how it is used to differentiate the masses in
the world.
Understanding that the government and those in the class: elite-wealth-greedy and their interrelated monopoly powered corporations,
think tanks, charities and NGOs are constantly conspiring to find ways to deny human rights and to deny the rise to power of democratic
forms of governments.
If you are not in the class:wealth-elite-greed (Class:<= WEG); you will not be allowed to understand how fewer than 500,000
class:wealth-elite-greed (Class:<= WEG) members are deployed and how they are taught in private schools and by social networks
that they are better than and masses and they must learn to work behind the scenes to find ways to control the masses in the world
(8 billion people). Additionally, will you not be allowed to understand the policies governments engage in on behalf of the Class:<WEG
to make the 8 billion fully dependent on the whims and needs of the 500,000 (16:1 control ratio?). Human survival exist at the
please of Class:<=WEG.
There is always running in the background, a subversive negotiation between governments and class:wealth-elite-greed (Class:<=
WEG) persons. (Class:<=WEG) persons depend on people container governments to maintain, and to protect the needs, wants, elite
status, wealth and greedy aspirations of the members of the Class:<=WEG. The idea in these behind the scenes negotiations is to
find ways to make and keep the masses highly dependent upon government policy, Class:<=WEG owned productive economic activity
(jobs) and media propagated propaganda is used to mold the minds of the young and to guide the development of personality and
psychology that the masses are allowed to believe and must accept (<= government knows best). But what is behind this government
knows best dictate is tjat Class:<=WEG interest are directing the government to provide the jobs that will make the Class:<=WEG
richer. Nothing government does is for the benefit of the masses, sometimes things the government does, indirectly benefits the
masses.
Negotiations between the members of Class:<=WEG and government happen because the politicians need to get reelected, and the
politicians are dependent upon the Class:<= WEG to invest in projects that allow the the leader to claim success but in fact jobs
at factories and in large corporate establishments produce dependence on government and Class:<=WEG; and it is these dependencies
that enable the Class:<=WEG persons to control the masses.
The Class:<=WEG folks want government to help them block, new members into Class <=WEG. Person Control ratio: 1 Class:<= WEG
member/16000 controlled, ruled, governed persons.
The nation state system (NSS) has been very successful: it imposes divide and conquer
strategies. First you divide the masses into containerized groups, then you control
the information available to each of the containers, the controlled information differentiates the persons locked in the containers.
If you tell the people in the red group that the people in the blue group are dangerous and need to be eliminated, and you train
the Red group people to kill the blue group people, and then start a war, the blue group will not know what hit them.
The NSS stuffs its allocation of members of the masses into a controlled environment.
In that controlled environment information is controlled, icons are put along the walls,
highways, and in text books and mass circulated media. Because human cognition and
decision making capacities depends on its systems of past reference (knowledge, morality,
logic, evaluations (evidence/vs/faith), and a myriad of other things, the propaganda that
permeates the container actually molds the trapped human into a person acceptable to the
nation state. The classic explanation: J born to Jewish parents in NYC, S born to Shia
Parents in Iran are exchange to the non genetic parents. 24 years later, J will hate S and
S will hate J, neither can speak the language of the other and both see the world in a
different light then their genetic parents. The container environments controlled by rule
of law and use of force were different: Icons, propaganda, morality, and institutional
experiences produced the results as directed by the Class:<= WEG persons.
The Nation State Container (NSC) can be used to polarize the people in one group against
the people in the other. When the scope of events that constitute the news is limited
and that allowed to be known in each NSC is selected to be different and even selected to
oppose the view allowed to the people trapped in the other container polarization takes
place.
So fake news is really just tailored propaganda..explicitly designed for those in one of the
nation state people containers.
We should all begine to talk about the containment of people within a nation state as a people management tool used by the
class:wealth-elite-greed group to control by polarization the masses. That tool has made it possible for the Class:<=WEG to use
propaganda to develop most of the wars and to keep separated the humanity that constitute the masses.
Did you intent your post to be in response to mine?
Identification is not JUST passive inheritance but actively acquired.
Propaganda is the weaponisation and marketisation of language – as distinct from its function AS communication.
The collective idea of the 'world' is not fixed, immutable or imposed.
I sense you want to make a structural container into and by which to explain your world. But it is your world – and others
have their own structural filters and rules to 'explain' or justify their world.
If people can so easily be manipulated – as in some sense seems so – how and why?
I sketch the inner terrain of the mind that is shared by alliance no less than by polarised opposition – as a reflective opportunity
to check your 'world' with who you recognise and accept yourself to be – instead of running on acquired and inherited conditioning.
The identification in fear – masked or packaged so as to seem protective against fear – is the 'containment'. Un-owned and
unresolved conflict, divides and is ruled over by narrative control. If you can listen instead in the heart, then you have a basis
on which to discern the meanings that you learn and teach or demonstrate, propagate or propagandize.
Truth has no need to deceive or coerce another in order to find reinforcement and sustainability – for its is that which sustains
being. That does not mean I cant engage in communicating as I feel truly moved – but that is teaching who I am to a like quality
in others. Teaching victimhood, grievance and revenge as an identity in righteousness and power is to emulate the very thing you
seek to eradicate.
The build up of conditioned enmity that you illustrate may be protected from healing by propagandists who fear the peace would
be a loss of identity – and yet for all that, you are living your choices within the conditions that you meet and by your choices,
may change your perspective to significant release of hate and fear that may play into the agenda of others but is fully dumped
in your life as your experience.
Much of our slavery is from an exclusive identification in the body – and to a world of bodies in which power asserts itself
OVER bodies and is appeased and manipulated by strategies of deceit. I spoke to fantasy enacted upon the body above.
When we give creative power to that which is but an effect or symptom and not a true cause, we become the puppet of our own
definitions.
How much freedom from conditioned thinking are you willing to accept, embrace and integrate? What IS narrative identity – and
its corresponding continuity, control or desperation for sustainability in its own terms?
I live one step at a time.
vexarb
Published in 1918, after the Anglo Zio Capitalist oil grab known as WW1. Written by one of the few Englishmen who opposed the
Empire's grab of the Afrikaaner Free Republics (Boer War 1899-1902).
The Century of Resource Wars has bred The Century of Lies: "The Free Press, by Hilaire Belloc.
Synopsis
These things appeared first of all in England, because England was the only province of Europe wherein the old Latin tradition
ran side by side with the novel effects of Protestantism.
It was the defection of the English Crown, the immense booty rapidly obtained by a few adventurers, like the Cecils and Russells,
and a still smaller number of old families, like the Howards, which put England, with all its profound traditions and with all
its organic inheritance of the great European thing, upon the side of the Northern Germanies. It was
inevitable, therefore, that in England the fruits should first appear, for here only was there deep soil.
That fruit upon which our modern observation has been most fixed was Capitalism."
Qui tacet consentir videtur Silence betokens consent.
Post Scriptum:The Orwellian dystopian reality of language and who controls the narrative. Old Vico and Gramsci principles.
Docius in Fundem: The elites are running scared and tempest fugit.
vexarb
@Hammer&Sickle. Tempus fugit, OK; but what does Docius in Fundem mean -- the Bottom Line?
Old neapolitan latin expression. Last but not least. Literal meaning one could say bottom line. But in Naples it always reference
to last but not least. They being the elites are having difficulty controlling the narrative hence the bogus news bogus academia
bogus statutes bogus economy and bogus society. Western paradigm is nigh as a neapolitan i can only say "Ben venga la caduta di
Roma Due".
But I digress the largest wealth gap since the Gilded age but hell whats a few million lives worth this day and age.
andyoldlabour
Fake news? Was the Skripal/Salisbury farce a cover up for something far more sinister and deadly?
Who has heard of the Gosport NHS Trust scandal, where at least 450 patients were found to have been killed by over prescribed
medication?
The story broke in March/April 2018 at the same time as the so called poisoning of three people (and later death of one woman)
by the most deadly nerve agent known to man, yet was quickly brushed under the carpet by the press as we were being force fed
"news" for weeks and months on end about a clearly fabricated incident.
Nobody I have spoken to has heard of the Gosport cover up and doesn't believe me when I tell them of the numbers of patients involved.
Indeed, I have been thinking exactly that. I suffer from a long time medical condition and have to use a sophisticated piece
of medical equipment every day.
Until 3 months ago, that equipment was totally under my control as it had been for the past 17 years and it worked fine. 3
months ago I was informed that I would have to have a replacement, and then informed that the "specialists/technicians" at the
hospital would be able to monitor me and make reqired chasnges via the cloud.
It is patently obvious to me that since this latest piece of kit was foist on me, my health has declined and it is definitely
not doing the job that the old kit was doing.
I am worried, but don't know who to talk to or trust.
RopeResearch
Snowden said, we are all under surveillance. So, I imagine, with having a remotely controlled medical device, it would be wise
to recite the national anthem every morning.
Some people with chronic medical conditions, also suffer from 'social isolation'. If you're in this situation, increasing social
interaction is a very good step to take.
Stephen Morrell
For decades, the fourth estate has been sinking and shrinking ever further into an untruthful, but sponsored, and fact-scarce
irrelevance, into a much-deserved abyss. The monopoly under which everyone has been deceived and manipulated is gone, and with
each new exposure of its ruling class narratives as the dreary lies they are, or of its being so wedded to a mythical worldview
that only the most seriously credulous, demented or cocooned can accept, the more the corporate media lashes out at those who
point out that that media emperor has no clothes. The parallels with the decline of the US empire are striking, with the latter
similarly lashing out at anyone who questions its 'exceptionalism', 'manifest destiny' and 'monopoly' on war making against 'aggression'
and for 'peace'. Like the decaying US empire, the declining corporate media are 'projecting'.
The corporate media's main problem in trying to recover its lost 'authority' is that the help it enlists is severely compromised
by the same profoundly reactionary capitalist ideology as its own. The Integrity Initiative (the UK's version of Project Mockingbird),
Bellincat, and various 'fact checkers' are some of the more egregious examples. It's obviously projecting its own longtime MO
of fake news onto online sources of actual facts and information, those that the rulers ('sponsors') wish the 'great unwashed'
never to see. While Wikileaks has exposed them for their gross entrainment with imperialism, the corporate media's labelling the
online fifth estate as 'fake news' is also fuelled by their own fear of being held to account, moreover in real time.
The speed of communications is such that ruling class narratives can be exposed so quickly while still topical that more often
than not they fail to gain traction. Russiagate is the great example of corporate media fake news, where despite three years of
relentless fact-free scaremongering and speculation, this classic piece of fake news never became an issue in any political survey
of ordinary people. No longer must the public wait 50 years for a historian to dig up and expose the truth when it no longer matters.
And it's now possible to hold a discussion laced with terms that used to be confined to history books, like: 'false flag attack',
'the military industrial (and congressional) complex', 'imperialism', 'ruling class', 'capitalism', 'proxy war', 'regime change',
'colour revolution', and so on.
There's no getting around the fact that the fifth estate is acquiring a critical mass that the fourth estate can't compete
with. We're now seeing the emergence of excellent journalism that for years the fourth estate has refused to provide. While the
'reputable' titans like NYT, WP, BBC, Guardian et al. are failing, sites like offGuardian, The Grayzone, Consortium News, MintPress
News, Global Research, Moon of Alabama, Black Agenda Report (with honourable mentions to RT and Sputnik), among a host of others,
are going from strength to strength -- because they're providing much of the real 'fake news' everyone needs.
Seamus Padraig
"It appears that only one part of the political spectrum – the far right – is really the target for extremist, sensational
and conspiratorial content. Over social media, moderates and centrists tend not to be as susceptible."
And what about the far left?
" news organisations can't contract out their duty of care and moral responsibility if they choose to air or publish freelancers."
Does that include 'Bellingcat'?
Ash
They studiously pretend there's no such thing as the left.
RopeResearch
Antidote?
A suggestion to include, in every new article in alternative media, a section titled 'Did you know?'.
This section shows at least one fact of criminality committed by the americans. The usefulness of such would be to increase awareness
of why the empire does not deserve the political and economic power/clout it has now. Also it serves to replace (or at least explain)
what would be labelled anti-americanism sentiments with Facts. Straight forward F.A.C.T.S.
Here is an example:
Did you know?
My Lai was just one of many massacres committed by America in Vietnam.
The industrial-scale slaughter was equivalent to a "My Lai each month"
So, you try to vote and the software tells you you've already done so?
The only reason for that would be if someone who shared your IP had previously voted. That's technically possible if you have
a dynamic IP – most private homes do – but it seems quite unlikely it would happen routinely.
Does anyone else reading this get this problem?
FrankSpeaker
In our new age of Inverted Totalitarianism (Wolin), the shrill accusations of something being labelled as 'fake news' by the Establishment
should instead be taken as a strong assurance of it being quite the opposite; the truth.
Gary Weglarz
Mossedegh is a communist – he had to go; Arbenz is a communist – he had to go; a "magic bullet" proves Oswald was a lone assassin;
North Vietnam attacked the U.S. in the "Gulf of Tonkin" forcing us to unleash our American war machine; JRK, MalcolmX, MLK and
RFK were all assassinated within five years of each other with no U.S. government involvement whatsoever; "We are not secretly
bombing Cambodia and Laos;" Allende is a communist – he had to go; there are no death squads in Latin America and we're not training
and arming those death squads that, well, don't exist; – this is just a brief tour of some of the highlights U.S. foreign and
domestic policy of the freaking 1950's and 1960's! The reporting on all of it was "fake news." The news media lied about these
events at the time, and they have done nothing to correct those lies in the present. The entire "purpose" of corporate sponsored
MSM is to "lie to us" – duh.
IT'S ALL FAKE NEWS! Every freaking word that comes out of the State and its mouthpiece the Western corporate media on any matter
of importance is complete propaganda. Bank on it.
The White Helmets, when they aren't murdering civilians and harvesting and selling human organs, are a "humanitarian organization,"
much respected in the West and worthy of their own fawning documentary. You can't make this stuff up – well – that's not true
– they are literally "making this stuff up" all the time – out of whole cloth complete lies become our "reality" through endless
repetition on endless Western media outlets.
The best one can say is that at least some decades ago the media didn't simply routinely treat us all like brain dead idiots
the way they do today. From "Russiagate" to the "Skripnals" to the latest CIA sponsored "color revolution" happening coincidentally
right where we happen to want one to happen – Western propaganda and the MSM that report it have devolved into completely surreal
slapstick black-comedy and Western populations have become so dumbed down that only a relative few seem to notice.
Just saw this great quote from Gore Vidal on a Jimmy Dore episode that sums up our predicament here in the U.S. quite nicely:
"The corporate grip on opinion in the United States is one of the wonders of the world. No first world country has ever managed
to eliminate so entirely from its media all objectivity, much less dissent."
George Mc
Gore Vidal was always one of the most quotable commentators. Some example (probably paraphrased):
"Any order that has successfully demonized the word 'liberal' has effectively stifled all opposition to itself."
"America is the only country in the world that believes in socialism for the rich and private enterprise for the poor."
"'Conspiracy theory' has become a code for 'unspeakable truth'."
Fair dinkum
The ABC were thoroughly gelded under John (we'll follow the empires to war) Howard's regime.
They are now a PR unit for the Corparasites.
Nahh, they have an AGENDA to feed you, and you better eat it up and like it.
Mostly now I don't watch or listen to ABC or SBS here in Oz anymore. Made an exception with the Houthis attack on the Abqaiq refinery.
And yep, the coverage was so predictable. All in lock step with the narrative they want us to swallow: The West = Good Guys, Iran
= Evil Guys.
Claire Wardle is just another apparatchik of the Anglo Zionist Empire. Remember doing some research on First Draft when it
came to prominence a while back.
The more blatantly obvious they become in their dissemination of imperialist propaganda, the more people will hit the off button,
stop buying newspapers, and just stop listening. And that'll be really good news indeed.
MASTER OF UNIVE
You don't get that everyone is online Internet reading the tripe hashed out whether it is legitimate or not. Most of the discourse
is repetitious to a point of being drivel on most days.
Internet is only interesting when something is brewing for investigation. Most of the drivel offered up is mere repetitious propaganda
and everyone realizes it but continues to read it anyways. Internet today is events driven. Bombast from the twittersphere is
dying out and being replaced by geopolitical & macroeconomic risks inflicted & telegraphed mostly via the USA & Israel week-to-week.
Do you honestly think Zombies on Internet are going to all of a sudden wake the hell up and realize they are being programmed
daily with programmed drivel to make them comfortable at their desktops?
Zombies on the Internet are not being programmed to critically think about all the advertisements that are being bombarded
with second by second or how algos are reading their keystrokes and choices for webpages & consumer products.
Jeff Bezos is not going to educate the Internet Zombies on the finer points of marketing and the CIA is not going to let people
know they run information operations either.
None in the tech world care.
Politicians follow directives of corporate sectors to control & mollify consumers everywhere.
They are not benevolent and the people they serve have monetary objectives alone. Control of populations is for the benefit of
banks and the financial predator class miscreants that serve banks. Governments are corporations that serve banks.
If you turn the Internet off you would have to be off-grid and completely not tuned in to contemporary life of Orwellian newspeak
in order to distance yourself from the propagandizers pushing Imperialism & dogmatism.
They sure as hell don't want people to believe in themselves as opposed to believing in the tripe they feed you.
Thanks for your reply MOU. No, I've never used Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, or whatever social media there is. None. And yes,
I see every single day, 7 days a week, 365 days of the year, people staring at their phones or laptops. Completely zombified;
as you say. I get your point about digital mediums, tho was talking about the more traditional media like TV News or Newspapers.
bevin
" fake news I think it's the biggest crisis that we face as humankind because it is dividing us. "
She's harking back to the good old days when Australia's youth merrily joined up to fight "evil" in the Dardanelles because
only a tiny minority, with no voice in the media, dissented from the propaganda. the ruling class doesn't like it when people
laugh at their ludicrous lies. Such as the Skripal or Russiagate nonsenses, both of which are only credited by people who have
neither the time or inclination to pay attention.
Them and the intellectuals/political class who have sold their souls, whose existence they deny, and other orifices for a few
years of prosperity and the comfort that comes from siding with power.
"... Browder is key in the U.S. demonization of Russia. Assange has exposed U.S. war crimes. For lawyers associated in the British legal system to take both sides on that conflict would appear to be an egregious conflict of interest. But it fits with the U.S.-UK support of the Browder-Magnitsky hoax and their cooperation in the attack on Assange. ..."
"... Bailin is a member of Matrix Chambers, which was founded by the wife of Tony Blair, the former neocon Labor British Prime Minister. He is solidly in the Browder camp. He represented Leonid Nevzlin, a major partner of Browder collaborator Mikhail Khodorkovsky, who according to filings with FARA (the Foreign Agents Registration Act), paid $385,000 for Congress to adopt the Magnitsky Act which has been used by the U.S. as a weapon against the Russian government. ..."
"... In 2017 British legal actions surrounding an inquest into the death of Alexander Perepilichnyy, he represented Browder, who claimed that the Russian, who died of a heart attack, was somehow a victim of Russian President Putin. Perepilichnyy had lost money in investments he was handling for clients and had to get out of town. ..."
"... Needing support, he decamped to London and gave Browder documents relating to his client's questionable bank transfers. He died after a jog, Browder claimed he was poisoned by a rare botanical substance, obviously ordered by Putin, but forensic tests found that untrue. Robertson accused local police of a cover-up. ..."
"... Why did Assange or his advisors choose lawyers associated with the interests of the U.S. government and Browder? Or how could those lawyers be so ignorant about the facts of Browder's massive tax evasion and his Magnitsky story fabrications? ..."
"... What we are seeing now is no different from the Lula case in Brazil or any one of a thousand similar cases in authoritarian regimes. Upset the Deep State and you face selected targeted application of the law and the destruction of your life and future. ..."
"... because of the peculiar quirks of the legal system in Britain that may include a great deal of secrecy about how aspects of it operate, is how Julian Assange came to have such a dubious legal representation with its various connections to Bill Browder and Mikhail Khodorkovsky ..."
"... who is going to foot these barristers' bills? ..."
Assange lawyers' links to US govt & Bill Browder raises questions The network of lawyers in conflicting roles in Browder, Assange
and US government cases raises questions about Julian Assange's defense. Editor
A US government lawyer in the Assange extradition case just wrote a London Times oped
promoting the Browder Magnitsky hoax. Ben Brandon is one of five lawyers in a London network whose spokes link to convicted tax
fraudster William Browder, the U.S. government, and to both sides of the extradition case against whistleblower publisher Julian
Assange.
Here is how the British legal system works. Lawyers are either solicitors who work with clients or barristers who go to court
in cases assigned by the solicitors. To share costs, barristers operate in chambers , which provide office space, including
conference rooms and dining halls, clerks who receive and assign cases from solicitors, and other support staff. London has 210 chambers.
There are not "partners" sharing profits, but members operate fraternally with each other.
Browder is key in the U.S. demonization of Russia. Assange has exposed U.S. war crimes. For lawyers associated in the British
legal system to take both sides on that conflict would appear to be an egregious conflict of interest. But it fits with the U.S.-UK
support of the Browder-Magnitsky hoax and their cooperation in the attack on Assange.
The law firm and chambers involved in the Browder-Assange stories are Mishcon de Reya, Matrix Chambers and Doughty Street Chambers.
Ben Brandon of Mishcon de Reya and Alex
Bailin of Matrix Chambers co-authored an opinion
article
in The Times of London October 24, 2019 in which they repeated William Browder's fabrications about the death of his accountant
Sergei Magnitsky.
The article aimed to promote the Magnitsky Act which builds a political wall against Russia. It is based on the fake claim that
Magnitsky, the accountant who handled Browder's tax evasion in Russia, was really a lawyer who exposed a government scam.
Except that is not true, there is no evidence for it, and the lies are documented
here . But the Act has prevented the Russians from collecting about $100 million Browder owes in back taxes and illicit stock
buys.
Brandon's and Bailin's connections are notable. Law firms, at least in the U.S., tend to stake out their commitments. Lawyers
who represent unions do not represent companies fighting unions. It appears to be different in Britain, where legal chambers have
members on either side of some cases.
Bailin is a member of Matrix Chambers, which was founded by the wife of Tony Blair, the former neocon Labor British Prime
Minister. He is solidly in the Browder camp. He represented Leonid Nevzlin, a major partner of Browder collaborator Mikhail Khodorkovsky,
who according to filings with FARA (the Foreign Agents Registration Act), paid $385,000 for Congress to adopt the Magnitsky Act which
has been used by the U.S. as a weapon against the Russian government.
Nevzlin's suit was for $50 billion against Russia for money allegedly lost by the nationalization of Yukos Oil. Yukos was obtained
by Khodorkovsky in the mid-90s in one of then Russian President Boris Yeltsin's rigged auctions. Khodorkovsky's bank Menatep ran
the auction.
He paid $309 million for a controlling 78 percent of the state company. Months later, Yukos traded on the Russian stock exchange
at a market capitalization of $6 billion. Not surprising, after Yeltsin departed, the state wanted the stolen assets back.
To add insult to injury, Khodorkovsky laundered profits from Yukos through
transfer-pricing
and other scams.
Transfer pricing is when you sell products to a shell company at a fake low price, and the shell sells them on the world market
at the real price, giving you the rake-off. It cheats tax authorities and minority shareholders.
See how
Khodorkovsky and Browder did this with Russian company Avisma, which Khodorkovsky also got through a rigged auction.
The Times oped co-author, Brandon of Mishcon de Reya, has a startling connection. The day after an extradition request
targeting Julian Assange was
signed by the UK home secretary , Brandon representing the U.S. government, formally opened the extradition case.
Now look at another Assange link. Mark Summers , who is
representing Julian Assange is, along with Bailin,
a member of Matrix Chambers.
But while he is Assange's lawyer, Summers is acting for Assange's persecutor, the U.S. government, in a major extradition
case involving executives of Credit
Suisse in 2013 making fake loans and getting kickbacks from Mozambique government officials.
Does Assange, or those who care about his interests, know he is part of chambers working for the U.S. government?
And where do you put this factoid? Alex Bailin is representing Andrew Pearse, one of the Credit Suisse bankers that the U.S. government,
represented by Summers, is seeking to extradite!
But there's chambers where two members are each supporting both Browder and Assange.
Geoffrey Robertson is founder of Doughty Street Chambers. He is also a longtime Browder / Magnitsky story promoter. He has pitched
implementation of a Magnitsky Act in Australia and has served Browder in UK court.
In 2017 British legal actions surrounding an inquest into the death of Alexander Perepilichnyy, he represented Browder, who
claimed that the Russian, who died of a heart attack, was somehow a victim of Russian President Putin. Perepilichnyy had lost money
in investments he was handling for clients and had to get out of town.
Needing support, he decamped to London and gave Browder documents relating to his client's questionable bank transfers. He
died after a jog, Browder claimed he was poisoned by a rare botanical substance, obviously ordered by Putin, but forensic tests found
that untrue. Robertson
accused local
police of a cover-up.
He is a legal advisor to Assange and is regularly
interviewed by international media about the case.
Jennifer Robinson of Doughty Street Chambers also has a Browder connection. She is acting for Paul Radu a journalist and official
of the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) which is being
sued by an Azerbaijan MP. OCCRP is a Browder collaborator.
Browder admits in a deposition
that OCCRP prepared documents he would give to the U.S. Justice Department to accuse the son of a Russian railway official of
getting $1.9 million of $230 million defrauded from the Russian Treasury. The case was settled when the U.S. couldn't prove the charge,
and the target declined to spend more millions of dollars in his defense. OCCRP got the first Magnitsky Human Rights
award , set up for Browder's partners and acolytes.
Robinson is also the longest-serving member of Assange's legal team. She
acted for Assange in the Swedish extradition proceedings and in relation to Ecuador's request to the Inter-American Court of
Human Rights Advisory Opinion proceedings on the right to asylum.
Why did Assange or his advisors choose lawyers associated with the interests of the U.S. government and Browder? Or how could
those lawyers be so ignorant about the
facts of Browder's massive tax evasion and his Magnitsky story fabrications?
It raises questions about how they are handling the Assange defense.
The individuals cited were asked to respond to points made about them, but none did.
The Telegraph reports on a 2015 private dinner in the home of Doughty Street 's Geoffrey Robertson at which the
Magnitsky myth and sanctions against Russia are pitched to then-Labour-Party-leader Ed Miliband, and Doughty Street lawyer Amal
Clooney and co.:
Today we find aforementioned Browder/Magnitsky touts Alex Bailin, QC (Matrix lawyer and "legal writer for The Guardian, The
Times and The Lawyer – co-writer of the bogus FT Magnitsky column with Ben Brandon), and Geoffrey Robertson, QC (Doughty
Street's eminence grise), both on the Advisory Board of Amal Clooney's " TrialWatch " (part of the Clooney " Foundation
for Justice "): TrialWatch® Advisory Board
universal
The tentacles of the deep state (no longer secret now) are clamping on our life so tightly that one would honestly wish that one
of those extraterrestrial rocks would smash into this planet causing total annhilation –just in order to get rid of these psychopathic
mongrels ruling over us.
I am not sure, though, fantasy could solve problems!
mark
We have a corrupt and politicised "justice" system used for the purposes of intimidation and political persecution. Some people
still believe in fairy stories like the Rule of Law and an independent judiciary.
What we are seeing now is no different from the Lula case in Brazil or any one of a thousand similar cases in authoritarian
regimes. Upset the Deep State and you face selected targeted application of the law and the destruction of your life and future.
Jen
Unfortunately what we don't get in Lucy Komisar's article, perhaps because of the peculiar quirks of the legal system in Britain
that may include a great deal of secrecy about how aspects of it operate, is how Julian Assange came to have such a dubious legal
representation with its various connections to Bill Browder and Mikhail Khodorkovsky. Who recommended Mishcon de Reya and
other barristers to Assange and Wikileaks, and who is going to foot these barristers' bills? Are there no other barristers
specialising in human rights cases in Britain who can take on Assange's case or was the case awarded to certain chambers in some
kind of bidding arrangement or some other competitive arrangement?
BTW it's not unusual for law firms in Britain and Australia to have clients whose interests may be opposed, ie a law firm can
represent both a company and a trade union whose members may be employed by that company. What usually happens is that different
teams of lawyers work for the two sides and the work of one team is separated from the other team by internal firewalls. The firewalls
include physical separations: the teams may even work on different floors so as not to share copiers or other office equipment
and lawyers in opposing teams may be discouraged from socialising with each other during lunch and coffee breaks. Sounds bizarre
but this does happen.
R Heybroek
With respect, you can't judge British law by US standards. Barristers are briefed by solicitors, not individual clients, and associate
primarily in areas of competence, e.g. criminal, corporate or tax law. In their specialization, they generally follow the 'cab
rank' principle and accept briefs from prosecution or defence as they arise. It's a strength of the system, not a problem.
Whatever I may think of some of the barristers in Matrix or Doughty, it would be foolish to assume that everyone in a chambers
shares the same political views or attitudes. They do not. They argue like cats and dogs, usually with considerable professional
respect.
I see nothing dubious about the range of experience of Assange's legal team. If his solicitor thinks a barrister has a conflict
of interest, he will withdraw the brief. I'd suggest you direct your enquiries to the instructing solicitor.
Julian Assange was a dead man walking from the time he was taken (totally illegally) from the Ecuadorian embassy. Just about all
the Wikileaks team are now totally corrupted; and as this article points out, most of Assange's legal team are also corrupted.
The alleged mental deterioration of Assange, combined with harsh (and totally unnecessary) prison conditions, might account for
some of this.
An important subsidiary question becomes, why aren't any of his high profile champions asking these questions? John Pilger? Craig
Murray? They all bang on about stuff like 'torture' but never point out that his lawyers totally fail to address this pretty darn
crucial issue. Craig Murray says 'Julian has great lawyers'. Really? If we step back and think for a minute, does it honestly
look that way?
They can't even get him out of solitary or into a lower security prison. Shit, they can't even get his mail delivered adequately
or uphold his right to get regular legal visitation! And yet no one, not even his parents, are complaining about these failures!
And who is running Wikileaks these days? Do we have any way of being sure they aren't just a co-opted shell?
Betrayed planet
To be fair Pilger is one of the few real supporters of Julian along with a handful of musicians. His lone voice is not enough.
I saw a clip of Pilger crying after the recent spectacle of a so called hearing. The presiding judge, The Honorary Upyourbottom
should have been in the dock for perjury, fraud, lying before a court and crimes against humanity.
LawStudent
I'm a 2nd year law student and I can confirm that questions about the conduct of Assange's defence are legion in my school. MNynpeople
talking about the inexplicable lapses. Just s fee usdyes often discussed: Why didn't the defense take up the judge's offer of
bail application? To say 'well they would lose' is counter to the basics of jurisprudence.
Why is there no complaint being lodged about his detention in a maximum security facility when he's on remand – not serving
a sentence – pending an extradition hearing? Why don't his lawyers lodge an appeal to the ECHR based on the testimony of the UN
observers? Why are his lawyers keeping such low media profiles?
It's generally agreed something is very 'off' about this.
L Took
I think his lawyers stated that they were never offered a bail application, even though the judge claimed they had refused one.
But I'm not sure; I had heard previous to this event that the lawyers would not ask because if they lost (the appeal?) Assange
could be further punished for the loss. Is this accurate?
MaryD
It may be relevant that one of Assange's barristers also represents the corporate psyop Extinction Rebellion!
nottheonly1
Assange lawyers' links to US govt & Bill Browder raises questions. The network of lawyers in conflicting roles in Browder,
Assange and US government cases raises questions about Julian Assange's defense.
Assange lawyers' links to US govt & Bill Browder raises only one question: What the?
I know it's not comedy, because people get seriously hurt and killed as a result of the transformation of a more or less democratic
government into a well organized criminal organization. Who better to run the courts, than the mob? Mob 'Law' enforcement included.
So, organized crime owns everything. The big club. The biggest profits are made with stuff that was bought to blow up something.
Or somebody. One could ask: 'With links like these, who needs enemies?' Anybody interfering into, or compromising the Mob execution
of the owners' plan, will be taken care of. Laws are written to owners' demands and are quickly as needed in show trials.
The eloquence in describing what is happening right now – and in all other show trials – is comforting.
As it is more like 'a gang of lawyers in revolving door roles in organized crime by Browder and US regime et al versus Julian
Assange, providing Defense for Julian Assange in his case against the same people and the same regime.
I forgot where, but I have heard of such things before.
The World will have to understand that, without the immediate release of Julian Assange, no more rule of law exists on Earth.
And to whomever has not connected the Assange affair with 'pre-emptive incarceration', might for a little longer enjoy playing
outdoor chess on the deck of a sinking cruise ship.
Oh, and yes, the qualifier "six ways to/from Sunday" should also be mentioned as an exemplary business practice by the Mob
regime. Actually, the Mob merged with the regime, with the regime belonging to the owners' club.
Northern
Good to see another article on this, seen several people raising concerns about these associations in independent media over the
last few months, though it's no doubt one of those things that will never be 'officially' addressed. Many people with more knowledge
than I have questioned the wisdom of certain decisions his legal team have made (or not, as the case may be) in recent proceedings.
Craig Murray's account of Julian's recent court appearance reads like something you'd expect from a country with 'the people's
democratic republic' in the name.
On a tangentially related note, anybody reading this who has the impetus to write to Julian in support;
The 'writetoJulian' website which appears at to the top of Google's search results for those who google how to go about such
a thing, is either accidentally or deliberately (one can probably guess which) mis-advising its readers of the requirements. The
website advises several times NOT to include Julian's prisoner number on any correspondence sent to him, but I know from direct
knowledge of communicating with the incarcerated that without the prisoner number your correspondence will be destroyed and neither
you nor the receiver will be notified. I hate to think how many well meaning messages of support for Julian have been 'legally'
destroyed without him seeing them as a result of this.
Northern
Ah, in a limited sliver of good news; The aforementioned website seem to have cottoned on to their mistake after several people
bringing it to their attention. They now advise you should include his number on all correspondence.
Mr Julian Assange
Prisoner #: A9379AY
HMP Belmarsh
Western Way
London SE28 0EB
UK
Betrayed planet
I have long suspected that Julian is not getting proper legal council. That his lawyers have not yet been able to get a proper
hearing whilst he is left to rot in a maximum security prison is suspect in the extreme. The obvious Nazi style behaviour of the
unlawful and fascist U.K. government and its lick spittle judiciary are apparent to all with absolutely no fight back from the
excuse of a media nor indeed 99.9 percent of its compliant increasingly dumbed down and wilfully ignorant population.
What is obvious now to anyone with half an eye open is that the U.K. is now a rogue state where law and justice are meaningless,
where bribery and corruption are common place. That Julian Assange is slowly dying in front of the whole world, will die without
some kind of major intervention is a stain on every single aware English resident. Mind you with a population seemingly set to
vote back in the same filthy vermin that have turned the country into the complete shithole it has become, it's hardly surprising.
Does anybody know if Gareth Pierce is still involved in his case?
nottheonly1
For quite some time now, an odd possibility offers itself – theoretically. Julian Assange is not the messenger. He is the message.
As a messenger, he is somewhat ineffective. He has not been able to convince people that the need for an uprising against lawlessness
exists. That any form of government cannot work when the judiciary is corrupt and that there is no justice in a society ruled
over by a regime.
As a message however, he is in the eyes of masses of people. Probably a majority of humans on Earth know who Julian Assange
is. How many know who he is, where he came from and what it was exactly he did, before he published videos showing how well the
'Support our Troops' deserve was used up in the way it was intended, can only be a guess. Or a dedicated team of statisticians
to hold polls in every country.
So, the published material, that was also leaked by a whistle blower, was proof of how deserving those soldiers were
of our support – showing them killing innocent human beings and 'our Troops' having the greatest times of their lives doing it.
The message is simply: Look, if we can do this to Assange, what do you think we will do to you from Monday to Sunday – if you
get any ideas?
No matter where you are. No matter who you are.
The only antidote to this insanity is the Truth and it be given its day(s) in court. 'Justice Mondays'.
I wonder if Alexander Perepilichnyy's death happened any which way – if indeed he was even a real person – there's only two photos
of him as far as I can tell and the feeling of reality about his is not strong – as the Japan Times says, "What we know of Perepilichnyy
is slight." Could he have just conveniently been invented and disappeared somehow? The story of him spending his last night with
his 22 year-old mistress (the good old 22) in Paris, complaining about his dinner, vomiting and then having his wife the next
day in London prepare his favourite food, sorrel soup, for lunch then going out jogging somehow doesn't ring true and we see a
typical anomaly of faked stories, different versions:
The Guardian: "was found outside his Surrey home"
The Atlantic: "He collapsed on Granville Road, within 100 meters of the house he was renting"
Japan Times: "Then, 50 meters from his home, he staggered into the road and died."
Wikipedia: "[he] was found dead on the road by a neighbour" with a reference to a BBC story makes no mention of neighbour
BBC story: "[he] has been found dead near his home in Weybridge. had collapsed on a road early on the evening"
Collapsed on a road? Wouldn't you give the name of the road in a suburban area?
Rhys Jaggar
Same story in UK sports reporting corrupt industries raking in cash for unprincipled wordsmithery
DiggerUK
The defence team around Julian seems to be unfathomable at many levels. My main concern has been over the unproved allegations
of chemical torture made during his incarceration in Bellmarsh Prison. Why has his defence team not asked for an independent medical
assessment? Why have concerns not been raised with prison visitors who are allowed to investigate independently?
https://www.imb.org.uk/independent-monitoring-boards/
Craig Murray who saw Julian on his last court appearance wrote of his condition .
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/10/assange-in-court/
is it as a result of drugs used during interrogations, or is it down to mental trauma after what he has been through.
Either way, his defense team and close friends need to up their game.
This article is not the first time that concerns have been raised in a worrying manner about the defence team around Julian
_
Rhys Jaggar
It is a standard Uk tactic to have someone try to beat you up then publicly say what a friend of yours they are. Happened to me
four times: I called the lot of them out on it, something which gets them on their faux high horses very quickly
Harry Stotle
Amazing isn't it, the way the legal system goes into hyperdrive pursuing those who expose war crimes while nonchantly turning
a blind eye to those who commit them (no matter how high the body count). Harder to find a more glaring example of the way hypocrisy
defines the elite's relationship with things like morality, fairness or decency, not least because no western politician has ever
been held to account for the havoc they have unleashed (in any court prosecuting war crimes).
Ellen DeGeneres hi-fiving with George Bush. British MPs pretending a courageous whistle blower is not being tortured to death
just a few miles from parliament.
Needless to say the MSM has fully sided with the criminals: first denigrating Julian Assange, then mocking his plight – this
gave way to lies, and now silence.
Put simply can anyone expect justice in Britain if their actions conflict with the ethos of the gangsters who control Britain's
economic, media and military interests?
Rhys Jaggar
We are actually approaching apartheid South Africa in that regard, namely contempt for legal due process. Not quite had the Met
coppers beating Assange over the head like SA cops did to Steve Biko, but we are slowly getting there
"... Bravo Renée: I loved this article, not least because I loathe Adam Schiff with a vengeance ..."
"... The USA is a deeply divided country. Split from the top to the bottom. The 'liberal' coastal cities on collision course with the rest of the country. ..."
"... The Democratic leadership have accepted that their real chances of winning the next presidential election are small, unless the economy goes into a sharp decline and the voters turn against Trump in their millions. This isn't happening. So Trump stands a really good chance of winning in 2020. Just a year from now. ..."
"... So, if the chances of defeating Trump democratically at the coming election are looking 'problematic' and increasingly remote; the alternative is to remove him from office by impeachment where the Law is used instead of the voting system, which is far harder to control these days. ..."
"... The real scandal over Ukraine lies in Biden threatening to withhold $1 billion from the country unless the prosecutor investigating Biden Junior was sacked – something he openly and publicly bragged about. ..."
"... That's all very nice but this individual is a spy, not a "whistleblower". ..."
"... Was he part of the 'taskforce' or is he part of the diversion from that taskforce or indeed the conspiracy against Ukraine by Obama/Clinton nazi promoting Nuland & co? ..."
For those readers who care more about Donald Trump, Obama's legacy or the Republican/Democrat
parties rather than the Rule of Law and what remains of the US Constitution, the following scenario should be a Giant
Wake up Call.
As the result of an anonymous "whistleblower"
Complaint
filed against President Trump on August 12, the House Intel Committee conducted a series of closed door hearings that
violated
Sixth Amendment
protections while
relying on an anonymous WB.
Right away, those hearings morphed into an impeachment inquiry that took on the spectacle of a clumsy kerfuffle
not to be taken seriously – except they were.
There is an essential Ukraine backstory which began with the US initiating the overthrow of its democratically
elected President Yanukovych in 2014.
Fast forward to Russiagate followed by Ukrainegate and an impeachment inquiry with Trump telling newly elected
Ukraine President Zelensky in their now infamous July 25th conversation:
I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation in Ukraine; they say Crowdstrike. The
server they say, Ukraine has it<."
In a nutshell, possession of the CrowdStrike server is crucial to revealing the Democratic hierarchy's role in
initiating Russiagate as the Democrats are having a major snit-fit that now threatens the constitutional foundation
of the country.
On October 31st the House voted to initiate a formal impeachment inquiry based on still mysterious
Whistleblower's allegations. At the time, there was still no confirmation of who the shadowy Whistleblower was or
whether a Whistleblower even existed.
It is a fact that most whistleblowers bring the transgression
proudly forward
into the public light for the specific purpose of exposing the deeds that deserve to be exposed.
At great personal cost, they then provide a credible case for why this offense is illegal or a violation of the
public trust and deserves to be made public.
This alleged WB, however, defies the traditional definition of a WB who most often experiences the wrong-doing
first hand and from a personal vantage while revealing said wrong-doing as a function within an agency of their
employment.
This WB's identity has been protected from public disclosure by TPTB, shrouded in mystery and suspicion as if
fearful of public scrutiny or that his 'truth' would crumble under interrogation and not be greeted with unanimity.
What is clear is that this WB had no direct experience but only second-hand knowledge of events which is defined as
'hear say' evidence. While inadmissible in a Court of law, why should 'hear say' be allowed when the subject is as
profound as impeachment of a President?
Real-life CIA
whistleblower Jon Kiriakou
who served 22 months in prison, suggested this "
whistleblower is not a
whistleblower but a anonymous CIA analyst within the Democratic House staff
." When was the last time a real
whistleblower was 'protected' by the government from public exposure.
There has been no explanation as to why this informant's identity is necessarily been kept secret – and not just
from the public but from Members of Congress especially as Republican Members have been unable to question him.
There has been no further information regarding a second "Whistleblower" who allegedly came forward to corroborate
the first WB although why it is necessary to corroborate that which has already been publicly revealed remains
questionable.
In a once unimaginable example of CIA–Democratic collusion, it turns out that the identity of the alleged WB is
not such a secret after all.
Far from the public eyes of Americans, there has been a coordinated effort to stifle any exposure of his identity;
presumably to prevent any revelation of the underpinnings of exactly how this convoluted scheme of malfeasance was
organized. And as his name and political history within the Obama Administration and Democratic party are publicly
scrutinized, it makes perfect sense why the TPTB would prefer to prevent public hearings or keep the WB's identity
under wraps.
His identity should have been public knowledge weeks ago and yet it took
Real Clear Investigations
,
an alt-news website to publicly reveal what has been well known within
the DC bubble for some weeks.
The answer to the title question is that this WB is instead a very
well connected
partisan lackey and CIA operative.
The alleged WB is said to be a 33 year old
CIA analyst
by the name of Eric Ciaramella who was an Obama White House holdover at the National Security Council
until mid 2017.
Consequently, he has deep partisan ties to former VP Joe Biden, former CIA Director John Brennan and former
National Security Advisor Susan Rice as well as the DNC establishment. And here's where it get especially
interesting; Ciaramella specializes in Russia and Ukraine, is fluent in both languages, ran the Ukraine desk at the
Obama NSC and had close association with Ukrainian DNC hyper-activist Alexandra Chalupa.
Ciaramella's bio reads like a litany of the political turmoil that has consumed the nation for the last three
years as it is reported that he had a role in initiating the Trump-Russia collusion conspiracy while at the Obama
White House and worked with Biden who was the Obama point-person on Ukraine issues in 2015 and 2016 when
$3 billion USAID funding
was being embezzled.
Clearly, Ciaramella has a wealth of information to share regarding the Biden
Quid pro Quo scandal
which is currently being muzzled by the corporate media.
With Ciaramella's identity revealed, a former NSC staffer who was present during the Trump-Zelensky July 25th
conversation testified that he saw
nothing illegal
in the talk. Tim Morrison told the House Intel Committee that "
I want to be clear, I was not
concerned that anything illegal was discussed"
and that the transcript of the call which was declassified and
released by the White House "
accurately and completely reflects the substance of the call."
More recently, Mark Zaid, attorney for Ciaramella has said that his client would accept written questions from
Republicans on the House Intel Committee and that his client "
wants
to be as bipartisan
as possible throughout this process while remaining anonymous
."
Seriously? He's got to be kidding.
Did the reality of being required to testify in public just recently dawn on Ciaramella or was he not expecting
that his every word and utterance would be scrutinized before the entire world? Is he so unfamiliar with the Sixth
Amendment that he believes a Defendant's right to confront his accuser should not apply to him or in a Presidential
impeachment inquiry?
Did he actually believe he could make anonymous impeachment accusations against the President of the US without a
ripple or without having to directly face questions from House and Senate Republicans? Who did he think would
protect him from public scrutiny?
Given Ciaramella's extensive partisan history since 2015 and his national security experience with Susan Rice in
the Obama White House, it will be interesting if he receives a mention in the IG report on the abuse of FISA warrants
and whether Ciaramella's name has moved to the top of the Durham interviewee list.
Stephen Morrell
These inquiries always spiral out of the control of their instigators, and this one is becoming
positively delicious.
Seamus Padraig
Regarding the transcript of Trump's call, please tell me: what law/statute did he break? In order
for there to be a high crime or misdemeanor, there must first be
some
kind of crime or misdemeanor.
Tom
You cannot be serious! How about EXTORTION? As in holding up the money from Ukraine until they
agreed to look into his prime political opponent in the upcoming election (Biden). That's a
crime.
Or perhaps they will call it BRIBERY. That's a crime also.
Or moving on, how about receiving money from foreign interests in the form of forbidden
EMOLUMENTS, through, at a minimum, his Washington hotel or the foreign visitors spending heavily
at his gold courses? These venues generate revenue for the Trump organization, which he never
divested himself from.
Take your hands off of your ears and remove the wool from your eyes.
JudyJ
Tom
You mention "Bribery", and you mention "receiving money from foreign interests" both
in the context of Trump. I'm sorry but from where I stand there are far stronger suggestions
of that in the context of Biden and the undenied international connections of his son. You
appear to be taking the position that however serious the inferred misdemeanours (let me use
the term 'corruption') of Biden are, he does whatever he does – unlike Trump, of course – to
"put the health of the country first" (your words @ 8.41) and are by definition not deserving
of investigation. He's all heart, isn't he? Foolish of me not to see this.
Tom
Biden isn't VP any longer. The Republicans had complete control of Congress AND the
presidency for 2016/2017. If they wanted to investigate Biden, that would have been your
best the time to do it. So why do you supposed they didn't investigate Biden then? Might
it be that while Biden may have taken advantage of his political position, as so many
politicians do, what he did was not judged to be illegal. Personally, I don't give a rat's
arse about Biden one way or another.
The attempts by you and others in your camp and
Trump himself to muddy the impeachment investigation and direct attention elsewhere are so
transparent as to be almost ludicrous.
You need to focus on what is most import to the USA and the people of this country –
the clear and present danger that President Trump represents!
Seamus Padraig
Here's the
full transcript
of the call with Zelensky. Now tell me: where's the "bribery" and
"extortion" there? Trump just asked Zelensky a favor–that's all.
Tom
You never watched any mafia movies have you?
Did you know that people have been
convicted of murder and sent to death row when they never even found the body? It's called
circumstantial evidence.
The same legal concept applies to Trump's conversations. Trump thought he was being
slick by not explicitly mentioning that the Ukraine president HAD to do this favor for him
to get the allocation released to him. 'Hey, I need ya to do me a favor first'
But just as with circumstantial evidence, a direct request is not necessary. An implied
one will do just as well. You are way out of your league trying to play lawyer here!
Martin Usher
I daresay they can get him on Emoluments and exceeding Constitutional authority. Impeachment
isn't like a criminal trial, its really about whether the official went against their oath to
"protect and defend the Constitution". This is the bit that President Trump doesn't quite
understand; everyone who's part of government swears an oath to protect and defend the
Constitution (so do naturalized citizens, BTW) and its this that they're loyal to, not an
individual. The individual only holds power because the Constitution gives it to them --
temporarily. (At the time of the founding of the US this was a bit of a novelty, the idea that
you owe fealty to an abstract concept rather than an individual, and many people even in this
country still don't get it.)
Ultimately, though -- as we found with Clinton in the 90s -- its
going to come down to "Because We Can". Personally I'd rather not bother, I'd just collect the
information, put it out there and let the electorate decide what's best for the country, but I'm
not running the show.
Martin Usher
This really didn't turn into an impeachment enquiry until the issue was forced by media partisanship.
President Trump has already crossed numerous boundaries that would get a normal President into trouble
and Ukraine was just another straw for the camel to carry. Next year is an election year and its
starting to look like the Democrats could field an actual donkey and still win the Presidency.
What's probably more damning than the whistleblower's original complaint is the testimony of Marie
Yovanaovitch, the US ambassador to Ukraine who had the rug pulled out from under her earlier this
year. I don't want to comment on her role in that country or the US's role in bringing 'freedom and
democracy' (aka "total chaos and economic ruin"), its more about the way that ill informed tweets and
media punditry by Fox News commentators such as Sean Hannity are undermining the work of the State
Department. Some might say this is a good thing but I personally believe that all this screwing
around, both with foreign relations and the economy, is doing the US demonstrable harm and probably
needs to have a stop put to it sooner rather later. This is not reality TV, this is serious stuff.
Those who've read my posts on this site will know that I've never been a fan of Russiagate or
interested in a renewed Cold War, its a road to nowhere. This is why I don't see the 'hand ofPutin'
everywhere, he's not the contemporary Illuminati and probably doesn't smoke (so no smoke filled
rooms). However, if I wanted to play international zero sum I would suggest that all Putin (and Xi)
needs to do to 'win' is to do nothing, just stand well back because the inevitable meltdown is going
to get really messy.
Tim Jenkins
Bravo Renée: I loved this article, not least because I loathe Adam Schiff with a vengeance,
as does anybody with the slightest degree of scientific & analytical know how: yet you managed to
avoid any partisan accusations and mentioning his name: which would have been impossible in my case
Quality journalism Renée and the head of the House Intelligence Committee should be immediately investigated, prosecuted and may
I add, Not thrown in Prison, but Shot at Dawn, for TREASON USA
Something I used to write regularly in the Guardian, before they banned me, was
Never in the field of Human Conflict, has
so much been owed by so few to so many
MichaelK
The USA is a deeply divided country. Split from the top to the bottom. The 'liberal' coastal cities on
collision course with the rest of the country.
The Democratic leadership have accepted that their
real chances of winning the next presidential election are small, unless the economy goes into a sharp
decline and the voters turn against Trump in their millions. This isn't happening. So Trump stands a
really good chance of winning in 2020. Just a year from now.
The party top wants another 'conservative' and 'safe' candidate like Clinton so they can keep
control of the party and banish the 'dangerous left' once more. Only the party activists don't want
another 'Clinton' candidate that'll lead them towards another defeat.
So, if the chances of defeating Trump democratically at the coming election are looking
'problematic' and increasingly remote; the alternative is to remove him from office by impeachment
where the Law is used instead of the voting system, which is far harder to control these days.
This process, removing political leaders using the Law, because they are corrupt, has been used in
several countries recently, for example in Brazil, where Lula was imprisoned and unable to stand for
election after a questionable trial.
Now, it's the turn of the USA. Whether the millions of Trump supporters will simply sit back and
watch this kind of 'legal coup' unfold, is another story.
mark
I think the reason for impeachment is not a substitute for an elusive electoral victory on the part
of the democrats.
It is actually far worse than that.
It is a case of "either we get him, or he gets us."
"Either we walk over him, or he walks over us."
They are simply trying to save their skins.
The Clinton/ Biden clans and their minions are now looking at serious jail time in a
winner-takes-all, high stakes, no-holds-barred, take-no-prisoners zero sum game.
The Deep State, the Spooks, the Dirty Cops, Wall Street, MIC, Hollywood and the MSM, and the
Democrat establishment, tried to rig the election to prevent Trump winning.
Having failed to achieve this, they tried to sabotage and delegitimise his administration by the
Russiagate hoax, planting spies in the White House, and corrupt and politicised investigations and
prosecutions of senior officials, using perjured and fabricated "evidence" from dubious foreign
sources (Steele, Dearlove, MI6, Ukraine.)
This is now a busted flush. Russiagate has been comprehensively debunked, however much the MSM
tries to pretend otherwise. Their criminality and corruption is being steadily and methodically
exposed for all the world to see.
Trump knows that impeachment would be just the beginning, not the end. They would not be content to
remove him from office, Nixon style. They want him broken, to make an example of him. They want him
in jail, bankrupt, his businesses broken up and his assets confiscated, his children and his
friends in jail with him. They won't settle for anything less than this.
The somewhat pathetic "Ukrainegate" saga is a smokescreen that his been thrown up in desperation at
short notice to try to snatch victory from defeat. It is becoming less and less credible as more
facts emerge. It seems to be based on little more than second or third hand gossip from rabidly
anti Trump sources, and is rapidly being discredited. No matter how much the MSM tries to big this
up, it will run its course leaving the anti Trump conspiracy even more nakedly exposed.
Trump and Barr have only to keep up the pressure to turn the tables.
Not that anyone should have any sympathy for Trump and his cronies. They all belong in jail, as do
the anti Trump faction. Ideally, they should all go to jail. It's a pity they can't all lose.
If you think it's all dirty and down in the gutter now, you ain't seen nothing yet.
Let dog eat dog.
George Cornell
As your namesake Twain said, the more I see of people, the more I like of dogs. This is more
akin to cannibalism? I agree that we are just seeing the opening warmup acts now. But more like
unscripted unrehearsed professional wrestling every day.
nwwoods
Jail time? DC political elites? Not gone happen.
Tim Jenkins
MK Ultra good comment, upon which I could expand, but I don't want to give the game away, because I
reckon Trump's planning, timing and strategy is unstoppable, after he wins the next election.
All
will see and pretend that they knew all along what he was doing & going to do.
I should add, I'm on record @TheGuardian, stating that he would definitely win in 2016,
well in advance and nobody believed me, though it was easy to see & calculate, with sound analysis
of the key factors. It was obvious and I switched off, long before the announcement,
that he'd won, when they were still predicting HRC, knowing I was right, on that night.
I will tell you this much: It would be very silly of him to 'fire' the FED, before the elections
😉
phree
I have to disagree with Kiriakou and the author on this one. I'm a lawyer and I've been involved in
whistleblower cases on both sides. MANY whistleblowers do not want to go public. I'd say at least 50%
in my experience. And most whistleblowers have personal interests in addition to wanting to protect
the public interest -- they are looking for a pay day.
Plus, these attacks on this whistleblower for bias or lack of first hand knowledge really miss the
point: His claims have been almost entirely verified. There clearly was a quid pro quo (not that one
is necessary) as admitted by Mulvaney (before he tried to walk it back) and Sondland, and testified
about by others involved with Ukraine at the time. Since many National Security people were aghast at
these actions (including that die hard liberal Bolton), and Guliani says everything he was doing was
on behalf of his private client, there is no reason to think that this was a matter of national
security policy.
Indeed, the memo of Trump's phone call demonstrates the quid pro quo to any reasonable person -- it
certainly would be enough to indict a gangster. Do me a "favor" if you want me to sell you missiles?
That's not enough? Really? Especially when in order to buy the missiles you need the military
assistance money Trump was blocking.
Bbbbut what about the Bidens some whimper. Investigate them through proper channels, not by
blackmail through a back channel.
So, save your hair pulling for a whistleblower who's claims turn out to be false.
Northern
Your moral condemnation is evidently selective.
Bbbut what about the quid pro quo you whimper? Why don't you find some ordinary Ukrainian
citizens and ask them which was the greater evil; being thrust into civil war by rampaging mobs of
US sponsored neo-nazis, or the neo-nazi's not getting paid on time? Go re-asses your moral compass
you fascist sympathizer.
mark
The real scandal over Ukraine lies in Biden threatening to withhold $1 billion from the country
unless the prosecutor investigating Biden Junior was sacked – something he openly and publicly
bragged about.
Tom
Biden wasn't alone. Much of the rest of Europe was making the same call because the prosecutor
himself was corrupt. And why didn't the Republicans take this up when they had full control of
Congress during 2016/2017? I bet you can't come up with any kind of sensible answer!
Tim Jenkins
Use your real name or you are talking BOLLOCKS !
nwwoods
That's all very nice but this individual is a spy, not a "whistleblower".
Tom
Doesn't matter. Is the information correct? That's what you SHOULD be focusing on but then you
won't like how that further sullies the already awful reputation of your deity Trump.
mark
Schumer's concern for the welfare of whistleblowers may appear somewhat belated and unconvincing,
given his previous pronouncements about Snowden, Assange and Manning, but I suppose we should all
welcome a sinner come to repentance (or whatever the kosher equivalent is.)
Seamus Padraig
Chuck is now the '
shomer
'
(guardian) of wistleblowers.
Dungroanin
Was he part of the 'taskforce' or is he part of the diversion from that taskforce or indeed the
conspiracy against Ukraine by Obama/Clinton nazi promoting Nuland & co?
The report is – if not a
whitewash – going to ruin as many trousers and underwear as any explosive diarrhetic fart!
From Barry's stupid peace prize – to our stupid DS outlaws.
Especially if the tories carry on as they have started this election – with masterful pratfalls,
foot-in-mouths and devious lying, cheating and hiding.
When they've been employed by the CIA I'd say very, very rarely.
Real-life CIA whistleblower Jon Kiriakou who served 22 months in prison
Did he now? 22 months in prison and sentenced on 22 October. They love their 22s. Just as Chelsea
had 22 charges laid against her, was 22 at the time of her leaking and spent 22 hours a day in prison
for some of her alleged 7 year sentence.
His Wikipedia story does not sound in the least compelling. He allegedly disclosed the torture of
Abu Zubaydah, accused of being an aide to Osama bin Laden. So if bin Laden was an agent how real is
Zubaydah?
On December 10, 2007, Kiriakou gave an interview to ABC News[16] in which he described his
participation in the capture of Abu Zubaydah, who was accused of having been an aide to Al-Qaeda
leader Osama bin Laden. Kiriakou said that he did not witness Zubaydah's interrogation, but had
been told by CIA associates that it had taken only a single brief instance of waterboarding to
extract answers:
He was able to withstand the waterboarding for quite some time. And by that I mean probably
30, 35 seconds and a short time afterwards, in the next day or so, he told his interrogator that
Allah had visited him in his cell during the night and told him to cooperate.[17]
Following the interview, Kiriakou's accounts of Abu Zubaydah's waterboarding were widely
repeated and paraphrased,[Note 1][6] and he became a regular guest expert on news and public
affairs shows on the topics of interrogation and counter-terrorism.
In 2009, however, it was reported that Abu Zubaydah had been waterboarded at least 83 times,[18]
and that little or no useful additional information may have been gained by "harsh methods" of
interrogation.[19][20] Kiriakou had been under the mistaken belief that Zubaydah was waterboarded
only once, and even that single instance he had described as a form of torture while expressing
reservations about whether the value of the information obtained was worth the damage done to the
United States' reputation.[citation needed]
Kiriakou has said that he chose not to blow the whistle on torture through internal channels
because he believed he "wouldn't have gotten anywhere" because his superiors and the congressional
intelligence committees were already aware of it.[21]
OMG! Does the theatre ever stop?
Tim Jenkins
"OMG! Does the theatre ever stop?"
yep, it does actually: when you finally suss out what Bill
Binney was telling you all about; about 6 years before you profess to have taken an interest in the
events leading up to and including those that occurred on the 11th sept. 2001 and of course, the
missing D.o.D $$$TRILLIONS$$$ and what they spent the money on >>>
Like "Parallel Platforms" !
mark
What's a mere missing $21 trillion between friends?
Probably just fallen down the back of the sofa.
Along with the 140 tons of Libyan gold and the 1,500 tons of German gold and the Ukrainian
gold and the gold from WTC 7 and the Venezuelan gold ..
There's a perfectly simple explanation for everything if you look hard enough.
mark
China is the biggest gold producer in the world, with over 400 tons a year, none of which
is ever seen outside the country.
There has been speculation that their holdings are over 10,000 tons, but nobody really
knows.
This follows the historical pattern over thousands of years, China exporting silk, spices,
quality ceramics and tea, and taking silver bullion in payment. Europe was drained of
silver until the looting of the New World.
Some people believe that America has 8,300 tons, a figure unchanged since 1971. But then
again some people believe in fairies and Father Christmas.
Democrats?. You just stand
back and watch them implode. It's painful to watch some days I'll tell ya
George Cornell
Debbie does the Dems. Wasserperson Schultz , where are you when your party needs some deep
corruption?
Unfree Media: State Stenography and Shameful Silence
by Media Lens / November 7th, 2019
A recent
viral clip of Jeremy Corbyn featured vital truths about the corporate media that ought to
be at the forefront of public consciousness in the approach to the UK General Election on
December 12. The clip began:
A free press is essential to our democracy. But much of our press isn't very free at
all.
Corbyn continued:
Just three companies control 71 per cent of national newspaper circulation and five
companies control 81 per cent of local newspaper circulation.
This unhealthy sway of a few corporations and billionaires shapes and skews the priorities
and worldview of powerful sections of the media.
And it doesn't stop with the newspapers, on and offline. Print too often sets the
broadcast agenda, even though it is wedded so firmly to the Tories politically and to
corporate interests more generally.
Corbyn's words were not from a recent speech. They were actually
delivered as part of his
Alternative Mactaggart Lecture at the Edinburgh TV Festival in August 2018. But they remain
as relevant as ever; hence being picked up anew by '
Tory Fibs ', a grassroots socialist Twitter account.
Corbyn shone a spotlight on the BBC:
The BBC should be freed of government control, democratised and made representative of the
country it serves to help it do that.
The BBC is meant to be independent, but its charter grants governments the power to
appoint the chair and four directors of the board and set the level of the licence fee.
As regular readers will be well aware, Media Lens has long highlighted the BBC's lack of
independence and, more particularly, the insidious role of BBC News in protecting the
establishment, promoting deference to the royal family and class system, as well as deflecting
scrutiny of state and corporate crimes.
We need to set journalists and citizens free to hold power to account, by breaking the
grip of tech giants and billionaires on our media.
All this is arguably never more evident than when a General Election is looming. Right now,
established power is fighting tooth and nail to maintain its control on society. Corporate
media, including gatekeepers like the BBC and the Guardian – 'thus far and no
farther',
in the words of Noam Chomsky – play a central role in maintaining the destructive
status quo.
Filtering Facts
The state-corporate management and manipulation of 'the news' relies on a subtle filtering
process whereby leading journalists select – consciously or otherwise – which facts
are 'fit' to be reported, and which can or should be ignored.
Consider an
item on BBC News at Ten last Thursday when political editor Laura Kuenssberg reported Boris
Johnson's visit to Addenbrooke's Hospital in Cambridge. She presented the Prime Minister in a
favourable light, having amiable encounters with people in Addenbrooke's. What the BBC did not
show were the
jeers of staff and patients ringing in Johnson's ears as he left the hospital. Nor did
Kuenssberg report on the young medical student who was
'pushed aside by [a] Boris Johnson aide' while attempting to challenge Johnson on the NHS
and the climate crisis.
Julia Simons , who is training at the hospital to become a doctor,
called his visit a 'PR stunt'.
We challenged the BBC political editor via Twitter:
Hello @bbclaurak,
Why did your @BBCNews at Ten piece on Boris Johnson's visit to a Cambridge hospital omit
the part where he left with jeers from staff and patients ringing in his ears?
Our tweet was 'liked' and retweeted hundreds of times, but there was no reply from
Kuenssberg. Her
Twitter bio states:
I know it's fashionable, but even in 2019 there is nothing big or clever about shooting
the messenger – tweets or retweets here aren't necessarily my view
But, by heavily filtering the facts that Kuenssberg selects to tweet or retweet, 'the
messenger' has transformed into an echo chamber and amplifier of government propaganda. This
phenomenon of state stenography – which, of course, is far from new – was
highlighted in an excellent
article recently by Peter Oborne, former chief political commentator of the Daily
Telegraph . Under the title, 'British journalists have become part of Johnson's fake news
machine', Oborne argued that:
From the Mail, The Times to the BBC and ITN, everyone is peddling Downing Street's lies
and smears. They're turning their readers into dupes.
As Oborne noted, 'mainstream' political journalism too often relies upon whatever 'a senior
No 10 source' says:
This modus operandi, which allow pro-government narratives to enter the public domain
unmediated by proper interrogation, has become routine among political reporters since
Johnson and his Vote Leave media team entered Downing Street.
Oborne observed:
There is an implicit deal. In return for access and information (much of it false) the
political media spins a pro-government narrative.
As a recent example, Oborne pointed to the government's deceitful response to the leaked '
Yellowhammer dossier ' setting out the damaging consequences of a no-deal Brexit on the UK
– a news story that 'deeply embarrassed' Boris Johnson and senior ministers. Downing
Street responded by feeding a false claim to compliant journalists that the leak happened on
Theresa May's watch; and that Remain-supporting ex-ministers led by Philip Hammond, Chancellor
of the Exchequer in May's Cabinet, were responsible. Newspapers were full of convenient
headlines and stories about the alleged leakers, distracting attention from the damaging
analysis of the leaked dossier itself. As Oborne noted, it turned out that the leaked document
was dated nine days after Johnson came to power: the leak had occurred under his watch,
not May's.
This issue of journalist access in return for maintaining a power-friendly narrative has
long been known. The media's heavy reliance on state and corporate sources is one of the five
'news filters' – along with corporate ownership, advertising, flak and 'anti-Communism'
– in the
propaganda model of the media introduced by Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky in
'Manufacturing Consent' (1988).
Focusing on the country's two main political editors – the BBC's Laura Kuenssberg and
Robert Peston of ITV News – Oborne added:
Political editors are so pleased to be given "insider" or "exclusive" information that
they report it without challenge or question.
Oborne, as a senior journalist with experience and clout, was afforded follow-up media
interviews to make his case. Perhaps the most noteworthy example was his fiery appearance on
Radio 2 where he was interviewed by Amol Rajan, a former editor of the oligarch-owned
Independent and now the BBC's media editor. You do not get to such exalted positions in
the corporate media, as Rajan has done, by being a thorn in the side of the establishment. In a
remarkable exchange, not only did Oborne name and shame major political editors for cosying up
to power, he directly, and correctly, accused Rajan of the same. (Click
here , starting at around 1:09:20; or, once the BBC link has expired, listen to the
relevant segment
here )
Oborne commented:
You, yourself, when you were Independent editor, notoriously sucked up to power. You are a
client journalist yourself you were a crony journalist yourself. It's time this system was
exploded.
Rajan blustered:
It's unbecoming of you, Peter, it's unbecoming.
When Oborne added that Rajan had also 'failed to notice' stories as BBC media editor, there
was a brief stunned silence.
In 2014, when Rajan was the Independent's editor, he
boasted of 'our proud record on coverage of Iraq'. We
responded at the time:
Sorry, we have analysed the Independent's performance closely. Your record was and is
shameful. Where to start?
Rajan did not reply. It was around this time that he blocked us on Twitter.
OPCW Whistleblowers Question The Douma Narrative
A further, grave example of present-day propaganda filtering involves the corporate media
blanking of further proof that western powers, notably the US, have been manipulating the
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW).
Last month, WikiLeaks
published evidence from an OPCW whistleblower showing that the international chemical
watchdog had suppressed evidence suggesting that the Syrian government had not, in fact,
mounted a
chemical weapons attack in
Douma , Syria, on April 7, 2018. In other words, there is clear authoritative testimony
from an OPCW insider contradicting the endlessly repeated narrative that 'Assad used weapons
against his own civilians' in Douma. This state-approved script, propagated throughout the
major western news media, served as the 'justification' for the US, UK and France to launch
missile strikes on Syria seven days later.
Shockingly, as reported by WikiLeaks, a panel of experts convened by the Courage Foundation,
an independent British civil society organisation,
reported that:
Not only did the panel find that OPCW tampered with the evidence to produce an outcome
desired by the geopolitical actors involved in this instance, it tried to silence its own
senior civil servants.
One member of the panel, Richard Falk – an international law and international
relations scholar who taught at Princeton University for forty years – noted that the
credibility of the panel's conclusions were strengthened by having José Bustani, a
former Director-General of the OPCW, among its members.
Falk added:
Not only is there a lack of transparency and accountability with respect to the
undertakings of major national governments, but there is a deliberate manipulation of
evidence and obstruction of procedures designed to protect the citizenry against abuses of
state, and in the case of major states, especially the United States, to protect the public
interest.
This new testimony added to the earlier revelations in May that Ian Henderson, a senior OPCW
scientist, had written a
detailed report , suppressed by OPCW, calling into question the official version of events
in Douma. As our
media alert at the time noted, very little media coverage was devoted to this expert
evidence questioning the Washington-stamped 'consensus' view.
Robert Fisk's
article in the Independent ten days after the Douma incident was a vanishingly rare
exception. He interviewed a Syrian doctor who told him that the victims of the alleged chemical
attack had actually suffered from hypoxia – oxygen starvation in the dusty tunnels where
they had taken refuge from bombing– and not gas poisoning. As we also observed in our
media alert, BBC Syria producer Riam Dalati
stated on Twitter that after almost six months of investigation he had
concluded that:
I can prove without a doubt that the Douma Hospital scene was staged.
Sick and tired of activists and rebels using corpses of dead children to stage emotive
scenes for Western consumption. Then they wonder why some serious journos are questioning
part of the narrative.
Dalati later
deleted his tweet and set his Twitter account to
'private' status (it has since become accessible to the
public again).
Typically, the BBC sought to
minimise any public doubts about the official narrative on Douma by including only Syrian
and Russian claims of 'fabrication'. There was little, or no, coverage of sceptical Western
voices. In similar fashion, in the run-up to the Iraq war of 2003, BBC News and other
'mainstream' outlets had relegated credible allegations that the 'threat' of 'Iraqi WMD' was
fake news to the 'evil dictator' Saddam Hussein.
Readers may recall that award-winning journalist Seymour Hersh had difficulty publishing his
in-depth, sceptical reporting about an earlier alleged Syrian government chemical weapons
attack at Ghouta in 2013. In the end, he had to publish in the London Review of Books ,
of all places (
here and
here ).
This is so often the fate of the best journalism: pushed to the margins where it can be
safely ignored.
Corporate Eyes Averted And Tongues Bitten
The fact that a second OPCW whistleblower has now revealed extremely serious manipulation of
evidence surrounding what happened at Douma has been greeted by a wall of corporate media
silence. However, it was mentioned briefly by Jonathan Steele, a former senior Middle
East correspondent for the Guardian , in a radio interview with Paul Henley on the BBC
World Service on October 27, 2019 (listen
here ; from around 11:00; if no longer available from the BBC, listen to the extract
archived
here by Caitlin Johnstone and read her
article ):
Jonathan Steele: I was in Brussels last week I attended a briefing by a whistleblower from
the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. He was one of the inspectors who
was sent out to Douma in Syria in April last year to check into the allegations by the rebels
that Syrian aeroplanes had dropped two canisters of chlorine gas, killing up to 43 people. He
claims he was in charge of picking up the samples in the affected areas, and in neutral
areas, to check whether there were chlorine derivatives there
Paul Henley: And?
JS: and he found that there was no difference. So it rather suggested there was no
chemical gas attack, because in the buildings where the people allegedly died there was no
extra chlorinated organic chemicals than in the normal streets elsewhere. And I put this to
the OPCW for comment, and they haven't yet replied. But it rather suggests that a lot of this
was propaganda
PH: Propaganda led by?
JS: led by the rebel side to try and bring in American planes, which in fact did happen.
American, British and French planes bombed Damascus a few days after these reports. And
actually this is the second whistleblower to come forward. A few months ago there was a
leaked report by the person [senior OPCW scientist Ian Henderson – mentioned earlier in
this alert] who looked into the ballistics, as to whether these cylinders had been dropped by
planes, looking at the damage of the building and the damage on the side of the cylinders.
And he decided, concluded, that the higher probability was that these cylinders were placed
on the ground, rather than from planes.
PH: This would be a major revelation
JS: it would be a major revelation
PH: given the number of people rubbishing the idea that these could have been fake videos
at the time.
JS: Well, these two scientists, I think they're non-political – they wouldn't have
been sent to Douma, if they'd had strong political views, by the OPCW. They want to speak to
the Conference of the Member States in November, next month, and give their views, and be
allowed to come forward publicly with their concerns. Because they've tried to raise them
internally and been – they say they've been – suppressed, their views have been
suppressed.
In May, when the suppressed engineering assessment report on Douma by the OPCW's Ian
Henderson was leaked, Lyse Doucet, the BBC's chief international correspondent,
agreed that this was 'an important story'. Despite polite nudges from Media Lens, and
others, she said no more on the matter. Did BBC colleagues have a quiet word in her ear?
Following revelations of a second whistleblower last week, we
challenged her once more. She again ignored us, but she did
reply to one of our Twitter followers:
Thanks Philip. I've been in Canada this month reporting on elections & in Afghanistan
for most of Sept. I did forward the earlier information to programmes but was away during
more recent news so other teams /programmes would have looked at it.
While it is heartening to see any reply – perhaps a measure of Doucet's desire to give
at least the impression of being accountable to the public – it is a very evasive reply.
It is remarkable that for five months she had not been around to report vital testimony
from OPCW insiders blowing a hole in the official, US-friendly narrative used to 'justify'
missile attacks on Syria. Clearly, she had decided it was not that important after
all.
And what does 'so other teams /programmes would have looked at it' actually mean? What
evidence did they examine? And how closely? Where are the BBC headlines and major coverage
these revelations deserve? As far as we can tell, there has been no mention of the OPCW
whistleblowers on the BBC News website; nor has there been any coverage on the main BBC News
programmes. Our challenges to
Paul Royall , editor of the BBC News flagship News at Six and Ten programmes, and
Nick Sutton , editor of the BBC News website, have gone unanswered.
Meanwhile, the General Election on December 12 may well be, as Jeremy Corbyn
says :
a once-in-a-generation chance to transform our country and take on the vested interests
holding people back.
But time is rapidly running out for real change – whether that be on foreign policy,
such as Syria, or the largest crisis now facing all of us. A global group of 11,000 scientists
declared this week that the evidence is 'clear and unequivocal' that humanity is in a
climate emergency. The stakes, then, are even higher than 'once-in-a-generation'. As Extinction
Rebellion have repeatedly
warned , there may not be more than one new generation of humanity that will survive, given
the severity of climate breakdown.
After washing out at LSE, Hayek never held a permanent appointment that was not paid for by
corporate sponsors. Even his conservative colleagues at the University of Chicago – the
global epicentre of libertarian dissent in the 1950s – regarded Hayek as a reactionary
mouthpiece, a "stock rightwing man" with a "stock rightwing sponsor", as one put it. As late as
1972, a friend could visit Hayek, now in Salzburg, only to find an elderly man prostrate with
self-pity, believing his life's work was in vain. No one cared what he had written!
"... On a more constructive & positive note, regarding Assange & Flynn, i thought the X22 Report was not bad yesterday: at least he sees how the Deep State specifically operating within GCHQ & the CIA, desperately need Julian Assange entirely 'unavailable' for comment. ..."
JFK, 9/11, the Fed, rigged elections, suppressed cancer cures and the greatest conspiracies of our time Editor
In today's world, the phrase "conspiracy theory" is pejorative and has a negative connotation. To many people, a conspiracy theory
is an irrational, over-imaginative idea endorsed by people looking for attention and not supported by the mainstream media or government.
History shows, though, that there have been many times when governments or individuals have participated in conspiracies. It would
be naïve to think that intelligence agencies, militaries, government officials, and politicians don't sometimes cooperate in covert,
secretive ways. Following are five instances when it's been proven that the government engaged in a conspiracy.
THE GULF OF TONKIN RESOLUTION
On August 4, 1964, Captain John J. Herrick, the commander of the USS Maddox, a US Navy vessel that was on an intelligence-gathering
mission in the Gulf of Tonkin, reported to the White House and Pentagon that North Vietnamese patrol boats had fired torpedoes at
his ship, and, so, the Maddox had fired back.
Two days later, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara testified to the Congress that he was certain that the Maddox had been attacked.
On August 7, the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was passed, the Congressional act that allowed President Johnson free reign to commence
war; Johnson immediately ordered air strikes on North Vietnam and the Vietnam War -- which would eventually kill fifty-eight thousand
Americans and two million Asians -- was underway.
Since then, it has been shown and proven that no North Vietnamese boats ever fired on the Maddox, and that McNamara had been untruthful
when he testified before Congress. According to the official publication of the Naval Institute,
once-classified documents and tapes released in the past several years, combined with previously uncovered facts, make clear
that high government officials distorted facts and deceived the American public about events that led to full US involvement in
the Vietnam War."
In the weeks prior to the Gulf of Tonkin incident, South Vietnamese ships had been attacking posts in North Vietnam in conjunction
with the CIA's Operation 34A. According to many inside sources, the Johnson administration wanted a full-scale war in Vietnam and
through Operation 34A was trying to provoke North Vietnam into an attack that would give Johnson an excuse to go to war. But when
McNamara was asked by the Congress on August 7 if these South Vietnam attacks had anything to do with the US military and CIA, McNamara
lied and said no.
Within hours after reporting that the Maddox had been attacked, Captain Herrick was retracting his statements and reporting to
the White House and Pentagon that "in all likelihood" an over-eager sonar man had been mistaken and that the sonar sounds and images
that he originally thought were enemy torpedoes were actually just the beat of the Maddox's own propellers.
Herrick reported that there was a good probability that there had been no attack on the Maddox, and suggested "complete reevaluation
before any action is taken."
McNamara saw these new, updated reports and discussed them with President Johnson early in the afternoon of August 4. Even though
this was so, on the evening of August 4, President Johnson went on national television and announced to the American public that
North Vietnam had engaged in "unprovoked aggression" and, so, the US military was retaliating.
A few days after the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, Johnson remarked, "Hell, those damn stupid sailors were just shooting at flying
fish."
Recently, new documents related to the Gulf of Tonkin incident have been declassified and according to Robert Hanyok, a historian
for the National Security Agency, these documents show that the NSA deliberately "distorted intelligence" andand "altered documents"
to make it appear that an attack had occurred on August 4.
When President Lyndon Johnson misrepresented to the American public and said he knew that North Vietnam had attacked a US ship,
and when Defense Secretary Robert McNamara lied to the Congress and said he was sure that the Maddox had been attacked and that the
CIA had nothing to do with South Vietnam aggression, and when NSA officials falsified information to make it appear that there had
been an attack on the Maddox, that was a government conspiracy.
OPERATION NORTHWOODS
In 1962, the most powerful and highest ranking military officials of the US government, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, felt strongly
that the communist leader Fidel Castro had to be removed from power and, so, came up with a plan to justify an American invasion
of Cuba.
The plan, entitled Operations Northwoods, was presented to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara on March 13, 1962, and was signed
by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Lyman L. Lemnitzer.
Operations Northwoods was a proposal for a false flag operation, a plan in which a military organizes an attack against its own
country and then frames and blames the attack on another country for the purpose of the purpose of initiating hostilities and declaring
war on that country.
The proposal was originally labeled Top Secret but was made public on November 18, 1997, by the John F. Kennedy Assassination
Records Review Board. The complete Operation Northwoods paper was published online by the National Security Archive on April 30,
2001, and this once-secret government document can now be read by anyone.
The actions that General Lemnitzer and the other chiefs wanted to d to take under Operations Northwoods are shocking. According
to the plan, CIA and military personnel and hired provocateurs would commit various violent acts and these acts would be blamed on
Castro to "create the necessary impression of Cuban rashness and irresponsibility" and "put the United States in the apparent position
of suffering defensible grievances."
One of the most ambitious plans of Operation Northwoods was to blow up a plane in midflight. The strategy was to fill a civilian
airplane with CIA and military personnel who were registered under fake ID's; an exact duplicate plane -- an empty military drone
aircraft -- would take off at the same exact time.
The plane of fake passengers would land at a military base but the empty drone plane would fly over Cuba and crash in the ocean,
supposedly a victim of Cuban missiles. "Casualty lists in US newspapers" and conducting "fake funerals for mock-victims"
would cause "a helpful wave of national indignation" in America.
The Operation Northwoods proposal also states: "We could blow up a US ship and blame Cuba." Whether the ship was to be empty or
full of US soldiers is unclear. The document also says: "Hijacking attempts against US civil air and surface craft should be encouraged."
Some of the recommendations of Operation Northwoods would have surely led to serious injuries and even deaths of Cuban and American
civilians. The plan suggests:
We could sink a boatload of Cubans on route to Florida (real or simulated)."
And:
We could foster attempts on lives of anti-Castro Cubans in the United States even to the extent of wounding in instances to
be widely publicized We could explode a few bombs in carefully chosen spots."
Lemnitzer and the chiefs wanted many of these staged terrorist attacks to be directed at the Guantanamo Bay United States Naval
Base in Cuba. The plans were:
"Start riots near the entrance to the base" "lob mortar shells from outside the base to inside the base" "blow up ammunition inside
the base; start fires" "burn aircraft on airbase (sabotage)" "sabotage ship in harbor; large fires -- napalm."
When Secretary of Defense McNamara was presented with the Operation Northwoods plan, he either stopped and rejected the plan himself
or passed it on to President Kennedy and JFK then rejected it. But if Kennedy and McNamara had agreed with the plan, then the Joint
Chiefs of Staff wanted to begin enacting Operation Northwoods "right away, within a few months."
Even though Operation Northwoods was never initiated, when the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the other highest-ranking
military officials of the United States Government planned to organize violent attacks on Americans and anti-Castro Cuban citizens,
knowing those attacks could severely injure and kill those citizens, and when they planned to blame those attacks on Cuba and then
use that as an excuse to invade Cuba, that was a government conspiracy.
FBI AND THE MAFIA
In March 1965, the FBI had the house of New England organized crime boss Raymond Patriarca wiretapped and overheard two mobsters,
Joseph Barboza and Vincent Flemmi, asking Patriarca for permission to kill another gangster, Edward Deegan. Two days later, Deegan's
blood-soaked body was found dead in a Boston alley.
Within days, an official FBI report confirmed that Joseph Barboza and three other mobsters were the murderers. Instead of those
men going to prison for murder, though, three years later a man named Joseph Salvati was brought to trial for the murder of Edward
Deegan. At that trial Joseph Barboza testified and lied that Salvati was one of the murderers. On the basis of Barboza's testimony,
Joseph Salvati was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison.
At that time, in the mid 1960s, the FBI was being pressured more and more to do something to stop organized crime. The bureau
began using members of the mafia -- criminals and murderers -- to inform against fellow mafia members. Joseph Barboza was one of
these FBI-protected, paid informants. The FBI didn't want Barboza to go to prison for the murder of Deegan because they wanted him
to continue infiltrating the mafia and testifying against other mafia members.
The bureau, apparently, did want a conviction in the Deegan murder case, though, and, so, let Barboza lie under oath and let a
man they knew to be innocent, Joseph Salvati, go to prison.
The Witness Protection Program was first created for Joseph Barboza, and Barboza was the first mafia informant to be protected
under the program. After helping to convict a number of mobsters, Barboza was sent off to live in California. While under the Witness
Protection Program, Barboza committed at least one more murder, and probably more.
On trial for a murder in California, FBI officials showed up for Joseph Barboza's trial and testified on his behalf, helping Barboza
to get a light sentence.
Joseph Salvati ended up serving thirty years in prison for a murder that he was innocent of. During that thirty-year period, lawyers
for Salvati requested documents from the FBI that would have proved Salvati's innocence, but the bureau refused to release them.
Finally, in 1997, other evidence came forth suggesting Salvati's innocence and the governor of Massachusetts, William Weld, granted
Salvati's release. A few years later, the FBI was ordered to release all its reports on the case; hundreds of documents showed the
FBI knew that Barboza was a murderer, that he had murdered Edward Deegan, and that Joseph Salvati had had nothing to do with the
crime.
Salvati was exonerated in a court of law, and was eventually awarded millions of dollars in a civil lawsuit against the government.
(Three other defendants were also exonerated. At the 1968 trial, Joseph Barboza had testified that three other men -- men who were
also not guilty -- had participated in Deegan's murder. These three innocent men were, with Salvati, also sent to prison.)
Perhaps the most shocking thing that the FBI documents showed, though, was that FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover himself knew Salvati
was innocent and that Barboza had killed Deegan.
Hoover was working closely, almost daily, with the agents handling Joseph Barboza, and it was probably Hoover directing the operation.
The congressional committee that investigated the case was the House Committee on Government Reform and Congressman Dan Burton was
the chairman.
When asked by CBS's 60 Minutes journalist Mike Wallace "Did J. Edgar Hoover know all this? " Burton replied:
"Yes . . . It's one of the greatest failures in the history of American justice J. Edgar Hoover knew Salvati was innocent.
He knew it and his name should not be emblazoned on the FBI headquarters. We should change the name of that building."
Congressman Burton claimed there was evidence that there were more cases when the FBI did the same sorts of things they did in
the Joseph Salvati case; when Burton and his committee requested the files on these cases, the Attorney General and the White House
refused to release them.
When FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover and top FBI officials let a known murderer lie and perjure himself in a courtroom, when they
let four men they knew to be innocent suffer in the hell of a prison cell for thirty years, and when they deliberately covered that
up for decades, that was a government conspiracy.
THE MANHATTAN PROJECT
In 1939, Albert Einstein and two other European physicists sent a letter to President Franklin Roosevelt informing Roosevelt that
the German government was working on developing the science that could lead to the creation of a nuclear bomb. FDR immediately formed
a committee to look into the idea of the US government making an atomic bomb.
In 1942, the Manhattan Project, the United States program to build a nuclear bomb, headed by General Leslie R. Groves of the US
Army Corps of Engineers, was formed.
The program existed from 1942–1946, spent two billion dollars, had plants and factories in thirty cities, and employed 130,000
workers. But virtually no one knew about it. The Manhattan Project is considered the "Greatest Secret Ever Kept."
The US government wanted to keep the Project a secret lest Germany or one of America's other enemies found out about it and built
-- more quickly -- a larger, better bomb. In the early 1940s, when American scientists began working on splitting atoms and nuclear
fission, US government officials asked the scientists to not publish any reports on the work in scientific journals. The work was
kept quiet.
In 1943, when newspapers began reporting on the large Manhattan Project construction going on in a few states, the newly formed
United States Government Office of Censorship asked newspapers and broadcasters to avoid discussing "atom smashing, atomic energy,
atomic fission . . . the use for military purposes of radium or radioactive materials" or anything else that could expose the project.
The press kept mum. The government didn't talk about the Manhattan Project, the press didn't report on it, and the public knew nothing
about it.
Not even the 130,000 Manhattan Project laborers knew they were building an atom bomb.
In 1945, a Life magazine article wrote that before Japan was attacked with a-bombs, "probably no more than a few dozen men in
the entire country knew the full meaning of the Manhattan Project, and perhaps only a thousand others even were aware that work on
atoms was involved."
The workers were told they were doing an important job for the government, but weren't told what the job was, and didn't understand
the full import of the mysterious, daily tasks they were doing. The laborers were warned that disclosing the Project's secrets was
punishable by ten years in prison, and a hefty financial fine.
Whole towns and cities were built where thousands of Manhattan Project workers lived and worked but these thousands didn't know
they were helping to build nuclear bombs.
The Manhattan Project finally became known to the public on August 6, 1945, when President Harry Truman announced that America
had dropped a nuclear bomb on Hiroshima, Japan.
Truman, himself, had not been informed of the Manhattan Project until late April 1945.
When the government kept the purpose of the Manhattan Project a secret from the press, from the public, from America's enemies,
from Harry Truman, and even from the 130,000 laborers who worked for the Manhattan Project, that was a government conspiracy.
THE CHURCH COMMITTEE INVESTIGATION
In the early 1970s, after the Watergate affair and investigative reports by the New York Times, it became apparent that the CIA
and other US intelligence agencies might be engaging in inappropriate and illegal activities. In 1975, the Church Committee, named
after the Committee's chairman Senator Frank Church, was formed to investigate abuses by the CIA, NSA, FBI, and IRS.
The Church Committee reports are said to constitute the most extensive investigations of intelligence activities ever made available
to the public. Many disturbing facts were revealed. According to the final report of the Committee, US intelligence agencies had
been engaging in "unlawful or improper conduct" and "intelligence excesses, at home and abroad" since the administration of President
Franklin Roosevelt.
The report added that "intelligence agencies have undermined the Constitutional rights of citizens" and "checks and
balances designed by the framers of the Constitution to assure accountability have not been applied."
One of the most well-known revelations of the Committee was the CIA's so-called "Family Jewels," a report that detailed the CIA's
misdeeds dating back to Dwight Eisenhower's presidency. The committee also reported on the NSA's SHAMROCK and MINARET programs; under
these programs the NSA had been intercepting, opening, and reading the telegrams and mail of thousands of private citizens.
The Church Committee also discovered and exposed the FBI's COINTELPRO program, the bureau's program to covertly destroy and disrupt
any groups or individuals that J. Edgar Hoover felt were bad for America. Some of the movements and groups that the FBI tried to
discredit and destroy were the Civil Rights movement, the anti-Vietnam War movement, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference,
and individuals such as Martin Luther King Jr.
The most alarming thing that the Church Committee found, though, was that the CIA had an assassination program. It was revealed
that the CIA assassinated or had tried to assassinate Dinh Diem of Vietnam, Raphael Trujillo of the Dominican Republic, General Rene
Schneider of Chile, Fidel Castro, Patrice Lumumba of the Congo, and other political leaders throughout the world.
The Committee learned about the different ways the CIA had developed to kill and assassinate people: inflicting cancer, inflicting
heart attacks, making murders look like suicides, car accidents, boating accidents, and shootings. At one point, CIA Director William
Colby presented to the Committee a special "heart attack gun" that the CIA had created. The gun was able to shoot a small poison-laden
dart into its victim. The dart was so small as to be undetectable; the victim's death from the poison would appear to be a heart
attack, so no foul play would be suspected.
In response to the Church Committee report, in 1976 President Gerald Ford signed Executive Order 11,905, which forbade employees
of the US government from engaging in or conspiring to engage in political assassinations.
In that same year, the Senate approved Senate Resolution 400, which established the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the
committee responsible for providing vigilant oversight over the intelligence agencies.
Many former CIA employee-whistleblowers and other people, though, claim that US intelligence agencies are still acting in improper
ways. In 2008, it was revealed that the CIA had hired Blackwater, a private company made up of ex-Navy Seals, to track down and assassinate
suspected terrorists.
Later in the 2000s, when the Congress formed a committee to investigate if CIA waterboarding and other methods of interrogation
constituted torture, congressmen complained that they couldn't get to the bottom of the matter because CIA officials and the CIA
director were lying to the congressional committee.
Forty-five years after the revelations of the Church Committee, it seems US intelligence agencies are still engaging in covert
and improper conduct.
When US intelligence agencies and the CIA plot to influence the affairs of foreign nations, when the CIA plots assassinations
and assassinates foreign leaders and political dissidents, when the CIA develops new ways to kill and assassinate and interrogate
and torture, and when the CIA keeps all that from Congress, the press, and the public, that's a government conspiracy.
*
If these five instances of government engaging in conspiracies have been proven to be true -- and they have been -- isn't it logical
to assume that government agencies may have engaged in other conspiracies? It is the very nature of intelligence agencies and militaries
to act in secretive, conspiratorial ways.
The phrase "conspiracy theory" shouldn't have a negative connotation. Politics always plays out with backroom handshakes. It is
the suggestion of American Conspiracies and Cover-Ups that government agencies and officials and the special interests that influence
them are often engaging in conspiratorial actions, and that conspiracies have been behind some of the most iconic and important events
of American history.
A conspiracy theorist was regaling a friend with one conspiracy theory after another. Finally, the friend interrupted and said,
"I bet I know what would happen if God Himself appeared out of the sky right now, looked down at us, and said, 'There is no conspiracy.'
I bet you would look up and say, 'So the conspiracy goes higher than we thought.'"
Perhaps if the Almighty appeared to inform us that politicians and governments and government officials don't act in secretive,
covert, conspiratorial ways, then we could accept that.
But when the evidence indicates otherwise .
Theories questioning if multiple people might have shot at JFK, or if interior bombs brought down the World Trade Center, or if
somebody was able to rig the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections can make for dramatic, sensational storytelling.
But it is not the purpose of American Conspiracies and Cover-Ups to be sensational; the purpose of this book is to talk about
"conspiracy realities" that can hopefully give us a deeper and more meaningful understanding of politics.
If elements in the intelligence agencies participated in assassinating President Kennedy, then how can the intelligence agencies
be better controlled? If elements in the government allowed or caused 9/11 to happen to give us an excuse to go to war in the Middle
East, then how much of the War on Terror is disinformation and propaganda?
If presidential elections can be rigged, then how can we have fairer, uncorrupted elections? If secretive influences behind the
scenes, a Deep State, are controlling our social, political, and financial systems for their own selfish purposes, then it would
benefit us to expose who and what these secretive influences are.
American Conspiracies and Cover-Ups may give us a glimpse into the way that government and politics work.
It is revelatory how the DS minions work here btl.
You are seen like rabbits in the lights you are.
Tim Jenkins
Yoyoyo, that's why they have names like 'Crispy', before we burn them to a crisp: and they just can't believe what they are seeing
& reading: left dumbfounded & speechless,
every darn time 🙂 LouisP. needs back up from NormP. , coz' LouisP. has lost the plot & will to contest anything constructively
& factually, simply because the DS suckers are ALL out of Ammo. It's great fun when all yer' ducks are in a row and all you have
to do is pull the trigger. 😉
On a more constructive & positive note, regarding Assange & Flynn, i thought the X22 Report was not bad yesterday: at least
he sees how the Deep State specifically operating within GCHQ & the CIA, desperately need Julian Assange entirely 'unavailable'
for comment.
Now, all we have to do is re-educate Legally, the minds of the masses, who got wholly suckered by the Deep state controlled
& censored MSM: because in courts of Law, we cannot lose in the longterm ! Just be patient and always remember to ridicule the
sheeple that relied upon the WAPO & NYT, (like LouisP. did) and of course, do have extra good fun ridiculing The Guardian readers,
above all else 🙂 We must change Media & Communications Law, more urgently than any thing else, FIRST ! But, High Tide has been
and left 'hasbeens' exposed & lying on the beeches, naked, like driftwood, ready to burn 😉
' the purpose of this book is to talk about "conspiracy realities" that can hopefully give us a deeper and more meaningful understanding
of politics.'
Frankly, I don't want "a deeper and more meaningful understanding of politics".
I want the criminal conspiracy realities to stop and for those guilty of carrying them out to be brought to justice.
US love all around
Hijacking attempts against US civil air and surface craft should be encouraged.
"Encouraged?
Tha's lovely! and more lovely, this "Operations Northwoods" was planned by highest ranking military officials of the US government.
Martin Usher
I recently re-read a biography called "A Man Called Intrepid" about the life and work of a relatively low key Canadian, William
Stephenson. This fellow pretty much wrote the book on the use of intelligence and dirty tricks in warfare. He worked closely with
Churchill and Roosevelt, acting as a private go-between back before the US was involved in WW2 (and was heavily non-interventionist).
He organized a huge black operation, an operation that was initially based in New York. The book is worth reading because once
read it takes little interpolation to get from where they were in the 1940s to where we are today.
Stephenson didn't invent dirty tricks, of course, but he understood their value and the role of propaganda. His role is very
much like Edison's in invention -- Thomas Edison didn't so much invent machines as invent industrial scale research and development,
he industrialized the process and so vastly increased its scope and power.
Antonym
Japan Mil. Inc. was pretty early in the false flag incident business: 1931 with their Mukden incident; their start of their invasion
of Manchuria, as North Eastern China was called than (wonder why?):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mukden_Incident
Antonym
They didn't even damage their own railway track: more like the real deal compared to 9/11.
They lied about the terrorists, they lied about the planes (including 265 dead in plane crashes), they lied about the building
collapses and yet you believe they didn't lie about the 2,735 who allegedly died in the buildings when they could so easily fake
it as the evidence shows. Who's more a nutjob – me or you?
George Mc
"So 9/11 is still too recent to call out as an inside conspiracy, is it? Only 18 years old so it can't be called out."
9/11 will never be called out as far as the mainstream media is concerned. Can you imagine the effect if they did? The entire
edifice of "The West" would collapse and the Islamic world would explode in deservedly righteous fury. The case is similar, though
on a much smaller scale, with that of Tony Blair. He was exposed as a liar and should have been tried as a war criminal. But there
was no way that was going to happen since it would necessarily lead to the Western governments throwing up their hands and admitting
that they were conscienceless manipulative bastards. In short, the game would be up. On the one hand, 9/11 and Blair's bullshit
serve the ruling class interests and, on the other hand – and more importantly – the abandonment of 9/11 and Blair would mean
the wrecking of the whole scam. (I am aware that Blair is much more expendable than the official narrative of 9/11 so it is feasible
that he will "go down" later but not until sufficient distance is established between him and the powers that be).
mark
When they can't do anything else, they'll offer up Shady Wahabia as a convenient whipping boy, to divert attention from Kosherstan.
This is their fall back position. Offer up the Shadies as the Lee Harvey Oswald of the operation.
Hugh O'Neill
BigB. Your naïveté is almost touching: you claim archives as truth, despite all that we know about the CIA deliberately creating
false archives. Just as Orwell said: Who controls the present controls the past, controls the future. Watergate burglar Hunt admitted
under oath that he had altered records to show that JFK had ordered the assassination of Diem: he did so so as to tarnish his
reputation amongst Catholics. I also recall that your beloved scholar Zelikow was taken to task for doing much the same thing
in the JFK archives.
Your logic is bizarre: you think Lemnitzer was part of the assassination plot. But if that were so, then how did he get away with
it? Might it not require huge swathes of the military, CIA and State departments and the entire MSM to be complicit.
Iy would seem that you are flogging a dead horse on this website where we esteem the principled scholarship of decent men like
Douglass, Talbot, Curtin and many many more. Do yourself and the rest of us a favour. Try and think more logically/ Which part
of Eisenhower's Valedictory did you not understand?
BigB
I know I am flogging a dead horse: which is why I gave up. The DNSA archive revived my interest. You and I could have sorted this
years ago with a comparative reading of Stern and Douglass side by side. The offer is still open.
The CIA did not fabricate the ExComm tapes. Let us make that perfectly clear. That is a non-argument. They probably did not
even know about them. They were never meant to be made public. That RKF was the chief hawk for Cuban invasion is clear and negates
the narrative construction that they were against the Unspeakable. They were part of it. End of.
This allows me to reach exactly the same conclusion that Lemnitzer and Dulles were involved. Without the whole fabricated 'turning
to peace' constructivism and an overlay about the Unspeakable. There is hardly anything that distinguishes the Unspeakable in
my eyes. Apart from rhetorical speech-acts and narrative constructivism. The facts posted and Stern's books speak for themselves.
You do not even address the fact that Stern is selectively mis-presented. You cannot read about the ExComm version then come up
with another alternative version without critical scrutiny. Not without serious criticism of the narrative made. To repeat: if
RFK was the chief hawk and not the JCOS – so who were the Unspeakable.
"The [ExComm] tapes, however, contradict the book [Thirteen Days] in several fundamental ways and tell a very different
story -- one that is much more complex, interesting, and subtle. Indeed, it is no exaggeration to say that the tapes actually
expose Thirteen Days as not just selective or slanted history, which is the common affliction of personal diaries and memoirs,
but rather as the capstone of an effort to embellish, if not manipulate, the history of the missile crisis to Robert Kennedy's
perceived advantage."
"As noted earlier, Robert Kennedy was one of the most unwaveringly hawkish participants in the ExComm meetings. On October
16, the first day of the meetings, RFK suggested using the American naval base at Guantánamo to stage an incident that would
justify military intervention: "You know, sink the Maine again or something."[14] He also suggested that "we should just get
into it [attack Cuba] and get it over with and take our losses." On the final day of crisis meetings, October 27, RFK strenuously
opposed any linkage between the Soviet missiles in Cuba and the U.S. missiles in Turkey"
" It's not just television "documentaries" that perpetuate this kind of fiction. Just this year, David Talbot, author of
Brothers: The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years, declared that President Kennedy's "only key support [for a non-military
solution] in the increasingly tense Cabinet Room meetings came from his brother Bobby and Defense Secretary Robert McNamara."[22]
Talbot claimed that RFK "matured from a knee-jerk hawk to a wise and restrained diplomat" during the ExComm meetings.[23] In
fact, Robert Kennedy, along with McNamara, consistently opposed any terms involving the U.S. missiles in Turkey well into the
final hours of "Black Saturday," so-called because if a deal failed to materialize, a superpower clash seemed imminent and
unavoidable. Talbot's account attempts to legitimize the myths in Thirteen Days."
"Of course, Kennedy never abandoned his commitment, even after the missile crisis, to undermine the Cuban regime and get
rid of Fidel Castro."
That is enough to substantiate my claim that Douglass and Talbot based their accounts on fabrication. Curtin merely repeats
these claims. But I am flogging a dead horse if people will not re-appraise their metaphysicla truth-claims in the light of hard
evidence. Believe what you want. Don't let facts get in the way.
Your take on events might be accurate but you rather miss the point; the original article simply contends that JFK was murdered
by the state in a coup d'etat, which is still denied to this day. Whether he deserved to die (presumably you think so) is immaterial.
By my simple logic, he couldn't have been all bad if the really really bad guys murdered him. Furthermore, such logic is also
consistent with JFK's political views before his Presidency e.g. his support for post colonial leaders like Lumumba, Sukarno etc.
and his views on peace e.g. "war will continue until that distant day when the conscientious objector is revered as the warrior
is today. Blessed are the peace makers. May you find some in your tortured illogical mind.
BigB
The original article claims Northwoods was never implemented: which is only partially true. It was rejected because it was overt.
Covert operations – Operation Mongoose – where carried out until 1963. They were run by the Kennedy regime as the highest priority.
As I have now provided several archives to back up.
We can easily establish the facts without resort to comments about my tortured illogical mind. The actual Kennedy's have nothing
to do with this. It is the invented Kennedy's that are constructions of the imagination in comtemporary minds. That is illogical,
Hugh. For everything anyone contends about the imaginary Kennedy's – there is a primary historic record – that prevents the invention.
It still needs contextualising: but out and out fabrications – such as Douglass and Talbot put forward are easily refuted.
Or not. The legend lives on and the facts do not. Not on this site anyway.
Antonym
Quite an effort to blame the Kennedy brothers over the other power brothers, not even mentioned: John Foster Dulles US
secretary of State and Allan Dulles boss and co-creator of the CIA. They had already organized coups in Iran and Guatemala, so
the intent and experience were there: no need for newbie JFK. This "Cuban project" was commissioned in March 1960; JFK only became
president in January 1961.
The Integrity Initiative, as paid for by the British Foreign Office, Ministry of
Defense, NATO and other such entities, will live on as a non-charitable entity with even less
transparency. Its website, as well as that of Institute of Statecraft, is down. That it
will now have to live in total secrecy will make it more difficult for it to recruit foreign
journalists to spread its propaganda.
On 3rd April, Foreign & Commonwealth Office (FCO) minister Alan Duncan revealed his
department's 'Counter Disinformation and Media Development Programme' - which bankrolls the
Institute for Statecraft and its Integrity Initiative subsidiary - was funding a new
endeavour, Open Information
Partnership (OIP).
The announcement, buried in a response to a written parliamentary question, was supremely
light on detail - Duncan merely said the effort would "respond to manipulated information in
the news, social media and across the public space". Official fanfare was also unforthcoming
- there was no accompanying press release, briefing document, or even mention of the launch
by any government minister or department via social media channels.
The original proposal for
the Open Information Partnership , as
released by 'anonymous' , included the Institute of Statecraft , a Media
Diversity Institute , Bellingcat , DFR Lab (i.e. the Atlantic Council) and
some others in a so called ZINC Network . On the current OIP website the Institute of
Statecraft 'charity' is no longer named.
---
Previous Moon of Alabama reports on the issue:
At Kit Klarenberg's Twitter ,
there's a long tweet thread further detailing what b has written above. I can't help be
wonder how the Monty Python troop would have portrayed the Institute for Statecraft and its
parent the Integrity Initiative. It appears that the governments of the English speaking
nations became addicted to lying to their citizens @1900 and are unable to kick the habit and
instead have actually deepened their addiction. Elsewhere on the planet, it seems that people
are learning it's easier to talk straight and transparently with other people and to pool
resources and combine efforts to form a community of nations and humanity to better one and
all. Seems simple enough to determine which is functional and which isn't.
Bellingcat only serves one interest, a propaganda/info laundering shop for NATO, the military
industrial complex and some very rich people. The blatant lies about MH17, chemical weapons
in Syria, OPCW, Russia, the list goes on and on.
By the time the people in the Netherlands find out how they have been manipulated with the
MH17 narrative and the role of Bellingcat in this operation, hopefully they will torch the
office of Bellingcat in The Hague and club the survivors to death like the Uktainian Nazi
friends of Bellingcat did in Odessa.
The Ukrainian army shot down MH17. It was no accident. The Dutch were also involved with
the 2014 coup in the Ukraine. Putting the blame on Russia is a political decision, its not
based on facts. Dutch politicians are very dirty people. Burn in hell.
Lefties
have a lot of reasons to roll our eyes when liberals start talking about Putin and his horde of
Rooskie bots comin' to sap and impurify our precious bodily fluids, but most pertinent to this
specific conversation, the underlying concerns about social media manipulation, fake news, etc.
would be far better addressed by redirecting their ire from Russia and onto wait for it
neoliberalism!
Seriously, I can't stress enough how much this whole conversation would benefit from
grappling with Philip
Mirowski's argument about fake news as a culmination of neoliberal market-based
epistemology: starting from the basic doctrine that markets are information processors more
powerful than any human being or institution could ever hope to be, neoliberals like Hayek
decided that the true origin point of the "road to serfdom" is the hubristic notion of a
non-marketized Truth that people could hope to grasp for themselves without slaving themselves
to the ongoing dictates of the market, which is why in neoliberal terms, this empowerment of
hucksterish for-profit "fake news" grifters to freely manipulate people's base instincts
according to the algorithmic logic of social media platforms and targeted ad networks is
actually a sublime act of political virtue and seriousness. It's not the big bad Rooskies who
are driving this stuff, it's the neoliberalized/marketized logic of modern Western discourse
itself, and the only reason it seems so jarring when we Westerners see the Russians doing it
(e.g. Mirowski's quote from Adam Curtis on Putin advisor Vladislav Surkov) is because they're
following our example in ways we haven't already trained ourselves to accept as normal.
I thought I understood this and many other things about the journalism business at a young
age. I even knew everything that "off the record" entails -- really knew, as if it were a
religious tenet -- before I hit junior high. I thought I was an expert.
Then I read Manufacturing Consent .
The book came out in 1988 and I read it a year later, when I was nineteen. It blew my
mind.
Along with the documentary Hearts and Minds (about the atrocities of
the Vietnam War) and books like Soul on Ice, In the Belly of the Beast,
and The Autobiography of Malcolm X, Manufacturing Consent taught me
that some level of deception was baked into almost everything I'd ever been taught about modern
American life.
I knew nothing about either of the authors, academics named Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky.
It seemed odd that a book purporting to say so much about journalism could be written by
non-journalists. Who were these people? And how could they claim to know anything about this
business?
This was the middle of the George H. W. Bush presidency, still the rah-rah Top Gun eighties. Political earnestness was extremely uncool. America was awesome
and hating on America was sad. Noam Chomsky was painted to me as the very definition of uncool,
a leaden, hectoring bore.
But this wasn't what I found on the page. Manufacturing Consent is a
dazzling book. True, like a lot of co-written books, and especially academic books, it's
written in slow, grinding prose. But for its time, it was intellectually flamboyant, wild
even.
The ideas in it radiated defiance. Once the authors in the first chapter laid out their
famed propaganda model, they cut through the deceptions of the American state like a buzz
saw.
The book's central idea was that censorship in the United States was not overt, but covert.
The stage-managing of public opinion was "normally not accomplished by crude intervention" but
by the keeping of "dissent and inconvenient information" outside permitted mental parameters:
"within bounds and at the margins."
The key to this deception is that Americans, every day, see vigorous debate going on in the
press. This deceives them into thinking propaganda is absent. Manufacturing
Consent explains that the debate you're watching is choreographed. The range of argument
has been artificially narrowed long before you get to hear it.
This careful sham is accomplished through the constant, arduous policing of a whole range of
internal pressure points within the media business. It's a subtle, highly idiosyncratic process
that you can stare at for a lifetime and nonetheless not see.
American news companies at the time didn't (and still don't) forbid the writing of
unpatriotic stories. There are no editors who come blundering in, red pen in hand, wiping out
politically dangerous reports, in the clumsy manner of Soviet Commissars.
Instead, in a process that is almost 100 percent unconscious, news companies simply avoid
promoting dissenting voices. People who are questioners by nature, prodders, pains in the ass
-- all good qualities in reporting, incidentally -- get weeded out by bosses, especially in the
bigger companies. Advancement is meanwhile strongly encouraged among the credulous, the
intellectually unadventurous, and the obedient.
As I would later discover in my own career, there are a lot of C-minus brains in the
journalism business. A kind of groupthink is developed that permeates the upper levels of media
organizations, and they send unconscious signals down the ranks.
Young reporters learn early on what is and is not permitted behavior. They learn to
recognize, almost more by smell than reason, what is and is not a "good story."
Chomsky and Herman described this policing mechanism using the term "flak." Flak was defined
as "negative responses to a media statement or program."
They gave examples in which corporate-funded think tanks like The Media Institute or the
anti-communist Freedom House would deluge media organizations that ran the wrong kinds of
stories with "letters, telegrams, phone calls, petitions, lawsuits" and other kinds of
pressure.
What was the wrong kind of story? Here we learned of another part of the propaganda model,
the concept of worthy and unworthy victims . Herman and Chomsky defined
the premise as follows:
A propaganda system will consistently portray people abused in enemy states as worthy
victims, whereas those treated with equal or greater severity by its own government or clients
will be unworthy.
Under this theory, a Polish priest murdered by communists in the Reagan years was a "worthy"
victim, while rightist death squads in U.S.-backed El Salvador killing whole messes of priests
and nuns around the same time was a less "worthy" story.
What Herman and Chomsky described was a system of informal social control, in which the
propaganda aims of the state were constantly reinforced among audiences, using a
quantity-over-quality approach.
Here and there you might see a dissenting voice, but the overwhelming institutional power of
the media (and the infrastructure of think-tanks and politicians behind the private firms)
carried audiences along safely down the middle of a surprisingly narrow political and
intellectual canal.
One of their examples was Vietnam, where the American media was complicit in a broad
self-abnegating effort to blame itself for "losing the war."
An absurd legend that survives today is that CBS anchor Walter Cronkite, after a two-week
trip to Vietnam in 1968, was key in undermining the war effort.
Cronkite's famous "Vietnam editorial" derided "the optimists who have been wrong in the
past," and villainously imparted that the military's rosy predictions of imminent victory were
false. The more noble course, he implied, was to face reality, realize "we did the best we
could" to defend democracy, and go home.
The Cronkite editorial sparked a "debate" that continues to the present.
On the right, it is said that we should have kept fighting in Vietnam, in spite of those
meddling commies in the media.
The progressive take is that Cronkite was right, and we should have realized the war wasn't
"winnable" years earlier. Doing so would have saved countless American lives, this thinking
goes.
These two positions still define the edges of what you might call the "fairway" of American
thought.
The uglier truth, that we committed genocide on a fairly massive scale across Indochina --
ultimately killing at least a million innocent civilians by air in three countries -- is
pre-excluded from the history of that period.
Instead of painful national reconciliation surrounding episodes like Vietnam, Cambodia,
Laos, the CIA-backed anti-communist massacres in places like Indonesia, or even the more recent
horrors in Middle Eastern arenas like Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen, we mostly ignore
narrative-ruining news about civilian deaths or other outrages.
A media that currently applauds itself for calling out the lies of Donald Trump (and they
are lies) still uses shameful government-concocted euphemisms like "collateral damage." Our new
"Democracy Dies in Darkness" churlishness has yet to reach the Pentagon, and probably never
will.
In the War on Terror period, the press accepted blame for having lost the most recent big
war and agreed to stop showing pictures of the coffins coming home (to say nothing of actual
scenes of war deaths).
We also volunteered to reduce or play down stories about torture ("enhanced interrogation"),
kidnapping ("rendition"), or assassination ("lethal action," or the "distribution matrix").
Even now, if these stories are covered, they're rarely presented in an alarmist tone. In
fact, many "civilian casualties" stories are couched in language that focuses on how the
untimely release of news of "collateral damage" may hinder the effort to win whatever war we're
in at the time.
"After reports of civilian deaths, U.S. military struggles to defend air operations in war
against militants," is a typical American newspaper headline.
Can you guess either the year or the war from that story? It could be 1968, or 2008. Or
2018.
As Manufacturing Consent predicted -- with a nod to Orwell, maybe --
the scripts in societies like ours rarely change. 1
When it came time for me to enter the journalism business myself, I discovered that the
Chomsky/Herman diagnosis was mostly right. Moreover, the academics proved prescient about
future media deceptions like the Iraq War. Their model predicted that hideous episode in
Technicolor.
But neither Herman nor Chomsky could have known, when they published their book in 1988,
that the media business was going through profound change.
As it turned out, Manufacturing Consent was published just ahead of
three massive revolutions. When I met and interviewed Chomsky for this book (see Appendix 2 ), we
discussed these developments. They included:
1. The explosion of conservative talk radio and Fox-style news products. Using point of view
rather than "objectivity" as commercial strategies, these stations presaged an atomization of
the news landscape under which each consumer had an outlet somewhere to match his or her
political beliefs. This was a major departure from the three-network pseudo-monopoly that
dominated the Manufacturing Consent period, under which the country
debated a commonly held set of facts.
2. The introduction of twenty-four-hour cable news stations, which shifted the emphasis of
the news business. Reporters were suddenly trained to value breaking news, immediacy, and
visual potential over import. Network "crashes" -- relentless day-night coverage extravaganzas
of a single hot story like the Kursk disaster or a baby thrown down a
well, a type of journalism one TV producer I knew nicknamed "Shoveling Coal For Satan" --
became the first examples of binge-watching. The relentless now now now
grind of the twenty-four-hour cycle created in consumers a new kind of anxiety and addictive
dependency, a need to know what was happening not just once or twice a day but every minute.
This format would have significant consequences in the 2016 election in particular.
3. The development of the Internet, which was only just getting off the ground in 1988. It
was thought it would significantly democratize the press landscape. But print and broadcast
media soon began to be distributed by just a handful of digital platforms. By the late 2000s
and early 2010s, that distribution system had been massively concentrated. This created the
potential for a direct control mechanism over the press that never existed in the Manufacturing Consent era. Moreover the development of social media would amplify
the "flak" factor a thousandfold, accelerating conformity and groupthink in ways that would
have been unimaginable in 1988.
Maybe the biggest difference involved an obvious historical change: the collapse of the
Soviet Union.
One of the pillars of the "propaganda model" in the original Manufacturing Consent was that the media used anti-communism as an organizing
religion.
The ongoing Cold War narrative helped the press use anti-communism as a club to batter
heretical thinkers, who as luck would have it were often socialists. They even used it as a
club to police people who weren't socialists (I would see this years later, when Howard Dean
was asked a dozen times a day if he was "too left" to be a viable candidate).
But the fall of the Berlin Wall and the dissolution of the Soviet empire took a little wind
out of the anti-communist religion. Chomsky and Herman addressed this in their 2002 update of
Manufacturing Consent, in which they wrote:
The force of anti-communist ideology has possibly weakened with the collapse of the Soviet
Union and the virtual disappearance of socialist movements across the globe, but this is easily
offset by the greater ideological force of the belief in the "miracle of the market "
The collapse of the Soviets, and the weakening of anti-communism as an organizing principle,
led to other changes in the media. Manufacturing Consent was in
significant part a book about how that unseen system of informal controls allowed the press to
organize the entire population behind support of particular objectives, many of them foreign
policy objectives.
But the collapse of the Wall, coupled with those new commercial strategies being deployed by
networks like Fox, created a new dynamic in the press.
Media companies used to seek out the broadest possible audiences. The dull third-person
voice used in traditional major daily newspapers is not there for any moral or ethical reason,
but because it was once believed that it most ably fulfilled the commercial aim of snatching as
many readers/viewers as possible. The press is a business above all, and boring third-person
language was once advanced marketing.
But in the years after Manufacturing Consent was published the new
behemoths like Fox turned the old business model on its head. What Australian tabloid-merchant
Rupert Murdoch did in employing political slant as a commercial strategy had ramifications the
American public to this day poorly understands.
The news business for decades emphasized "objective" presentation, which was really less an
issue of politics than of tone.
The idea was to make the recitation of news rhetorically watered down and unthreatening
enough to rope in the whole spectrum of potential news consumers. The old-school anchorperson
was a monotone mannequin designed to look and sound like a safe date for your daughter:
Good evening, I'm Dan Rather, and my frontal lobes have been removed .
Today in Libya
Murdoch smashed this framework. He gave news consumers broadcasts that were pointed,
opinionated, and nasty. He struck gold with The O'Reilly Factor, hosted
by a yammering, red-faced repository of white suburban rage named Bill O'Reilly (another Boston
TV vet).
The next hit was Hannity & Colmes, a format that played as a
parody of old news. In this show, the "liberal" Colmes was the quivering, asexual, "safe date"
prototype from the old broadcast era, and Sean Hannity was a thuggish Joey Buttafuoco in makeup
whose job was to make Colmes look like the spineless dope he was.
This was theater, not news, and it was not designed to seize the whole audience in the way
that other debate shows like CNN's Crossfire were.
The premise of Crossfire was an honest fight, two prominent pundits
duking it out over issues, and may the best man (they were usually men) win.
The prototypical Crossfire setup involved a bombastic winger like
Pat Buchanan versus an effete liberal like New Republic editor Michael
Kinsley. On some days the conservative would be allowed to win, on some days the liberal would
score a victory. It looked like a real argument.
But Crossfire was really just a formalized version of the artificial
poles of allowable debate that Chomsky and Herman described. As some of its participants (like
Jeff Cohen, a pioneering media critic who briefly played the "liberal" on the show, about whom
we'll hear more later) came to realize, Crossfire became a
propagandistic setup, a stage trick in which the "left" side of the argument was gradually
pushed toward the right over the years. It was propaganda, but in slow motion.
Hannity & Colmes dispensed with the pretense. This was the
intellectual version of Vince McMahon's pro wrestling spectacles, which were booming at the
time. In the Fox debate shows, Sean Hannity was the heel, and Colmes was the good guy, or
babyface. As any good wrestling fan knows, most American audiences want to see babyface
stomped.
The job of Colmes was to get pinned over and over again, and he did it well. Meanwhile
rightist anger merchants like Hannity and O'Reilly (and, on the radio, Rush Limbaugh) were
rapidly hoovering up audiences that were frustrated, white, and often elderly. Fox chief Roger
Ailes once boasted, "I created a network for people 55 to dead." (Ailes is now dead
himself.)
This was a new model for the media. Instead of targeting the broad mean, they were now
narrowly hunting demographics. The explosion of cable television meant there were hundreds of
channels, each of which had its own mission.
Just as Manufacturing Consent came out, all the major cable channels
were setting off on similar whale hunts, sailing into the high demographic seas in search of
audiences to capture. Lifetime was "television for women," while the Discovery Channel did well
with men. BET went after black viewers. Young people were MTV's target audience.
This all seems obvious now, but this "siloing" effect that spread across other channels soon
became a very important new factor in news coverage. Fox for a long time cornered the market on
conservative viewers. Almost automatically, competitors like CNN and MSNBC became home to
people who viewed themselves as liberals, beginning a sifting process that would later
accelerate.
A new dynamic entered the job of reporting. For generations, news directors had only to
remember a few ideological imperatives. One, ably and voluminously described by Chomsky and
Herman, was, "America rules: pay no attention to those napalmed bodies." We covered the worthy
victims, ignored the unworthy ones, and that was most of the job, politically.
The rest of the news? As one TV producer put it to me in the nineties, "The entire effect
we're after is, 'Isn't that weird?'"
Did you hear about that guy in Michigan who refused to mow his lawn even when the town
ordered him to? Weird! And how about that drive-thru condom store that opened in Cranston,
Rhode Island? What a trip! And, hey, what happened in the O.J. trial today? That Kato Kaelin is
really a doof! And I love that lawyer who wears a suede jacket! He looks like a cowboy!
TV execs learned Americans would be happy if you just fed them a nonstop succession of
National Enquirer –style factoids (this is formalized today in
meme culture). The New York Times deciding to cover the O.J. freak show
full-time broke the seal on the open commercialization of dumb news that among other things led
to a future where Donald Trump could be a viable presidential candidate.
In the old days, the news was a mix of this toothless trivia and cheery dispatches from the
front lines of Pax Americana. The whole fam could sit and watch it without getting upset (by
necessity: an important principle in pre-Internet broadcasting is that nothing on the air,
including the news, could be as intense or as creative as the commercials). The news once
designed to be consumed by the whole house, by loving Mom, by your crazy right-wing uncle, by
your earnest college-student cousin who just came home wearing a Che T-shirt.
But once we started to be organized into demographic silos, the networks found another way
to seduce these audiences: they sold intramural conflict.
The Roger Ailes types captured the attention of the crazy right-wing uncle and got him
watching one channel full of news tailored for him, filling the airwaves with stories, for
instance, about immigration or minorities committing crimes. Different networks eventually rose
to market themselves to the kid in the Che T-shirt. If you got them in different rooms watching
different channels, you could get both viewers literally addicted to hating one another.
There was a political element to this, but also not. It was commerce, initially. And
reporters stuck in this world soon began to realize that the nature of their jobs had
changed.
Whereas once the task was to report the facts as honestly as we could -- down the middle of
the "fairway" of acceptable thought, of course -- the new task was mostly about making sure
your viewer came back the next day.
We sold anger, and we did it mainly by feeding audiences what they wanted to hear. Mostly,
this involved cranking out stories about people our viewers loved to hate.
Selling siloed anger was a more sophisticated take on the WWE programming pioneered in
Hannity & Colmes . The modern news consumer tuned into news that
confirmed his or her prejudices about whatever or whoever the villain of the day happened to
be: foreigners, minorities, terrorists, the Clintons, Republicans, even corporations.
The system was ingeniously designed so that the news dropped down the respective silos
didn't interfere with the occasional need to "manufacture" the consent of the whole population.
If we needed to, we could still herd the whole country into the pen again and get them backing
the flag, as was the case with the Iraq War effort.
But mostly, we sold conflict. We began in the early nineties to systematically pry families
apart, set group against group, and more and more make news consumption a bubble-like, "safe
space" stimulation of the vitriolic reflex, a consumer version of "Two Minutes Hate."
How did this serve the needs of the elite interests that were once promoting unity? That
wasn't easy for me to see, in my first decades in the business. For a long time, I thought it
was a flaw in the Chomsky/Herman model. It looked like we were mostly selling pointless
division.
But it now seems there was a reason, even for that.
The news media is in crisis. Polls show that a wide majority of the population no longer has
confidence in the press. Chomsky himself despairs at this, noting in my discussion with him (at
the end of this book) that Manufacturing Consent had the unintended
consequence of convincing readers not to trust the media.
There are many ways of mistrusting something, but people who came away from Manufacturing Consent with the idea that the media peddles lies misread the book.
Papers like the New York Times, for the most part, do not traffic in
outright deceptions.
The overwhelming majority of commercial news reporting is factual (with one conspicuous
exception I'll get into later on), and the individual reporters who work in the business tend
to be quite stubborn in their adherence to fact as a matter of principle. (Sadly, in the time
it's taken to write this book, even this has begun to change some). Still, people should trust
most reporters, especially local reporters, who tend to have real beats (like statehouses or
courts), have few of the insular prejudices of the national media, and don't deserve the
elitist tag. The context in which reporters operate is most often the problem.
Now, more than ever, most journalists work for giant nihilistic corporations whose editorial
decisions are skewed by a toxic mix of political and financial considerations. Without
understanding how those pressures work, it's very difficult for a casual news consumer to gain
an accurate picture of the world.
This book is intended as an insider's guide to those distortions.
The technology underpinning the modern news business is sophisticated and works according to
a two-step process. First, it creates content that reinforces your pre-existing opinions, and,
after analysis of your consumer habits, sends it to you.
Then it matches you to advertisers who have a product they're trying
to sell to your demographic. This is how companies like Facebook and Google make their money:
telling advertisers where their likely customers are on the web.
The news, basically, is bait to lure you into a pen where you can be sold sneakers or bath
soaps or prostatitis cures or whatever else studies say people of your age, gender, race,
class, and political persuasion tend to buy.
Imagine your Internet surfing habit as being like walking down a street. A man shouts: "Did
you hear what those damned liberals did today? Come down this alley."
You hate liberals, so you go down the alley. On your way to the story, there's a storefront
selling mart carts and gold investments (there's a crash coming -- this
billionaire even says so!).
Maybe you buy the gold, maybe you don't. But at the end of the alley, there's a red-faced
screamer telling a story that may even be true, about a college in Massachusetts where
administrators took down a statue of John Adams because it made a Hispanic immigrant
"uncomfortable." Boy, does that make you pissed!
They picked that story just for you to hear. It is like the parable of Kafka's gatekeeper,
guarding a door to the truth that was built just for you.
Across the street, down the MSNBC alley, there's an opposite story, and set of storefronts,
built specifically for someone else to hear.
People need to start understanding the news not as "the news," but as just such an
individualized consumer experience -- anger just for you.
This is not reporting. It's a marketing process designed to create rhetorical addictions and
shut any non-consumerist doors in your mind. This creates more than just pockets of political
rancor. It creates masses of media consumers who've been trained to see in only one direction,
as if they had been pulled through history on a railroad track, with heads fastened in
blinders, looking only one way.
As it turns out, there is a utility in keeping us divided. As people, the more separate we
are, the more politically impotent we become.
This is the second stage of the mass media deception originally described in Manufacturing Consent .
First, we're taught to stay within certain bounds, intellectually. Then, we're all herded
into separate demographic pens, located along different patches of real estate on the spectrum
of permissible thought.
Once safely captured, we're trained to consume the news the way sports fans do. We root for
our team, and hate all the rest.
Hatred is the partner of ignorance, and we in the media have become experts in selling
both.
I looked back at thirty years of deceptive episodes -- from Iraq to the financial crisis of
2008 to the 2016 election of Donald Trump -- and found that we in the press have increasingly
used intramural hatreds to obscure larger, more damning truths. Fake controversies of
increasing absurdity have been deployed over and over to keep our audiences from seeing larger
problems.
We manufactured fake dissent, to prevent real dissent.
"... "Manufacturing Consent," Taibbi writes, "explains that the debate you're watching is choreographed. The range of argument has been artificially narrowed long before you get to hear it" (p. 11). ..."
"... Americans were held captive by the boob tube affords us not only a useful historical image but also suggests the possibility of their having been able to view the television as an antagonist, and therefore of their having been able, at least some of them, to rebel against its dictates. Three decades later, on the other hand, the television has been replaced by iPhones and portable tablets, the workings of which are so precisely intertwined with even the most intimate minute-to-minute aspects of our lives that our relationship to them could hardly ever become antagonistic. ..."
"... The massive political revolution was, going all the way back to 1989, the collapse of the Berlin Wall, and then of the Soviet Union itself -- and thus of the usefulness of anti-communism as a kind of coercive secular religion (pp. 14-15). ..."
"... our corporate media have devised -- at least for the time being -- highly-profitable marketing processes that manufacture fake dissent in order to smother real dissent (p. 21). ..."
"... And the smothering of real dissent is close enough to public consentto get the goddam job done: The Herman/Chomsky model is, after all these years, still valid. ..."
"... For Maddow, he notes, is "a depressingly exact mirror of Hannity . The two characters do exactly the same work. They make their money using exactly the same commercial formula. And though they emphasize different political ideas, the effect they have on audiences is much the same" (pp. 259-260). ..."
Matt Taibbi's Hate Inc . is the most insightful and revelatory book about American
politics to appear since the publication of Thomas Frank's Listen, Liberal almost four
full years ago, near the beginning of the last presidential election cycle.
While Frank's topic was the abysmal failure of the Democratic Party to be democratic and
Taibbi's is the abysmal failure of our mainstream news corporations to report news, the
prominent villains in both books are drawn from the same, or at least overlapping, elite social
circles: from, that is, our virulently anti-populist liberal class, from our
intellectually mediocre creative class, from our bubble-dwelling thinking class.
In fact, I would strongly recommend that the reader spend some time with Frank's What's the
Matter with Kansas? (2004) and Listen, Liberal! (2016) as he or she takes up
Taibbi's book.
And to really do the book the justice it deserves, I would even more vehemently recommend
that the reader immerse him- or herself in Taibbi's favorite book and vade-mecum ,
Manufacturing Consent (which I found to be a grueling experience: a relentless
cataloging of the official lies that hide the brutality of American foreign policy) and, in
order to properly appreciate the brilliance of Taibbi's chapter 7, "How the Media Stole from
Pro Wrestling," visit some locale in Flyover Country and see some pro wrestling in person
(which I found to be unexpectedly uplifting -- more on this soon enough).
Taibbi tells us that he had originally intended for Hate, Inc . to be an updating of
Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent (1988), which he first read
thirty years ago, when he was nineteen. "It blew my mind," Taibbi writes. "[It] taught me that
some level of deception was baked into almost everything I'd ever been taught about modern
American life .
Once the authors in the first chapter laid out their famed propaganda model [italics
mine], they cut through the deceptions of the American state like a buzz saw" (p. 10). For what
seemed to be vigorous democratic debate, Taibbi realized, was instead a soul-crushing
simulation of debate. The choices voters were given were distinctions without valid
differences, and just as hyped, just as trivial, as the choices between a Whopper and a Big
Mac, between Froot Loops and Frosted Mini-Wheats, between Diet Coke and Diet Pepsi, between
Marlboro Lites and Camel Filters. It was all profit-making poisonous junk.
"Manufacturing Consent," Taibbi writes, "explains that the debate you're watching is
choreographed. The range of argument has been artificially narrowed long before you get to hear
it" (p. 11). And there's an indisputable logic at work here, because the reality of
hideous American war crimes is and always has been, from the point of view of the big media
corporations, a "narrative-ruining" buzz-kill. "The uglier truth [brought to light in
Manufacturing Consent ], that we committed genocide of a fairly massive scale across
Indochina -- ultimately killing at least a million innocent civilians by air in three countries
-- is pre-excluded from the history of the period" (p. 13).
So what has changed in the last thirty years? A lot! As a starting point let's consider the
very useful metaphor found in the title of another great media book of 1988: Mark Crispin
Miller's Boxed In: The Culture of TV . To say that Americans were held captive by
the boob tube affords us not only a useful historical image but also suggests the possibility
of their having been able to view the television as an antagonist, and therefore of their
having been able, at least some of them, to rebel against its dictates. Three decades later, on
the other hand, the television has been replaced by iPhones and portable tablets, the workings
of which are so precisely intertwined with even the most intimate minute-to-minute aspects of
our lives that our relationship to them could hardly ever become antagonistic.
Taibbi summarizes the history of these three decades in terms of three "massive revolutions"
in the media plus one actual massive political revolution, all of which, we should note, he
discussed with his hero Chomsky (who is now ninety! -- Edward Herman passed away in 2017) even
as he wrote his book. And so: the media revolutions which Taibbi describes were, first, the
coming of FoxNews along with Rush Limbaugh-style talk radio; second, the coming of CNN, i.e.,
the Cable News Network, along with twenty-four hour infinite-loop news cycles; third, the
coming of the Internet along with the mighty social media giants Facebook and Twitter.
The massive political revolution was, going all the way back to 1989, the collapse of
the Berlin Wall, and then of the Soviet Union itself -- and thus of the usefulness of
anti-communism as a kind of coercive secular religion (pp. 14-15).
For all that, however, the most salient difference between the news media of 1989 and the
news media of 2019 is the disappearance of the single type of calm and decorous and slightly
boring cis-het white anchorman (who somehow successfully appealed to a nationwide audience) and
his replacement by a seemingly wide variety of demographically-engineered news personæ
who all rage and scream combatively in each other's direction. "In the old days," Taibbi
writes, "the news was a mix of this toothless trivia and cheery dispatches from the frontlines
of Pax Americana . The news [was] once designed to be consumed by the whole house . But once we
started to be organized into demographic silos [italics mine], the networks found
another way to seduce these audiences: they sold intramural conflict" (p. 18).
And in this new media environment of constant conflict, how, Taibbi wondered, could public
consent , which would seem to be at the opposite end of the spectrum from conflict,
still be manufactured ?? "That wasn't easy for me to see in my first decades in the
business," Taibbi writes. "For a long time, I thought it was a flaw in the Chomsky/Herman
model" (p. 19).
But what Taibbi was at length able to understand, and what he is now able to describe for us
with both wit and controlled outrage, is that our corporate media have devised -- at least
for the time being -- highly-profitable marketing processes that manufacture fake dissent in
order to smother real dissent (p. 21).
And the smothering of real dissent is close enough to public consentto get the goddam
job done: The Herman/Chomsky model is, after all these years, still valid.
Or pretty much so. Taibbi is more historically precise. Because of the tweaking of the
Herman/Chomsky propaganda model necessitated by the disappearance of the USSR in 1991 ("The
Russians escaped while we weren't watching them, / As Russians do ," Jackson Browne presciently
prophesied on MTV way back in 1983), one might now want to speak of a Propaganda Model 2.0.
For, as Taibbi notes, " the biggest change to Chomsky's model is the discovery of a far
superior 'common enemy' in modern media: each other. So long as we remain a bitterly-divided
two-party state, we'll never want for TV villains" (pp. 207-208).
To rub his great insight right into our uncomprehending faces, Taibbi has almost
sadistically chosen to have dark, shadowy images of a yelling Sean Hannity (in lurid FoxNews
Red!) and a screaming Rachel Maddow (in glaring MSNBC Blue!) juxtaposed on the cover of his
book. For Maddow, he notes, is "a depressingly exact mirror of Hannity . The two characters
do exactly the same work. They make their money using exactly the same commercial formula. And
though they emphasize different political ideas, the effect they have on audiences is much the
same" (pp. 259-260).
And that effect is hate. Impotent hate. For while Rachel's fan demographic is all wrapped up
in hating Far-Right Fascists Like Sean, and while Sean's is all wrapped up in despising Libtard
Lunatics Like Rachel, the bipartisan consensus in Washington for ever-increasing military
budgets, for everlasting wars, for ever-expanding surveillance, for ever-growing bailouts of
and tax breaks for and and handouts to the most powerful corporations goes forever
unchallenged.
Oh my. And it only gets worse and worse, because the media, in order to make sure that their
various siloed demographics stay superglued to their Internet devices, must keep
ratcheting up levels of hate: the Fascists Like Sean and the Libtards Like Rachel must be
continually presented as more and more deranged, and ultimately as demonic. "There is us and
them," Taibbi writes, "and they are Hitler" (p. 64). A vile reductio ad absurdum has
come into play: "If all Trump supporters are Hitler, and all liberals are also Hitler," Taibbi
writes, " [t]he America vs. America show is now Hitler vs. Hitler! Think of the
ratings! " The reader begins to grasp Taibbi's argument that our mainstream corporate media are
as bad as -- are worse than -- pro wrestling. It's an ineluctable downward spiral.
Taibbi continues: "The problem is, there's no natural floor to this behavior. Just as cable
TV will eventually become seven hundred separate twenty-four-hour porn channels, news and
commentary will eventually escalate to boxing-style, expletive-laden, pre-fight tirades, and
the open incitement to violence [italics mine]. If the other side is literally Hitler,
[w]hat began as America vs. America will eventually move to Traitor vs. Traitor ,
and the show does not work if those contestants are not eventually offended to the point of
wanting to kill one another" (pp. 65-69).
As I read this book, I often wondered about how difficult it was emotionally for
Taibbi to write it. I'm just really glad to see that the guy didn't commit suicide along the
way. He does describe the "self-loathing" he experienced as he realized his own complicity in
the marketing processes which he exposes (p. 2). He also apologizes to the reader for his not
being able to follow through on his original aim of writing a continuation of Herman and
Chomsky's classic: "[W]hen I sat down to write what I'd hoped would be something with the
intellectual gravitas of Manufacturing Consent ," Taibbi confesses, "I found decades of
more mundane frustrations pouring out onto the page, obliterating a clinical examination" (p.
2).
I, however, am profoundly grateful to Taibbi for all of his brilliantly observed anecdotes.
The subject matter is nauseating enough even in Taibbi's sparkling and darkly tragicomic prose.
A more academic treatment of the subject would likely be too depressing to read. So let me
conclude with an anecdote of my own -- and an oddly uplifting one at that -- about reading
Taibbi's chapter 7, "How the News Media Stole from Pro Wrestling."
On the same day I read this chapter I saw that, on the bulletin board in my gym, a poster
had appeared, as if by magic, promoting an upcoming Primal Conflict (!) professional
wrestling event. I studied the photos of the wrestlers on the poster carefully, and, as an
astute reader of Taibbi, I prided myself on being able to identify which of them seemed be
playing the roles of heels , and which of them the roles of babyfaces .
For Taibbi explains that one of the fundamental dynamics of wrestling involves the invention
of crowd-pleasing narratives out of the many permutations and combinations of pitting
heels against faces . Donald Trump, a natural heel , brings the goofy
dynamics of pro wrestling to American politics with real-life professional expertise. (Taibbi
points out that in 2007 Trump actually performed before a huge cheering crowd in a
Wrestlemania event billed as the "battle of the billionaires." Watch it on YouTube!
https://youtu.be/5NsrwH9I9vE --
unbelievable!!)
The mainstream corporate media, on the other hand, their eyes fixed on ever bigger and
bigger profits, have drifted into the metaphorical pro wrestling ring in ignorance, and so,
when they face off against Trump, they often end up in the role of inept prudish
pearl-clutching faces .
Taibbi condemns the mainstream media's failure to understand such a massively popular form
of American entertainment as "malpractice" (p. 125), so I felt more than obligated to buy a
ticket and see the advertised event in person. To properly educate myself, that is.
I have stopped watching broadcast "news" other than occasional sessions of NPR in the car.
I get most of my news from sources such as this and from overseas sources (The Guardian,
Reuters, etc.). I used to subscribe to newspapers but have given them up in disgust, even
though I was looking forward to leisurely enjoying a morning paper after I retired.
I was brought up in the positive 1950's and, boy, did this turn out poorly.
Matt Taibbi is an American treasure, and I love his writing very much, but we also need to
ask, Why hasn't another Chomsky (or another Hudson), an analyst with a truly deep and
wide-ranging, synthetic mind, appeared on the left to take apart our contemporary media and
show us its inner workings? Have all the truly great minds gone to work for Wall Street? I
don't have an answer, but to me the pro wrestling metaphor, while intriguing, misses
something about the Fourth Estate in America, if it indeed still exists. And that is, except
for radio, there is a distinct imbalance between the two sides of the MSM lineup. On the
corporate liberal side of the national MSM team you have five wrestlers, but on the
conservative/reactionary side you have only the Fox entry. Because of this imbalance, the
corruption, laziness, self-indulgence, and generally declining interest in journalistic
standards seems greater among the corporate liberal media team, including the NYT and WaPo,
than the Fox team.
I'm not a fan of either Maddow (in her current incarnation) or Hannity, but Hannity,
perhaps because he thinks he's like David, often hustles to refute the discourse of the
corporate liberal Goliath team. Hannity obviously does more research on some topics than
Maddow, and, perhaps because he began in radio, he puts more emphasis on semi-rationally
structured rants than Maddow, who depends more on primal emotion, body language, and
Hollywood-esque fear-inducing atmospherics.
I'd wager that in a single five-minute segment there will often be twice as many rational
distinctions made in a Hannity rant than in a Maddow performance. In addition, for the last
three years Hannity has simply been demonstrably right about the fake Russiagate propaganda
blitz while Maddow has been as demonstrably wrong from the very beginning as propaganda
industry trend-setter Adam Schiff. So for at least these last three years, the Maddow-Hannity
primal match has been a somewhat misleading metaphor. The Blob and the security state have
been decisively supporting (and directing?) the corporate liberal global interventionist
media, at least regarding Russia and the permanent war establishment, and because the
imbalance between the interventionist and the non-interventionist MSM, Russia and Ukraine are
being used as a wedge to steadily break down the firewalls between the Dem party, the intel
community, and the interventionist MSM. If we had real public debates with both sides at
approximately equal strength as we did during the Vietnam War, then even pro wrestling-type
matches would be superior to what we have now, which is truthy truth and thoughtsy thought
coming to us from the military industrial complex and monopolistic holding companies. If
fascism is defined as the fusion of the state and corporations, then the greatest threat of
fascism in America may well be coming from the apparent gradual fusion of the corporate
liberal MSM, the Dem party elite, and the intel community. Instead of an MSM wrestling match,
we may soon be faced with a Japanese-style 'hitori-zumo' match in which a sumo wrestler
wrestles with only himself. Once these sumo wrestlers were believed to be wrestling with
invisible spirits, but those days are gone . http://kikuko-nagoya.com/html/hitori-zumo.htm
Today's Noam Chomksy? Chomsky was part of the machine who broke ranks with it. His MIT
research was generously funded by the Military Industrial Complex. Thankfully, enough of his
latent humanity and Trotskyite upbringing shone through so he exposed what he was part of. So
I guess today that's Chris Hedges, though he's a preacher at heart and not a semiotician.
> In addition, for the last three years Hannity has simply been demonstrably right
about the fake Russiagate propaganda blitz while Maddow has been as demonstrably wrong
Eh. Read whats-his-name's (Frankfurter?) book On Bullshit . You are giving
Hannity credit for something he doesn't really care about.
I don't believe the media environment as a whole leans corporate Dem/neoliberal.
T.V. maybe, but radio is much more right wing than left (yes there is NPR and Pacifica,
the latter with probably only a scattering of listerners but ) and it's still out there and a
big influence, radio hasn't gone away. So doesn't the right wing tilt of radio kind of
balance out television? (not necessarily in a good way but). And then there is the internet
and I have no idea what the overall lean of that is (I mean I prefer left wing sites, but
that's purely my own bubble and actually there are much fewer left analysis out there than
I'd like)
The whole review is good, but this extract should be quoted extensively:
While Frank's topic was the abysmal failure of the Democratic Party to be democratic and
Taibbi's is the abysmal failure of our mainstream news corporations to report news, the
prominent villains in both books are drawn from the same, or at least overlapping, elite
social circles: from, that is, our virulently anti-populist liberal class, from our
intellectually mediocre creative class, from our bubble-dwelling thinking class.
In short, stagnation and self-dealing at the top. What could possibly go wrong?
Are you serious? Maddow called Trump a traitor and accused him of betrayal in Russiagate,
and was caught out when that fell apart. This was pointed out all over the MSM .
Three decades later, on the other hand, the television has been replaced by iPhones and
portable tablets
and then goes on to spend most of the article talking about television. I'd say television
is still the main propaganda instrument even if many webheads like yours truly ignore it
(I've never seen Hannity's show or Maddow's–just hear the rumors). Arguably even
newspapers like the NYT have been dumbed down because the reporters long to be on TV and join
the shouting. And it's surely no coincidence that our president himself is a TV (and WWE)
star. Mass media have always been feeders of hysteria but television gave them faces and
voices. Watching TV is also a far more passive experience than surfing the web. They are
selling us "narratives," bedtime stories, and we like sleepy children merely listen.
This rave review has inspired me to add this to my to-read non-fiction queue. Currently
reading William Dalrymple's The Anarchy, on the rise of the East India Company. Next up: Matt
Stoller's Goliath. And then I'll get to Taibbi. Probably worth digging up my original copy of
Manufacturing Consent as well, which I read many moons ago; time for a re-read.
May I suggest Stephen Cohen's "War with Russia?" if it's not already on your list? In
focusing on the danger emerging from the new cold war, seeded by the Democrats, propagated by
corporate media (which he thinks is more dangerous than the first), Cohen clarifies the
importance of diplomacy especially with one's nuclear rivals.
Us rubes knew decades ago about pro wrestling. There was a regional circuit and the hero
in one town would become the villain in another town. The ones to be surprised were like John
Stossel, who got a perforated eardrum from a slap upside the head for his efforts at
in-your-face journalism with a wrestler who just wouldn't play along with his grandstanding.
Somewhere, kids cheered and life went on.
Ah, Ancient Athens, here we come – running back to repeat your mistakes! Our MSM
media has decided that when we are not at our neighbor's throats, we should be at each
other's throats!
I was watching old clips of the 'Fred Friendly Seminars' on YouTube. IMHO any channel that
produced a format such as this would be a ratings bonanza. Imagine a round table with various
media figures (corporate) left, (corporate) right, and independent being refereed by a
host-moderator discussing topics in 'Hate, Inc.'. In wrestling it's called a Battle Royale.
The Fourth Estate in a cage match!
And the smothering of real dissent is close enough to public consentto get the goddam
job done: The Herman/Chomsky model is, after all these years, still valid.
This is important, if people don't want to be naive about what democracy buys. Democracy
in the end is a ritual system to determine which members of an elite would win a war without
actually having to hold the war. Like how court functions to replace personal revenge by
determining (often) who would win in a fight if there were one, and the feudal system
replaced the genocidal wars of the axial age with the gentler warfare of the middle ages
which were often ritual wars of the elite that avoided the full risk of the earlier wars.
That, I think, is important -- under a democracy, the winner should be normally the winner
of the avoided violent conflict to be sustainable. Thus, it's enough to get most people to
consent to the solution, using the traditional meaning of consent being "won't put up a fight
to avoid it". If the choices on the table are reduced enough, you can get by with most people
simply dropping out of the questions.
Qui tacet consentire videtur, ubi loqui debuit ac potuit
It shouldn't be a surprise that we've moved to "faking dissent" -- it's the natural
evolution of a system where a lot of the effective power is in the hands of tech, and not
just as in the early 20th century, how many workers you have and how many soldiers you can
raise.
If you don't like it, change the technology we use to fight one another. We went from
tribes to lords when we switch from sticks to advanced forged weapons, and we went from
feudalism to democracy when we had factories dropping guns that any 15 year old could use
(oversimplifying a bit). Now that the stuff requires expertise, you'd expect a corresponding
shift in how we ritualize our conflict avoidance, and thus the organization of how we control
communication and how we organize our rituals of power.
Aka, it's the scientists and the engineers who end up determining how everything is
organized, and people never seem to bother with that argument, which is especially surprising
that even hard-core Marxists waste their time on short-term politics rather than the tech
we're building.
I'd be curious whether Taibbi thought about the issue of the nature of the technology and
whether there are technological options on the horizon which drive the conflict in other
directions. If we had only kept the laws on copyright and patent weaker, so that the
implementation of communicative infrastructure would have stayed decentralized
Tabby's "manufacturing fake consent" was really the whole punchline – the joke's on
us. Hunter S. Thompson, another of Taibbi's heroes, is, along with Chomsky, speaking to us
through MT. Our media is distracting us from social coherence. Another thing it is doing
(just my opinion) is it is overwhelming us to the point of disgust. Nobody likes it. And we
protect ourselves by tuning it out. Turning it off. Once the screaming lunatics marginalize
themselves by making the whole narrative hysterical, we just act like it's another family
fight and we're gonna go do something else. When everyone is screaming, no one is
screaming.
I have tried to read Hate Inc. and Taibbi's Griftopia but one of my main issues with
Taibbi's writing is his lack of notes, references, or bibliography, etc. in his books. In
skimming Hate Inc. it seems like a book I would enjoy reading, however my personal value
system is that any book without footnotes, endnotes, citations, or at minimum a bibliography
is just an opinion or a story. At least Thomas Frank's Listen Liberal has a section for End
Notes/References at the end of the book. Again just my personal values.
I am from Greater Boston, far, far from flyover country (which I imagine begins in Yonkers
NY), but I sure grew up with pro wrestling as part of the schoolyard discourse. I certainly
knew it was as much of a family affair as Disney on Ice and have trouble believing he thought
otherwise though I will not impugn his honesty. I am very grateful to the author for taking
the time to write this, but is it possible for a male who grew up in the US to be as deeply
embedded in the MSNBC demo as he claims to be?
Seriously, how is it possible for a male raised in the US to not at least have some
working familiarity with pro wrestling? My family along with my community was very close to
the national median income–do higher income boys really not learn about WWF and
WWE?
Seriously, rich kids, what was childhood like? I know you had music lessons and sports
camps, what else? Was it really that different?
Sorry, my blue collar, lifetime union member brother says your view is horseshit. All the
knows about WWE and WWF is that they are big-budget fakery and that's why they are of no
interest.
aye. in my blue to white collar( and back to blue to no collar) upbringing, wrestling was
never a thing. it was for the morons who couldn't read. seen as patently absurd by just about
everyone i knew. and this in klanridden east texas exurbia
wife's mexican extended familia oth luche libre is a big thing that all and sundry talked
about at thanksgiving. less so these days possibly due to the hyperindiviualisation of media
intake mentioned
(and,btw, in my little world , horseshit is a good thing)
Even allowing for my lefty-liberal bias, I do not see how it is possible to equate Fox
Noise and MSNBC, or Hannity and Maddow, as "both-sides" extremists. Fox violates basic
professional canons of fairness and equity on a daily basis. MSNBC occasionally does, but is
quick to correct errors of fact. Hannity is a thuggish outer-borough New York schmuck without
much education or knowledge of the world. Maddow is an Oxford Ph.D. and Rhodes Scholar. It is
one of the evil successes of the right-wing news cauldron to have successfully equated these
two figures and organizations.
Huh? MSNBC regularly makes errors of omission and commission with respect to Sanders. They
are still pushing the Russiagate narrative. That's a massive, two-year, virtually all the
time error they have refused to recant.
The blind spots of people on the soi-disant left are truly astonishing.
'Hannity is a thuggish outer-borough New York schmuck without much education or knowledge
of the world. Maddow is an Oxford Ph.D. and Rhodes Scholar '
oh, well, then – end of conversation! i mean, god knows, it'd be a cold day in hell
before a rhodes scholar, or even someone married to one, would ever lead us astray down the
rosy neoliberal path to hell, while, at the same time, under the spell of trump derangement
syndrome, actually attempt to revive the mccarthy era, eh?
Actual drugs are being used to hinder debate as well as emotional drugs like hate.
They can't trust agency to be removed by words and images alone – the stakes are too
high.
Now all of you go take a feel good pill and stop complaining!
I've been impressed with Taibbi's work, what I've read of it, but ironically this very
article contains a quote from him which exemplifies the problem: his casual assertion that
the US committed "genocide" in Indochina. Even the most fervent critics of US policy didn't
say this at the time, for the very good reason that there was no evidence that the US tried
to destroy a racial, religious, ethnic or nationalist group (the full definition is a lot
more complex and demanding than that). He clearly means that the US was responsible for lots
of deaths, which is incontestable. But the process of endless escalation of rhetoric, which
this book seems to be partly about, means that everything now has to be described in the most
extreme, absurd or apocalyptic tones, and at the top of your voice, otherwise nobody takes
any notice. So any self-respecting war now has to be qualified as "genocide" or nobody will
take any notice.
"... NBC s uggests that the Barr investigation is a ' mysterious ' review " amid concerns about whether the probe has any legal or factual basis " while the NY Times continues to cast doubt that the investigation has a legitimate basis implying that AG Barr is attempting to " deliver a political victory for President Trump." The Times misleads its readers with: ..."
"... There is, however, one small inconvenient glitch that challenges the Democratic version of reality that does not fit their partisan spin. The news that former FBI General Counsel James Baker is actively cooperating with the BD investigation ought to send ripples through the ranks. Baker has already stated that it was a 'small group' within the agency who led the counterintelligence inquiry into the Trump campaign; notably former FBI Director James Comey and former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe. ..."
"... Baker's cooperation was not totally unexpected since he also cooperated with the Inspector General's FISA abuse investigation which is awaiting public release. ..."
"... As FBI General Counsel, Baker had a role in reviewing the FISA applications before they were submitted to the FISA court and currently remains under criminal investigation for making unauthorized leaks to the media. ..."
"... As the agency's chief legal officer, Baker had to be a first-hand participant and privy to every strategy discussion and decision (real or contemplated). It was his job to identify potential legal implications that might negatively affect the agency or boomerang back on the FBI. In other words, Baker is in a unique position to know who knew what and when did they know it. ..."
"... Adds realist Dr.Assad: "I said before whatever the Americans say has no credibility, whether they say it to an enemy or a friend, the result is the same – it is unreliable. That is why we do not waste our time on things like this. " ..."
"... I don't think the Democratic leadership wanted a formal impeachment, they would prefer that Trump just faded away quietly before the 2020 election and were in the process of collecting information to reinforce this. They got cornered into formalizing the investigation by Trump's defense team baiting them as part of their overall strategy. It really doesn't change anything. ..."
"... Whichever way you slice and/or dice it Trump is fundamentally incompetent, he's unable to fulfill the duties of the office of the President. ..."
"... The DNC is playing this with a relatively weak field of potential candidates for 2020. Much as I personally like a Sanders or Warren they're just not going to fly in a Presidential contest -- as we found from the Obama presidency the ship of state just doesn't turn on a dime, you're not going to undo decades or generations of entrenched neoconservatism and a politically divided country overnight by some kind of Second Coming pronouncements. My concern is that if we don't get our collective acts together we're going to end up with a President Romney after 2020 -- a much more reasonable choice considering the last four years but also one that's guaranteed to change nothing. We need the journey but its only going to start with a few steps. ..."
"... Interesting updates, Joerg: however, it was obvious from the beginning that the interference in the US 2016 elections were Deep State gamers, from GCHQ-Ukro-Italian secret services, which was why they manufactured the Skripal Affair as Russians, Warning & Distraction, to cover their own backsides in the media: the same Skripal that worked on the Bum Steele Dossier, writing complete & utter fiction about Trump, that Comey then used as basis for his attempt with McCabe to enact Treason U$A, on wholly false trumped up charges, which were then transposed to the Russiagate-Hoax, Mueller &&& (yawn), . Still, it's good that Sid Powell has confirmed that they have Mifsud's phone . . . Get Mifsud, Now !? Strange how such USUK Agents become untraceable, when we simple folk would be harangued to hell, even with the odd ex-judicial killing, if we prove inconvenient to their narrative. ..."
"... "American Ukrainian nationalists don't like democracy. They don't understand the concept of it and don't care to learn. But they do understand nationalist fascism where only the top of society matters. They are behind the actors of the Intelligence coup going on in the US today .This is the mentality and politics the Diaspora is pushing into American politics today. Hillary Clinton and the DNC is surrounded with this infection which even includes political advisors. ..."
"... Rest assured they all the related Diasporas are in a fight for their political lives. If Donald Trump wins, their ability to infect American politics might be broken. Many of the leadership will be investigated for attempting to overthrow the government of the United States." ..."
As the Quantum field oversees the disintegration of institutions no longer in service to the public, the Democratic party continues
to lose their marbles, perpetuating their own simulated bubble as if they alone are the nation's most trusted purveyors of truth.
Since the Mueller Report failed to deliver on the dubious Russiagate accusations, the party of Thomas Jefferson continues to remain
in search of another ethical pretense to justify continued partisan turmoil. In an effort to discredit and/or distract attention
from the Barr-Durham and IG investigations, the Dems have come up with an implausible piece of political theatre known as Ukrainegate
which has morphed into an impeachment inquiry.
The Inspector General's Report, which may soon be ready for release, will address the presentation of fabricated FBI evidence
to the FISA Court for permission to initiate a surveillance campaign on Trump Administration personnel. In addition, the Department
of Justice has confirmed that Special Investigator John Durham's probe into the origin of the
FBI's counter intelligence investigation during the 2016
election has moved from an administrative review into the criminal prosecution realm. Durham will now be able to actively pursue
candidates for possible prosecution.
The defensive assault from the Democrat hierarchy and its corporate media cohorts can be expected to reach a fevered pitch of
manic proportions as both investigations threatened not only their political future in 2020 but perhaps their very existence.
NBC s uggests that the Barr investigation is a ' mysterious ' review " amid concerns about whether the probe has any legal
or factual basis " while the
NY Times continues
to cast doubt that the investigation has a legitimate basis implying that AG Barr is attempting to " deliver a political victory
for President Trump." The Times misleads its readers with:
Trump has repeatedly attacked the Russia investigation, portraying it as a hoax and illegal even months after the special counsel
closed it."
when in fact, it was the Russiagate collusion allegations that Trump referred to as a hoax, rather than the Mueller investigation
per se.
Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va), minority leader of the Senate Intel Committee suggested that Attorney General William Barr " owes the
Committee an explanation " since the committee is completing a " three-year bipartisan investigation " that has " found nothing to
justify " Barr's expanded effort.
The Senator's gauntlet will be ever so fascinating as the public reads exactly how the Intel Committee spent three years and came
up with " nothing " as compared to what Durham and the IG reports have to say.
On the House side, prime-time whiners Reps. Adam Schiff (D-Calif) and Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) commented that news of the Durham
investigation moving towards criminal liability " raised profound concerns that Barr has lost his independence and become a vehicle
for political revenge " and that " the Rule of Law will suffer irreparable damage ."
Since Barr has issued no determination of blame other than to assure a full, fair and rigorous investigation, it is curious that
the Dems are in premature meltdown as if they expect indictments even though the investigations are not yet complete.
There is, however, one small inconvenient glitch that challenges the Democratic version of reality that does not fit their
partisan spin. The news that former FBI General Counsel James Baker is actively cooperating with the BD investigation ought to send
ripples through the ranks. Baker has already stated that it was a 'small group' within the agency who led the counterintelligence
inquiry into the Trump campaign; notably former FBI Director James Comey and former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe.
Baker's cooperation was not totally unexpected since he also cooperated with the
Inspector General's FISA abuse investigation which is awaiting public release.
As FBI General Counsel, Baker had a role in reviewing the FISA applications before they were submitted to the FISA court and
currently remains under criminal investigation for making unauthorized leaks to the media.
As the agency's chief legal officer, Baker had to be a first-hand participant and privy to every strategy discussion and decision
(real or contemplated). It was his job to identify potential legal implications that might negatively affect the agency or boomerang
back on the FBI. In other words, Baker is in a unique position to know who knew what and when did they know it.
His 'cooperation' can be generally attributed to being more concerned with saving his own butt rather than the Constitution.
In any case, the information he is able to provide will be key for getting to the true origins of Russiagate and the FISA scandal.
Baker's collaboration may augur others facing possible prosecution to step up since 'cooperation' usually comes with the gift of
a lesser charge.
With a special focus on senior Obama era intel officials Durham has reportedly already interviewed up to two dozen former and
current FBI employees as well as officials in the office of the Director of National Intelligence.
From the number of interviews conducted to date it can be surmised that Durham has been accumulating all the necessary facts and
evidence as he works his way up the chain of command, prior to concentrating on top officials who may be central to the investigation.
It has also been reported that Durham expects to interview current and former intelligence officials including CIA analysts, former
CIA Director John Brennan and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper regarding Russian efforts to interfere in the
2016 election.
In a recent
CNN
interview , when asked if he was concerned about any wrongdoing on the part of intel officials, Clapper nervously responded:
I don't know. I don't think there was any wrongdoing. It is disconcerting to know that we are being investigated for having
done our duty and done what we were told to do by the President."
One wonders if Clapper might be a candidate for 'cooperating' along with Baker.
As CIA Director, Brennan made no secret of his efforts to nail the Trump Administration. In the summer of 2016, he formed an inter-agency
taskforce to investigate what was being reported as Russian collusion within the Trump campaign. He boasted to Rachel Maddow that
he brought NSA and FBI officials together with the CIA to ' connect the dots ."
With the addition of James Clapper's DNI, three reports were released: October, 2016, December, 2016 and January, 2017 all disseminating
the Russian-Trump collusion theory which the Mueller Report later found to be unproven.
Since 1947 when the CIA was first authorized by President Harry Truman who belatedly regretted his approval, the agency has been
operating as if they report to no one and that they never owe the public or Congress any explanation of their behaviour or activity
or how they spend the money.
Since those days it has been a weak-minded Congress, intimidated and/or compromised Members who have allowed intel to run their
own show as if they are immune to the Constitution and the Rule of Law. Since 1947, there has been no functioning Congress willing
to provide true accountability or meaningful oversight on the intel community.
Renee Parsons has been a member of the ACLU's Florida State Board of Directors and president of the ACLU Treasure Coast
Chapter. She has been an elected public official in Colorado, an environmental lobbyist with Friends of the Earth and staff member
of the US House of Representatives in Washington DC. She can be found on Twitter @reneedove31
vexarb
From a realist who deals with the real world, Syrian President Dr.Assad on why Trump is the best POTU$A:
"As for Trump, you might ask me a question and I give you an answer that might sound strange. I say that he is the best American
President, not because his policies are good, but because he is the most transparent president. All American presidents perpetrate
all kinds of political atrocities and all crimes and yet still win the Nobel Prize and project themselves as defenders of human
rights and noble and unique American values, or Western values in general. The reality is that they are a group of criminals who
represent the interests of American lobbies, i.e. the large oil and arms companies, and others. Trump talks transparently, saying
that what we want is oil. We want money. This is the reality of American policy. What more do we need than a transparent opponent?"
vexarb
Adds realist Dr.Assad: "I said before whatever the Americans say has no credibility, whether they say it to an enemy or a friend,
the result is the same – it is unreliable. That is why we do not waste our time on things like this. "
[Note: by "the Americans" Dr.Assad means the United $tates. A figure of speech, taking the whole to denote the part.]
Martin Usher
I don't think the Democratic leadership wanted a formal impeachment, they would prefer that Trump just faded away quietly before
the 2020 election and were in the process of collecting information to reinforce this. They got cornered into formalizing the
investigation by Trump's defense team baiting them as part of their overall strategy. It really doesn't change anything.
Whichever way you slice and/or dice it Trump is fundamentally incompetent, he's unable to fulfill the duties of the office
of the President. He also refuses to distinguish between private interests and public service. His cabinet, a rag tag body of
industry insiders and special interests, are busy trying to ride roughshod over opposition, established policy and even public
opinion to grab as much as possible before the whole house of cards collapses. Its a mess, and its a mess that's quite obviously
damaging US interests. Many constituency groups will have gone along with the program because they thought they could control
things or benefit from them but as its become increasingly obvious Trump's unable to deliver they've been systematically alienated.
The DNC is playing this with a relatively weak field of potential candidates for 2020. Much as I personally like a Sanders
or Warren they're just not going to fly in a Presidential contest -- as we found from the Obama presidency the ship of state just
doesn't turn on a dime, you're not going to undo decades or generations of entrenched neoconservatism and a politically divided
country overnight by some kind of Second Coming pronouncements. My concern is that if we don't get our collective acts together
we're going to end up with a President Romney after 2020 -- a much more reasonable choice considering the last four years but
also one that's guaranteed to change nothing. We need the journey but its only going to start with a few steps.
( and as for Trump/collusion we've spent the last three years confusing money with nation states. Trump's a businessman in
a business that's notorious for laundering money from dubious sources (this doesn't mean he's involved, of course)(legal disclaimer!).
I daresay that if Russia really wanted to sink Trump they could easily do so but why would they bother when he's doing such a
great job unaided?)
Interesting updates, Joerg: however, it was obvious from the beginning that the interference in the US 2016 elections were Deep
State gamers, from GCHQ-Ukro-Italian secret services, which was why they manufactured the Skripal Affair as Russians, Warning
& Distraction, to cover their own backsides in the media: the same Skripal that worked on the Bum Steele Dossier, writing complete
& utter fiction about Trump, that Comey then used as basis for his attempt with McCabe to enact Treason U$A, on wholly false trumped
up charges, which were then transposed to the Russiagate-Hoax, Mueller &&& (yawn), . Still, it's good that Sid Powell has confirmed
that they have Mifsud's phone . . . Get Mifsud, Now !? Strange how such USUK Agents become untraceable, when we simple folk would
be harangued to hell, even with the odd ex-judicial killing, if we prove inconvenient to their narrative.
More importantly for me was the "Putin sends a clear Message to Macron and the EU" TDC, (Top dead centre) in your link: it
was a (month old) pretty good longterm objective analysis of how the alliance between Russia & China was designed to be and has
become truly rock-solid, moving forwards: and it's well discussed & documented what a moron ManuMacroni has been on the world
stage >>> great translation of Putin's statement of intent and clear talk to Macron, who is exposed for the meaningless Deep State
puppet he is >>> even, Putin had no need to mention the Gilets Jaunes, representing a degree of vision, trust & commitment far
beyond that of the failing FUKUS empires: a vision that FUKUS cannot even financially entertain, in their present economic state
of financial & moral depravity & bankruptcy.
Austerity my ass, let's keep raising national debt and keep funding bum wars & terrorism, for the MIC & National Security State,
until society burns. How utterly shameful
It should be now very clear to all that the Russian-Chinese alliance is far more than just military, in every sense: together,
the world's largest economy will plough on regardless of what Macron or any other arrogant manipulative untrustworthy Westerner
has to say! And frankly, after NATZO's broken promises in Eastern Europe, (which I have personally observed here in Bulgaria since
2004, fully expected & awaited, I might add) and the events in the Ukraine and the self-destructive EU sanctions based on media
lies & manipulations & omissions, I really do believe Putin has handled this all extremely wisely & astutely playing the long
game, like the Chinese & avoiding incredible provocation, media wise. One day, however long it takes, the average ignorant Westerner
will come to understand that they have been deceived & lied to, from the beginning, especially by their secret services; & have
been lapdogs in the arms of US Deep State Corporate Fascist NATZO CIA & GCHQ morons, in "The History of the National Security
State" and, that Julian Assange needs to be set FREE asap : and given the Seth Rich murder, which kinda' benefited Trump and his
Fake News declarations, my guess is that Trump will not want Assange charged, in the end: but, we'll see ! ? Because first the
British have to sort out the arrogant bastards in GCHQ, also in the Media and their own new 'attorney general' who will investigate
secret services role in Deep State Corporate Deeds & prosecute people like Judge Arbuthnot, for not recusing herself >>> BoJo's
job, actually, but who cares ? >>> drain UK Swampland. ? Myopic Corbyn seems to have missed the bus & significance on the Affair
Assange, completely, which is somewhat inexplicable, given the Guardian Moderators infiltration by the British Military 77th Brigade,
and their bias against Corbyn. At least, that appears to be Trump's agenda and the longer Assange remains 'Censored', the worse
that societies throughout Europe will become, until we all address Communications & Media Law, with wholly wise, tech. savvy intelligent
and independent JUDGES, not compromised by the HillBilly Clinton/Epstein Clan of NATZO CIA/GCHQ operatives. (maybe I'm not clarifying
in the best way, but hopefully you get the drift?). Only a week or so ago, the Bulgarian President was complaining about appalling
standards of journalism, too, with an obvious agenda from abroad, also in terms of ownership. (Not widely reported!) And, I'm
sure you are aware of the incredible bias & censorship in the German MSM, just like Professor Dan Ganser & myself. 😉 R.i.P Udo
Ulfkotte >>> when Secret Services dictate the News, not much point in listening to a word they have to say >>> HANG 'EM HIGH
! out to dry, in Public Eye ! They are FASCISTS ! The worst kind !
I don't say this lightly . . . after over 40 years studying their collective behaviours, in relation to the reality on the ground.
Joerg
@Tim Jenkins
Yes, You are right.
But let's look at the bigger picture.
23 Trillions(!) of $$ are missing in the Pentagon.
To that see the great James Corbett's video "Fitt's Trillions" –
https://www.corbettreport.com/?s=fitts-trillions
.
So 23 trillion $ are missing – and the congress decided not to follow that up.
Before that on 911 already 3 trillion $ (if I remember this right) were missing in the Pentagon. And surprise, surprise: On 911
the Pentagon building exploded exactly there where those accountants were placed, who tried to find out where all that money (3
trillion $) went. All accountants died. After that no one started again to find out where the money went.
Where did the stolen gold from under the Twin Towers go to? Mueller (than state attorney of NY) obviously did want to research
that.
The US is already ruled by a mighty super-syndicate – or possibly by two or three of them. So mighty they could put the classical
Mafia directly into kindergarten.
And with that much money stolen they can buy in the USA but also in Europe (and, yes, Germany) all politicians, judges and journalists.
And those who don't comply, get fired by their (also bought) boss. Or they get murdered ("suicide"), or their career gets destroyed.
There are no classical politics anymore like, let's say, 50 years ago. Here in the west it is only the super-syndicates' power
that rules.
By the way: In the end-time of the Roman Empire there were also no more free judges. They had to follow the orders of the local
criminal gang – or they got killed. And I also believe that the fall of this impressive "Indus Valley Civilisation" (2000 B.C.)
was caused by overwhelming and destructive power of Mafia/Syndicates. In the end the citizens of the Indus Valley civilisation
simply fled the area – obviously to south India. So the Tamils may very well be the descendants of the old Indus people.
With you all the way, Joerg: ironic you should mention the Tamils. I spent time alone in Jaffna, in the aftermath of genocide.
I'd better not start here & now on Sin-dication and the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. Suffice to say, if one wishes to speculate
on the weather & commodities, with insider knowledge of what the D.o.D. did/do with electronics like HAARP, one would not be a
particularly intelligent or moral person, scientifically speaking. And said person, would never wish to discuss the contents of
WTC 7 and that Pentagon Wing. 😉
Ta, for the linkS :). Look forward to hearing more from you.
Viele Grüsse,
Tim
Latest in series of articles by the author re USA – Ukraine connections
"American Ukrainian nationalists don't like democracy. They don't understand the concept of it and don't care to learn. But
they do understand nationalist fascism where only the top of society matters. They are behind the actors of the Intelligence coup
going on in the US today .This is the mentality and politics the Diaspora is pushing into American politics today. Hillary Clinton
and the DNC is surrounded with this infection which even includes political advisors.
Rest assured they all the related Diasporas are in a fight for their political lives. If Donald Trump wins, their ability to
infect American politics might be broken. Many of the leadership will be investigated for attempting to overthrow the government
of the United States."
"My thoughts on all this are that many of us have become distracted and failed to examine the timeline of events since 9/11. We
look at news and conflict in isolation and move on to the next without seeing what is now a clear pattern."
In terms of the Middle East you need to go back further than the fortuitous event of 9/11 – at least to 1997 and the founding
of the Project for the New American Century which was essentially the first explicit formalisation of the agenda for an imperialist
Neoliberal and Neoconservative globalist new world order deployed through the media constructed conflicts of 'good' and 'evil'
around the world and with it the call for the 'democratisation' of the Middle East under the alibi of humanitarian interventionism
against broadly socialist governments, which since the fall of communism were constructed by Neoliberal fundamentalists as being
patently heretical and ideologically illegitimate forms of government. If it is economically illogical to elect a socialist failed
form of government then one can only assume that the election must have been rigged.
I started looking at this all a few years ago when I asked myself the question 14 years after the invasion of Iraq: where was
the liberal outrage at what had subsequently taken place in the ME? The answer was that from the Invasion of Iraq onward in addition
to fully embracing the economics of Neoliberalism as the end of economic history, the progressive 'left' quietly assimilated and
reduplicated the fundamentalist illiberal political philosophy of the Neocons. The progressive 'left' both in the UK and US have
subsequently become the far Neocon 'right' in all but name and their party hosts of Labour in the UK and the Democrats in the
US remain blissfully unaware of all of this. How else can we explain why they would welcome 'Woke' Bill Kristol into their ranks?
Once one accepts this hypothesis, then an awful lot falls into place in order to explain the 'Progressive' open support for regime
change and the almost total lack of any properly liberal objections to what has taken place ever since.
One key point here is that the Neocons have nothing to do with conservatism or the right. What is striking and most informative
about the history of Neo-conservatism is that it does not have its roots in conservatism at all, but grew out of disillusioned
US left wing intellectuals who were Marxist, anti-Stalinist Trotskyites. This is important because at the heart of Neo-conservatism
is something that appeals strongly to the die hard revolutionaries of the left who hold a strong proclivity for violence, conflict
and struggle. If one looks at the type of people in the Labour party who gravitated to the 'progressive' Neoliberal imperialist
camp they all exhibit similar personality traits of sociopathic control freaks with sanctimonious Messiah complexes such as Blair.
These extremist, illiberal fundamentalists love violence and revolution and the bloodier the better. In Libya or Syria is did
not matter that Gadaffi or Assad headed socialist governments, the Neo-colonised progressives would back any form of apparent
conflict and bloody revolution in any notional struggle between any identifiable form of 'authority' or 'oppression' with any
identifiable form of 'resistance' even if those leading the 'resistance' were head chopping, misogynist, jihadist terrorists.
It makes no difference to the fundamentalist revolutionary mindset.
The original left wing who gradually morphed in the Neoconservatives took 30-40 years to make the transition for the 1960s
to 1990s. The Labour party Blairites made the same journey from 1990 to 2003. Christopher Hitchens made the same journey in his
own personal microcosm.
When is this nausea inducing confected pile of crap going to end? Does anyone else think that Adam Schiff has a screw or three
loose, and should be residing in an institution? And imagine if somehow Mike Pence became Prez. Now that would be something to
scare the bejesus out of you.
Tim Jenkins
Adam Schiff should be shot for Treason, of the highest order, along with many others, including HRC, Brennan & Clapper ; and it
should be a public execution, like in Saudi Arabia. This is war on the minds of the masses, that Schiff for brains cares nothing
for.
As for Chuck Schumer, he can have a life sentence, as long as he manages to shut his utterly unfunny dumb vulgar cousin Amy up
& keep her out of the public eye, forever 🙂
Gezzah, life may seem bad right now: but imagine if,
you were Amy Schumer's Husband and father of her child 😉
Talk about obnoxious and utterly nauseating 🙂 , with you Gezzah, all the way.
"When is this nausea inducing confected pile of crap going to end?"
I'm almost seriously thinking of buying a one way ticket to the Marquesas Islands Right in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, nowhere
near anywhere; such is the mad bad state of the World.
Need to start up a Go Fund Me page tho!
As I almost (94.6% of the time) boycott the presstitute filth masquerading as journalists (cough) so, I 99% of the time boycott
anything coming out of Hollywood, including alleged 'comedians'.
How are things in Bulgaria? What are the Fascist Stormtroopers up to, aka NATZO who all those you named have intimate connections
with.
Listening to a gorgeous Russian band called: iamthemorning. Check them out – food for the soul. Enjoy your arvo..
"The presidential election in Argentina was a game-changer and a graphic lesson. It pitted the people versus neoliberalism.
The people won – with new President Alberto Fernandez and former President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner (CFK) as his VP.
Neoliberalism was represented by a PR marketing product, Mauricio Macri [a Micron look-alike]: former millionaire playboy,
president of football legends Boca Juniors, obsessed with spending cuts, who was unanimously sold by Western MSM as a New Age
paradigm.
Well, the paradigm will soon be ejected, leaving behind the usual New Age wasteland: $250 billion in foreign debt, less than
$50 billion in reserves; inflation at 55 percent; 35.4 percent of Argentine homes can't make it); and (incredible as it may seem
in an agriculturally self-sufficient nation) a food emergency."
Meanwhile, in the real world, the Denmark's Ukronazi-friendly regime has been brought to heel by Germany's common sense:
Some big natural gas news very significant for Russia, Germany and the Ukraine. The Danish pipeline sector has been stalled
for a while now by anti-Russia, pro-Ukrainian forces within the Scandiwegian NATZO-friendly regimes. But it appears that Nordstream
2 _will_ get completed and that Ukraine's gas transit chokehold on the EU will come to an end when Russia's Nordstream 2 comes
online for Europe.
-- -- -- -
Permit for the Nord Stream 2 project is reluctantly granted by the Danish Energy Agency. Nord Stream 2 AG has been granted
a permit to construct natural gas pipelines on the Danish continental shelf.
The permit is granted pursuant to the Continental Shelf Act and in accordance with Denmark's obligations under the UN Convention
on the Law of the Sea. Denmark has been put under obligation to allow the construction of transit pipelines with respect to resources
and the environment.
In my humble opinion, the Trump stuff is all total nonsense.
Donald Trump was a property speculator in New York (amongst other places) and was heavily involved with the Mafia. Likewise,
Trump was heavily involved with Jeffery Epstein.
There's so much dirt on Trump that they could get him with the snap of fingers; but of course that's not what they really want.
Trump is pure theatre; a ploy to divert the masses. 'RussiaGate', 'UkraineGate' are all utter rollocks.
Trump and Obama, and all the rest going back to the assassination of Kennedy, are just puppets.
American/ deep state policy doesn't change a jot with any of them.
Wilmers31
America is always presentation over substance, wrapper over content, and shoot the messenger if you don't like the message.
In the meantime the adults in this world outside the US have to hold it all together.
Why was for instance Hillary Clinton not in the dock for saying 'Assad must go'?? It was meddling in the highest order.
Antonym
Pretty humble for an opinion 😀
phree
I guess this just goes to show you that a person can be a member of the ACLU, even a leader apparently, and still be highly biased
in favor of Trump.
Just because a witness is "cooperating" with an investigation does not entail that the witnesses testimony or evidence will
favor any particular side.
And implying that Clapper's comments somehow shows guilt when he clearly says he knows of no wrongdoing is pretty over the
top.
I've read a lot of what's out there about the start of the initial Russia investigation, and it does seem that some of the
FBI personnel leading it (McCabe particularly) were anti-Trump.
Isn't the bigger question whether the investigation was justified based on the reports from the Australians that Trump was
getting political dirt on Hillary from Russia? Is the FBI just supposed to ignore those reports? Really?
George Cornell
Love the Clapper claim (the same Clapper who lied to Congress) says he was just doing his duty in Russiagate. As GBS said, " when
a scoundrel is doing something of which he is ashamed, he always says he is doing his duty".
mark
The Spook Organisations and the Dirty Cops are a greater threat to our way of life than any foreign army or terrorist group (most
of which they created in the first place and which they directly control.)
They are a law unto themselves and completely free of any genuine oversight or control.
This applies equally to the US and UK.
"We lie, we cheat, we steal", as Pompeo helpfully explains.
They also murder people, at home and abroad. JFK, David Kelly, Diana, Epstein.
They plant bombs and blow people up.
Many of the "terrorist atrocities" from Northern Ireland to the present day, were false flag spook operations. The same applies
with Gladio on the continent and the plethora of recent false flags.
There is also a long and inglorious history of interference in domestic politics from the Zinoviev Letter onwards. Plots to stage
a military coup against the Wilson government of the 60s and 70s, with Mountbatten as its figurehead.
The more recent Skripal Hoax.
The contrived Syrian Gas Attack Hoaxes and the White Helmets.
They would not hesitate to do the same to Corbyn if they deemed it necessary.
The CIA and FBI conspired with the UK and Ukrainian governments to prevent the election of Trump, and then to sabotage and smear
his administration once he had been elected. The UK played a major part in this through MI6 and Steele.
This is highly dangerous for this country, irrespective of your view of Trump.
Trump has repaid the favour by meddling in Brexit and interfering in UK politics. It is not in his nature to turn the other cheek.
We have spook organisations claiming for themselves a right of veto over election results and foreign policy. These people are
poor servants and terrible masters.
We see Schumer warning against crossing the spook organisations, begging the obvious question – who runs this country, you or
the spooks?
The Democrats, the Deep State, the MSM, and the Deranged Left were willing to support these conspiracies and hoaxes, and even
suspend disbelief, for the greater good. The ends justify the means. All that matters is getting rid of Trump. Anything goes.
The corrosive erosion of trust, credibility and integrity in all the institutions of the state is probably irreparable. The legislature
and the political process in general. The judiciary. The spooks and police. About 9% of Americans now believe the MSM.
The irony in all this is that it very much serves Trump's interests.
He is extremely vulnerable, having failed to keep any of his promises.
Building The Wall, Draining The Swamp, Bringing The Troops Home. Sorting out health care. Building "incredible, fantastic" infrastructure.
All the Democrats had to do was highlight these failures, find a suitable candidate, and put forward some sensible policies, and
they were home and dry.
Instead, they provided an endless series of diversions and distractions from Trump's failures by charging down every rabbit hole
they could find, Russiagate, Ukrainegate, Impeachment. It couldn't work out better for Trump if he was paying them.
Expect to see the Orange Man in the White House for another 4 years.
And another even more virulent outbreak of Trump Derangement Syndrome.
Tim Jenkins
Enigmatic and brilliant synopsis, m8, lol: & surely BigB could only agree 🙂
and you never even mentioned HQ.Intel.inside.Israel, today & their illegal trespass of WhatsApp, via corporate 'subsidiaries'
with 'plausible' denial of liability of spying on
everything-everything & any body, that could possibly threaten corporate fascist computerised dictatorship: distributing backdoors,
like Promis & Prism, liberally & worldwide, the Maxwells legacy . . . (yet) 🙂
No need to even discuss, until Western societies ALL get a grip on the depths of depravity that lie within the actions
and "The History of the National Security State" you have to admit, that Julian Assange could not have picked a better book to
firmly grip and signal with, than GORE Vidal's, when being manhandled out of the Ecuadorian Embassy, by Spooks who would
sell their own mother, let alone nation, in their utter technological ignorance and adherence to anachronistic doctrines & mentality
!
Glad you mentioned 'good ole' cousin ChuckS.' >>> Lol, just for a laugh and a sense of perspective: yes, he is related to Amy
Queen of Vulgarity & hideous societal distraction.
What a family of wimps & morons: the 'Schumers' being perfect fodder for ridicule & intelligent humour, naturally . . . on a positive
note, mark, think yourself lucky that you are not married to or the father of Amy Schumer's child 🙂
mark
I think I'd prefer the female rhinoceros in Moscow Zoo, even if Putin has been blackmailing me with the photos ever since.
Tim Jenkins
Well, (ahem), you certainly got me all thorny & horny, more than AmyS. ever could, in her wildest dreams, or Chucks, (shucks)
🙂 talk about suckers . . . now, do tell, what was the female Rhino's name ? ! 🙂
Who cares about some BlackRhinoMail, today ?
They'll be dead and extinct, in no time with a legacy 😉
for passionate lovers of Black holes & eternal energy 🙂
Antonym
Is that the best money can buy these days in the US? I guess most of the 1% reside in the Caribbean these days, while Washington
D.C. is stuffed with semi-stiffs.
The most important thing for us and deliciously so now the election is happening is the BLOWBACK. Our DS lying murdering arses
are going to get new ones drilled by Trump and BoBos bromance exploding in full technicolor.
Think May's dementia tax and Strong and Stable were bad?
Lol. This is going to be a FUN month of early xmases.
Dungroanin,
SST is essential reading for anyone concerned with US overseas policy and the corruption of the USA itself in the service of the
security state, so, many thanks for posting this link.
Dungroanin
By sharing we disrupt the msm messages.
Bernard at MoonofAlabama is also worth a daily visitation – priceless analysis on multiple subjects.
lundiel
Since those days it has been a weak-minded Congress, intimidated and/or compromised Members who have allowed intel to run
their own show as if they are immune to the Constitution and the Rule of Law. Since 1947, there has been no functioning Congress
willing to provide true accountability or meaningful oversight on the intel community.
Pretty much a carbon copy of our own oversight. We hear even less about our security services than Americans do of theirs.
I'd have thought that events like the spy in the holdall, the spies caught by farmers in Libya, the Skripal's, and the whole over-the-top
reaction to the domestic terrorism threat and consequent successful pleas for extra funding, the obvious danger of creating terrorists
by security services, the policy of giving asylum to foreign terrorists of countries we don't like and the whole concept of the
5 eyes and GCHQ needs more than ministerial oversight, a committee of yes men/women and an intelligence services commissioner.
"... The denial of its own existence is one of the key features of neoliberalism and neoliberal apologetics. Somewhat similar to the NSA which is the past was called "No Such Agency" : -) ..."
Three more pieces on the philosophy which apparently does not exist, or, if it does exist,
can't be defined.
The denial of its own existence is one of the key features of neoliberalism and neoliberal
apologetics. Somewhat similar to the NSA which is the past was called "No Such Agency" :
-)
The other name for neoliberalism is "Casino Capitalism" which stresses that neoliberalism
glorifies stock market, promotes "financialization" of the economy and creates powerful
incentives for financial speculation and luring the public into excessive risk-taking ("Greed
is good") only to be fleeced by the Wall Street sharks. This is an integral part of the
redistribution of the wealth up plan. The USA 401K plans in this sense were a masterstroke as
they are heavily tilted toward stock funds.
Along with the articles that you mentioned, The Guardian in the past published several
educational article of above average quality that might be interesting to this audience.
"... We drove for hours through the desert, towards the Iraqi border. Approx. 20-30 kilometers from the border, there really was nothing. First of all no war. There were armored vehicles and tanks, burned-out long ago. The journalist left the bus, splashed the contents of the cans on the vehicles. We had Iraqi soldiers with us as an escort, with machine guns, in uniform. You have to imagine: tanks in a desert, burned out long ago, now put on fire. Clouds of smoke. And there the journalists assemble their cameras. ..."
"... So I gathered courage and asked one of the reporters: 'I understand one thing, they are great pictures, but why are they ducking all the time? ' ..."
"... I'll finish, because I am not here to make satire today. I just want to say that this was my first experience with truth in journalism and war reporting. ..."
"... Then a certain type of reporting is expected. Which one? Forget my newspaper, this applies in general. At the start of the trip, the journalist gets a memo – today it is electronic – in his hand. If you are traveling abroad, it is info about the country, or the speeches that will be held. This file contains roughly what will happen during this trip. In addition there are short conversations, briefings with the politician's press manager. He then explains to you how one views this trip. Naturally, you should see it the same way. No one says it in that way. But is is approximately what one would have reported. ..."
"... He explained that a recruitment board from the intelligence services had participated. But I had no idea that the seminar Introduction to Conflict Studies was arranged by the defense forces and run by the foreign intelligence service BND, to have a closer look at potential candidates among the students, not to commit them. They only asked if they, after four such seminars, possibly could contact me later, in my occupation. ..."
"... Two persons from BND came regularly to the paper, to a visiting room. And there were occasions when the report not only was given, but also that BND had written articles, largely ready to go, that were published in the newspaper under my byline. ..."
"... But a couple of journalists were there, they told about it. Therefore I repeat: Merkel invited the chief editors several times, and told them she didn't want the population to be truthfully and openly informed about the problems out there. For example, the background for the financial crisis. If the citizens knew how things were, they would run to the bank and withdraw their money. So beautifying everything; everything is under control; your savings are safe; just smile and hold hands – everything will be fine. ..."
"... From one hour 18 minutes onwards, Ulfkotte details EU-Inter-State Terror Co-operation, with returning IS Operatives on a Free Pass, fully armed and even Viktor Orban had to give in to the commands of letting Terrorists through Hungary into Germany & Austria. ..."
"... Everybody who works in the MSM, without exception, are bought and paid for whores peddling lies on behalf of globalist corporate interests. ..."
"... Udo's voice (in the form of his book) was silenced for a reason – that being that he spoke the truth about our utterly and completely corrupt Western fantasy world in which we in the West proclaim our – "respect international law" and "respect for human rights." His work, such as this interview and others he has done, pulled the curtain back on the big lie and exposed our oligarchs, politicians and the "journalists" they hire as simply a cadre of professional criminals whose carefully crafted lies are used to soak up the blood and to cover the bodies of the dead, all in order to hide all that mayhem from our eyes, to insure justice is an impossibility and to make sure we Western citizens sleep well at night, oblivious to our connection to the actual realities that are this daily regime of pillage and plunder that is our vaunted "neoliberal order." ..."
"... "The philosopher Diogenes (of Sinope) was eating bread and lentils for supper. He was seen by the philosopher Aristippus, who lived comfortably by flattering the king. Said Aristippus, 'If you would learn to be subservient to the king you would not have to live on lentils.' To which Diogenes replied, 'Learn to live on lentils and you will not have to be subservient to the king"." ..."
"... So Roosevelt pushed Hitler to attack Stalin? Hitler didn't want to go East? Revisionism at it most motive free. ..."
"... Pushing' is synonymous for a variety of ways to instigate a desired outcome. Financing is just one way. And Roosevelt was in no way the benevolent knight history twisters like to present him. You are outing yourself again as an easliy duped sheep. ..."
"... Lebensraum was first popularized in 1901 in Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensraum Hitler's "Mein Kampf" ( 1925) build on that: he had no need for any American or other push, it was intended from the get go. ..."
"... This excellent article demonstrates how the Controlling Elite manipulates the Media and the Message for purposes of misdirecting attention and perception of their true intentions and objective of securing Global Ownership (aka New World Order). ..."
"... Corporate Journalism is all about corporatism and the continuation of it. If the Intelligence Community needs greater fools for staffing purposes in the corporate hierarchy they look for anyone that can be compromised via inducements of whatever the greater fools want. ..."
"... Bought & paid for corporate Journalists are controlled by the Intelligence Agencies and always have been since at least the Second World War. The CIA typically runs bribery & blackmail at the state & federal level so that when necessary they have instant useless eaters to offer up as political sacrifice when required via state run propaganda, & impression management. ..."
"... Assuming that journalism is an ethical occupation is naïve and a fools' game even in the alternative news domain as all writers write from bias & a lack of real knowledge. Few writers are intellectually honest or even aware of their own limits as writers. The writer is a failure and not a hero borne in myth. Writers struggle to write & publish. Bought and paid for writers don't have a struggle in terms of writing because they are told what to write before they write as automatons for the Intelligence Community knowing that they sold their collective souls to the Prince of Darkness for whatever trinkets, bobbles, or bling they could get their greedy hands on at the time. ..."
"... Once pond scum always pond scum. ..."
"... It is a longer process in which one is gradually introduced to ever more expensive rewards/bribes. Never too big to overwhelm – always just about what one would accept as 'motivation' to omit aspects of any issue. Of course, omission is a lie by any other name, but I can attest to the life style of a journalist that socializes with the leaders of all segments of society. ..."
"... Professional whoring is as old as the hills and twice as dusty. Being ethical is difficult stuff especially when money is involved. Money is always a prime motivator but vanity works wonders too. Corporatists will offer whatever inducements they can to get what they want. ..."
"... All mainstream media voices are selling a media package that is a corporatist lie in and of itself. Truth is less marketable than lies. Embellished news & journalistic hype is the norm ..."
In 2014, the German journalist and writer Udo Ulfkotte published a book that created a big stir, describing how the journalistic
profession is thoroughly corrupt and infiltrated by intelligence services.
Although eagerly anticipated by many, the English translation of the book, Bought Journalists , does not seem to be forthcoming
anytime soon.
So I have made English subtitles and transcribed this still very relevant 2015-lecture for those that are curious about Ulfkotte's
work. It covers many of the subjects described in the book.
Udo Ulfkotte died of a heart attack in January 2017, in all likelihood part of the severe medical complications he got from his
exposure to German-made chemical weapons supplied to Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s.
Transcription
[Only the first 49 minutes are translated; the second half of the lecture deals mostly with more local issues]
Introducer Oliver: I am very proud to have such a brave man amongst us: Udo Ulfkotte
Udo Ulfkotte: Thanks Thanks for the invitation Thanks to Oliver. I heard to my great surprise from Oliver that he didn't
know someone from the intelligence services (VVS) would be present. I wish him a warm welcome. I don't mean that as a joke, I heard
this in advance, and got to know that Oliver didn't know. If he wants – if it is a man – he can wave. If not? no? [laughter from
the audience]
I'm fine with that. You can write down everything, or record it; no problem.
To the lecture. We are talking about media. we are talking about truth. I don't want to sell you books or such things. Each one
of us asks himself: Why do things develop like they do, even though the majority, or a lot of people shake their heads.
The majority of people in Germany don't want nuclear weapons on our territory. But we have nuclear weapons here. The majority
don't want foreign interventions by German soldiers. But we do.
What media narrates and the politicians say, and what the majority of the population believes – seems often obviously to be two
different things.
I can tell you this myself, from many years experience. I will start with very personal judgments, to tell you what my experiences
with 'The Lying Media' were – I mean exactly that with the word 'lying'.
I was born in a fairly poor family. I am a single child. I grew up on the eastern edge of the Ruhr-area. I studied Law, Political
Science and Islamic Studies. Already in my student years, I had contact with the German Foreign Intelligence, BND. We will get back
to that later.
From 1986 to 2003, I worked for a major German newspaper, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ), amongst other things as a war
reporter. I spent a lot of time in Eastern and African countries.
Now to the subject of lying media. When I was sent to the Iran-Iraq war for the first time, the first time was from 1980 to July
1986, I was sent to this war to report for FAZ. The Iraqis were then 'the good guys'.
I was bit afraid. I didn't have any experience as a war reporter. Then I arrived in Baghdad. I was fairly quickly sent along in
a bus by the Iraqi army, the bus was full of loud, experienced war reporters, from such prestigious media as the BBC, several foreign
TV-stations and newspapers, and me, poor newbie, who was sent to the front for the first time without any kind of preparation. The
first thing I saw was that they all carried along cans of petrol. And I at once got bad consciousness, because I thought: "oops,
if the bus gets stuck far from a petrol station, then everyone chips in with a bit of diesel'. I decided to in the future also carry
a can before I went anywhere, because it obviously was part of it.
We drove for hours through the desert, towards the Iraqi border. Approx. 20-30 kilometers from the border, there really was nothing.
First of all no war. There were armored vehicles and tanks, burned-out long ago. The journalist left the bus, splashed the contents
of the cans on the vehicles. We had Iraqi soldiers with us as an escort, with machine guns, in uniform. You have to imagine: tanks
in a desert, burned out long ago, now put on fire. Clouds of smoke. And there the journalists assemble their cameras.
It was my first experience with media, truth in reporting.
While I was wondering what the hell I was going to report for my newspaper, they all lined up and started: Behind them were flames
and plumes of smoke, and all the time the Iraqis were running in front of camera with their machine guns, casually, but with war
in their gaze. And the reporters were ducking all the time while talking.
So I gathered courage and asked one of the reporters: 'I understand one thing, they are great pictures, but why are they ducking
all the time? '
'Quite simply because there are machine guns on the audio track, and it looks very good at home.'
That was several decades ago. It was in the beginning of my contact with war. I was thinking, the whole way back:'Young man, you
didn't see a war. You were in a place with a campfire. What are you going to tell?'
I returned to Baghdad. There weren't any mobile phones then. We waited in Hotel Rashid and other hotels where foreigners stayed,
sometimes for hours for an international telephone line. I first contacted my mother, not my newspaper. I was in despair, didn't
know what to do, and wanted to get advice from an elder person.
Then my mother shouted over the phone: 'My boy, you are alive!' I thought: 'How so? Is everything OK?'
'My boy, we thought ' 'What's the matter, mother?' 'We saw on TV what happened around you' TV had already sent lurid stories, and I tried to calm my mother down, it didn't happen like that. She thought I had lost my mind
from all the things that had happened in the war – she saw it with her own eyes!
I'll finish, because I am not here to make satire today. I just want to say that this was my first experience with truth in journalism
and war reporting.
That is, I was very shocked by the first contact, it was entirely different from what I had experienced. But it wasn't an exceptional
case.
In the beginning, I mentioned that I am from a fairly poor family. I had to work hard for everything. I was a single child, my
father died when I was young. It didn't matter further on. But, I had a job, I had a degree, a goal in life.
I now had the choice: Should I declare that the whole thing was nonsense, these reports? I was nothing, a newbie straight out
of uni, in my first job. Or if I wanted to make money, to continue, look further. I chose the second option. I continued, and that
for many years.
Over these years, I gained lots of experience. When one comes from university to a big German newspaper – everything I say doesn't
only apply to FAZ, you can take other German or European media. I had contact with other European journalists, from reputable media
outlets. I later worked in other media. I can tell you: What I am about to tell you, I really discovered everywhere.
What did I experience? If you, as a reporter, work either in state media financed by forced license fees, or in the big private
media companies, then you can't write what you want yourself, what you feel like. There are certain guidelines.
Roughly speaking: everyone knows that you won't, for example in the Springer-newspapers – Bild, die Welt – get published articles
extremely critical of Israel. They stand no chance there, because one has to sign a statement that one is pro-Israel, that one won't
question the existence of the state of Israel or Israeli points of view, etc.
There are some sort of guidelines in all the big media companies. But that isn't all: I learned very fast that if one doesn't
– I don't mean this negatively – want to be stuck in the lower rungs of editors, if one wants to rise; for me this rise was that
I was allowed to travel with the Chancellor, ministers, the president and politicians, in planes owned by the state; then one has
to keep to certain subjects. I learned that fast.
That is, if one gets to follow a politician – and this hasn't changed to this day – I soon realized that when I followed the president
or Chancellor Helmut Kohl etc, one of course isn't invited because your name is Udo Ulfkotte, but because you belong to the newspaper
Frankfurter Allgemeine.
Then a certain type of reporting is expected. Which one? Forget my newspaper, this applies in general. At the start of the trip,
the journalist gets a memo – today it is electronic – in his hand. If you are traveling abroad, it is info about the country, or
the speeches that will be held. This file contains roughly what will happen during this trip. In addition there are short conversations,
briefings with the politician's press manager. He then explains to you how one views this trip. Naturally, you should see it the
same way. No one says it in that way. But is is approximately what one would have reported.
All the time you no one tells you to write it this or that way but you know quite exactly that if you DON'T write it this or that
way,then you won't get invited next time. Your media outlet will be invited, but they say 'we don't want him along'. Then you are
out.
Naturally you want to be invited. Of course it is wonderful to travel abroad and you can behave like a pig, no one cares. You
can buy what you want, because you know that when you return, you won't be checked. You can bring what you want. I had colleagues
who went along on a trip to the US.
They brought with them – it was an air force plane – a Harley Davidson, in parts. They sold it when they were back in Germany,
and of course earned on it. Anyway, just like the carpet-affair with that development minister, this is of course not a single instance.
No one talks about it.
You get invited if you have a certain way of seeing things. Which way to see things? Where and how is this view of the world formed?
I very often get asked: 'Where are these people behind the curtain who pulls the wires, so that everything gets told in a fairly
similar way?'
In the big media in Germany – just look yourself – who sit in the large transatlantic think-tanks and foundations,the foundation
The Atlantic Bridge, all these organizations, and how is one influenced there? I can tell from my own experience.
We mustn't talk only theoretically. I was invited by the think-tank The German Marshall Fund of the United States as a fellow.
I was to visit the United States for six weeks. It was fully paid. During these six weeks I could this think-tank has very close
connections to the CIA to this day, they acquired contacts in the CIA for me and they got me access to American politicians, to everyone
I wanted. Above all, they showered me with gifts.
Already before the journey with German Marshall Fund, I experienced plenty of bought journalism. This hasn't to do with a particular
media outlet. You see, I was invited and didn't particularly reflect over it, by billionaires, for example sultan Quabboos of Oman
on the Arabian peninsula.
When sultan Qabboos invited, and a poor boy like me could travel to a country with few inhabitants but immense wealth, where the
head of state had the largest yachts in the world, his own symphony orchestra which plays for him when he wants – by the way he bought
a pub close to Garmisch-Patenkirchen, because he is a Muslim believer, and someone might see him if he drank in his own country,
so he rather travels there. The place he bought every day fly in fresh lamb from Ireland and Scotland with his private jet. He is
also the head of an environmental foundation.
But this is a digression. If such a person, who is so incredibly rich, invites someone like me, then I arrive first class. I had
never traveled first class before. We arrive, and a driver is waiting for me. He carries your suitcase or backpack. You have a suite
in the hotel. And from the very start, you are showered with gifts. You get a platinum or gold coin. A hand-weaved carpet or whatever.
I interviewed the sultan, several times. He asked me what I wanted. I answered among other things a diving course. I wanted to
learn how to dive. He flew in a PADI-approved instructor from Greece. I was there for two weeks and got my first diving certificate.
On later occasions, the sultan flew me in several times, and the diving instructor. I got a certificate as rescue diver, all paid
for by the sultan. You see, when one is attended to in such a way, then you know that you are bought. For a certain type of journalism.
In the sultan's country, there is no freedom of the press.
There are no human rights. It is illegal to import many writings, because the sultan does not wish so. There are reports about
human rights violations, but my eyes are blind. I reported, like all German media when they report about the Sultanate of Oman, to
this day, only positive things. The great sultan, who is wonderful. The fantastic country of the fairy tale prince, overshadowing
everything else – because I was bought.
Apart from Oman, many others have bought me. They also bought colleagues. I got many invitations through the travel section in
my big newspaper. 5-star. The reportage never mentioned that I was bought, by country A or B or C. Yemenia, the Yemeni state airline,
invited me to such a trip.
I didn't report about the dirt and dilapidation in the country, because I was influenced by this treatment, I only reported positively,
because I wanted to come back. The Yemenis asked me when I had returned to Frankfurt what I wished In jest, I said "your large prawns,
from the Red Sea, from the Indian Ocean, they were spectacular.", from the seaport of Mocha (Mocha-coffee is named after it). Two
days later, Yemenia flew in a buffet for the editorial office, with prawns and more.
Of course we were bought. We were bought in several ways. In your situation: when you buy a car or something else, you trust consumer
tests. Look closer. How well is the car tested? I know of no colleagues, no journalists, who do testing of cars, that aren't bribed
– maybe they do exist.
They get unlimited access to a car from the big car manufacturers, with free petrol and everything else. I had a work car in my
newspaper, if not, I might have exploited this. I had a BMW or Mercedes in the newspaper. But there are, outside the paper, many
colleagues who only have this kind of vehicle all year round. They are invited to South Africa, Malaysia, USA, to the grandest travels,
when a new car is presented.
Why? So that they will write positively about the car. But it doesn't say in these reports "Advertisement from bought journalists".
But that is the reality. You should also know – since we are on the subjects of tests – who owns which test magazines? Who owns
the magazine Eco-test? It is owned by the Social Democrats. More than a hundred magazines belong to the Social Democrats. It isn't
about only one party, but many editorial rooms have political allegiance. Behind them are party political interests.
I mentioned the sultan of Oman and the diving course, and I have mentioned German Marshall Fund. Back to the US and the German
Marshall Fund. There one told me, they knew exactly, 'hello, you were on a diving course in Oman ' The CIA knew very precisely. And
the CIA also gave me something: The diving gear. I received the diving gear in the United States, and I received in the US, during
my 6-week stay there, an invitation from the state of Oklahoma, from the governor. I went there. It was a small ceremony, and I received
an honorary citizenship.
I am now honorary citizen of an American state. And in this certificate, it is written that I will only cover the US positively.
I accepted this honorary citizenship and was quite proud of it. I proudly told about it to a colleague who worked in the US. He said
'ha, I already have 31 of these honorary citizenships!'
I don't tell about this to be witty, today I am ashamed, really.
I was greedy. I accepted many advantages that a regular citizen at my age in my occupation doesn't have, and shouldn't have. But
I perceived it – and that is no excuse – as entirely normal, because my colleagues around me all did the same. But this isn't normal.
When journalists are invited to think-tanks in the US, like German Marshall Fund, Atlantic Bridge, it is to 'bring them in line',
for in a friendly way to make them complicit, naturally to buy them, to grease them with money.
This has quite a few aspects that one normally doesn't talk about. When I for the first time was in Southern Africa, in the 80s,
Apartheid still existed in South Africa, segregated areas for blacks and whites. We didn't have any problems with this in my newspaper,
we received fully paid journeys from the Apartheid regime to do propaganda work.
I was invited by the South-African gold industry, coal industry, tourist board. In the first invitation, this trip was to Namibia
– I arrived tired to the hotel room in Windhoek and a dark woman lay in my bed. I at once left the room, went down to the reception
and said 'excuse me, but the room is already occupied' [laughter from the audience]
Without any fuss I got another room.
Next day at the breakfast table, this was a journalist trip, my colleagues asked me 'how was yours?' Only then I understood what
had happened. Until then, I had believed it was a silly coincidence.
With this I want to describe which methods are used, maybe to film journalists in such situations, buy, make dependent. Quite
simply to win them over to your side with the most brutal methods, so that they are 'brought in line'.
This doesn't happen to every journalist. It would be a conspiracy theory if I said that behind every journalist, someone pulls
the wires.
No. Not everyone has influence over the masses. When you – I don't mean this negatively – write about folk costume societies or
if you work with agriculture or politics, why should anyone from the upper political spheres have an interest in controlling the
reporting? As far as I know, this doesn't happen at all.
But if you work in one of the big media, and want up in this world, if you want to travel with politicians, heads of state, with
CEOs, who also travel on these planes, then it happens. Then you are regularly bought, you are regularly observed.
I said earlier that I already during my study days had contact with the intelligence services.
I will quickly explain this to you, because it is very important for this lecture.
I studied law, Political Science and Islamology, among other places in Freiburg. At the very beginning of my study, just before
end of the term, a professor approached me. Professors were then still authority figures.
He came with a brochure, and asked me: 'Mr. Ulfkotte, what are your plans for this vacation?'
I couldn't very well say that I first planned to work a bit at a building site, for then to grab my backpack and see the ocean
for the first time in my life, to Italy, 'la dolce vita', flirting with girls, lie on the beach and be a young person.
I wondered how I would break it to him. He then came with a brochure [Ulfkotte imitating professor]: 'I have something for
you a seminar, Introduction to Conflict Studies, two weeks in Bonn I am sure you would want to participate!'
I wondered how I would tell this elderly gentleman that I wanted to flirt with girls on the beach. Then he said 'you will get
20 Marks per day as support, paid train journey, money for books 150 Marks You will naturally get board and lodging.' He didn't stop
telling me what I would receive.
It buzzed around in my head that I had to achieve everything myself, work hard. I thought 'You have always wanted to participate
in a seminar on Introduction to Conflict Studies!'
So I went to Bonn from Freiburg, and I saw other students who had this urge to participate in this seminar. There were also girls
one could flirt with, about twenty people. The whole thing was very strange, because we sat in a room like this one, there were desks
and a lectern, and there sat some older men and a woman, they always wrote something down. They asked us about things; What we thought
of East Germany, we had to do role play.
The whole thing was a bit strange, but it was well paid. We didn't reflect any further. It was very strange that in this house,
in Ubierstraße 88 in Bonn, we weren't allowed to go to the second floor. There was a chain over the stairs, it was taboo.
We were allowed to go to the basement, there were constantly replenished supplies of new books that we were allowed to get for
free. Ebay didn't exist then, but we could still sell them used. Anyway, it was curious, but at the end of the fortnight, we were
allowed to go up these stairs, where we got an invitation to a continuation course in Conflict Studies.
After four such seminars, that is, after two years, someone asked me 'you have probably wondered what we are doing here'.
He explained that a recruitment board from the intelligence services had participated. But I had no idea that the seminar Introduction
to Conflict Studies was arranged by the defense forces and run by the foreign intelligence service BND, to have a closer look at
potential candidates among the students, not to commit them. They only asked if they, after four such seminars, possibly could contact
me later, in my occupation.
They gave me a lot of money. My mother has always taught me to be polite. So I said 'please do', and they came to me. I was then
working in the newspaper FAZ from 1986, straight after my studies.
Then the intelligence services came fairly soon to me. Why am I telling you this? The newspaper knew very soon. It is also written in my reference, therefore I can say it loud and clear. I had very close contact with the intelligence service BND.
Two persons from BND came regularly to the paper, to a visiting room. And there were occasions when the report not only was given,
but also that BND had written articles, largely ready to go, that were published in the newspaper under my byline.
I highlight certain things to explain them. But if I had said here: 'There are media that are influenced by BND', you could rightly
say that 'these are conspiracy theories, can you document it?'
I CAN document it. I can say, this and that article, with my byline in the paper, is written by the intelligence services, because
what is written there, I couldn't have known. I couldn't have known what existed in some cave or other in Libya, what secret thing
were there, what was being built there. This was all things that BND wanted published. It wasn't like this only in FAZ.
It was like this also in other media. I told about it. If we had rule of law, there would now be an investigation commission.
Because the political parties would stand up, regardless of if they are on the left, in the center or right, and say: What this Ulfkotte
fella says and claims he can document, this should be investigated. Did this occur in other places? Or is it still ongoing?'
I can tell you: Yes it still exists. I know colleagues who still have this close contact. One can probably show this fairly well
until a few years ago. But I would find it wonderful if this investigation commission existed.
But it will obviously not happen, because no one has an interest in doing so. Because then the public would realize how closely
integrated politics, media, and the secret services are in this country.
That is, one often sees in reporting, whether it is from the local paper, regional papers, TV-channels, national tabloids and
so-called serious papers.
Put them side by side, and you will discover that more than 90% looks almost identical. A lot of subjects and news, that are not
being reported at all, or they are – I claim reported very one-sided. One can only explain this if one knows the structures in the
background, how media is surrounded, bought and 'brought onboard' by politics and the intelligence services; Where politics and intelligence
services form a single unity. There is an intelligence coordinator by the Chancellor.
I can tell you, that under the former coordinator Bernd Schmidbauer, under Kohl, I walked in and out of the Chancellery and received
stacks of secret and confidential documents, which I shouldn't have received.
They were so many that we in the newspaper had own archive cabinets for them. Not only did I receive these documents,but Schmidbauer
should have been in jail if we had rule of law. Or there should have been a parliamentary commission or an investigation, because
he wasn't allowed
For example if I couldn't bring along the documents if the case was too hot, there was another trick. They locked me in a room.
In this room were the documents, which I could look through. I could record it all on tape, photograph them or write them down. When
I was done, I could call on the intercom, so they could lock me out. There were thousands of these tricks. Anonymous documents that
I and my colleagues needed could be placed in my mail box.
These are of course illegal things. BUT, you ONLY get them if you 'toe the line' with politics.
If I had written that Chancellor Helmut Kohl is stupid, a big idiot, or about what Schmidbauer did, I would of course not have
received more. That is, if you today, in newspapers, read about 'soon to be revealed exposures, we will publish a big story based
on material based on intelligence', then none of these media have dug a tunnel under the security services and somehow got hold of
something secret. It is rather that they work so well with intelligence services, with the military counterespionage, the foreign
intelligence, police intelligence etc, that if they have got hold of internal documents, it is because they cooperate so well that
they received them as a reward for well performed service.
You see, in this way one is in the end bought. One is bought to such a degree that at one point one can't exit this system anymore.
If I describe how you are supplied with prostitutes, bribed with cars, money; I tried to write down everything I received in gifts,
everything I was bribed with. I stopped doing so several years ago, more than a decade ago.
It doesn't make it any better, but today I regret everything. But I know that it goes this way with many journalists.
It would make me very happy if journalists stood up and said they won't participate in this any longer, and that they think this
is wrong.
But I see no possibility, because media corporations in any case are doing badly. Where should a journalist find work the next
day? It isn't so that tens of thousands of employers are waiting for you. It is the other way round. Tens of thousands of journalists
are looking for work or commissions.
That is, from pure desperation one is happy to be bribed. If a newsroom stands behind or not an article that in reality is advertising,
doesn't matter, one goes along. I know some, even respected journalists, who want to leave this system.
But imagine if you are working in one of the state channels, that you stand up and tell what you have received. How will that
be received by your colleagues? That you have political ulterior motives etc.
September 30 [2015], a few days ago, Chancellor Merkel invited all the directors in the state channels to her in the Chancellery.
I will claim that she talked with them about how one should report the Chancellors politics. Who of you [in the audience] heard about
this incident? 3-4-5? So a small minority. But this is reality. Merkel started already 6 years ago, at the beginning of the financial
crisis, to invite chief editors ..she invited chief editors in the large media corporations, with the express wish that media should
embellish reality, in a political way. This could have been only claims, one could believe me or not.
But a couple of journalists were there, they told about it. Therefore I repeat: Merkel invited the chief editors several times,
and told them she didn't want the population to be truthfully and openly informed about the problems out there. For example, the background for the financial crisis. If the citizens knew how things were, they would run to the bank and withdraw
their money. So beautifying everything; everything is under control; your savings are safe; just smile and hold hands – everything
will be fine.
In such a way it should be reported. Ladies and gentlemen, what I just said can be documented. These are facts, not a conspiracy
theory.
I formulated it a bit satirically, but I ask myself when I see how things are in this country: Is this the democracy described
in the Constitution? Freedom of speech? Freedom of the press?
Where one has to be afraid if one doesn't agree with the ruling political correctness, if one doesn't want to get in trouble.
Is this the republic our parents and grandparents fought for, that they built?
I claim that we more and more – as citizens – are cowards 'toeing the line', who don't open our mouths.
It is so nice to have plurality and diversity of opinions.
But it is at once clamped down on, today fairly openly.
Of my experiences with journalism, I can in general say that I have quit all media I have to pay for, for the reasons mentioned.
Then the question arises, 'but which pay-media can I trust?'
Naturally there are ones I support. They are definitely political, I'll add. But they are all fairly small. And they won't be
big anytime soon. But I have quit all big media that I used to subscribe to, Der Spiegel, Frankfurter Allgemeine, etc. I would like
to not having to pay the TV-license fee, without being arrested because I won't pay fines. But maybe someone here in the audience
can tell me how to do so without all these problems?
Either way, I don't want to financially support this kind of journalism. I can only give you the advice to get information from
alternative, independent media and all the forums that exist.
I'm not advertising for any of them. Some of you probably know that I write for the publishing house Kopp. But there are so many
portals. Every person is different in political viewpoint, culturally etc. The only thing uniting us, whether we are black or white,
religious or non-religious, right or left, or whatever; we all want to know the truth. We want to know what really happens out there,
and exactly in the burning political questions: asylum seekers, refugees, the financial crisis, bad infrastructure, one doesn't know
how it will continue. Precisely with this background, is it even more important that people get to know the truth.
And it is to my great surprise that I conclude that we in media, as well as in politics, have a guiding line.
To throw more and more dust in the citizens' eyes to calm them down. What is the sense in this? One can have totally different
opinions on the subject of refugees with good reasoning.
But facts are important for you as citizens to decide the future. That is, how many people will arrive? How will it affect my
personal affluence? Or will it affect my affluence at all? Will the pensions shrink? etc. Then you can talk with people about this,
quite openly. But to say that we should open all borders, and that this won't have any negative consequences, is very strange. What
I now say isn't a plug for my books. I know that some of them are on the table in front.
I'm not saying this so that you will buy books. I am saying this for another reason that soon will be clear. I started to write
books on certain subjects 18 years ago. They have sold millions. It is no longer about you buying my books. It is important that
you hear the titles, then you will see a certain line throughout the last ten years. One can have different opinions about this line,
but I have always tried to describe, based on my subjective experiences, formed over many years in the Middle East and Africa.
That there will be migration flows, from people from culture areas that are like; if one could compare a cultural area with an
engine, that one fills petrol in a diesel engine then everyone knows what will happen, the engine is great, diesel is great, but
if there too much petrol, then the engine starts to splutter and stop.
I have tried to make you aware of this, with drastic and less drastic words. What we can expect, and ever faster. The book titles
are SOS Occident; Warning Civil War; No Black,Red, Yellow [the colors in the German flag], Holy War in Europe; Mecca Germany.
I just want to say, when politicians and media today claim no one could have predicted it, everything is a complete surprise;
Ladies and Gentlemen, this is not at all surprising. The migration flows, for years warnings have been coming from international
organizations, politicians, experts, exactly about what happened and it is predictable, if we had a map over North Africa and the
Middle East..
If the West continues to destabilize countries like Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, Syria, country by country, Iraq when we toppled Saddam
Hussein, Afghanistan. We as Europeans and Germans have spent tens of billions on a war where we allegedly defend peace and liberty,
at the mountain range Hindu Kush [in Afghanistan]. And here, in front of our own door, we soon have Hindu Kush.
We have no stabilization in Afghanistan. Dozens of German soldiers have lost their lives for nothing. We have a more unstable
situation than ever.
You can have your own opinions. I am only saying that these refugee flows didn't fall from the sky. It is predicable, that if
I bomb and destabilize a country, that people – it is always so in history – it hasn't anything to do with the Middle East or North
Africa. I have seen enough wars in Africa. Naturally they created refugee flows.
But all of us didn't want to see this. We haven't prepared. And now one is reacting in full panic, and what is most disconcerting
with this, is when media and politicians, allegedly from deepest inner conviction, say: 'this was all a complete surprise!'
Are they drunk? What are they smoking? What sort of pills are they eating? That they behave this way?
End transcription
The transcription has been edited for clarity, and may differ from the spoken word. The subtitles and transcription are for the
first 49 minutes of the lecture only. Subtitled and transcribed by Terje Maloy. This article is Creative Commons 4.0 for non-commercial
purposes.
Terje Maloy (
Website ) is a Norwegian citizen, with roots north of the Arctic Circle. Nowadays, he spends a lot of time in Australia, working
in the family business. He has particular interests in liberty, global justice, imperialism, history, media analysis and what Western
governments really are up to. He runs a blog , mostly in Norwegian,
but occasionally in English. He likes to write about general geopolitical matters, and Northern Europe in particular, presenting
perspectives that otherwise barely are mentioned in the dominant media (i.e. most things that actually matter).
Tim Jenkins
From 1:18 minutes, Ulfkotte reveals without question, that the EU Political 'elite's' combined intelligence services work with
& propagate . . .
Terror, Terrorists & Terrorism / a conscious organised Politics of FEAR ! / Freedom of Movement, of fully armed IS Agents
Provocateurs & with a Secret Services get out of jail free card, 'Hände Weg Nicht anfassen', it's 'Hammertime', "U Can't
Touch this", we're armed state operatives travelling to Germany & Austria, " don't mess with my operation !" & all journalists'
hands tied, too.
The suggestions & offers below to translate fully, what Ulfkotte declares publicly, make much sense. It is important to understand
that even an 'Orban' must bow occasionally, to deep state Security State Dictators and the pressures they can exert in so many
ways. Logic . . . or else one's life is made into hell, alive or an 'accidental' death: – and may I add, it is a curiously depressing
feeling when you have so many court cases on the go, that when a Gemeinde/Municipality Clerk is smiling, celebrating and telling
you, (representing yourself in court, with only independent translator & recorder), "You Won the Case, a superior judge has over-ruled
" and the only reply possible is,
"Which case number ?"
life gets tedious & time consuming, demanding extreme patience. Given his illness, surely Ulfkotte and his wife, deserve/d
extra credit & 'hot chocolate'. Makes a change to see & read some real journalism: congrats.@OffG
Excellent Professional Journalism on "Pseudo-Journalist State Actors & Terrorists". If you see a terrorist, guys, at
best just reason with him or her :- better than calling
INTERPOL or Secret Services @theguardian, because you wouldn't want a member of the public, grassing you up to your boss, would
you now ? ! Just tell the terrorist who he really works for . . . Those he resents ! Rather like Ulfkotte had to conclude,
with final resignation. My condolences to his good wife.
Wilmers31
Very good of you to not forget Ulfkotte. If I did not have sickness in the house, I would translate it. Maybe I can do one chapter
and someone else can do another one? What's the publisher saying?
You wouldn't say that if you could speak German, my friend ! ?
From one hour 18 minutes onwards, Ulfkotte details EU-Inter-State Terror Co-operation, with returning IS Operatives on
a Free Pass, fully armed and even Viktor Orban had to give in to the commands of letting Terrorists through Hungary into Germany
& Austria.
But, don't let that revelation bother you, living under a Deep State 'Politic of Fear' in the West and long unedited speeches
gets kinda' boring now, I know a bit like believing in some kinda' dumbfuk new pearl harbour, war on terror &&& all phoney propaganda
fairy story telling, just like on the 11/9/2001, when the real target was WTC 7, to hide elitist immoral endeavours, corruption
& the missing $$$TRILLIONS$$$ of tax payers money, 'mislaid' by the D.o.D. announced directly the day before by Rumsfeld, forgotten
? Before ramping the Surveillance States abilities in placing & employing "Parallel Platforms" on steroids, so that our secret
services can now employ terror & deploy terrorists at will .., against us, see ?
Plus ca change....
I remember on a similar note a 60 Minutes piece just prior to Clinton's humanitarian bombing of Serbian civilian infrastructure
(and long ago deleted, I'm sure) on a German free-lancer staging Kosovo atrocities in a Munich suburb, and having the German MSM
eating it up and asking for more. (WWII guilt assuagement at work, no doubt).
mark
Everybody who works in the MSM, without exception, are bought and paid for whores peddling lies on behalf of globalist corporate
interests.
That is their job.
That is what they do.
They have long since forfeited all credibility and integrity.
They have lied to us endlessly for decades and generations, from the Bayonetted Belgian Babies and Human Bodies Turned Into Soap
of WW1 to the Iraq Incubator Babies and Syrian Gas Attacks of more recent times.
You can no longer take anything at face value.
The default position has to be that every single word they print and every single word that comes out of their lying mouths is
untrue.
If they say it's snowing at the North Pole, you can't accept that without first going there and checking it out for yourself.
You can't accept anything that has not been independently verified.
This applies across the board.
All of the accepted historical narrative, including things like the holocaust.
And current Global Warming "science."
We know we have been lied to again and again and again.
So what else have we been lied to without us realising it?
mark
Come to think of it, I need to apologise to sex workers.
I have known quite a few of them who have quite high ethical and moral standards, certainly compared to the MSM.
And they certainly do less damage.
Vert few working girls have blood on their hands like the MSM.
Compared to them, working girls are the salt of the earth and pillars of the community.
Seamus Padraig
Compared to them, working girls are the salt of the earth and pillars of the community.
I heartily agree. Even if one disapproves morally of prostitution, how can it possibly be worse to sell your body than to sell
your soul?
Oliver
Quite. Checking things out for yourself is the way to go. Forget 'Peer Reviews', just as bent as the journalism Ulfkotte described.
DIY.
Mortgage
So natural, all it seems
Part II:
Bought Science
Part III:
Bought Health Services
mapquest directions
The video you shared with great info. I really like the information you share.
boxnovel
Gary Weglarz
I knew we were in dangerous new territory regarding government censorship when after waiting several years for Ulfkotte's best
selling book to finally be available in English – it suddenly, magically, disappeared completely – a vanishing act – and I couldn't
get so much as a response from, much less an explanation from, the would be publisher. Udo's book came at a time when it could
have made a difference countering the fact-free complete and total "fabrication of reality" by the U.S. and Western powers as
they have waged a brutal and ongoing neocolonial war on the world's poor under the guise of "fighting terrorism."
Udo's voice (in the form of his book) was silenced for a reason – that being that he spoke the truth about our utterly and
completely corrupt Western fantasy world in which we in the West proclaim our – "respect international law" and "respect for human
rights." His work, such as this interview and others he has done, pulled the curtain back on the big lie and exposed our oligarchs,
politicians and the "journalists" they hire as simply a cadre of professional criminals whose carefully crafted lies are used
to soak up the blood and to cover the bodies of the dead, all in order to hide all that mayhem from our eyes, to insure justice
is an impossibility and to make sure we Western citizens sleep well at night, oblivious to our connection to the actual realities
that are this daily regime of pillage and plunder that is our vaunted "neoliberal order."
Ramdan
After watching the first 20 min I couldn't help but remembering this tale:
"The philosopher Diogenes (of Sinope) was eating bread and lentils for supper. He was seen by the philosopher Aristippus, who
lived comfortably by flattering the king. Said Aristippus, 'If you would learn to be subservient to the king you would not have
to live on lentils.'
To which Diogenes replied, 'Learn to live on lentils and you will not have to be subservient to the king"."
which is also the reason why such a large part of humanity lives in voluntary servitude to power structures, living the dream,
the illusion of being free..
Ramdan
"English Translation of Udo Ulfkotte's "Bought Journalists" Suppressed?" at Global Research 2017!!
Just rechecked Amazon. Journalists for Hire: How the CIA Buys the News
by Udo Ulfkotte PH.D. The tag line reads.
Hard cover – currently unavailable; paperback cover – currently unavailable; Kindle edition – ?
Book burning anyone?
nottheonly1
No translation exists for this interview with Udo Ulfkotte on KenFM, the web site of Ken Jebsen. Ken Jebsen has been in the cross
hairs of the CIA and German agencies for his reporting of the truth. He was smeared and defamed by the same people that Dr. Ulfkotte
had written extensively about in his book 'Gekaufte Journalisten' ('Bought Journalists').
The reason why I add this link to the interview lies in the fact that Udo Ulfkotte speaks about an important part of Middle
Eastern and German history – a history that has been scrubbed from the U.S. and German populations. In the Iraq war against Iran
– that the U.S. regime had pushed for in the same fashion the way they had pushed Nazi Germany to invade the U.S.S.R. – German
chemical weapons were used under the supervision of the U.S. regime. The extend of the chemical weapons campaign was enormous
and to the present day, Iranians are born with birth defects stemming from the used of German weapons of mass destruction.
Dr. Ulfkotte rightfully bemoans, that every year German heads of state are kneeling for the Jewish victims of National socialism
– but not for the victims of German WMD's that were used against Iran. He stresses that the act of visual asking for forgiveness
in the case of the Jewish victims becomes hypocrisy, when 40 years after the Nazis reigned, German WMD's were used against Iran.
The German regime was in on the WMD attack on Iran. It was not something that happened because they had lost a couple of thousand
containers with WMDs. They delivered the WMD's to Iraq under U.S. supervision.
Ponder that. And there has never been an apology towards Iran, or compensations. Nada. Nothing. Instead, the vile rhetoric
and demagogery of every U.S. regime since has continued to paint Iran in the worst possible ways, most notably via incessant psychological
projection – accusing Iran of the war crimes and crimes against humanity the U.S. and its Western vassal regimes are guilty of.
Here is the interview that was recorded shortly before Udo Ulfkotte's death:
If enough people support the effort, I am willing to contact KenFM for the authorization to translate the interview and use
it for subtitles to the video. However, I can't do that on my own.
nottheonly1
Correction: the interview was recorded two years before his passing.
Antonym
the U.S. regime had pushed for in the same fashion the way they had pushed Nazi Germany to invade the U.S.S.R.
So Roosevelt pushed Hitler to attack Stalin? Hitler didn't want to go East? Revisionism at it most motive free.
nottheonly1
It would help if you would use your brain just once. 'Pushing' is synonymous for a variety of ways to instigate a desired
outcome. Financing is just one way. And Roosevelt was in no way the benevolent knight history twisters like to present him. You
are outing yourself again as an easliy duped sheep.
But then, with all the assaults by the unintelligence agencies, it does not come as a surprise when facts are twisted.
Antonym
Lebensraum was first popularized in 1901 in Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensraum
Hitler's "Mein Kampf" ( 1925) build on that: he had no need for any American or other push, it was intended from the
get go. The timing of operation Barbarossa was brilliant though: it shocked Stalin into a temporary limbo as he had
his own aggressive plans.
Casandra2
This excellent article demonstrates how the Controlling Elite manipulates the Media and the Message for purposes of misdirecting
attention and perception of their true intentions and objective of securing Global Ownership (aka New World Order).
This approach has been assiduously applied, across the board, over many years, to the point were they now own and run everything
required to subjugate the 'human race' to the horrors of their psychopathic inclinations. They are presently holding the global
economy on hold until their AI population (social credit) control system/grid is in place before bringing the house down.
Needless to say, when this happens a disunited and frightened Global Population will be at their mercy.
If you wish to gain a full insight of what the Controlling Elite is about, and capable of, I recommend David Icke's latest
publication 'Trigger'. I know he's been tagged a 'nutter' over the past thirty years, but I reckon this book represents the 'gold
standard' in terms of generating awareness as a basis for launching a united global population counter-attack (given a great strategy)
against forces that can only be defined as pure 'EVIL'.
MASTER OF UNIVE
Corporate Journalism is all about corporatism and the continuation of it. If the Intelligence Community needs greater fools
for staffing purposes in the corporate hierarchy they look for anyone that can be compromised via inducements of whatever the
greater fools want. Engaging in compromise allows both parties to have complicit & explicit understanding that corruption
and falsehood are the tools of the trade. To all-of-a-sudden develop a conscience after decades of playing the part of a willing
participant is understandable in light of the guilt complex one must develop after screwing everyone in the world out of the critical
assessment we all need to obtain in order to make decisions regarding our futures.
Bought & paid for corporate Journalists are controlled by the Intelligence Agencies and always have been since at least
the Second World War. The CIA typically runs bribery & blackmail at the state & federal level so that when necessary they have
instant useless eaters to offer up as political sacrifice when required via state run propaganda, & impression management.
Assuming that journalism is an ethical occupation is naïve and a fools' game even in the alternative news domain as all
writers write from bias & a lack of real knowledge. Few writers are intellectually honest or even aware of their own limits as
writers. The writer is a failure and not a hero borne in myth. Writers struggle to write & publish. Bought and paid for writers
don't have a struggle in terms of writing because they are told what to write before they write as automatons for the Intelligence
Community knowing that they sold their collective souls to the Prince of Darkness for whatever trinkets, bobbles, or bling they
could get their greedy hands on at the time.
Developing a conscience late in life is too late.
May all that sell their souls to the Intel agencies understand that pond scum never had a conscience to begin with.
Once pond scum always pond scum.
MOU
nottheonly1
What is not addressed in this talk is the addictive nature of this sort of public relation writing. Journalism is something different
altogether. I know that, because I consider myself to be a journalist at heart – one that stopped doing it when the chalice was
offered to me. The problem is that one is not part of the cabal one day to another.
It is a longer process in which one is gradually introduced to ever more expensive rewards/bribes. Never too big to overwhelm
– always just about what one would accept as 'motivation' to omit aspects of any issue. Of course, omission is a lie by any other
name, but I can attest to the life style of a journalist that socializes with the leaders of all segments of society.
And I would also write a critique about a great restaurant – never paying a dime for a fantastic dinner. The point though is
that I would not write a good critique for a nasty place for money. I have never written anything but the truth – for which I
received sometimes as much as a bag full of the best rolls in the country.
Twisting the truth for any form of bribes is disgusting and attests of the lowest of any character.
MASTER OF UNIVE
Professional whoring is as old as the hills and twice as dusty. Being ethical is difficult stuff especially when money is
involved. Money is always a prime motivator but vanity works wonders too. Corporatists will offer whatever inducements they can
to get what they want.
All mainstream media voices are selling a media package that is a corporatist lie in and of itself. Truth is less marketable
than lies. Embellished news & journalistic hype is the norm.
If the devil offers inducements be sure to up the ante to outsmart the drunken sot.
"... Believing herself untouchable and immune from any genuine criticism or objective analysis after having successfully evaded prosecution from the nation's top law enforcement agencies, HRC went off the deep end dragging the Democratic party further into the ditch. ..."
"... She is a favorite of the Russians. That's assuming that Jill Stein will give it up which she might not because she is also a Russian asset." ..."
"... Gabbard's message is relatively simple -that is: Instead of the US destroying countries it should be spending the Military Budget on rebuilding the US. Yes that sounds like an America First type of stance but it has a decent logic about it. ..."
"... The US needs an enemy to justify its massive defence bill and 800 bases worldwide. ..."
"... Stoltenberg would happily stop all social services in order to buy more missiles and gain a few brownie points from Trump. Stoltenberg along with the US Neocons are are sick SOB's. ..."
"... Both Trump and Jabbard are opponents of the CIA – Wall street complex. Nationalists vs Globalists, but some people still believe the former are more dangerous than the latter. ..."
"... The Dems morphed into neocons when her willy-waving husband sold out and destroyed the Democratic Party of LBJ's Great Society. ..."
"... Tulsi has shown a lot of class, truth to the darkest Power, and long may she have this platform.. ..."
As you may have figured out by now, Hillary Clinton, warped by her own self aggrandizement of entitlement, did Tulsi Gabbard and
her Presidential campaign against interventionist wars a huge incidental favor.
While the Democrats continue to splinter and spiral out of control on the eve of what promises to be a transformative national
election, the Grand Inquisitor seized an opportunity to allege that Gabbard (and Jill Stein) are " Russian assets " and " Putin puppets
".
Since Tulsi is a Major in the US Army Reserves and holds the highest security clearance available, the term 'asset,' which is
associated with being an agent of a foreign power, carries a level of national security significance.
Believing herself untouchable and immune from any genuine criticism or objective analysis after having successfully
evaded
prosecution from the nation's top law enforcement agencies, HRC went
off the deep end dragging the Democratic party
further into the
ditch.
She is a favorite of the Russians. That's assuming that Jill Stein will give it up which she might not because she is also
a Russian asset."
Clinton's
historic pronouncement came in the mistaken belief that publicly humiliating Gabbard would intimidate the Aloha Girl to silence
and seek refuge on her surfboard – but that is not how it has played out.
An unexpected bonus proved once again that political strategy has never been Clinton's strong suit as her malicious comments have
brought the anti-war alt left with the libertarian alt-right together in Gabbard's defense. With HRC's injudicious taunts, the glimmer
of an emerging political realignment , one that has
been at odds with both the Dem and Republican establishments, has surfaced – probably not exactly what HRC intended.
In response to having received a burst of unprecedented support, Gabbard is about to assure her place on the November debate stage
and continues to solidify her credibility as a critic of a corrupt bipartisan political establishment and its endless wars.
If they falsely portray me as a traitor, they can do it to anyone. Don't be afraid. Join me in speaking truth to power to take
back the Democrat Party and country from the corrupt elite."
It is noteworthy that HRCs accusation was to the only candidate who stands in direct opposition to the Queen Bee's history for
the war machine and all of its bells and whistles. As if to call attention to the contradiction, the entire fiasco has acknowledged
what was never meant to be acknowledged: that one little known Congresswoman from Hawaii would dare to publicly confront the omnipotent
HRC with her own demons and malfeasance; thereby elevating the one candidacy that represents a threat to the military industrial
complex and its globalist order.
It is no coincidence that the corporate media operates in lockstep as an offensive October 12th
NY Times article was immediately
followed by a CNN
commentary as well as other media sycophants, all tagging Gabbard as a Russian asset.
Contrary to Journalism 101 on how professional media should conduct themselves, there has been no evidence, no facts, no supporting
documentation as they characteristically rely on innuendo and disinformation.
At the last Dem debate and during the kerfuffle with Clinton, Tulsi has stepped up and
showed herself
to be a candidate the country has been waiting for. With a powerful inner grit, she did not hesitate to take the
Times and CNN
publicly to task and then
in response
called HRC out as a warmonger and
dared her to enter the 2020 fray.
There lies a deep truth within
Gabbard's response especially identifying Clinton as the " personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party.
"
During Clinton's term as Secretary of State which is little more than a Glorified Global Hustler for the US military industrial
complex, the Democratic Party lost its soul, morphing as nefarious neocons in pursuit of raw political and economic power that emanates
from a policy of unfettered regime change and interventionist wars.
As Democrats embraced the neocons with no objection to the unrestrained violence, increased military budgets, indiscriminate selling
of weapons to bomb a civilian population, then why should the party's grassroots object to the Tuesday morning assassination list
or drone attacks on civilians or creating war in four countries living in peace in 2008?
As the party faithful allow themselves to dismiss all the suffering, the death and destruction wrought by US-made weapons as if
Amazon and Google toys were an acceptable trade, they lost their conscience and their connection to the basic essence of humanity's
need for peace, love and compassion.
The latest example of the Party's devotion to war is their opposition to the withdrawal of US troops from Syria as they created
the phony debate that the Kurds were worth more American blood or resources. The Dems have always been more pro-war than they have
been given credit for with WWI, WWII, the Korean War and Vietnam all initiated and/or expanded under Democrat Presidents.
With no substantiation from the mindless meanderings of a seriously disoriented woman, it is now clear that Clinton's derangement
syndrome of unresolved guilt and denial led the Democratic party to its irrational embrace of Russiagate as the justification for
her 2016 loss.
In other words, it was Russiagate that protected HRC's fragile self-esteem from the necessary introspection as Americans were
pitted against one another, dividing the nation in a deliberate disruption of civil society in a more acrimonious manner than any
time since the 1860's. The country has paid a bitter, unnecessary price for a divisive strategy due to Clinton's refusal to personally
accept responsibility for her own failings.
HRC's most egregious war crimes as Secretary of State include assigning Victoria Nuland to conduct the
overthrow of a democratically elected
President in Ukraine in 2014 and the ensuing violence and civil war in the Donbass as well as her
joyous rapture cackling at the death of Libyan President Qaddafi in 2011. The now infamous video " We came, we saw, he died "
showed her to be more than just your average war criminal but a Monster who experiences an aberrant thrill at death and destruction.
Since June, TPTB have done their darnedest to deny Tulsi a spot on the debate stage rigging the qualifying requirements as best
they could. Making it near impossible for the polling firms, which rely on campaign season and their economic connection with the
DNC to call the shots in a fair and equitable manner.
As the early primary states loom ahead, the last thing TPTB need is a powerful pro-peace voice resonating with the American public.
The message seems clear: talk of peace is verboten and equates with being a Russia asset and anyone with pacifist tendencies will
be publicly chastised and condemned for being a tool of the Kremlin.
None of that has stopped Tulsi Gabbard.
Renee Parsons has been a member of the ACLU's Florida State Board of Directors and president of the ACLU Treasure Coast
Chapter. She has been an elected public official in Colorado, an environmental lobbyist with Friends of the Earth and staff member
of the US House of Representatives in Washington DC. She can be found on Twitter @reneedove31
Ken Kenn
I am very impressed by Tulsi Gabbard. She's a bit too patriotic for me – but I'm a Brit so for a serving American it's understandable.
It isn't the person that is dangerous- it is the insertion of the idea that Regime Change wars are counterproductive.
Gabbard's message is relatively simple -that is: Instead of the US destroying countries it should be spending the Military
Budget on rebuilding the US. Yes that sounds like an America First type of stance but it has a decent logic about it.
Wasteful wars and the idea that the US should install its version of Democracy across the Middle East has always been a doomed
project and co-operation and an attempt at rebuilding these nations in order to attempt some kind of democracy and future prosperity
is required – not bombing and bullying.
You could be outraged by Clinton's nasty rhetoric but let's face it. Clinton lost to someone she considered to be a Clown.
In actuality the DNC almost promoted Trump as person they could beat hands down.
It bit them on the arse as did the Brexit result in the UK.
Clinton has never got over losing to a chump and she is just covering her backside as to why she lost.
Hell hath no fury like a self appointed Candidate scorned. Like Johnson in the UK Clinton thought she had the right to rule.
She didn't and doesn't. To quote some US Senator; " The people have spoken. The bastards!"
Igor
The objective is not to install American "democracy". Which does not exist anywhere, USA is officially a republic. Unofficially,
it is an oligarchy. Elite super wealthy families and their corporations run the USA. All 45 Presidents have been related to those
families. The President is actually elected by the Electoral College, not the popular vote. This was designed into the Constitution
of USA, Inc.
The aim of regime change is to create chaos in MENA, by which a small ME state can profit without doing any visible dirty work.
The Democrats(oxymoron for il Partito Fascista Americano) are doing this for the simple reason knowing full well that most traditional
old school democrats identify with Bernie Sanders. The whole notion of the WASP notion of left right paradigm is oxymoron in itself.
Any political science follower or student would have to agree. What is the political left mean in the west????????? Has anyone
ever read Marx and Engles ???????????? Social democrat WTF does that mean. Historical revisionist get labelled Nazi sympathisers.
The constant lies and obfuscation with real facts. Like population stats death births . The Classic method being used at the moment
is they no longer due c0up d'etats the good old fascistic way. The popular vote gets discredited by the judicial system. IE the
recent elections of Argentina and Bolivia does not suit the IMF( the International Mafia Fund) henc e the European Union Funded
election monitoring organisations are all openly stating that both elections were not KOSHER.
Look at the people in Venezuela and Bolivia that are demonstrating against the popular elected and voted for Governments. White
upper middle class figli di putane. Plain and simple the western paradigm of fake democrazia and fake economy is dying the plutocratic
and oligarchical class are just creating storms and fires just do deviate from good old fashion bread and butter issues.
Conclusion:
The pax-americana Democrats(RATS) know full well that Bernie will not lead the party Gabbard will not lead the party so here
is there strategy and good old Chuckie Schuemer the anglo-zionist par excellance laid it out in 2015. They are hoping that old
fashion conservative Republicans that are disgusted with the Orange one will vote for them and further reduce the number of voters.
Just think of this. In this day and age with the largest wealth gap exceeding the Gilded age which individual would take a day
off to line up to vote on a bitter grey November day. So these remarkable establishment shills in their great wisdom are running
as Eisenhower Republican and hoping to steal votes from the Republicans and not win any votes from the new ever growing lower
so called middle class.
POST SCRIPTUM: The irony and the complete paradox more war will give us peace and the rich getting richer will give us the
sheeple wealth. Black is white and grey does not exist and left vs right. What a sad state of affairs.
Docius in fundem: The sad reality in our dying western paradigm of pax-americana is never in the history of the modern and
post modern era we have more people graduating from tertiary education but we have created the most ignorant and pliant class
of individuals ever.
Jon
She came, we saw, she lied.
Hugh O'Neill
Russian asset and Putin puppet, Jesus of Nazareth reportedly said: "Blessed are the Peace Makers". As we know, Trump receives
maximum MSM contempt for anything approaching diplomacy and peace, and highest MSM approval when advocating war and destruction.
Likewise, when a Presidential candidate dare breathe the word "Peace" then she is either ignored, ridiculed or accused of treachery
– and that greatest of all crimes, being pro-Russian (ergo anti-American). It is timely perhaps to re-read President Kennedy's
(largely unreported) Commencement Address to American University, 10th June 1963:
" What kind of peace do I mean? What kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons
of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes
life on earth worth living, the kind that enables men and nations to grow and to hope and to build a better life for their children–not
merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women–not merely peace in our time but peace for all time".
"I speak of peace because of the new face of war. Total war makes no sense in an age when great powers can maintain large and
relatively invulnerable nuclear forces and refuse to surrender without resort to those forces. It makes no sense in an age when
a single nuclear weapon contains almost ten times the explosive force delivered by all the allied air forces in the Second World
War. It makes no sense in an age when the deadly poisons produced by a nuclear exchange would be carried by wind and water and
soil and seed to the far corners of the globe and to generations yet unborn."
Lest we forget: Lee Harvey Oswald was sheep-dipped as a Russian-loving commie precisely so as to blame Russia for killing that
commie/socialist/pacifist/drug-addled/free-lovin' Jack Kennedy. Somehow, their script didn't really make any sense. Script-writer
Allen Dulles had written a turkey, but the show must go on, and on .
Igor
It won't be allowed. The People have no say in the matter. Politics is pure spectacle, to distract and entertain the masses, and
to make them think that they have a voice. All 45 US Presidents have been interrelated through 200+ super wealth elite intertwined
families. If Tulsi Gabbard is not related, then she is not getting into the White House. If she is related, she will get in and
do nothing different from what the previous actors have always done.
#Resist45 and Trump, Mr. #45, work for the same people. Keeping the nation dazed and confused, since January 2017. Congress
does nothing useful, by design, concentrating on impeachment. The Media has plenty of Trump social media coverage to prevent ever
having space to report on actual events (as if they would).
Chinese Asset?
Please don't make the Republicans look better than they are. Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Ms. Hua Chunying said at a press briefing
that
Pence's speech made Thursday revealed his "sheer arrogance and hypocrisy, and was packed with political prejudice and lies"
So refreshing to hear it from a high level official! Ms Hua also accused Pence of using China as a prop to distract from
the United States' failings. Now we know, the 'Russian asset' accusation is used to distract from the continuous and
never-ending murderous operation of the US regime.
Seamus Padraig
Since Tulsi is a Major in the US Army Reserves and holds the highest security clearance available, the term 'asset,' which
is associated with being an agent of a foreign power, carries a level of national security significance.
Alt-journalist
Caity Johnstone has recently remarked upon how the Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself) have started to give the
word 'asset' their own little proprietary meaning:
"Russian 'assets' are not formal relationships in the USIC [US Intelligence Community] sense of the word," CNN analyst and
former FBI agent Asha Rangappa explained via Twitter. "If you are parroting Russian talking points and furthering their interests,
you're a source who is too dumb to know you're being played to ask for money."
"It's important to point out here that a Russian 'asset' is not the same thing as a Russian 'agent'," tweeted virulent establishment
narrative manager Caroline Orr. "An asset can be witting or unwitting; it's any person or org who can be used to advance Russia's
interests. It's pretty clear that Tulsi satisfies that criteria."
"One doesn't have to be on the Kremlin's payroll to be a Russian asset. One doesn't even have to know they are a Russian
asset to be a Russian asset. Have you not heard the term 'useful idiot' before?" tweeted writer Kara Calavera.
At this rate, pretty soon, we'll all have to check with RT first before we open our mouths in public, just to make sure we're
not accidentally agreeing with the Russians!
The Dems have always been more pro-war than they have been given credit for with WWI, WWII, the Korean War and Vietnam all
initiated and/or expanded under Democrat Presidents.
Ha, ha! That takes me back–all the way to 1976, to be exact–to when Bob Dole (then a candidate for Vice-President) described
all the wars of the 20th century as " Democrat wars
".
Igor
"CNN analyst and former FBI agent Asha Rangappa explained via Twitter. "
Says the CNN paid asset.
Hugh O'Neill
Thanks once again to Renee for championing Tulsi. Yesterday my local paper here in NZ (The Otago Daily Times) in its "This Day
in History" column, briefly referred to JFK and the peaceful resolution of the Cuban Missile Crisis. I wrote to the editor my
appreciation:
"Although I am old enough to remember both the 1960 election and the 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy, I was
blissfully unaware of the Cuban Missile Crisis in October 1962 (when I was almost 7 years old). My thanks to the ODT for marking
this date which is the day in History when the world stepped back from the abyss of nuclear war and ended all life on Earth. Sadly,
too many today live in blissful ignorance of the most dangerous moment in the History of Mankind.
As the old saying goes, those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it. Next time around, there may no longer be the politicians
with the courage and intelligence of Kennedy and Khrushchev: both men had to out-manoeuvre their own military hawks, and each
man knew the personal risks he faced in doing so. Khrushchev was replaced within a year and died in ignominy.
JFK's lived another year before his own untimely end. Though we may lament the execution of John F. Kennedy, he had not lived
and died in vain, because we are still here despite the military. I cannot recommend highly enough two books: firstly, Bobby Kennedy's
"13 Days> A Memoir of the Cuban Missile Crisis" and James Doulglass "JFK & The Unspeakable. Why he died & Why it Matters".
Tulsi has been the only candidate in a very long time to speak the unspeakable truth. Do not condemn her for whatever flaws
some commenters below perceive. No-one is absolutely perfect in every way – not even Mary Poppins. But Tulsi is a breath of fresh
air and has immense courage, eloquence, passion, integrity and charisma to bring out the best in people. The real enemy is within
– in every sense.
Thanks, Gwyn. I knew this story already but it is worth rereading. The fact that some dimwitted USN ship started dropping depth
charges without top authority shows that JFKs grip on his own military was tenuous. He had recently read Barbara Tuchman's "The
guns of August" which showed how stupid acts by subordinates could have massive consequences. Once again, this demonstrates the
treachery of the military. Recently, some British General stated publicly that if Corbyn were elected, there would be a coup.
The military mind cannot cope with the concept of Democracy.
Stoltenberg would happily stop all social services in order to buy more missiles and gain a few brownie points from Trump.
Stoltenberg along with the US Neocons are are sick SOB's.
Antonym
Trump doesn't want US taxpayers to fund US mil in Europe, not unreasonable. Both Trump and Jabbard are opponents of the CIA
– Wall street complex. Nationalists vs Globalists, but some people still believe the former are more dangerous than the latter.
Amazon, Google or Apple have more power than North Korea, Iran or Xyz. China cannot be the CIA-Wall street bogey now as they make
too much profit of it: Russia is much smaller fish margin wise (the Clinton's only managed a few dozen million$) so that makes
the perfect fake enemy. On top Russia actually competes with oil and gas, which China can't.
Wilmers31
Someone with more knowledge to the timeline needs to correlate the punishments for Russia (sanctions) to the oil price. I think
they started sanctions when Russian oil and gas deliveries were getting cheaper but US needed 75$+ for the frackers. It was just
eliminating a competitor, especially after they could not purchase the monopoly on Russian gas and oil through the monopoly company
Yukos.
Gary Weglarz
This is something I've been thinking a lot about lately, and this seems like a good post to share it on.
Watching trolls emerge to discredit and attack the lone U.S. candidate who publicly and vocally opposes America's regime change
wars and even dares tell the American people that "we are supporting the terrorists – not fighting them" – is bad enough in MSM,
but a sad and interesting comment on how completely engaged the State has become with attempting to "control" and "shape" discourse
on progressive sites such as this.
My favorite of course is when one State troll debates another State troll in completely "fake" discourse, attempting to amplify
their troll message. The other technique that is endlessly amusing is when a single troll posts something a well informed person
with progressive values can quite agree with one day, followed the next by complete gibberish posing as "sophistication," followed
the next day by talking points right out of the CIA & Pentagon, and then follows all that up with posting something sensible again.
Just a bit "crazy-making" no?
It pays to remember ("The 4 D's: Deny / Disrupt / Degrade / Deceive") that come right out of the trolling manual. It should
be a red-flag if these descriptors characterize someone's posts.
The saying that if it ("looks like a duck, walks like a duck and talks like a duck, well, it just might be a duck") – is one
that is worth applying to our comment's sections discourse. Because if it "posts like a troll"- in the end it doesn't really matter
if it "is" a troll (something we will never know), or is simply an uniformed but opinionated idiot – as that person is "doing
the work of" the State sponsored trolls in either case.
I find it is always worth periodically reviewing what we know about these operations (thank you Edward Snowden) – as it helps
us to better understand and prepares us to better deal with the State sponsored troll operations we now see routinely in all of
our truly progressive comments sections on alternative media sites. What we now deal with here at OffG and elsewhere are daily
routine attempts to take over, shape and control otherwise rational informed sincere discussion by readers. Sadly this is how
some people make their living – existing in a continual state of existential "bad faith."
Anyone who stands for a perception managed 'business as usual' candidacy is authentic: anyone who tries to expose the vicious
hypocrisy is an 'asset' or a 'troll'? Welcome to the postmodern anti-debate.
I'm trying to think of where I have come across a more cynical attempt to distort the truth and apologetically cover ethnic
cleansing and cultural anti-Muslim genocide? And I cannot think of a better example. Anyone who attempts to expose Gabbard for
her cultural links to actual Hindutva supremacism and real live fascism must be a paid state troll? What can I say: I am a peace
troll exposing the Politics of Lies you appear to support. Tulsi Gabbard is a traitor to humanity.
What I laid out below is not trolling: it exposes just how much you have to invert the true values of liberation and freedom
to get a 'peace candidate' from a Zionist fascist supporter. In brief synopsis: Modi tore up the Indian constitution; flooded
Jammu and Kashmir with troops; invoked the 'Riot Act' to eject all journalists and TV crews; in order that his ethnic cleansing
of the valley goes unseen. This is a crime against humanity: which also carries no small risk of nuclear war. Making this apparent
is trolling?
In the perversion of the narrative script you propose: this is called "vocally opposing America's regime change wars". How;
by apologising for not being able to attend the 'Howdy, Modi' because she was pre-commited to be lying somewhere else?
In contrast: Arundhati Roy stands accused as a traitor and having her rights and citizenship stripped for bringing attention
to Modi's war crimes. What does Gabbard do? Pass the caviar and offer more lucrative trade deals for Modi's murderers? That is
the difference between a real world candidate and a fake. Will Gabbard call out Modi; el-Sisi; Netanyahu or Adelson for that matter?
You know the scene that Milosevic likes to post: of Netanyahu being feted by Congress – which looks exactly like the Nuremberg
Rallies Gabbard was there to listen to the ally and friend of the United States – that is the only democracy in the Middle East
– denounce Iran. Afterward, she went on Fox News and glibly agreed Greta Van Susteren that the deal was akin to the infamous Munich
Pact. Blithely nodding her head before engaging in some fantasy talking points about North Korean nukes hitting Hawaii: and the
three month acquisition of the Iranian bomb which comes straight off of one of Nuttyyahoo's empty CD-roms. So can we drop the
pretense please?
Adelson's 'Champion of Freedom' nails her real colours to the mast?
Then you invoke Sartre: did you know he was a communist? Who staid loyal to Stalin's Soviet Union for much longer than he really
should have? What do you think he would have made of a candidate who dines with Hindutva fascist racist supremacists and offers
them more trade on a pro rata basis of carrying out war crimes and crimes against humanity? Bad faith and authenticity: where
do yo think they lie? Gabbard is an authentic candidate only in such a highly perception managed world as we have. Which is why
we have such a highly perception managed world – because we highly perception manage it ourselves. No paid state trolls required:
except in the imagination perhaps? Perhaps only those not suffering the illusion can see who she really is?
The only way to make this real is by censoring the right to criticism the illegitimate candidacy of those who are silent on
Modi's open fascism and very probable silent, unseen ethnic cleansing. If it is silent and unseen then it is not happening. Then
we have our perfect 'peace candidate'. Do you see how it works?
Let us shut down any chance of any open debate on that. Well done Gary. You and all the fawning sycophants on this page have
the perfect peace candidate you deserve. By ignoring valid and authentic critical consciousness and suppressing the voice of freedom.
Gabbard needs to be exposed as a modified war candidate: and friend of the Gods of Money and their pet dictators. It is a cynical
ploy to try and close down such real world exposure as 'trolling'. Trolling for peace maybe? Peace we may never now know.
Gary Weglarz
My comments were not intended to be a defense of Gabbard. Though she is the only candidate I can remember in many years that is
speaking some truth, any truth, about the amoral U.S. war machine, she of course has no chance whatsoever of winning and no one
in their right mind would suggest otherwise. Yet I and others who are quite aware of this obvious reality find the undeniable
fact she is "publicly speaking some truth" about that war machine a rather important addition to the theatre of the absurd political
debate here in the U.S. So strange that support and recognition of this simple fact is so controversial to some.
No, my comments were not some defense of Gabbard as an impure savior, but rather about the trolls and those who perhaps in
their boundless narcissism simply do the work of the government trolls because they routinely "post like trolls." You know, ("The
4 D's: Deny / Disrupt / Degrade / Deceive"). Perhaps you missed that somehow?
I tire of so much smug narcissistic idiocy, and predictable attacks on any who might disagree, posing as – "commentary" or
"discourse." Of course neither you nor Big B have commented a word on that topic- the actual topic of my post. Instead simply
strawman attacks related to Tulsi. How strange. But then again: "You've obviously got it all sewn up :(" – eh Frank?
I really don't give a shit about what the totally corrupt US political system is doing.
They are all scum and vermin, who, in a sane world, would all be swept down the gutter.
In the Middle East we are on the verge of WW3. The Russians and the Chinese are not going to put up with the American Frankenstein
any more. Do Americans realise what this will mean?
I doubt it, because many Americans don't have a brain cell between them (Clue: America will be totally destroyed in a WW3).
nonameforsure
8 elements appeared on a website recently which the author suggested could be used to identify fake, false, or self agenda propaganda..
learn them.. apply them.
Develop an international way to report in some standard way on the elements that appear in articles. Maybe date, time, place presented,
element identified, together with a comment that fits each expression. In my opinion it is important to build the case that the
same false narrative appears in your favorite fake media as well as everyone else's favorite fake media.
You will be able to detect how these 8 elements develop fact that identify processes and activities of those in charge and
how these elements will allow those seeking the truth to build a collaborative means to debunk fake. Example refer to paragraph
7 in a subject article by indicating "place" on "date" @ "time" "time" "title" and element number and then make a comment to explain
why you marked the expression with a element number.
This kind of reference system allows to detect and compare both intra article fake news with inter publication fake news..
so maybe it will be discovered the news outlets and publishers and authors that hawk the same false or misleading propaganda in
time to inform the public, moreover, if you can get the public to understand and to apply the element method of debunking propaganda;
article by article, paragraph by paragraph, just the act of doing it, might wake them up.
1) EN establish the narrative :fake always try to establish the tuth
2) WR They wrong, we right : inconvenient facts are transformed to support the narrative
3) PF Cherry Pick the Facts : only report the facts that support the narrative
4) IS Ignore stuff : never include something that is contrary to the narrative
5) VB Blame the Victim : keep the victim on the defensive
6) MU Make up Stuff: false or non fact claims can be made up to fit the narrative
7) AC Attack and deny any form to all challengers: Persons who ask ?s are conspiracy terrorist.
8) RL Repeat the lies, repeat the lies, repeat the lies. People need help to remember the lie
Capricornia Man
Your eight methods for creating fake news aptly describe the way the 'systemic anti-Semitism in the UK Labour Party' myth was
promoted. Particularly methods 3,4 and 8.
When I complained to a broadcaster about its incompetent and biased 'coverage' of this non-issue, one of its chief defences
was: 'that's what all the other news outlets are saying'.
The MSM wonder why they are regarded as mendacious and contemptible by thinking people who take the trouble to separate the
facts from the spin.
mark
A Brief Summary Of The War In Syria.
2011. The Neocons activate a long standing plan that has been around for 20 years to destroy Syria. Syria is to be destroyed,
like Iraq and Libya before it. Assad will be toppled within a few months and Syria smashed into a thousand pieces.
The Axis of Evil, the US and its NATO satraps, Shady Wahabia, Kosherstan and Sultan Erdogan, flood Syria with the necessary
cannon fodder, hundreds of thousands of head choppers and throat slitters from a hundred countries, with a licence to murder,
burn, rape, loot, steal and enslave to their hearts content. An alphabet soup of takfiri groups is created out of thin air, armed,
trained, paid, transported and orchestrated with tens of billions of western taxpayers money. ISIS is just one of many.
The Syrian state, armed forces and people resist with unexpected courage and determination, and fight the proxy head choppers
to a standstill. But they are under extreme pressure and have to concentrate their forces in the main battles in the west of the
country. This leaves a vacuum that is filled by the phantom ISIS caliphate. This suits the Axis of Evil just fine. There is no
problem with ISIS black flags flying over Damascus provided Syria is destroyed.
By 2015, the outcome is in the balance. Clinton and Sultan Erdogan have agreed to impose a no fly zone to turn the tide in
favor of the head choppers. A series of Gas Attack Hoaxes and false flag atrocity claims are staged over a protracted period of
time to justify Libya style intervention.
All bets are off as Putin overrides his advisors and dispatches Russian forces to intervene and prevent the destruction of
the Syrian state. With the support of Iran and Hezbollah, the situation is transformed. Though the worst of the fighting is yet
to come, the Neocon plot to destroy Syria is a busted flush. Syria is steadily liberated from terrorist occupation.
The main terrorist sponsors try to salvage something from this failure. Sultan Erdogan switches sides and takes the opportunity
to attack the Kurds. Trump seizes the opportunity to scale back US involvement, generating much hysteria from all the Zionist
shills in Washington. The Kurds seek some kind of accommodation with Damascus.
The war is now winding down. It will take some time before all the terrorist areas are liberated and occupying US and Turkish
forces have to withdraw. But the outcome is now inevitable.
Funny you mentioned Arundhati Roy as I almost bought her book today: Capitalism A Ghost Story, in a Left bookshop here, however
ended up getting Culture & Imperialism by Edward Said and a second hand copy of Pedadogy Of The Oppressed which I've, um, never
read. Time to broaden the mind, as have hardly read any books for years except articles on the Internet. Will pick up Arundhati's
book next time. Have a good day
eddie
The Dems morphed into neocons when her willy-waving husband sold out and destroyed the Democratic Party of LBJ's Great Society.
Tulsi being a member of the establishment which she lambasts is quite a paradox, but can be seen from one's own moral perspective.
During the VietNam war era, '63-75, many who opposed the fiasco took a stronger stance: prison as a conscientious objector, moving
to Canada, undesirable discharges, very vocal public protests & arrests. Many lives and futures ruined, my own included, to actively
stop the illegal & profit driven Invasion ..
Tulsi has shown a lot of class, truth to the darkest Power, and long may she have this platform..
Rhys Jaggar
Next they will try saying that because she is not a mother she has no place being President. If I had a vote in the US, I would
vote for any man, woman, black/white/Hisoanic/Asian/any other ethnicity, straight/gay/indeterminate who:
1. Pledged to cut the US military budget in half, sign up to existing OPCW conventions on chemical+biological weapons and demanded
that Israel did likewise.
2. Removed the right for dual citizen US-Israeli zionists to hold public US office (tell em to decide whether they are primarily
aligned to Israel or not) and neutered the election-rigging AIPAC monstrosity at source.
3. Called out the global warming hoax as the biggest scam of the 21st century.
4. Enforced the concept that polluters pay to clean up their polluting, particularly in extractive industries, agriculture, mining
and packaging.
5. Promoted the restoration of mutually owned local finance, particularly in providing mortgages.
6. Confronted the self-serving victim gravy train, in particular making the terms 'man' and 'woman' beyond the rights of anyone
to take legal action.
7. vowed to shut down 25% of US overseas military bases in a first term and a further tranche in a second term.
"... Of course, when the die was cast and Rumsfeld's famous Shock and Awe campaign began, the three major news talk channels, CNN, MSNBC and FOX, were all over us with cheerleading. ..."
"... Swinton's use of the phrase 'Intellectual prostitutes' rang true then. ..."
"... As the war criminal Mr. Obama stated, when in 2008 many of his own party wanted to have hearings on the pre-emptive attack and occupation of Iraq, that it was time to 'Move forward'. Forward he did by increasing the number of drone murderous assaults by Tenfold! ..."
"... Now that he is out of office, Barack, the 'Hope and Change' king, just purchased a home for $8.1 million. Tell that to the suckers who fell for his rhetoric in the Afro American communities. ..."
There is no such thing at this date of the world's history, in America, as an independent press There is not ONE of you who
dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did you know beforehand that it would never appear in print!
I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with The business of journalists is to destroy
the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his
daily bread We are the tools of rich men behind the scenes.
We are jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property
of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes!"
We only need go back a few short years to see the utter magnitude of what Swinton was talking about. Remember the illegal and
immoral USA invasion and occupation of Iraq? Most of the 'levers of empire' were pushed to accommodate that bit of lying, disinformation
and half truths.
This writer remembers when Phil Donahue had his nightly news/talk show on MSNBC. By February of 2003 or thereabouts, Jeff Cohen,
Phil's producer, recalls how he was told to have TWO pro invasion guests on for every anti invasion guest. Remember, at that time
General Electric Corp. owned MSNBC. Yet, that was not enough to satisfy the empire. On February 23 the Donahue show was cancelled,
although the ratings were pretty good.
You see, by that time, late February, the machine was all ready for the attack. It just needed a few more morsels of propaganda
to sink into both the Congress and of course the consumers Sorry, I mean the citizenry.
This writer was extremely agitated by the high level of Pro invasion info coming over the embedded mainstream print and electronic
media. One slight consolation was when C-Span actually 'did the correct thing' and showed a Canadian news channel's coverage of the
impending doom.
Of course, when the die was cast and Rumsfeld's famous Shock and Awe campaign began, the three major news talk channels, CNN,
MSNBC and FOX, were all over us with cheerleading.
FOX was so off the radar that no critique is needed. However, CNN and MSNBC, trying to look like 'Neutral Journalism 101', could
not contain their peanut gallery mindsets, the one that John Swinton referred to in his famous speech.
You had Aaron Brown, Lester Holt and little Katie Couric (of flagship station NBC, owned by GE), along with Brian Williams (later
to be outed, for but awhile, for his phony news stories in Iraq) all right there celebrating the 'Liberators of Iraq'.
They all wore their flag buttons on their lapels, and little Katie was filmed strolling through the halls of NBC shouting 'Marines
Rock!' Of course, Lester Holt did the 'right (wing) thing' and now is a respected anchor so much so that good ole Lester moderates
presidential debates.
Swinton's use of the phrase 'Intellectual prostitutes' rang true then.
Now we come to a recent bit of disgrace. Ellen Degeneres, the highly celebrated and successful daytime talk show hostess and proud
gay woman, was seen sitting with Junior Bush at a Dallas Cowboys game, in the exclusive owner's box area.
She has had Junior on her show to talk about his painting, has visited him at his ranch, and considers him a 'Nice guy'. Junior
has, on record as president, never did squat to help with the AIDs pandemic, and allowed his far right evangelical beliefs to keep
him from ever speaking favorably about gay rights etc.
Yet, this openly gay woman, who must have felt alarmed by our illegal invasion (OR DID SHE?), must have had friends who were enraged
by that invasion at the time.
All the many alternative news blips must have gotten to her eyes and ears, telling her that the Bush/Cheney gang were WAR CRIMINALS!
Yet Ms. DeGeneres continues to satisfy the lie which tells us to take a pass on the dastardly things done by the war criminals in
the White House.
As the war criminal Mr. Obama stated, when in 2008 many of his own party wanted to have hearings on the pre-emptive attack
and occupation of Iraq, that it was time to 'Move forward'. Forward he did by increasing the number of drone murderous assaults by
Tenfold!
Now that he is out of office, Barack, the 'Hope and Change' king, just purchased a home for $8.1 million. Tell that to the
suckers who fell for his rhetoric in the Afro American communities.
Anyone but the foolish people who still support Mr. Trump realize that he is as much of a populist as the man he emulates with
his body gestures: Il Duce!
Nothing ever changes when the majority of working stiffs suck in the foul air that comes from the mouths of the empire's minions,
whether they be presidents, congress people or (so called) journalists and talk show hosts. It is time for those of good conscience
to boycott the lot of them!
Philip A Farruggio is a son and grandson
of Brooklyn , NYC longshoremen. He has been a free lance columnist since 2001, with over 400 of his works posted on sites like Global
Research, Greanville Post, OffGuardian, Consortium News, Information Clearing House, Nation of Change, World News Trust, Op Ed News,
Dissident Voice, , Activist Post, Sleuth Journal, Truthout and many others. His blog can be read in full on
World News Trust , whereupon he writes a great deal on the need to cut
military spending drastically and send the savings back to save our cities. Philip has an internet interview show, 'It's the Empire...
Stupid' with producer Chuck Gregory.
Pretty good article. Pity you had to spoil it with the Trump populist Mussolini comparison at the end. Don't get me wrong I am
no Trump fan but are you saying that much of the stuff written about him is not propaganda? So when it comes to Trump the media
are ..even handed? honest? ..unbiased? (LOL). P.S. How many wars did Bush try and stop? How many wars did Obama stop? Is stopping
wars now "populism"? Even I can see that the highest levels of the US government have been compromised by the intelligence agencies
and corrupt partisan actors. Need I remind you that it was a "populist" who called out the FAKE NEWS?
Doctortrinate
The News Today, as slipshod as you like – but how far is it different from those diligent yesterdays. Broadcasts, built upon a
complex Fabrication, to deceive it's willing dependants into accepting falsifications as an authentic constant of everyday reality.
So, until the demoi discard the pleasure of blissful ignorance, for the painful truth whatever the spin, however its dressed,
the story will continue, trapped in it's own invention, lost in a pernicious labyrinth where every redundant turn forgets the
last.
MASTER OF UNIVE
Corporatism is Fascism, and Fascists that tow the party line are always utilized for purposes of impression management much like
props on a TV program are. Dubya is a corporatist whore just as daytime talk show hosts are too. Assuming that corporatist whores
should have integrity is naïve in the extreme.
If you watch television you are an automaton without enough reason to be able to turn the television off given that you have
been programmed to mindlessly adhere to whatever the television coughs up daily.
If you watch mindless Fascists entertaining mass murderers like George W. Bush at ballgames that host the Military Industrial
Complex for halftime shows you are _Functionally Retarded_ and likely skimmed over this article whilst locked in a trance state
of ignorance & a lack of education.
FUCK America & American television.
It's a bankrupt Corporation that is $22 trillion in debt that it will never pay back, suckers!
MOU
wardropper
" Mr. Obama stated, when in 2008 many of his own party wanted to have hearings on the pre-emptive attack and occupation of
Iraq, that it was time to 'Move forward' "
And I will never, ever, forget Nancy Pelosi's dismissive shrug when many of that same party were calling for Bush's impeachment
on account of that illegal invasion:
"Impeachment is off the table." Decent Americans no longer have a representative in the US government. As Swinton clearly
implies, those who hire today's journalists bear practically all the responsibility for this.
hollyPlastic
A glaring example of how much the West loves freedom is shown in this UN briefing on Torture, this week.
This serves a good demonstration of how stupid Hong Kong protesters are in believing that there is a 'West/UK/US' supporting
their quest for 'Democracy' and 'Freedom'.
milosevic
you mean Hollywood movies aren't an accurate source of information about world politics and history???
hollyPlastic
Look and you'll see that according to the Controlled Corporate Mass Media, there are, in this period of history, three pillars
that are supporting Western civilisation:
Pillar One: Peroxide. Look how very blonde people are getting on mainstream media. You can't miss it. Good investment to
buy shares in Peroxide factories.
Piller Two: White Skin. Whether it's using Photoshop or Skin Whitening Products, people are looking very white in their
photos, these days.
Pillar three: Piercing Blue Eyes. That must be using photoshop, because there aren't eyes that are so blue in real life
like you see nowadays in the photos.
And
The Blonde is getting blonder. Even, black is now turning blonde. The White is getting whiter. The Blue is getting bluer.
Other pillars of Western Civilisation are somewhat behind the scene and include the proliferation/sales of weapons of mass
destruction, breaking international laws, as well as, the withdrawal from treaties which restrict the deployment of nuclear missiles.
mark
Ah, but everybody knows Bombing Brown People and Torturing Brown People is good for them. We only do it for their benefit. And
this in no way contradicts Our Values and Our Rules Based Order. All these benighted natives and lesser breeds are jolly grateful
for all our lofty sermons and pious lectures about human rights.
I find it very interesting, how people need to worship something!It seems to me that they aren't able to admit, that there are
things that are not clear to them!For instance, we know very little about the universe, so we declare God made it!
hollyPlastic
There is a poignant remark made on these pages which goes something like this:
When surviving depends on believing, the mind works wonders
I think the implications of 'believing' in order to survive are profound. People need to believe in order to fit in,
in order to get a job, in order to get a promotion, in order to get married, in order to get enough food to feed their offspring,
and in order to 'look' free.
Not to forget, by believing in Jesus, you give your proxy support to plunder every inch of the Earth, and kill as many brown-skin
people as possible.
hollyPlastic
I describe this situation we face as mind control warfare
It is indeed. Thanks for the valuable thoughts!
Tim Jenkins
Mammon avoids questioning & analysing incredible endless lies by 'Schiff for brains'. When actually, just like Norman Bates in
Psycho, Adam Schiff is actually the "whistleblower", with bent whistle all he needs is a wig and a rocking chair 🙂
Jayzus . Adam fecken Schiff. Complete wackjob extraordinaire, tho in Washington DC he has s(ch)tiff competition. Someone the Liberal
bourgie professional types here in Aussie regard with dewy eyed fondness and admiration for leading the . Resistance. Gag. Can
things get anymore surreal? Do you sometimes feel like you've dropped acid by mistake such is the bizarre happenings, um, happening.
Do you think the Mad Hatter would be perplexed at the state of our World? I know I bloody am
bob
Hey man, there's nothing wrong with the way the British regime treats its sick people .
Bob, nothing wrong at all -- if you worship St.Margaret of Muck, patron saint of the AZC.
"There's no such thing as a social conscience".
Pyewacket
Eugenics mate, it's been back in fashion here for the past decade. But instead of dying in a death camp, you die on the street,
or your own home, if you have one.
vexarb
AOO, you mean Trump's Time to Bring Them Back might be genuine? I give him credit because I understand his problem: he has to
face his Jewish daughter and her Likudnik husband.
"It is easier to rule an Empire than to manage a family" -- Montaigne
vexarb
ps Not only face but live with. Trump's sincerity is in the same awkward family position as Cher in "Moonstruck" when she and
her boyfriend meet her father and his girlfriend at the Opera, and she says to her father:
"I'm not sure whether I saw you".
mark
The only 2 reputable journalists who tried to cover Iraq honestly were Donahue and Chris Hedges. Needless to say, both were immediately
sacked. Needless to say, all the cheerleading whores with blood on their hands prospered greatly and are still in situ peddling
new lies.
Graft
Unfortunately Donahue is not on the working mans side he just didn't want a war and Chris Hedges is controlled opposition that's
why he has his own tv show and lost a tonne of support for his outright lies about Lenin
mark
I don't agree with either of them on different issues but I wouldn't question their integrity.
Ramdan
"But the more fundamental problem is that Americans are too nice. That may seem like a paradox, since we are a country that blithely
bombs the world and then weeps with self-pity and affronted dignity when the little people we just stomped on fail to forgive
us for tearing out their fingernails. In fact, our niceness is itself a symptom of the moral obliviousness that permits us to
enact atrocities in the first place. Niceness is not friendliness, not hospitality, not charity and not goodness. Niceness is
the blank grin on the face of the psychopath: it is the public enactment of all the forms of love and kindness without the troublesome
burden of loving anyone or treating people with kindness.
This is what an Ellen DeGeneres is really getting at when she brags about being friends with those who have "different beliefs."
It is not a matter of actual emotional attachment to any system of values, and it's certainly not a matter of transcending minor
political squabbles to form some approximation of a community. [ ]
Rather, she is saying that it is more personally and professionally convenient just to be nice to whatever person happens to be
in the same grandstand for the same spectacle of large men grievously injuring each other. It is not that there are disparate
values to be bridged in order to form a diverse and tolerant society. Instead, it is hankering after the ease of a society in
which there is no necessity to form a core of values beyond the practical calculation of personal and social advantage."
Dubya rehabilitated himself by slagging off the Orange Man. So he's now a jolly decent chap and all round good egg. Certainly
outweighs a little thing like a couple of million dead sand niggers.
Graft
As jimmy Bore said on his show liberals love Bush nowadays but they still fucking hate Ralph Nader, because he gave us ..Bush!
Mind officially blown
Ramdan
This is an interesting (as for debate) assessment of the motives and the way we (mis)construct reality .
"in the interests of survival" but "survival" of what?
"survival" of a mind construct as in "I don't like this but I NEED to do it to survive, to STAY ALIVE, to keep eating, to not
to die"?
"Survival" as in the indegenous kids eating from dumpsters? (
here and
here ) .
OR "survival" of our INTERNALIZED adoration of Mammon as the provider for pleasurable moments and the utter avoidance of the
non-pleasurable.
survival of a vehement desire for what is mentally, socially and culturally construed as 'satisfactory', 'laudable', 'praiseworthy',
'deserving' .which basically is the adoration of wealth, and 'upper' social status, of celebrity and of all other things that
represent the ACTUAL internal adoration of Mammon.
Is in this- seemingly 'innocuous' – way that reality is subverted and we (unconsciously) construct the uber-materialistic worldview
that continues to discard the honest, deep human, spiritual values that can save us from this madness.
I would rather remember again, and old, "crazy" guy .
"A philosopher named Aristippus, who had quite willingly sucked up to Dionysus and won himself a spot at his court, saw
Diogenes cooking lentils for a meal. "If you would only learn to compliment Dionysus, you wouldn't have to live on lentils."
Diogenes replied, "But if you would only learn to live on lentils, you wouldn't have to flatter Dionysus."
― Diogenes of Sinope
This is something I've been thinking a lot about lately, and this seems like a good post to
share it on.
Watching trolls emerge to discredit and attack the lone U.S. candidate who publicly and
vocally opposes America's regime change wars and even dares tell the American people that "we
are supporting the terrorists – not fighting them" – is bad enough in MSM, but a
sad and interesting comment on how completely engaged the State has become with attempting to
"control" and "shape" discourse on progressive sites such as this.
My favorite of course is when one State troll debates another State troll in completely
"fake" discourse, attempting to amplify their troll message. The other technique that is
endlessly amusing is when a single troll posts something a well informed person with
progressive values can quite agree with one day, followed the next by complete gibberish
posing as "sophistication," followed the next day by talking points right out of the CIA
& Pentagon, and then follows all that up with posting something sensible again. Just a
bit "crazy-making" no?
It pays to remember ("The 4 D's: Deny / Disrupt / Degrade / Deceive") that come right
out of the trolling manual. It should be a red-flag if these descriptors characterize
someone's posts.
The saying that if it ("looks like a duck, walks like a duck and talks like a duck, well,
it just might be a duck") – is one that is worth applying to our comment's sections
discourse. Because if it "posts like a troll"- in the end it doesn't really matter if it "is"
a troll (something we will never know), or is simply an uniformed but opinionated idiot
– as that person is "doing the work of" the State sponsored trolls in either case.
I find it is always worth periodically reviewing what we know about these operations
(thank you Edward Snowden) – as it helps us to better understand and prepares us to
better deal with the State sponsored troll operations we now see routinely in all of our
truly progressive comments sections on alternative media sites. What we now deal with here at
OffG and elsewhere are daily routine attempts to take over, shape and control otherwise
rational informed sincere discussion by readers. Sadly this is how some people make their
living – existing in a continual state of existential "bad faith."
2011. The Neocons activate a long standing plan that has been around for 20 years to destroy
Syria. Syria is to be destroyed, like Iraq and Libya before it. Assad will be toppled within a
few months and Syria smashed into a thousand pieces.
The Axis of Evil, the US and its NATO satraps, Shady Wahabia, Kosherstan and Sultan Erdogan,
flood Syria with the necessary cannon fodder, hundreds of thousands of head choppers and throat
slitters from a hundred countries, with a licence to murder, burn, rape, loot, steal and
enslave to their hearts content. An alphabet soup of takfiri groups is created out of thin air,
armed, trained, paid, transported and orchestrated with tens of billions of western taxpayers
money. ISIS is just one of many.
The Syrian state, armed forces and people resist with unexpected courage and determination,
and fight the proxy head choppers to a standstill. But they are under extreme pressure and have
to concentrate their forces in the main battles in the west of the country. This leaves a
vacuum that is filled by the phantom ISIS caliphate. This suits the Axis of Evil just fine.
There is no problem with ISIS black flags flying over Damascus provided Syria is destroyed.
By 2015, the outcome is in the balance. Clinton and Sultan Erdogan have agreed to impose a
no fly zone to turn the tide in favour of the head choppers. A series of Gas Attack Hoaxes and
false flag atrocity claims are staged over a protracted period of time to justify Libya style
intervention.
All bets are off as Putin overrides his advisors and despatches Russian forces to intervene
and prevent the destruction of the Syrian state. With the support of Iran and Hezbollah, the
situation is transformed. Though the worst of the fighting is yet to come, the Neocon plot to
destroy Syria is a busted flush. Syria is steadily liberated from terrorist occupation.
The main terrorist sponsors try to salvage something from this failure. Sultan Erdogan
switches sides and takes the opportunity to attack the Kurds. Trump seizes the opportunity to
scale back US involvement, generating much hysteria from all the Zionist shills in Washington.
The Kurds seek some kind of accommodation with Damascus.
The war is now winding down. It will take some time before all the terrorist areas are
liberated and occupying US and Turkish forces have to withdraw. But the outcome is now
inevitable.
I'm still quite annoyed about being called a "paid pro-Putin shill" on one of the Guardian's
comment sections. "Paid"! If only!
mark
I've been trying to get my KGB back pay for years. I wrote to the accounts dept. saying I'd
take roubles or bitcoin, but nothing has come through.
mark
We are all Russian assets now. I myself have been a Russian asset for years. I have had to do
Putin's bidding ever since he threatened to publish old KGB photographs of me having sex with
a rhinoceros.
Since then, I've been a Kremlin puppet, just like Trump. Gabbard and Jill
Stein.
Seamus Padraig
I am a Russian asset and I approve of this message!
The only mistake Merry makes is his erroneous statement that Trump held up aid to Ukraine to
pressure the Ukrainian president to investigate the Ukrainian firm that made $1,750,000
payments to the corrupt Biden and his corrupt son. The transcript of the telephone call between
Trump and the Ukrainian president shows no Quid Pro Quo, and the Ukrainian president says there
was none. The Quid Pro Quo was entirely on Biden's part when he told the president of Ukraine
to fire the prosecutor investigating the firm that was paying him and his son seven figures in
protection money or forfeit $1 billion in US aid. You can watch it here:
https://www.wsj.com/video/opinion-joe-biden-forced-ukraine-to-fire-prosecutor-for-aid-money/C1C51BB8-3988-4070-869F-CAD3CA0E81D8.html
Moreover, even it Trump did threaten to withhold aid from a country that was covering up
corruption by a US vice president and his son, that is the US president's right. There is no
reason whatsoever that a president should permit US taxpayers' money to be given to a
government that covers up corruption by a vice president of the United States.
Biden's son has admitted that he used poor judgment taking money from a firm in order to
protect it from prosecution.
Even if Trump did what the Democrats allege, which he did not, there is nothing illegal or
unethical about it whatsoever. Compared to the tactics US prosecutors use to convict the
innocent, Trump's conversation with the president of Ukraine is far above the highest ethics
known to US prosecutors.
Why aren't the Democrats complaining about the criminally illegal treatment of Julian
Assange and Manning? The reason is that the Democrats, the most utterly corrupt political
organization on the face of the Earth, are bought and paid for by the Deep State. The Democrats
are dog excrement to the core. They are traitors to America and to our Constitutional order.
The entire party should be arrested and put on trial for sedition to overthrow the government
of the United States.
"... Not that this should surprise anyone who is familiar with Operation Mockingbird and The New York Times' part in co-operating with the CIA to plant CIA-origin reports with reporters who were either willing volunteers or unaware innocents or to practise self-censorship to appease the CIA. ..."
"... The Deep State has little to nothing to do with "rule of law." It is simply the law of the jungle: might makes right, exercised behind the scenes by the true power brokers and their minions. It is not partisan. It does use both parties to put on a show to distract the people while owning and using major parts of both ..."
"... It is they who have us in Syria now to steal Syria's oil. It is they who were enraged that Trump, an outsider, won the election contrary to all expectations and predictions. It is they who control most of the media. They are not the friends of the American people; in fact, they are our mortal enemies. ..."
"... They have hijacked our government and our foreign policy, which they operate largely for their own interests and not in the true interests of the American people. ..."
"... They use the media to sell us on what they are doing, appealing to our pride, our patriotism, the project of spreading peace, prosperity, democracy, and freedom to the world, the project of promoting human rights, the project of prosperity--whatever works to convince us that we should be in Iraq, and Afghanistan, and Syria, and Kosovo, and in hundreds of military bases around the world. They equally exploit left and right; thus dividing us, they conquer. ..."
I'm sure I'm not the only person here who sees the headlines B has linked to and other NYT
headlines (and some of the actual articles themselves, if I have the time and patience to
read them) and realised that The New York Times itself is part of the Deep State it initially
denied and now wholeheartedly supports. Not that this should surprise anyone who is
familiar with Operation Mockingbird and The New York Times' part in co-operating with the CIA
to plant CIA-origin reports with reporters who were either willing volunteers or unaware
innocents or to practise self-censorship to appease the CIA.
The Deep State has little to nothing to do with "rule of law." It is simply the law of the
jungle: might makes right, exercised behind the scenes by the true power brokers and their
minions. It is not partisan. It does use both parties to put on a show to distract the people
while owning and using major parts of both.
It is they who have us in Syria now to steal
Syria's oil. It is they who were enraged that Trump, an outsider, won the election contrary
to all expectations and predictions. It is they who control most of the media. They are not
the friends of the American people; in fact, they are our mortal enemies.
They have hijacked
our government and our foreign policy, which they operate largely for their own interests and
not in the true interests of the American people.
They use the media to sell us on what they
are doing, appealing to our pride, our patriotism, the project of spreading peace,
prosperity, democracy, and freedom to the world, the project of promoting human rights, the
project of prosperity--whatever works to convince us that we should be in Iraq, and
Afghanistan, and Syria, and Kosovo, and in hundreds of military bases around the world. They
equally exploit left and right; thus dividing us, they conquer.
This implicates State Department in the attempt to run a false flag operation. If we add that the State Department is the
key organization behind for color revolution against Trump that picture becomes even more disturbing. This is really a neocon
vipers nest.
Notable quotes:
"... This was because the public had already been shown that highly suspicious chemical attacks tended to happen when the Trump administration begins pushing for a reversal of standing US Syria policy, as I noted in April 2017 immediately following the alleged attack in Khan Shaykhun. ..."
"... "I was able to predict Douma in 2018 because it happened already almost exactly 1 year prior, at Khan Shaykhun, April 4, 2017," Cox told me on Twitter earlier today. ..."
"... And, like clockwork, on April 7 2018 dozens of civilians in Douma were killed in an incident which was quickly reported as a Syrian government chemical attack by all the usual establishment narrative managers on Syria , with everyone from the White Helmets to Charles Lister to Eliot Higgins to Julian Röpcke loudly flagging it on social media to draw the attention of mainstream news outlets who were slower to pick up the story. ..."
"... Long before any investigation into this suspicious incident could even be begun, much less completed, the US State Department declared it to have been a chemical weapons attack perpetrated by the Syrian government, saying "the Assad regime must be held accountable", and that Russia "ultimately bears responsibility" for the attack. Which was of course mighty convenient for US geostrategic interests. ..."
"... On the 14th of April 2018, the US, UK and France launched an airstrike on the Syrian government as punishment for using chemical weapons, citing secret "intelligence" which the US government claimed gave them "very high confidence that Syria was responsible." The public has to this day never been permitted to see this intelligence. This all happened before any formal international investigation could take place. ..."
"... The OPCW conducted their investigation, and in July 2018 published an interim report saying that "no organophosphorus nerve agents or their degradation products were detected, either in the environmental samples or in plasma samples from the alleged casualties." This ruled out sarin gas, invalidating earlier reports by Syria war pundits like Charles Lister who claimed that sarin had been used, but it didn't rule out chlorine gas. In March of this year the OPCW issued its final report saying forensics were consistent with chlorine gas use and advancing a ballistics report which strongly implicated the Assad government by implying it was an aerial drop (Syrian opposition militias have no air force). The official Twitter account for the UK Delegation to the OPCW tweeted at the time that the report "confirms chemical weapons used, demonstrating the vital importance of OPCW's work. This confirmed chlorine attack was only the latest example of Asad regime's CW attacks on its own population." ..."
"... In May of this year, a leaked internal document from the OPCW investigation was published by the Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media which completely contradicts the findings of the official report published in March. The leaked Engineering Assessment said that "observations at the scene of the two locations, together with subsequent analysis, suggest there is a higher probability both cylinders were manually placed at those two locations rather than being delivered from aircraft," which would implicate the forces on the ground in the incident rather than the Assad government. ..."
"... The OPCW indirectly confirmed the document's authenticity by telling the press that its release had been "unauthorised". Climate Audit's Stephen McIntyre published an excellent thread breaking down how the document invalidates the OPCW's claims which you can read by clicking here . Establishment narrative managers had a very difficult time spinning the fact that the OPCW had taken it upon itself to hide findings from the public which dissented from its official report on an incident which preceded an international act of war upon a sovereign nation, and all the implications that necessarily has for the legitimacy of the organization's other work. ..."
"... "Based on the whistleblower's extensive presentation, including internal emails, text exchanges and suppressed draft reports, we are unanimous in expressing our alarm over unacceptable practices in the investigation of the alleged chemical attack in Douma, near the Syrian capital of Damascus on 7 April 2018. We became convinced by the testimony that key information about chemical analyses, toxicology consultations, ballistics studies, and witness testimonies was suppressed, ostensibly to favor a preordained conclusion ." ..."
"... "The convincing evidence of irregular behaviour in the OPCW investigation of the alleged Douma chemical attack confirms doubts and suspicions I already had. I could make no sense of what I was reading in the international press. Even official reports of investigations seemed incoherent at best. The picture is certainly clearer now, although very disturbing. " ..."
"... "The interpretation of the environmental analysis results is equally questionable. Many, if not all, of the so-called 'smoking gun' chlorinated organic chemicals claimed to be not naturally present in the environment' (para 2.6) are in fact ubiquitous in the background, either naturally or anthropogenically (wood preservatives, chlorinated water supplies etc). The report, in fact, acknowledges this in Annex 4 para 7, even stating the importance of gathering control samples to measure the background for such chlorinated organic derivatives. Yet, no analysis results for these same control samples (Annex 5), which inspectors on the ground would have gone to great lengths to gather, were reported." ..."
"... "One alternative ascribing the origin of the crater to an explosive device was considered briefly but, despite an almost identical crater (understood to have resulted from a mortar penetrating the roof) being observed on an adjacent rooftop, was dismissed because of ' the absence of primary and secondary fragmentation characteristics'. In contrast, explosive fragmentation characteristics were noted in the leaked study ." ..."
"... "Contrary to what has been publicly stated by the Director General of the OPCW it was evident to the panel that many of the inspectors in the Douma investigation were not involved or consulted in the post-deployment phase or had any contribution to, or knowledge of the content of the final report until it was made public . The panel is particularly troubled by organisational efforts to obfuscate and prevent inspectors from raising legitimate concerns about possible malpractices surrounding the Douma investigation." ..."
The Courage Foundation , an international
protection and advocacy group for whistleblowers, has
published the findings of a panel it
convened last week on the extremely suspicious behavior of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) in its
investigation of an alleged chemical attack in Douma, Syria last year. After hearing an extensive presentation from a member of the
OPCW's Douma investigation team, the panel's members (including a world-renowned former OPCW Director General)
report that they are "unanimous in expressing
our alarm over unacceptable practices in the investigation of the alleged chemical attack in Douma, near the Syrian capital of Damascus
on 7 April 2018."
I'll get to the panel and its findings in a moment, but first I should provide some historical background so that readers who
aren't intimately familiar with this ongoing scandal can fully appreciate the significance of this new development.
In late March of last year, President Trump
publicly
stated that the US military would soon be withdrawing troops from Syria, causing some with an ear to the ground like
independent US congressional candidate Steve
Cox to predict that there would shortly be a false flag chemical weapons attack in that nation. This was because the public had
already
been shown that highly suspicious chemical attacks tended to happen when the Trump administration begins pushing for a reversal
of standing US Syria policy, as I
noted in April 2017 immediately following the alleged attack in Khan Shaykhun.
"I was able to predict Douma in 2018 because it happened already almost exactly 1 year prior, at Khan Shaykhun, April 4, 2017,"
Cox told me on Twitter earlier
today.
"Khan Shaykhun also occurred within days of the Trump Admin saying we're leaving Syria."
There was immediate skepticism, partly because
acclaimed journalists like Sy Hersh have
been highlighting plot holes in the official story about chemical weapons in Syria since 2013, partly because Assad would stand nothing
to gain and everything to lose by using a banned yet
highly ineffective
weapon in a battle he'd already essentially
won in that region, and partly because the people controlling things on the ground in Douma were the
Al Qaeda-linked
extremist group Jaysh-al Islam and the incredibly shady
narrative management operation known as the White Helmets. Those groups, unlike the Assad government, most certainly would stand
everything to gain by staging a chemical attack in the desperate hope that it would draw NATO powers into attacking the Syrian government
and perhaps saving their necks.
Long before any investigation into this suspicious incident could even be begun, much less completed,
the US State Department declared it to have
been a chemical weapons attack perpetrated by the Syrian government, saying "the Assad regime must be held accountable", and that
Russia "ultimately bears responsibility" for the attack. Which was of course mighty convenient for US geostrategic interests.
On the 14th of April 2018, the US, UK and France
launched an airstrike on the Syrian government
as punishment for using chemical weapons,
citing secret "intelligence" which the US government claimed gave them "very high confidence that Syria was responsible." The
public has to this day never been permitted to see this intelligence. This all happened before any formal international investigation
could take place.
The OPCW conducted their investigation, and in July 2018
published an interim
report saying that "no organophosphorus nerve agents or their degradation products were detected, either in the environmental
samples or in plasma samples from the alleged casualties." This ruled out sarin gas, invalidating earlier reports by Syria war pundits
like Charles Lister who claimed that
sarin had been used, but it didn't rule out chlorine gas. In March of this year the OPCW
issued its final report saying forensics were consistent with chlorine gas use and advancing a ballistics report which strongly
implicated the Assad government by implying it was an aerial drop (Syrian opposition militias have no air force). The official Twitter
account for the UK Delegation to the OPCW tweeted
at the time that the report "confirms chemical weapons used, demonstrating the vital importance of OPCW's work. This confirmed
chlorine attack was only the latest example of Asad regime's CW attacks on its own population."
In May of this year, a leaked
internal document from the OPCW investigation was
published by the Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media which completely contradicts the findings of the official report
published in March. The leaked Engineering Assessment
said that "observations at the scene of the two locations, together with subsequent analysis, suggest there is a higher probability
both cylinders were manually placed at those two locations rather than being delivered from aircraft," which would implicate the
forces on the ground in the incident rather than the Assad government.
The OPCW
indirectly confirmed the document's authenticity by telling the press that its release had been "unauthorised". Climate Audit's
Stephen McIntyre published an excellent thread breaking down how the document invalidates the OPCW's claims which you can read by
clicking here . Establishment narrative
managers
had a very difficult time spinning the fact that the OPCW had taken it upon itself to hide findings from the public which dissented
from its official report on an incident which preceded an international act of war upon a sovereign nation, and all the implications
that necessarily has for the legitimacy of the organization's other work.
Throughout this time, critical thinkers like myself have been aggressively smeared as deranged conspiracy theorists, war crimes
deniers and genocide deniers for expressing skepticism of the establishment-authorized narrative on Douma. Which takes us to today.
The Courage Foundation panel who met with the OPCW whistleblower consists of former OPCW Director General
José Bustani (whose highly successful peacemongering
once saw the lives of his
children threatened by John Bolton during the lead-up to the Iraq invasion in an attempt to remove him from his position), WikiLeaks
editor-in-chief Kristinn Hrafnsson , Professor of
International Law Richard Falk , former British Army
Major General John Holmes , Dr Helmut
Lohrer of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, German professor
Dr Guenter Meyer of the Centre for Research on the Arab
World, and former Deputy National Intelligence Officer for the Near East Elizabeth Murray of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for
Sanity.
So these are not scrubs. These are not "conspiracy theorists" or "Russian propagandists". These are highly qualified and reputable
professionals expressing deep concerns in the opaque and manipulative way the OPCW appears to have conducted its investigation into
the Douma incident. Some highlights from their joint
statement and analytical points are
quoted below, with my own emphasis added in bold:
"Based on the whistleblower's extensive presentation, including internal emails, text exchanges and suppressed draft reports,
we are unanimous in expressing our alarm over unacceptable practices in the investigation of the alleged chemical attack in Douma,
near the Syrian capital of Damascus on 7 April 2018. We became convinced by the testimony that key information about chemical
analyses, toxicology consultations, ballistics studies, and witness testimonies was suppressed, ostensibly to favor a preordained
conclusion ."
"The convincing evidence of irregular behaviour in the OPCW investigation of the alleged Douma chemical attack confirms doubts
and suspicions I already had. I could make no sense of what I was reading in the international press. Even official reports of
investigations seemed incoherent at best. The picture is certainly clearer now, although very disturbing. "
~ Bustani
"A critical analysis of the
final report of the Douma
investigation left the panel in little doubt that conclusions drawn from each of the key evidentiary pillars of the investigation
(chemical analysis, toxicology, ballistics and witness testimonies,) are flawed and bear little relation to the facts. "
From the section on Chemical Analysis:
"The interpretation of the environmental analysis results is equally questionable. Many, if not all, of the so-called 'smoking
gun' chlorinated organic chemicals claimed to be not naturally present in the environment' (para 2.6) are in fact ubiquitous in
the background, either naturally or anthropogenically (wood preservatives, chlorinated water supplies etc). The report, in fact,
acknowledges this in Annex 4 para 7, even stating the importance of gathering control samples to measure the background for such
chlorinated organic derivatives. Yet, no analysis results for these same control samples (Annex 5), which inspectors on the ground
would have gone to great lengths to gather, were reported."
"Although the report stresses the 'levels' of the chlorinated organic chemicals as a basis for its conclusions (para 2.6),
it never mentions what those levels were -- high, low, trace, sub-trace? Without providing data on the levels of these so-called
'smoking-gun' chemicals either for background or test samples, it is impossible to know if they were not simply due to background
presence . In this regard, the panel is disturbed to learn that quantitative results for the levels of 'smoking gun' chemicals
in specific samples were available to the investigators but this decisive information was withheld from the report ."
"The final report also acknowledges that the tell-tale chemicals supposedly indicating chlorine use, can also be generated
by contact of samples with sodium hypochlorite, the principal ingredient of household bleaching agent (para 8.15). This game-changing
hypothesis is, however, dismissed (and as it transpires, incorrectly) by stating no bleaching was observed at the site of investigation.
(' At both locations, there were no visible signs of a bleach agent or discoloration due to contact with a bleach agent' ). The
panel has been informed that no such observation was recorded during the on-site inspection and in any case dismissing the hypothesis
simply by claiming the non -observation of discoloration in an already dusty and scorched environment seems tenuous and unscientific
."
From the section on Toxicology:
"The toxicological studies also reveal inconsistencies, incoherence and possible scientific irregularities. Consultations with
toxicologists are reported to have taken place in September and October 2018 (para 8.87 and Annex 3), but no mention is made of
what those same experts opined or concluded. Whilst the final toxicological assessment of the authors states ' it is not possible
to precisely link the cause of the signs and symptoms to a specific chemical ' (para 9.6) the report nonetheless concludes there
were reasonable grounds to believe chlorine gas was the chemical (used as a weapon)."
"More worrying is the fact that the panel viewed documented evidence that showed other toxicologists had been consulted in
June 2018 prior to the release of the interim report. Expert opinions on that occasion were that the signs and symptoms observed
in videos and from witness accounts were not consistent with exposure to molecular chlorine or any reactive-chlorine-containing
chemical. Why no mention of this critical assessment, which contradicts that implied in the final report, was made is unclear
and of concern. "
From the section on Ballistic Studies:
"One alternative ascribing the origin of the crater to an explosive device was considered briefly but, despite an almost identical
crater (understood to have resulted from a mortar penetrating the roof) being observed on an adjacent rooftop, was dismissed because
of ' the absence of primary and secondary fragmentation characteristics'. In contrast, explosive fragmentation characteristics
were noted in the leaked study ."
From the section titled "Exclusion of inspectors and attempts to obfuscate":
"Contrary to what has been publicly stated by the Director General of the OPCW it was evident to the panel that many of the
inspectors in the Douma investigation were not involved or consulted in the post-deployment phase or had any contribution to,
or knowledge of the content of the final report until it was made public . The panel is particularly troubled by organisational
efforts to obfuscate and prevent inspectors from raising legitimate concerns about possible malpractices surrounding the Douma
investigation."
"Rupert Murdoch wanted Mark Zuckerberg to pay him for news stories -- and now Facebook is
going to do just that" [
ReCode ]. "Facebook's news section will give some publishers, like News Corp, millions of
dollars a year for making their journalism available to Facebook Facebook will roll out its
news section Friday as an "alpha" launch, available to a couple hundred thousand US users; it
won't get a wider release for a few months .
Users who click on the icon will see headlines for
a handful of top stories, selected by Facebook editors -- from partners like the Wall Street
Journal (which is owned by News Corp), Business Insider, and BuzzFeed -- and a personalized
selection of headlines selected by Facebook's algorithmic software. Clicking on those headlines
will send users to the publishers' own sites, where Facebook users can read the entire story
for free.
And while sites with subscription-based business models will have to let Facebook
users see individual articles without paying, they'll be able to keep their paywalls mostly
intact: If you click on a Wall Street Journal article via Facebook's news section, you'll be
able to read that one story, but if you click on a subsequent WSJ piece, you'll be asked to pay
up .. the program Zuckerberg is announcing Friday appears rather straightforward: Facebook will
pay publishers for work they already make and then share to the platform, which means it is
pure profit."
I'd be interested in screen shots and any reactions from any NC readers
who (still) use Facebook are serving as guinea pigs for this program; my email address is
below.
Matt Taibbi recently coined the term MSNBC Democrats to describe those who primarily get their news from MSNBC instead of other
sources. They are more likely to believe Russiagate is a fact. According to new polling data, they are also far more likely to believe
the economy is bad.
The online poll, by data firm Morning Consult, asks the same five core questions as the University of Michigan's well-known consumer
sentiment survey, and for nearly two years has been collecting about 210,000 responses a month, compared to 500 or so each month
for the Michigan survey.
American voters face the same set of economic facts, from low unemployment to the risks from a trade war, but the survey's index
of overall sentiment - at 108 just above the 100 line that separates positive from negative impressions of the economic outlook -
masked the huge divide between those who approve of Trump, whose views measured a far rosier 136, and those who disapprove of the
president, with a reading of 88 .
The results, weighted by factors like age, race and sex, to be nationally representative, were similarly skewed based on media
consumption. Viewers of conservative-leaning Fox News registered 139 for current sentiment about the economy; viewers of MSNBC, an
outlet often critical of Trump, registered 89 . Readers of the New York Times sat in the middle at 107, near those who get their
news from Facebook (110) and Twitter (112).
This chart from the article shows respondents' view of the economy by news source:
The results shouldn't be surprising to anyone paying attention. MSNBC is in the liberal fake news business while Fox is in the
conservative fake news business. Interestingly, the New York Times falls in the middle. This sort of makes sense. While I don't trust
their political reporting, especially anything Russiagate related, their coverage of the economy does seem to be fair and balanced.
I think the economy is shit, personally, and professionally. It's pretty expensive to live these days.
Negative interest rates are not what I would expect in a functioning economy... And say nothing of corporate balance sheets,
gold repatriation and denials of repatriation, Q4, and a shit ton of big banksters just dying to have a bail-in.
But, I think that the MSNBC Democrat would simply blame Drumpf.
Just found it an interesting angle to essay. Stopped clocks and whatnot.
Indeed Orwell's "1984" referred to the UK as "Airstrip One" and this Brexit fiasco surely
proves that Outside Influences not only run the Judiciary when necessary, but also plant
poison on doorknobs when it suits them.
The ever servile Australian government to the empire du jour does nothing to honor their
passport pledge. We would have to assume it qualifies as Orwell's "Airstrip Two"
In contrast to Assange's predicament (and Manning I assume), the main point of this post
is to mention the recent Joe Rogan interview of Edward Snowden (touting his book) --
http://podcasts.joerogan.net/podcasts/edward-snowden
Nearly three hours of mostly Snowden rambling on. I stayed with it to the end. A few items
of interest but mostly just noise. I found him initially somewhat suspicious -- by the end I
was more neutral. However, what a display of American arrogance and ingratitude. The Russian
government has saved his bacon and has given him refuge with great freedoms he would not have
in the USA -- or Airstrip One ... or, HK, or any South American backyard colony. And yet he
makes no attempt to thank them and even virtually panders to the American anti-Russian meme.
He has even dabbled in Russian opposition politics via local newspaper comments. What an
ungrateful guest! (Or still an agent @ work?) I would entirely understand the Russians
putting him on a plane back to the USA tomorrow. Ungrateful little character, imo. And says a
lot about the way Americans treat the external world from inside their little fishbowl.
Simply a doormat for convenience.
The main take away for me came towards the end where Snowden outlines the special legal
conditions and laws that the US government enforces to control presentation of evidence in
these cases. These same 'servant' thugs who are stepping into the now 3rd-world UK court
system and pulling the strings on Australia's Assange. The same crew that Snowden worked with
and blew the whistle on (apparently).
Snowden makes great bravado about being willing to go back to the USA and face the music
-- if only he could say in court why he did it (something the legal Act prohibits
apparently). In this, and a few other matters of history, I find him less than genuine.
Is/was he a plant? .... I'm still out with the jury on that.
"... Clearly, the US hopes wrench Turkey from the Russian embrace. Moscow's studied indifference toward the US-Turkish cogitations betrays its uneasiness. Conceivably, Erdogan will expect Putin to take a holistic view, considering Russia's flourishing and high lucrative economic and military ties with Turkey and the imperative to preserve the momentum of Russia-Turkey relationship. ..."
"... If the US policy in Syria in recent years promoted the Kurdish identity, it has now swung to the other extreme of stoking the fires of Turkish revanchism. This is potentially catastrophic for regional stability. ..."
"... the main outcome will be that Turkey feels it has western support for its long-term occupation of Syrian territory. ..."
"... Arguably, US expects Turkey's cooperation to strengthen its strategy in Syria (and Iraq) where it seeks to contain Iran's influence. From Ankara, Pompeo travelled to Jerusalem to brief Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu. " ..."
Now, [..] the sense of betrayal among the Kurds [..] is matched only by their outrage at who
will move in: Turkish soldiers supported by Syrian fighters the United States had long
rejected as extremists, criminals and thugs .
...
The deadly battles [..] have also given new leeway to Syrian fighters once considered too
extreme or unruly to receive American military support.
...
Grandly misnamed the Syrian National Army, this coalition of Turkish-backed militias is in
fact largely composed of the dregs of the eight-year-old conflict's failed rebel movement.
Early in the war [..] the military and the C.I.A. sought to train and equip moderate,
trustworthy rebels to fight the government and the Islamic State.
A few of those now fighting in the northeast took part in those failed programs, but most
were rejected as too extreme or too criminal . Some have expressed extremist sensibilities or
allied with jihadist groups.
The reality is the opposite of what the NYT claims. The majority of the groups now
fighting with the Turkish army had earlier received support from the U.S. Even their nominal
leader is the same one who the U.S. earlier paid, armed and promoted.
On August 31, the Syrian National Coalition came together and elected the president and the
cabinet of the Syrian Interim Government in which Abdurrahman Mustafa was elected president
and Salim Idriss was elected defense minister . With the new cabinet, the Syrian Interim
Government became more active on the ground, started visiting each faction of the National
Army, and accelerated the stalled negotiations to unite the National Army and the NLF under
one command.
Among the 41 factions that joined the merger, 15 are from the NLF and 26 from the National
Army. Thirteen of these factions were formed after the United States cut its support to the
armed Syrian opposition. Out of the 28 factions, 21 were previously supported by the United
States , three of them via the Pentagon's program to combat DAESH. Eighteen of these factions
were supplied by the CIA via the MOM Operations Room in Turkey, a joint intelligence
operation room of the 'Friends of Syria' to support the armed opposition. Fourteen factions
of the 28 were also recipients of the U.S.-supplied TOW anti-tank guided missiles.
The SETA study provides a detailed list of the groups involved in the current Turkish
invasion of Syria. Not only is their commander Salim Idriss a former U.S. stooge but the
majority of these groups did receive U.S. support and weapons.
The New York Times claim that only "a few of those" who now fight the YPG Kurds
took part in the U.S. programs is a blatant lie.
The NYT piece quotes three 'experts' who testify that the 'rebels' the U.S. had
armed are really, really bad:
"These are the misfits of the conflict, the worst of the worst," said Hassan Hassan, a
Syrian-born scholar tracking the fighting. "They have been notorious for extortion, theft and
banditry, more like thugs than rebels -- essentially mercenaries."
It was Hassan Hassan who since the start of the conflict lobbied for
arming the rebels from his perch at the UAE's media flagship The National .
Another 'expert' quoted is the Israeli propagandist Elizabeth Tsurkov:
"They are basically gangsters, but they are also racist toward Kurds and other minorities,"
said Elizabeth Tsurkov, a fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute. "No human should
be subjected to their rule."
Tsurkov earlier
lauded the Israeli hiring and arming of the very same 'Syrian rebels'.
Another 'expert' quoted by the Times is a co-chair of the 'congressionally
sponsored bipartisan Syrian Study Group':
"We are turning areas that had been controlled by our allies over to the control of criminals
or thugs, or that in some cases groups were associated or fighting alongside Al Qaeda," said
Ms. Stroul, of the Syrian Study Group. "It is a profound and epic strategic blunder."
The 'Syrian Study Group' wants to prolong the war on Syria. Ms.
Stroul and her co-chair Michael Singh reside at the Washington
Institute which is a part of the Zionist lobby and has long
argued for 'arming the Syrian rebels'.
The Times report does not mention that the 'experts' it quotes all once lobbied for
arming the very same groups they are now lamenting about. When these groups ran rampant in the
areas they took from the Syrian government the Times and its 'experts' were lauding
them all the way. No effort to support them was big enough. All crimes they committed were
covered up or excused.
Now, as the very same rebels attack the Kurds, they are suddenly called out for being what
they always have been.
Posted by b on October 20, 2019 at 11:19 UTC |
Permalink
Hah! More lies from the NYT....mainstream media in the west has deteriorated into a
propaganda channel for the Military Industrial Complex and the oligarchy, pumping out a never
ending tide of lying filth aimed at more and more war (more and more weapon sales) and
promoting and preserving predatory capitalism (more money for the Billionaire class, less for
you).
In my own reading of MSM press and my own watching of the MSM Talking Heads I believe I've
indentified 8 techniques that amoral, dangerous, barely competent idiots that have the cheek
to call themselves journalists use to lie to you, the reader/viewer/listener. Here's my
list...
Okay how practical.
Now only is the NYT trying to whitewash themselves by faking, they are also kind enough to do
the same for their Jihadi lovin partners in crime.
How empathic! How sensible! Like a true moral authority.
BTW: It seems my previous claims were right. The Turks made a 180 and allied with the US
again, reviving the NATO allaince. Now that the Kurds are out of the way in Turk-US
relations, US and NATO has much more to offer than Russia, and noe Erdogan has support from
NATO and will not be deterred by Putin.
B, i respect you immensly, but your belief the Turkish invasion was Erdogan doing some secret
Putin plan was unproven at the time, and now, AT LEAST since the US-Turk deal, is
obsolte.
Read M. K. BHADRAKUMARs blog, he thought like you, but after the US-Turk deal, EVERYTHING
HAS CHANGED:
"The extraordinary US overture to Turkey regarding northern Syria resulted in a joint
statement on Thursday, whose ramifications can be rated only in the fulness of time , as
several intersecting tracks are running.
The US objectives range from Trump's compulsions in domestic politics to the future
trajectory of the US policies toward Syria and the impact of any US-Turkish rapprochement on
the geopolitics of the Syrian conflict.
Meanwhile, the US-Turkish joint statement creates new uncertainties. The two countries
have agreed on a set of principles -- Turkey's crucial status as a NATO power ; security of
Christian minorities in Syria; prevention of an ISIS surge; creation of a "safe zone" on
Turkish-Syrian border; a 120-hour ceasefire ("pause") in Turkish military operations leading
to a permanent halt, hopefully.
The devil lies in the details. Principally, there is no transparency regarding the future
US role in Syria . The Kurds and the US military will withdraw from the 30-kilometre broad
buffer zone. What thereafter? In the words of the US Vice-President Mike Pence at the press
conference in Ankara on Thursday,
"Kurdish population in Syria, with which we have a strong relationship, will continue to
endure. The United States will always be grateful for our partnership with SDF in defeating
ISIS, but we recognise the importance and the value of a safe zone to create a buffer between
Syria proper and the Kurdish population and -- and the Turkish border. And we're going to be
working very closely ."
To be sure, everything devolves upon the creation of the safe zone. Turkey envisages a
zone stretching across the entire 440 kilometre border with Syria upto Iraqi border, while
the US special envoy James Jeffrey remains non-committal, saying it is up to the "Russians
and the Syrians in other areas of the northeast and in Manbij to the west of the Euphrates"
to agree to Turkey's maximalist stance.
Herein lies the rub. Jeffrey would know Ankara will never get its way with Moscow and
Damascus. In fact, President Bashar al-Assad told in unequivocal terms to a high-level
Russian delegation visiting Damascus on Friday, "At the current phase it is necessary to
focus on putting an end to aggression and on the pullout of all Turkish, US and other forces
illegally present in Syrian territories."
Is there daylight between Moscow and Damascus on this highly sensitive issue? Turkish
President Recep Erdogan's forthcoming meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Sochi
on October 22 may provide an answer.
Clearly, the US hopes wrench Turkey from the Russian embrace. Moscow's studied
indifference toward the US-Turkish cogitations betrays its uneasiness. Conceivably, Erdogan
will expect Putin to take a holistic view, considering Russia's flourishing and high
lucrative economic and military ties with Turkey and the imperative to preserve the momentum
of Russia-Turkey relationship.
If the US policy in Syria in recent years promoted the Kurdish identity, it has now
swung to the other extreme of stoking the fires of Turkish revanchism. This is potentially
catastrophic for regional stability. The heart of the matter is that while Turkey's
concerns over terrorism and the refugee problem are legitimate, Operation Peace Spring has
deeper moorings: Turkey's ambitions as regional power and its will to correct the perceived
injustice of territorial losses incurred during the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire. The
ultra-nationalistic Turkish commentator (and staunch supporter of Erdogan) wrote this week in
the pro-government daily Yeni Safak:
"Turkey once again revived the millennium-old political history on Anatolian
territory. It took action with a mission that will carry the legacy of the Seljuks, the
Ottomans, the Republic of Turkey to the next stage It is not possible to set an equation in
this region by excluding Turkey – it will not happen. A map cannot be drawn that
excludes Turkey – it will not happen. A power cannot be established without Turkey
– it will not happen. Throughout history, both the rise and fall of this country has
altered the region the mind in Turkey is now a regional mind, a regional conscience, a
regional identity. President Erdoğan is the pioneer, the bearer of that political
legacy from the Seljuks, the Ottomans, and the Turkish Republic to the future."
Trump is unlikely to pay attention to the irredentist instincts in Turkish regional
policies. Trump's immediate concerns are to please the evangelical Christian constituency in
the US and silence his critics who allege that he threw the Kurds under the bus or that a
ISIS resurgence is imminent. But there is no way the US can deliver on the tall promises made
in the joint statement. The Kurds have influential friends in the Pentagon. (See the article
by Gen. Joseph Votel, former chief of the US Central Command, titled The Danger of Abandoning
our Partners.) Nonetheless, the main outcome will be that Turkey feels it has western
support for its long-term occupation of Syrian territory.
All in all, it's a "win-win" for Erdogan insofar as he got what he wanted -- US' political
and diplomatic support for "the kind of long-term buffer zone that will ensure peace and
stability in the region", to borrow the words of Vice President Pence. A Turkish withdrawal
from Syrian territory can now be virtually ruled out. State secretary Mike Pompeo added at
the press conference in Ankara on Thursday that there is "a great deal of work to do in the
region. There's lots of challenges that remain."
Pompeo said Erdogan's "decision to work alongside President Trump will be one that I think
will benefit Turkey a great deal." Arguably, US expects Turkey's cooperation to
strengthen its strategy in Syria (and Iraq) where it seeks to contain Iran's influence. From
Ankara, Pompeo travelled to Jerusalem to brief Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu. "
Add to that, that the Turks now threaten SAA with "full out war".
John Helmers latest post sheds light on the fact, that the Russian military leadership and
the Stavka in general has warned Putin since the Idlib deal again and again to no avail that
the Turks would do this.
Which seems now to have been proven true since the US-Turk deal, which in essence changed
everything overnight.
As the extremity of propaganda in mainstream news becomes more obvious a few American
consumers of news do begin to have doubts. Most continue to be entirely uncritical. The
barflies here are in the habit of being critical, analytic, skeptical when reading any news
from any source. That is not the American way.
The cohort of educated prosperous middle class readers of the NYT has total faith in NYT.
Having the paper edition on the doorstep in the morning is a badge of membership. A totem
that gives them status. Questioning any word or phrase or clause that appears in print is
wrong. Asking questions means something is wrong with you. The Times is never wrong. Those
who doubt the Times have mental health issues. Or they are alt-right. Or they are deplorable.
For the intended audience the propaganda feed is always completely effective. Readers of the
Times will never untie the knot.
As the extremity of propaganda in mainstream news becomes more obvious a few American
consumers of news do begin to have doubts. Most continue to be entirely uncritical. The
barflies here are in the habit of being critical, analytic, skeptical when reading any news
from any source. That is not the American way.
The cohort of educated prosperous middle class readers of the NYT has total faith in NYT.
Having the paper edition on the doorstep in the morning is a badge of membership. A totem
that gives them status. Questioning any word or phrase or clause that appears in print is
wrong. Asking questions means something is wrong with you. The Times is never wrong. Those
who doubt the Times have mental health issues. Or they are alt-right. Or they are deplorable.
For the intended audience the propaganda feed is always completely effective. Readers of the
Times will never untie the knot.
"Why" always seem like a good question, eh? The NYT lies...why?
This quote caught my attention> " The powerful and historical walls to study today are
those of the Kremlin." (Fisk, information clearing house)
As it was for Winston's "Ministry of Truth" (Orwell) the NYT article is necessary. That's
the significance - not the lies but the necessity of lies...
And under what situations are lies required? Think about that when (if) you read Fisk's
analysis. (I am not a fan of Fisk, but his views in this instance align with my own rather
well)
Fisk article title> "Trump's disgrace in the Middle East is the death of an empire.
Vladimir Putin is Caesar now"
Some may recall that the monks on Mt Athos quietly elected VVP as the Byzantine Emperor
(about 2 years ago) - the Eastern branch of Christianity continues whilst nominally
christian(western) branch is fake and perverse ritual and worse...while his Popeness in Rome
has as Luther saw... I think Luther said it was a vast brothel...
Does this need Daniel to read the writing...
which is?
mene mene tekel upharsin (well somebody said..)
By the way my vote for the clown-man was cast because I reasoned the best esthetic feature
in the freak parade at the end of empire would be a clown act. I am indebted to the late
George Carlin for the symbolism.
I am proved right? I think so. Dogs bark and caravan continue...and many expect dollars to
go weimarish. then?
Ahh.. "experts"... Hassan Hassan is not a Syrian-born scholar, but a Syrian "born-scholar"...
Nuance. Or is it "a natural-born-scholar"? ...
As for Israeli propagandist Elizabeth Tsurkov, those very same "bad extremists" she now
repudiates on Twitter she once excused for mutilating children "because they were deeply
traumatised"... A very coherent "expert"!!
From The Grayzone, Ben Norton and Aaron Maté (and Dan Cohen) about Tsurkov: Western
pundits who lobbied for Syrian rebels now admit they are jihadist extremists, Oct. 16 (about
Tsurkov, go about 1:45 and the rest): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tkg4wJFpc_E
Now Tsurkov seems rather busy rooting for some "color revolution" to take place in Lebanon.
Where is Israel?...
As for the picture of Guy Verhofstadt next to Salim Idriss, it seems very aptly to epitomize
the EU "politics" about the Syrian conflict: "How tasty those American boots are!! Wanna lick
more American boots, please!!"
Ahh.. "experts"... Hassan Hassan is not a Syrian-born scholar, but a Syrian
"born-scholar"... Nuance. Or is it "a natural-born-scholar"? ...
If he is writing nothing but lies he is not any kind of scholar at all except a
fake scholar. Nor is he a journalist. He is a propagandist, nothing else. Call a spade
a spade.
-----
Ahhh, I've just posted to the Media and Pundits thread, but it should have come here much
more sensibly. Anyway the post is top a new page over there, on Trump and Syria's oil
fields.
The new narrative seems to me to have everything to do with Turkey and nothing to do with
Russia.
A comment in the last Syria-related thread.
Then again there are so many loose ends concerning Turkey that almost anything could
happen (coup attempt and "cleansing", dead ambassadors, Cyprus, Greece, Armenia, Syria, ISIS
and others, Kurds, weapon deals, shooting down a Russian plane, annoying Europe and the EU as
well as the US and just about everybody, some only politically but many militarily as well
(at least the US, Germany, and France), the list surely goes on).
As I commented I'm not convinced Turkey will survive this, are they able to stop and
reverse if they find they've set themselves up?
Turkey might be playing a double-game, or plan to betray one side - whether it'll be US or
Russia remains to be seen. But that this is all a clever NATO plot conflicts a bit with the
fact that the US is systematically destroying its bases in NE Syria. Sure, that might be
because they don't want the SAA to use them and to plunder them for techs and scraps, but
that would also make things more complicated for a Turkish take-over - it will surely
considerably slow the process if the Turkish army and its lackeys have to do everything back
from scratches.
Besides, odds are that Putin has taken that into consideration and has some contingency
measures ready, just in case - not that they could fully stop Turkish aggression in its
tracks in a couple of hours, but still.
Meanwhile Nicholas Kristof at the NYTimes also is whitewashing Obama's Syrian policy. He
conveniently forgets Timber Sycamore (the CIA's second largest operation, over $1 billion) to
overthrow Assad - 2013-2017, that allowed ISIS to get a firm foothold.
Trump Takes Incoherence and Inhumanity and Calls It Foreign Policy
"It was just five years ago that an American president, faced with a crisis on Syria's
border, acted decisively and honorably."
"Barack Obama responded with airstrikes and a rescue operation in 2014 when the Islamic
State started a genocide against members of the Yazidi sect, slaughtering men and forcing
women and girls into sexual slavery. Obama's action, along with a heroic intervention by
Kurdish fighters, saved tens of thousands of Yazidi lives."
"Contrast Obama's move, successfully working with allies to avert a genocide, with
President Trump's betrayal this month of those same Kurdish partners in a way that handed a
victory to the Islamic State, Turkey, Syria, Iran -- and, of course, Russia, ."
@ Walter 5: "I reasoned the best esthetic feature in the freak parade at the end of empire
would be a clown act"
Just love it!!
On a side note. Last night met with a new friend couple for dinner. Both are highly
educated and work in technical professions. Accordingly they pride themselves in logical
thinking ability. I wanted to check out their political leanings and asked about Trump's
troop pullback in Syria. Not surprisingly, both were outraged. When asked about their
rationale the expected answer was Trump's betrayal of the Kurds. I politely pointed out that
our troops' presence in Syria violates both domestic and international laws. That was news to
them!!! One of them did lamely point out that Assad is a brutal dictator. Being new
"friends", we refrained from further in depth political discussions. That incidence further
convinced me of the impending total collapse of the empire.
There has been some discussion regarding Syrian oilfields, here's some more on that.
The Syrian Democratic Council is the political wing of the Syrian Democratic Forces in the
Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria, including sites of Syrian oilfields. The
SDC's stated mission is working towards the implementation of a "secular, democratic and
decentralized system for all of Syria. The Syrian Democratic Council was established on 10
December 2015 in Al-Malikiyah.
Here is a
letter dated Jan 21, 2019 from the SDC to the CEO of Global Development Corporation (GDC)
Inc. in New Jersey, "a formal acceptance of your company, GDC, to represent the Syrian
Democratic Council (SDC) in all matters related to the sale of oil owned by SDC . .the
estimate off production of crude oil to be 400,000 barrels per day. . .current daily
production is 125,000 barrels. ."
The CEO of New Jersey's GDC (no mention on the web) is Mordechai (Moti) Kahana (Hebrew:
מוטי כהנא; born February 28, 1968,
Jerusalem, Israel) is an Israeli-American businessman and philanthropist. He is most notable
for his work for the civil war refugees in Syria. . .Since 2011 he heads a group of Israeli
businessmen and American Jews who travel to the Syrian refugee camps to provide humanitarian
aid to Syrian Civil War refugees.. . He paid for Senator John McCain's trip to war-torn
Syria. . . here
.
The GDC mailing address is the Roxbury Mall, 275 Route 10 E, Succasunna, NJ.
re: Salim Idriss a former U.S. stooge
WSJ, Jun 12, 2013 Rebels Plead for Weapons in Face of Syrian Onslaught
A top Syrian rebel commander has issued a desperate plea for weapons from Western
governments to prevent the fall of his forces in Aleppo, pushing the Obama administration
to decide quickly whether to agree to arm rebels for the first time or risk the loss of
another rebel stronghold just days after the regime's biggest victory.
Gen. Salim Idris, the top Syrian rebel commander backed by the West, issued a detailed
request in recent days to the U.S., France and Britain for antitank missiles, antiaircraft
weapons and hundreds of thousands of ammunition rounds, according to U.S. and European
officials and Mr. Idris's request to the Americans, a copy of which was reviewed by The
Wall Street Journal.
Gen. Idris's call comes at a pivotal moment in Syria's war, following rapid-fire gains
by Bashar al-Assad forces, including last week's recapture of Qusayr, a strategic town near
the Lebanon border. Fighters from Hezbollah, which were crucial in helping the Assad regime
to take Qusayr, are now massing around Aleppo, say rebels and Western officials. . .
here
This was after H. Clinton (SecState) and D. Petraeus (CIA) wanted to fully arm the
US-supported rebels but President Obama declined. Clinton had resigned Feb 1, 2013.
thanks b... stellar writing and comments throughout... i especially liked your last line
:
"Now, as the very same rebels attack the Kurds, they are suddenly called out for being what
they always have been."
@13 don bacon - the address says it all.. The GDC mailing address is the Roxbury Mall, 275
Route 10 E, Succasunna, NJ.
regarding the nyt, larry johnson has a post up on sst
here.. i quote from it :
"Let us start with a reminder of how damn corrupt the NY Times and its reporters are.
Consider this paragraph penned by Adam Goldman and William Rashbaum:
Closely overseen by Mr. Barr, Mr. Durham and his investigators have sought help from
governments in countries that figure into right-wing attacks and unfounded conspiracy
theories about the Russia investigation, stirring criticism that they are trying to deliver
Mr. Trump a political victory rather than conducting an independent review.
"Unfounded conspiracy theories?" What a damn joke."
Wow! Quite a knee jerk reaction by the NY Times to Max
Blumenthal's 16 Oct article in The Grayzone , "The US has backed 21 of the 28
'crazy' militias leading Turkey's brutal invasion of northern Syria," which I linked to
Friday. It's great to see such a reaction to what for most people's an obscure online
publication.
Notice of MoA website change: I must now type in my name and email every time I want to
comment after years of never needing to do so. My issue might be related to the one ben
encountered in thinking he couldn't comment, which you can't if those two fields aren't
filled.
"Strong, credible allegations of high-level criminal activity can bring down a government.
When the government lacks an effective, fact-based defense, other techniques must be
employed. The success of these techniques depends heavily upon a cooperative, compliant press
and a mere token opposition party..."
Trump should not have sent Pence and Pompeo to Turkey. They will do everything possible to
derail the rollback of the US in Syria. They are both more subtle than Bolton, but they are
both neocons. If you want anything done, you have to do it yourself.
"... This is when it became clear it wasn't just political operatives pushing fake news about Russian influence, but that "respected" mass media would be leading the charge for them. The rest is pretty much history. MSNBC, CNN, The Washington Post, etc have been spewing outlandish Russiagate nonsense for three years straight, and despite the complete failure of special counsel Robert Mueller to find any evidence of Trump-Russia collusion, these agents of empire refuse to stop. ..."
"... Americans like to sneer at more transparently unfree societies around the world, but when you think about the disturbing implications of former spooks delivering news to the public, one can't help but conclude that mass media in 2019 looks like a gigantic propaganda campaign targeting U.S. citizens. Moreover, as can be seen by the recent attacks by Clinton and her allies in the media on Gabbard, they aren't easing up. ..."
"... Comey was a senior vice president for Lockheed Martin before returning to Washington ..."
"... Excuse me, the voting going on up there for sanctions on Russia for various bogus things has been pretty much unanimous and bipartisan. ..."
The corporate revolution will collapse if we refuse to buy what they are selling – their ideas, their version of history, their
wars, their weapons, their notion of inevitability.
– Arundhati Roy
Last week, Hillary Clinton called Tulsi Gabbard (and Jill Stein) Russian agents on a podcast. More
specifically :
"I'm not making any predictions, but I think they've got their eye on someone who's currently in the Democratic primary and
are grooming her to be the third-party candidate. She's the favorite of the Russians," said Clinton, apparently referring to Rep.
Gabbard, who's been accused of receiving support from Russian bots and the Russian news media. "They have a bunch of sites and
bots and other ways of supporting her so far." She added: "That's assuming Jill Stein will give it up, which she might not because
she's also a Russian asset. Yeah, she's a Russian asset -- I mean, totally. They know they can't win without a third-party candidate.
So I don't know who it's going to be, but I will guarantee you they will have a vigorous third-party challenge in the key states
that they most needed."
Tulsi subsequently responded to this slanderous accusation with a series of devastating blows.
Her tweets set off a firestorm, and even if you're as disillusioned by presidential politics as myself, you couldn't help but
cheer wildly that someone with a major political platform finally stated without any hint of fear or hesitation exactly what so many
Americans across the ideological spectrum feel.
Of course, this has far wider implications than a high profile feud between these two. The "let's blame Russia for Hillary's loss"
epidemic of calculated stupidity driven by Ellen-Democrats and their mouthpieces across corporate mass media began immediately after
the election. I know about it on a personal level because this website was an early target of the neoliberal-led new McCarthyism
courtesy of a ridiculous and libelous smear in the Washington Post over Thanksgiving weekend 2016 (see:
Liberty Blitzkrieg Included on Washington Post Highlighted Hit List of "Russian Propaganda" Websites) .
This is when it became clear it wasn't just political operatives pushing fake news about Russian influence, but that "respected"
mass media would be leading the charge for them. The rest is pretty much history. MSNBC, CNN, The Washington Post, etc have been
spewing outlandish Russiagate nonsense for three years straight, and despite the complete failure of special counsel Robert Mueller
to find any evidence of Trump-Russia collusion, these agents of empire refuse to stop. The whole charade seems more akin to an intelligence
operation than journalism, which shouldn't be surprising given the proliferation of former intelligence agents throughout mass media
in the Trump era.
Former CIA Director
John Brennan
(2013-17) is the latest superspook to be reborn as a TV newsie. He just
cashed in at
NBC News as a "senior national security and intelligence analyst" and served his first expert views on last Sunday's edition of
Meet the Press .
The Brennan acquisition seeks to elevate NBC to spook parity with CNN, which employs former Director of National Intelligence
James Clapper and former CIA Director
Michael Hayden
in a similar capacity.
Other, lesser-known national security veterans thrive under TV's grow lights. Almost too numerous to list, they include
Chuck Rosenberg
, former acting DEA administrator, chief of staff for FBI Director James B. Comey, and
counselor to former FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III;
Frank Figliuzzi , former chief of FBI counterintelligence;
Juan Zarate , deputy national security adviser under Bush, at NBC; and
Fran
Townsend , homeland security adviser under Bush, at CBS News.
CNN's bulging roster also includes former FBI agent Asha Rangappa
; former FBI agent James Gagliano
; Obama's former deputy national security adviser
Tony Blinken ; former House
Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers ; senior
adviser to the National Security Council during the Obama administration
Samantha Vinograd ; retired CIA operations officer
Steven L. Hall; and
Philip Mudd , also retired from the CIA.
Americans like to sneer at more transparently unfree societies around the world, but when you think about the disturbing implications
of former spooks delivering news to the public, one can't help but conclude that mass media in 2019 looks like a gigantic propaganda
campaign targeting U.S. citizens. Moreover, as can be seen by the recent attacks by Clinton and her allies in the media on Gabbard,
they aren't easing up.
Which brings us to the crux of the issue. Why are they doing this? Why is Clinton, with zero evidence whatsoever, falsely calling
a sitting U.S. Congresswoman, a veteran with two tours in Iraq, and someone polling at only 2% in the Democratic primary a "Russian
asset." Why are they so afraid of Tulsi Gabbard?
It's partly personal. Tulsi was one of only a handful of congressional Democrats to set aside fears of the Clintons and their
mafia-like network to endorse Bernie Sanders early in 2016. In fact, she
stepped
down from her position as vice-chairman of the Democratic National Committee to do so. This is the sort of thing a petty narcissist
like Hillary Clinton could never forgive, but it goes further.
Tulsi's mere presence on stage during recent debates has proven devastating for the Ellen Degeneres wing of the Democratic party.
She effectively ended neoliberal darling Kamala Harris' chances by simply telling the truth about her horrible record, something
no one else in the race had the guts to do.
In other words, Tulsi demolished Kamala Harris and put an end to her primary chances by simply telling the truth about her on
national television. This is how powerful the truth can be when somebody's actually willing to stand up and say it. It's why the
agents of empire -- in charge of virtually all major institutions -- go out of their way to ensure the American public is exposed
to as little truth as possible. It's also why they lie and scream "Russia" instead of debating the actual issues.
But this goes well beyond Tulsi Gabbard. Empire requires constant meddling abroad as well as periodic regime change wars to ensure
compliant puppets are firmly in control of any country with any geopolitical significance. The 21st century has been littered with
a series of disastrous U.S. interventions abroad, while the country back home continues to descend deeper into a neo-feudal oligarchy
with a hunger games style economy. As such, an increasing number of Americans have begun to question the entire premise of imperial
foreign policy.
To the agents of empire, dominant throughout mainstream politics, mega corporations, think-tanks and of course mass media, this
sort of thought crime is entirely unacceptable. In case you haven't noticed, empire is a third-rail of U.S. politics. If you dare
touch the issue, you'll be ruthlessly smeared, without any evidence, as a Russian agent or asset. There's nothing logical about this,
but then again there typically isn't much logic when it comes to psychological operations. They depend on manipulation and triggering
specific emotional responses.
There's a reason people like Hillary Clinton and her minions just yell "Russia" whenever an individual with a platform criticizes
empire and endless war. They know they can't win an argument if they debate the actual issues, so a conscious choice was made to
simply avoid debate entirely. As such, they've decided to craft and spread a disingenuous narrative in which anyone critical of establishment
neocon/neoliberal foreign policy is a Russia asset/agent/bot. This is literally all they've got. These people are telling you 2+2=5
and if you don't accept it, you're a traitorous, Putin-loving nazi with a pee pee tape. And these same people call themselves "liberal."
Importantly, it isn't just a few trollish kooks doing this. It's being spread by some of the most powerful people and institutions
in the country, including of course mass media.
This inane verbal vomit is considered "liberal" news in modern America, a word which has now lost all meaning. Above, we witness
a collection of television mannequins questioning the loyalty of a U.S. veteran who continues to serve in both Congress and the national
guard simply because she dared call out America's perpetually failing foreign policy establishment.
To conclude, it's now clear dissent is only permitted so long as it doesn't become too popular. By polling at 2% in the primary,
it appears Gabbard became too popular, but the truth is she's just a vessel. What's really got the agents of empire concerned is
we may be on the verge of a tipping point within the broader U.S. population regarding regime change wars and empire. This is why
debate needs to be shut down and shut down now. A critical mass of citizens openly questioning establishment foreign policy cannot
be permitted. Those on the fence need to be bullied and manipulated into thinking dissent is equivalent to being a traitor. The national
security state doesn't want the public to even think about such topics, let alone debate them.
Ultimately, if you give up your capacity for reason, for free-thought and for the courage to say what you think about issues of
national significance, you've lost everything. This is what these manipulators want you to do. They want you to shut-up, to listen
to the "experts" who destroy everything they touch, and to be a compliant subject as opposed to an active, empowered citizen. The
answer to such a tactic is to be more bold, more informed and more ethical. They fear truth and empowered individuals more than anything
else. Stand up tall and speak your mind. Pandering to bullies never works.
* * *
Liberty Blitzkrieg is now 100% ad free. To make this a successful, sustainable thing consider the following options. You can become
a Patron . You can visit the
Support Page to donate via PayPal, Bitcoin
or send cash/check in the mail.
For those of us who grew up during the Cold War going to Russia is intense. I have never been so scared in my life as when
that plane touched down at Pulkovo 2. And I though Dulles was a shithole.
Russians love art and they have fantastic museums and fantastic architecture. Food is a bit sketchy but you can make do. No
fat women there that I saw. In fact, you will see some of the most beautiful women in the world there. Trust me on that.
Pelosi is smart enough to know that all roads lead to Putin. But is she smart enough to know that're not just American and
its 'allied' Western 'roads', but now its all the roads in the world.
Because the world finally understands that Putin is the only peacemaker on the scene. And that most of the disputes the international
community is saddled with are a direct result of American foreign policy and the excesses of its economy.
The world is tired of being dragged through Hell at the whim of a handful of American neocon devotees of Paul Wolfowitz and
the fallacious Wolfowitz Doctrine which was credited with having won the Cold War for the West and has been in effect ever since.
Except there seems to be some doubt now who actually won the Cold War with America scrambling to get out of Syria, leaving
behind a symbolic force of a couple of thousand troops.
That's the reason for everything that's going on America today. Russia, under Putin, has turned the tables on Congress, the
neocons, the warmongers, and those politicians and elite who want the Middle East and its vast reserves of oil to continue to
be destabilized by intranational, neighborly hatreds, by terrorism and by America's closest ally, Israel to continue to expand
its borders with its policy of settlements. This problematic situation is scrupulously avoided in America and the West's MSM,
and can only be seen in foreign media. Which brings us back to Putin.
Is he following the strategies of Sun Tzu, who advises you to
'appear weak when you are strong and strong when you are weak.'
'all warfare is based on deception'
'victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first then try to win.'
Hillary Clinton is obviously testing the waters for a last-minute, swoop-in candidacy. She sees Biden deflating and realizes
there's nobody to keep the Democratic nomination firmly in corporate hands. She wants them to beg her, though.
Without Russia, ASSAD would be long gone and IRAN would have been bombed to oblivion, and Greater Israhell would have been
fulfilled and ruling over the MidEast.
In other words, Russia bashing by Jewish-controlled politicians and in Jewish-controlled Western media
is simply PAYBACK .
I am a Russian Agent. Well, not formally but act as one. Only in elections though as Russia forbids (after losing 30 million
dead in WW2) any military or violent interference. Agent may be too strong a word as my actions reflect the beauty of Russian
literature, music and philosophy. (qv Kropotkin, Rimsky Korsakoff etc. etc.) Maybe a spokesman?
In this coming election vote for the agent of your choice. Gabbard, Trump, (Cackles, hang on and wait for this one) or Biden
( on whom we await a conversion). This agency stuff is fun. Can't wait.
The quid pro quo for many Deep State bureaucrats comes after they are no longer in office as typified by jobs as "experts"
with the corrupt news networks. Comey was a senior vice president for Lockheed Martin before returning to Washington.
Trump is outing them all and they are out to destroy him.
If the Russians are so bad, why did we give them our Uranium? Hillary and corrupt Washington Swamp dwellers in action. How
many in Congress opposed the deal? We need Trump to be reelected to Make America Great Again.
I remember in the 80's Democrats would mercilessly lampoon and make fun of Conservatives for their (at the time) hard-line
stance against the Soviet Union and how we should just get over it: peace, love and b*llsh*t. My how times have changed.
You need a scorecard to keep track these days. Barry lampooned Mitt for speaking against the Russians, like they were the 'good
guys' (ahem, 'tell Vlad' and Kills power reset button) Make up your ******* minds people.
Thank you for bringing my attention to Russia. Had it not been for your constant denunciations, I probably would never have
investigated that nation to the extent that I have, and that would have been my loss. Allow me to explain.
As a permanent student of human history and culture, I've traveled to, and studied many different nations, from Japan, China
and Thailand, to Europe, Latin America and the Middle East, but somehow I managed to completely miss Russia. Of course I was familiar
with the Western narrative concerning communism and the USSR - I grew up with that - but I never fully understood Russian culture
until, by your actions, you forced me to look into it.
I've since studied their history intently, and have studied their language to the point where I can at least make myself understood.
I've spoken to Russian expats, read numerous books, watched their TV shows, listened to their music, and have kept a close eye
on current events, including the coup in Ukraine and Russia's response to that event. At this point I feel well enough prepared
to travel to Russia and I'm looking forward to my upcoming trip with great anticipation.
I operate on the basic premise that I'm nobody special - that there are thousands of people just like me with a deep interest
in human affairs, who, like myself, have been prompted to investigate a culture that, for various reasons, has been largely overlooked
in the West. So, on my own and their behalf I thank you for providing the impetus to focus our attention in that regard. It's
probably not what you intended, but it is what it is. Thanks to you, many hundreds, if not thousands of people have now undertaken
a study of Russia and her people, and that can only be a good thing, as the more we know about each other, the less we have to
fear, and the less likely we are to come into conflict with one another.
Bravo well written and right on the mark. If Tulsi wasn't a gun grabber and openly supported the 2nd Amendment she would be
a front runner, only a few steps behind Trump. And by the way, don't trust those 2% Polls. We all know the polls are pure ********.
When one Colonel Gary Powers was shot down in his USAF U2 spy plane in 1960 and captured alive he was asked by his then KGB
interrogators what the difference was between the Republican and Democratic parties.......and he admitted to being at a loss to
explain that there was any fundamental difference at all.
Therein lies the root problem with the American political system. All through the process it arrives at the same outcomes and
it doesnt matter who you vote for.
It could be argued that it is in effect a one party system as both are indistinguishable from each other ultimately as they
push the America PLC agenda.
The entire system is held captive by secretive and "invisible" unelected groups who call the shots and if you push too hard
they have you killed one way or another.....all the esoteric secret societies of any significance are represented.
The question therefore is this; Is America any different to China other than the wallpaper coverings?
To paraphrase Mark Twain; If voting really mattered they wouldn't let you do it.
Those on the fence need to be bullied and manipulated into thinking dissent is equivalent to being a traitor
This is true with Trumptards on this comments board. They unquestionably follow lies, manipulative, and hollow Trump doctrine
without thinking.
Just yesterday there was and idiot spewing out that 'Assange was treasonous' before engaging his cerebral matter to realise
you cannot be a traitor against a country that's not yours.
She is absolutely in the best position to talk about foreign policy having been there in the
trenches and personally knowing horrors or war. I've seen bits of those Fox videos and she
was admirable there. Being a veteran probably counts for something in small towns where most
Americans live.
I wasn't following her on social media so not sure how she fares there.
Bernie, on the other hand, knows how to campaign and has very good domestic policy and he
used to be popular in swing states, certainly better than Clinton.
So two of them would be my dream ticket. I feel Warren and Biden would be a loss of
another four years or even longer.
"... "I'm not making any predictions, but I think they've got their eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate." ..."
"... The Times piece goes on to list an assortment of unsavory, extremist, white supremacist, horrible, neo-Nazi-type persons that Tulsi Gabbard has nothing to do with, but which Hillary Clinton, the Intelligence Community, The Times , and the rest of the corporate media would like you to mentally associate her with. ..."
So, it looks like that's it for America, folks. Putin has gone and done it again. He and his conspiracy of Putin-Nazis have "hacked,"
or "influenced," or "meddled in" our democracy. Unless Admiral Bill McRaven and his special ops cronies can ginny up
a last-minute
military coup , it's four more years of the Trumpian Reich, Russian soldiers patrolling the streets, martial law, concentration
camps, gigantic banners with the faces of Trump and Putin hanging in the football stadiums, mandatory Sieg-heiling in the public
schools, National Vodka-for-Breakfast Day, death's heads, babushkas, the whole nine yards.
We probably should have seen this coming.
That's right, as I'm sure you are aware by now, president-in-exile Hillary Clinton has discovered Putin's diabolical plot to steal
the presidency from Elizabeth Warren, or Biden, or whichever establishment puppet makes it out of the Democratic primaries. Speaking
to former Obama adviser and erstwhile partner at AKPD Message and Media David
Plouffe, Clinton revealed
how the godless Rooskies intend to subvert democracy this time:
"I'm not making any predictions, but I think they've got their eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary
and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate."
She was referring, of course, to Tulsi Gabbard, sitting Democratic Member of Congress, decorated Major in the Army National Guard,
and long shot 2020 presidential candidate. Apparently, Gabbard (who reliable anonymous sources in the Intelligence Community have
confirmed is a member of some kind of treasonous, Samoan-Hindu, Assad-worshipping cult that wants to force everyone to practice yoga)
has been undergoing Russian "grooming" at a compound in an undisclosed location that is probably in the basement of Mar-a-Lago, or
on Sublevel 168 of Trump Tower.
In any event, wherever Gabbard is being surreptitiously "groomed" (presumably by someone resembling
Lotte Lenya in From Russia With Love ),
the plan (i.e., Putin's plan) is to have her lose in the Democratic primaries, then run as a third-party "spoiler" candidate, stealing
votes from Warren or Biden, exactly as Jill Stein (who, according to Clinton, is also "totally a Russian asset") stole them from
Clinton back in 2016, allowing Putin to install Donald Trump (who, according to Clinton, is still being blackmailed by the FSB with
that "kompromat" pee-tape) in the White House, where she so clearly belongs.
Clinton's comments came on the heels of a preparatory smear-piece in The New York Times ,
What, Exactly, Is Tulsi Gabbard Up To?
, which reported at length on how Gabbard has been "injecting chaos" into the Democratic primaries . Professional "disinformation
experts" supplied The Times with convincing evidence (i.e., unfounded hearsay and innuendo) of "suspicious activity" surrounding
Gabbard's campaign. Former Clinton-aide Laura Rosenberger (who also just happens to be the Director of the
Alliance for Securing Democracy , "a bipartisan transatlantic
national security advocacy group" comprised of former Intelligence Community and U.S. State Department officials, and publisher of
the
Hamilton 68 dashboard) "sees Gabbard as a potentially useful vector for Russian efforts to sow division."
The Times piece goes on to list an assortment of unsavory, extremist, white supremacist, horrible, neo-Nazi-type persons that
Tulsi Gabbard has nothing to do with, but which Hillary Clinton, the Intelligence Community, The Times , and the rest of the corporate
media would like you to mentally associate her with.
Richard Spencer, David Duke, Steve Bannon, Mike Cernovich, Tucker Carlson, and so on. Neo-Nazi sites like the Daily Stormer .
4chan, where, according to The New York Times , neo-Nazis like to "call her Mommy."
In keeping with professional journalistic ethics, The Times also reached out to experts on fascism, fascist terrorism, terrorist
fascism, fascist-adjacent Assad-apologism, Hitlerism, horrorism, Russia, and so on, to confirm Gabbard's guilt-by-association with
the people The Times had just associated her with. Brian Levin, Director of the CSU Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism, confirmed
that Gabbard has "the seal of approval" within goose-stepping, Hitler-loving, neo-Nazi circles. The Alliance for Securing Democracy
(yes, the one from the previous paragraph) conducted an "independent analysis" which confirmed that RT ("the Kremlin-backed news
agency") had mentioned Gabbard far more often than the Western corporate media (which isn't backed by anyone, and is totally unbiased
and independent, despite the fact that most of it is owned by a handful of powerful global corporations, and at least one CIA-affiliated
oligarch). Oh, and Hawaii State Senator Kai Kahele, who is challenging Gabbard for her seat in Congress, agreed with The Times that
Gabbard's support from Jew-hating, racist Putin-Nazis might be a potential liability.
"Clearly there's something about her and her policies that attracts and appeals to these type of people who are white nationalists,
anti-Semites, and Holocaust deniers."
But it's not just The New York Times , of course. No sooner had Clinton finished cackling than the corporate media launched into
their familiar Goebbelsian piano routine, banging out story after television segment repeating the words "Gabbard" and "Russian asset."
I've singled out The Times because the smear piece in question was clearly a warm-up for Hillary Clinton's calculated smear job on
Friday night. No, the old gal hasn't lost her mind. She knew exactly what she was doing, as did the editors of The New York Times
, as did every other establishment news source that breathlessly "reported" her neo-McCarthyite smears.
As I noted in my previous essay
, 2020 is for all the marbles, and it's not just about who wins the election. No, it's mostly about crushing the "populist" backlash
against the hegemony of global capitalism and its happy, smiley-faced, conformist ideology. To do that, the neoliberal establishment
has to delegitimize, and lethally stigmatize, not just Trump, but also people like Gabbard, Bernie Sanders, Jeremy Corbyn and any
other popular political figure (left, right, it makes no difference) deviating from that ideology.
In Trump's case, it's his neo-nationalism.
In Sanders and Corbyn's, it's socialism (or at least some semblance of social democracy).
In Gabbard's, it's her opposition to the Corporatocracy's ongoing efforts to restructure and privatize the Middle East (and
the rest of the entire planet), and their using the U.S. military to do it.
Ask yourself, what do Trump, Sanders, Corbyn, and Gabbard have in common? No, it's not their Putin-Nazism it's the challenge they
represent to global capitalism. Each, in his or her own way, is a symbol of the growing populist resistance to the privatization
and globalization of everything. And thus, they must be delegitimized, stigmatized, and relentlessly smeared as "Russian assets,"
"anti-Semites," "traitors," "white supremacists," "fascists," "communists," or some other type of "extremists."
Gabbard, to her credit, understands this, and is
focusing attention on the motives and tactics
of the neoliberal establishment and their smear machine. As I noted in
an
essay last year , "the only way to effectively counter a smear campaign (whether large-scale or small-scale) is to resist the
temptation to profess your innocence, and, instead, focus as much attention on the tactics and the motives of the smearers as possible
." This will not save her, but it is the best she can do, and I applaud her for having the guts to do it. I hope she continues to
give them hell as they finish off her candidacy and drive her out of office.
Oh, and if you're contemplating sending me an email explaining how these smear campaigns don't work (or you spent the weekend
laughing about how Hillary Clinton lost her mind and made an utter jackass of herself), maybe check in with Julian Assange, who is
about to be extradited to America, tried for exposing U.S. war crimes, and then imprisoned for the remainder of his natural life.
And, if Katharine is on holiday in Antigua or somewhere, or having tea with Hillary in the rooftop bar of the
Hay-Adams
Hotel , you could try Luke Harding (who not only writes and publishes propaganda for The Guardian , but who wrote a whole
New York Times
best-seller based on nothing but lies and smears). Or try Marty Baron, Dean Baquet, Paul Krugman, or even Rachel Maddow, or any
of the other editors and journalists who have been covering the Putin-Nazi "
Attack on America ," and keeping us apprised of who is and isn't a Hitler-loving "Russian asset."
Ask them whether their smear machine is working... if you can get them off the phone with their brokers, or whoever is decorating
their summer places in the Hamptons or out on
Martha's Vineyard
.
Or ask the millions of well-off liberals who are still, even after
Russiagate was exposed as an enormous hoax
based on absolutely nothing , parroting this paranoid official narrative and calling people "Russian assets" on Twitter. Or never
mind, just pay attention to what happens over the next twelve months. In terms of
ridiculous official
propaganda , spittle-flecked McCarthyite smears, and full-blown psychotic mass Putin-Nazi hysteria, it's going to make the last
three years look like the Propaganda Special Olympics.
* * *
C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and political satirist based in Berlin. His plays are published
by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing (USA). His debut novel,
ZONE 23 , is published by Snoggsworthy,
Swaine & Cormorant Paperbacks. He can be reached at cjhopkins.com or
consentfactory.org .
If it is true that humans very often fall in worship at the feet of Mammon, which very few
reasonable people would contest, and if this idolatry produces almost wholly unwanted
outcomes, a few important observations immediately follow.
The first might be that the so-called market and its allegedly 'neutral' distributive
mechanisms do not produce the best of all possible worlds as a result of people trading with
each other in pursuit of ever more money. The primary reason for this is that market
fundamentalism takes no account of power and its symbiotic relationship with money; indeed,
it is logically required by its fundamental tenets to deem money a 'neutral veil' that
enables market activity as a kind of infinite and inert catalyst.
The second, and far more important, is what we hold to be valuable at the cultural level,
and how we go about systemically measuring and distributing that value. Currently, money is
the primary, almost only, tool for that job. Thus, if we cannot financially afford to do a
thing, that thing is not worth doing by definition, even to the point of actively not doing
what is actually affordable and desirable in terms of available resources and know-how to
protect and nourish the environment that makes our very existence possible. Essentially, this
'illogic' is how societies operate today. With money as their guiding value system deep in
their core functioning we are congenitally condemned to choose 'profitable' endeavours that
are in fact destructive and socially corrosive over the long term.
The third is that there is thus something badly wrong in our cultural sense of what value
is, how to generate it, and how to distribute it. The cure for this ill lies, in part, in
dissolving the boundaries between various relevant disciplines – e.g., ecology,
physics, sociology, economics, etc. – to some degree. For, while market-based economics
wholly dominates how we think about and operate money, the general problem so sharply
illustrated in the article above will persist, even though most of us, the vast majority of
us, want that problem to go away. One pivotal element of what ought to be undertaken, in my
view, is a very critical and open-minded look at how price and scarcity are interlocked, and
how their symbiotic relationship influences how we perceive value, then over-consume as
guided by that highly incomplete perception, and consequently fail to prioritize vital human
vales such as trust, meaning and belonging.
Toby Russell
I wish I could, vexarb, but know only of a few decent ones that critique rather than offer
solid ideas for complete overhauls, which is what is needed. One little volume that at least
examines some alternative money systems and is also easy reading is Richard Douthwaite's "The
Ecology of Money".
Aside from that there's Herman Daley's multi-decade commitment to steady-state economics,
though he only recently began looking at the money system as a driver of perpetual growth,
and I'm not sure what he's put forth on that pivotal point.
There's also "Sacred Economics" by Charles Eisenstein, but his offered solution –
negative interest rates funding a guaranteed income as a kind of flowing 'money out from the
top / money in at the bottom' dynamic – is likely both impractical and paradoxically
too rooted in compound interest and money-profit to really work as expected, though that's my
personal opinion. Besides, when radically new is needed, open-minded experimentation is the
order of the day.
There's also biophysical
economics , but I've only looked at it briefly and that was quite a while ago.
If you read German, there's Franz Hoermann's Infogeld , which is the idea that
most interests me. It includes novelties such as asymmetrical prices that are determined
scientifically/democratically in terms of actual biophysical costs rather than via so-called
'price discovery', guaranteed basic provision (not income), earning Infomoney for studying,
parenting, staying healthy, etc., and a broad philosophical approach that recognizes how
complex and subtle real value is, and that linear numbers simply cannot measure it. I
translated/paraphrased much of his work a few years ago. It can be found here . It's not a
fully fleshed-out idea, just a collection of sketched pieces, but with work and
experimentation it might become what's needed
vexarb
Toby, many thanks for your considered reply. I have marked two of your recommendations for my
own reading and as presents for the Festive Season to my grand daughter who is studying both
ecology and biophysics: "The Ecology of Money" and Biophysical Economics. The latter seems to
be an expansion of Findlay's notion (as a chemist) that wealth ought to be measured in units
of energy (an idea which was taken up by our professor of Chemical Thermodynamics in the 50s
by comparing nations in terms of their "energy slaves per capita". Ecology and Biophysics are
sciences, which is why I was attracted by your 3 principles in the first place.
Anecdote to explain where I am coming from: Many years ago Shell Oil inflated the price of
their oil reserves; this caused a flutter in business news but I could not understand what
the fuss was about because Shell's figures did not affect the real amount of oil that was
actually there, underground.
Toby Russell
Interesting. And if we go back to the 1930s we find the work of another chemist, Frederick
Soddy, who also tackled economics and wealth, in particular how to design a money system that
acted in accordance with physical laws, so to speak (e.g. "The Role of Money"). I believe he
won a Nobel Prize for his chemistry, but was soundly poopooed by the economists of the time
for meddling in their business.
I personally think that wealth and value, as synonyms, cannot ever be objectively defined
or measured as they are rooted in subjective experience. Any new economics worth the effort
will need to take proper account of this fact, alongside all the necessary biophysics and
ecology of course. All schools of the dismal 'science' do address this issue, but with
varying degrees of philosophical rigour. The treatments of subjective value I have looked
into within economics thus far are unsatisfactory (behavioural economics somewhat excepted),
with the market invariably posited as a neutral (thus scientific) 'objectifier' of all that
subjective trading between households and firms.
vexarb
Toby, firstly thanks for the gentle correction: yes it was Soddy who proposed "energy pence",
though Findlay was very keen on Chemistry in the Service of Humankind. And I agree thoroughly
with your own doubt "that wealth and value, as synonyms, cannot ever be objectively defined
or measured as they are rooted in subjective experience."
"A person who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing" -- Oscar Wilde.
Your remark seems to throw an interesting light on a well known saying by Rabbi Jeshuah of
Nazareth: "You cannot serve both God and Mammon" -- if by God you mean the Creator of All
Things Bright and Beautiful, All Creatures Great and Small, All things Wise and Wonderful";
and my Mammon you mean the Creator of Fiat Money alone.
Toby Russell
Excellent, thank you for that, BigB! Wow, and John McMurtry got a mention in there. I'll see
your McMurtry and raise you a Jackson
(I have to say, your thinking and hopes align quite tightly with those of Franz Hoermann.
Shame his work is in German. He's a kind of nutty professor, works in a Viennese university
in Rechnungswesen or something, which is some form of accountancy, but is very widely read
and open-minded.)
Around 2007/2008, I became obsessed with money systems for obvious reasons. I started a
blog sharing my angry insights and laying out as clearly and angrily as I could Why Money Has
To Go! What I discovered is that people don't want to know, can't imagine a world without
money, and I concluded that the cultural lag preventing radical change is a true
representation of where we are as a species, as consciousness in human form. Our state of
consciousness is as natural as everything else. After all, there is only nature. Even
deliberate, malicious distortions of nature are part of nature. And that's when I really
started working on myself, which is of course the work of lifetimes. Because, to paraphrase
that infamous Michael Jackson song; you can't change them, you can only change yourself.
BigB
Have you read any late Merleau-Ponty? He was largely overshadowed by his better known friends
Sarte and Simone de Beauvoir. After his death he slipped into the shadow of Sartre's shadow
of fame – and was largely forgotten.
He was a huge influence on Varela. Around 2005: some of his late lecture notes turned up
– made by an anonymous student – and there were several books published. This has
sparked a minor revival in his significance: which I have been revisiting for the last few
years.
He held the view of the nature we know as a *constructum* a scientific representationalism
that is an active barrier – not to the nature 'without' but the nature within. The
*chair du monde* the 'flesh of the world' the heart of all creation and experience.
He was undergoing a Gestalt: to put pure phenomenological experience at the heart of
nature – thus liberating science from itself. Echoes of Schrodinger, Bohr, Eccles,:
presaging Bohm, Varela, Bitbol etc.
Unfortunately, he died suddenly of a stroke. Sartre and de Beauvoir stole the limelight
'till now.
Regarding money value systems. I wholly concur with you and your "nutty professor"
Hoermann. The general or Husserlian 'natural attitude' is based on money. What is hard to
discern: is that it is based on it whether people have 'skin in the game'. Everyone wishes
the market to do well: because they have 'dreams in the game'. If the economy does well:
there will be a return to progress and prosperity – where 'I' will do well. This has
nothing to do with access to capital. Access to dreams and values linked to capital are all
that is required. Free-enterprise market based economies are really 'desire-dream production'
facilities. Linking Freudian pleasure principles to actual production and valorisation of
capital. This is Mark Fisher's 'Capitalist Realism'.
That is why the production function is not linked to any real world values. If it were:
production – desire-dream production – would stop. Which is why Ayers, Keen,
Kummel, Spash et al will be rejected. Because exergy and entropy considerations end the
desire-dream "actual fantasy" production. And it can never be restarted.
The real reasons for which are not lack of resources (input source degradation) – or
waste pollution of sinks (output sink degradation) they are lack of imagination. If you take
away the current money-value nexus: you take away the Self that is invested –
self-invested: at all market levels (not just capital markets) – in those values. Value
and asset stripping the epochal Cartesian subjectivity of its worth. The paradox is that
worth is already less than zero – due to the market failure and artificial intervention
of the Central Banks.
Cartesian subjectivity is self-invested in a Capitalist Realism that is about to asset
strip and devalue every form of desire-dream production – downgrading entire continents
of human aspirations to 'negative yielding junk' status. That is Capitalist Realism. In the
coming market failure: everyone fails. There will be carnage – and deaths. And a
tsunami of recrimination and blame.
A tiny percentage of 'Cassandras' will be powerless to stop this. All the information is
in the public domain. I had no trouble finding any of it. The picture is crystal clear.
Whilst the majoritarian involvement is with desire-dream production of perpetual motion
prosperity: something entirely different is actually occurring. I cannot think of anyone that
is looking at the coming collapse as anything other than the end of another business cycle.
We'll just start another business cycle. How?
It's a fair question: one very few want to confront. There is no Plan B: because there is
no doubt of the answer. The current political debate is pure pantomime and fantasy if you
apply real world dynamical constraints. I wish Steve Keen every success: though I truly
believe it has come too late in the day.
I think we would have more success following Merleau-Ponty and foregoing the entire
reliance on desire-dream production. Whole people who are actuating life and creation as a
syngenesis – the 'together creation' of a valueless value-equality system – don't
need spurious dreams. They are living the dream right now. No need to rape the earth. Only
preserve it as the only shared value production system we have. But you already know
this.
BigB
Unbeknownst to me: Ted Trainer has been reviewing a similar reading list to me. And drawn the
same "true prophecy" conclusion: we are already in a post-production world.
From the above discussion, one could conclude that conventional economic theory is standing
on its head: it uses money as a measure of wealth, when in reality wealth is the measure of
money.
Take the Icelanders for example: the only "Western" country to follow China's excellent
practice of jailing crooked bankers. The Icelandic Leader did not look at the enormous sums
stolen, and exclaim in awe, These crooks are too big to fail. Instead, Iceland looked at
their real wealth: water, fish, a fragile but productive soil, and geothermal energy. So they
cocked a snook at British PM George Brown who called Icelanders "terrorists", jailed their
crooked bankers and their crooked politicians, and are doing much better than the UK's
Classical Monetarist economy.
Toby Russell
Precisely. In a very real sense, we are a simple 180 degree twist away from something
wonderful. Its our collective somnambulist imagination that stands in our way.
BigB
Precisely.
WEALTH:
From Middle English – *wele* = wellbeing; welfare
closely allied to HEALTH – *hoelp* = wholeness; being whole (among other roots).
The word has been engineered in use into a narrowly defined measure of accumulation.
Real wealth is simply being here. Economies do not allow for that anymore.
Toby Russell
Thank you. No, I hadn't heard of Merleau-Ponty but will now look into him. It sounds very
observant, clear sighted. There is so much of this stuff out there, but the deep dog-whistle
excellence of public-relations brain washing has been able to keep the infantile solipsism
– which I take to be Cartesian subjectivity – alive and kicking in its pram of
consumer conveniences. Who knows what the cost will be.
BigB
"Share On Twitter" target="_blank"
href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=It+is+way+to+early+to+falsely+declare+that+the+individual+Carte...+&url=https%3A%2F%2Foff-guardian.org%2F2019%2F10%2F16%2Fat-the-feet-of-mammon%2F%23comment-98615">
It is way to early to falsely declare that the individual Cartesian subject is dead. But it
its disembodied subjectivity is under threat: from the very science that stands between us
and nature.
We supposedly live in a positivist empirical scientific paradigm. Supposedly: because we
left us out of the representation. And the rational empirical Self we invented from science
and philosophy is nowhere to be found for anyone who cares to look. Which is too few
unfortunately.
No one wants to totally debunk science: only to liberate an observer participant/dependent
second order science – with first person phenomenology at its heart. After all: we do
not experience ourselves via self-reports to others who dictate back to us what and who we
can be. Actually, we pretty much do exactly that for the moment.
To bridge the gap: Varela proposed his 'neurophenomenology' – which was a rigorous
first person accounting "mutually constraining" the third person neursoscientific lab
approach (how much we are supposed to learn from 'rubber hand' illusions – I have never
quite been sure. In fact I believe this 'third person' approach to be quite distorting and
very possibly even dangerous we 'hallucinate' consciousness; reality is an illusion;
etc).
We need to end up with a holistic account – not a 'Frankenstein' paradigm stitched
together from phantom limb pains; whole body illusions; aphasia and lesion studies; etc.
We are whole: not the sum of our dead deterministic parts! What a pity Varela died too
soon too.
Toby Russell
"Share On Twitter" target="_blank"
href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Yes%2C+a+holistic+account.+For+me+that+starts+with+accepting+ther...+&url=https%3A%2F%2Foff-guardian.org%2F2019%2F10%2F16%2Fat-the-feet-of-mammon%2F%23comment-98768">
Yes, a holistic account. For me that starts with accepting there is no matter, just
information; no space, just the mathematics of dimension, volume, distance, etc.; no energy,
just the mathematics and physics of force, attraction, repulsion, etc.: all information.
There is only experience, which is a necessary property of consciousness. We cannot know what
is 'beyond' that, because it lies outside what we are. We cannot even know if anything
'beyond' consciousness is possible.
And yes, the proposition that dead bits and pieces can be arranged in such a way as to
create the 'illusion' of life and consciousness is wholly untenable. Just the simple query:
"Who or what is being deceived by the illusion?" bursts that bubble. Or ought to. People do
so cling to their beliefs
Tim Jenkins
"Share On Twitter" target="_blank"
href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Fine+comment%2C+Toby+and+may+I+submit+that+for+real+values+to+shi...+&url=https%3A%2F%2Foff-guardian.org%2F2019%2F10%2F16%2Fat-the-feet-of-mammon%2F%23comment-98385">
Fine comment, Toby and may I submit that for real values to shine through, on collective
societal 'growth' & evolution of consciousness, harmonised with critical reasoning, then
the very first thing we need to get rid of is the IMF & Co.
Now that Kristalina Georgieva is the new M.D. people should be able to quickly see
clearly, that after her 1,001 days at the WBO and her previous pathetic E.U. C.V. one does
not need to understand ANYthing to do with how the system truly functions presently & how
it could be made to work for the people.
Stalinka's wholly unsuitable levels of deception, distraction & professional
incompetence, combined with her love & respect for Mafia Bosses, (literally), in her own
personal drive of pure self-interest and fuck Bulgaria and the Bulgarians mentality, was well
proven when she sided against Irina Bokova for Secretary General of the U.N. :- purely to get
on side with Merkel, May & BG PM Borisov's alliance with Anglo-Zionist-Capitalists &
NATO's non-existent interest in the Palestinian Problem. Bokova, on the other hand, had
actually done more than just getting down to work in changing Law and scything Budgets
@UNESCO and since serving as boss of UNESCO, thanks to Bokova we can now proceed legally,
theoretically, against any genocidal policy of war, because in Law,
"The Destruction of Culture is a Terrorist Act "
A solid foundation from which to work from,
in securing Palestinian 'values' & property rights.
Forget the IMF & Stalinka's rhetoric: we don't grow olives in Bulgaria, but have much to
trade with those who do and after Erdogan's "Operation Olive Branch", it is high time people
penalised Rhetoric & rewarded Sincerity in actions, not empty words inverting
& perverting reality . . . to twist trust, spin meaning & annulate cultural
belonging.
"This idolatry produces almost wholly unwanted outcomes" no 'ifs', Toby.
Greetings,
Tim
Toby Russell
"Share On Twitter" target="_blank"
href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Thank+you%2C+Tim.%0AYes%2C+the+evolution+of+consciousness+is+central....+&url=https%3A%2F%2Foff-guardian.org%2F2019%2F10%2F16%2Fat-the-feet-of-mammon%2F%23comment-98420">
Thank you, Tim.
Yes, the evolution of consciousness is central. Indeed, I don't think we'll manage to
lastingly root out our need for corruptible institutions like the IMF and World Bank and BIS
etc., until we have developed or evolved a robust cultural desire to do things very
differently. I don't feel a top-down change can happen. And for radical change to be bottom
up, effective, sustainable and true to who we are as humans, we have to change in our
consciousness, away from fear, distrust and greed, towards love, trust and sharing. And these
things take time
smoe
"Share On Twitter" target="_blank"
href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=yes+%2C++boundaries+present+profit+opportunities.+++The+nation+st...+&url=https%3A%2F%2Foff-guardian.org%2F2019%2F10%2F16%2Fat-the-feet-of-mammon%2F%23comment-98437">
yes , boundaries present profit opportunities. The nation states are bounded human
containers.. the humans caught in the containers are fed the information that makes up the
environment and so they only know what is made available to them. That means those in control
of the propaganda can differentiate the humans and then sort them by binaries..
like gun control, or politicians, or race, place of origin, social factors, education, mental
ability, religion or just about anything.. But separation is not enough, those in control of
the information (propaganda) then polarize the thinking or feelings of the persons in the
differentiated groups; its like a football game, everyone is either for the Red Team and
strongly against the blue team, or vice-a-versa.
If you exchange a new born child, born to a Jewish family in New York, for a child born
the same day in Iran.and and the parents of the exchanged children mature in their own native
societies the non genetic child, 24 years later. the adult version of these two now matured
children will hate each other, not be able to speak the language of the other and be
committed to a vastly different set of goals and hold a vastly different set of basic
beliefs.
Nation state encapsulation allows to different humanity and propaganda allows to polarize
the thinking of those incarcerated within the nation states. These two things (boundary and
propaganda) account for, or are the basis of citizen support for all wars, and binary
differences that lead to reasoned differences of opinions. War comes about when some greedy
person (usually those supporting the leader and the leader) wants something the polarized
other side has or refuses to yield on.
Toby Russell
"Share On Twitter" target="_blank"
href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Yes.+Your+summation+reminds+me+strongly+of+Lewis+Mumford%26%238217%3B...+&url=https%3A%2F%2Foff-guardian.org%2F2019%2F10%2F16%2Fat-the-feet-of-mammon%2F%23comment-98465">
Yes. Your summation reminds me strongly of Lewis Mumford's The Myth of the Machine, which is
about how unchecked ego – the mythic solar hero run rampant – structures
societies as mechanical-processional systems revolving around its hidden fears and need for
final control of everything. Of course there is never enough control and it all breaks in the
end, as narcissism must.
I should add, though, that diversity is vital. Life without diversity is impossible. The
way for us all, unique as we are, to communicate as successfully as possible with each other,
is to have zero beliefs, as you suggest in another comment above. That means almost zero
propaganda, and that little which might remain – there may always be a need for some
common vision of what life is about as part of meaning making and the fact that humans are
social beings – must be explicit and transparent, and always open to robust
questioning.
"... It was the Obama administration who engineered the 2014 right-wing, Neo-Nazi coup in Ukraine as part of its agenda to undermine Russia. A neo-liberal/neo-conservative agenda. This is, or should be, common knowledge. Obama put it in his typically slick way in a 2015 interview with CNN's Fareed Zakiria, saying that the United States "had brokered a deal to transition power in Ukraine." ..."
"... This is Orwellian language at its finest, from a warmonger who received the Nobel Prize for Peace while declaring he was in support of war. That the forces that have initiated a new and highly dangerous Cold War, a nuclear confrontation with Russia, demonized Vladimir Putin, and have overthrown the elected leader of a country allied with Russia on its western border, dares from the day he was elected in 2016 to remove its own president in the most obvious ways imaginable seems like bad fiction. But it is fact, and the fact that so many Americans approve of it is even more fantastic. ..."
"... It is well known that the United States is infamous for engineering coups against democratically elected governments worldwide. Voters' preferences are considered beside the point. Iran and Mosaddegh in 1953, Arbenz in Guatemala in 1954, Indonesia and Sukarno in 1965-7, Allende in Chile in 1973, to name a few from the relatively distant past. ..."
"... Recently the Obama administration worked their handiwork in Honduras and Ukraine. It would not be hyperbolic to say that overthrowing democratic governments is as American as apple pie. It's our "democratic" tradition – like waging war. ..."
"... What is less well known is that elements within the U.S. ruling power elites have also overthrown democratically elected governments in the United States. One U.S. president, John F. Kennedy, was assassinated because he had turned toward peace and opposed the forces of war within his own government. He is the lone example of a president who therefore was opposed by all the forces of imperial conquest within the ruling elites. ..."
"... Others, despite their backing for the elite deep state's imperial wars, were taken out for various reasons by competing factions within the shadow government. Nixon waged the war against Vietnam for so long on behalf of the military-industrial complex, but he was still taken down by the CIA, contrary to popular mythology about Watergate. ..."
"... Jimmy Carter was front man for the Tri-Lateral Commission's deep-state faction, but was removed by the group represented by George H. Bush, William Casey, and Reagan through their traitorous actions involving the Iran hostages. ..."
"... Obama, CIA groomed, was smoothly moved into power by the faction that felt Bush needed to be succeeded by a slick smiling assassin who symbolized "diversity," could speak well, and played hoops. ..."
"... Take your pick – heads or tails. Hillary Clinton was expected to complete the trinity. ..."
"... The day after his surprise election, the interlocking circles of power that run the show in sun and shadows – what C. Wright Mills long ago termed the Power Elite – met to overthrow him, or at least to render him more controllable. ..."
"... Trump, probably never having expected to win and as shocked as most people when he did, made some crucial mistakes before the election and before taking office. Some of those mistakes have continued since his inauguration ..."
"... Trump's fatal mistake was saying that he wanted to get along with Russia, that Putin was a good leader, and that he wanted to end the war against Syria and pull the U.S. back from foreign wars ..."
"... This was verboten. And when he said nuclear war was absurd and would only result in nuclear conflagration, he had crossed the Rubicon. That sealed his fate ..."
"... "Only the shallow know themselves," said Oscar Wilde. ..."
"... ...The first step in dealing with this is to combat ignorance and misinformation. There may not be one undeniable truth but we can certainly squash blatant mis-truths. ..."
"... If you read Professor Antony C Sutton's books about Wall Street, the Bolshevik Revolution and Hitlers rise to power, it is possible, as Sutton did, to examine the methodology, ideology and psychology of the string pullers in depth. For exposing them, Hutton was as he said " persecuted but not prosecuted ". ..."
This article was first published on February 21, 2017, one month after Donald Trump was sworn in as president, more than two-and-a
half years ago. What was true then is even truer now, and so I am reprinting it with this brief introduction since I think it describes
what is happening in plain sight today.
Now that years of Russia-gate accusations have finally fallen apart, those forces intent on driving Trump from office have had
to find another pretext. Now it is Ukraine-gate, an issue similar in many ways to Russia-gate in that both were set into motion by
the same forces aligned with the Democratic Party and the CIA-led Obama administration.
It was the Obama administration who engineered the 2014 right-wing, Neo-Nazi coup in Ukraine as part of its agenda to undermine
Russia. A neo-liberal/neo-conservative agenda. This is, or should be, common knowledge. Obama put it in his typically slick way in
a 2015 interview with CNN's Fareed Zakiria, saying that the United States "had brokered a deal to transition power in Ukraine."
This is Orwellian language at its finest, from a warmonger who received the Nobel Prize for Peace while declaring he was in support
of war. That the forces that have initiated a new and highly dangerous Cold War, a nuclear confrontation with Russia, demonized Vladimir
Putin, and have overthrown the elected leader of a country allied with Russia on its western border, dares from the day he was elected
in 2016 to remove its own president in the most obvious ways imaginable seems like bad fiction. But it is fact, and the fact that
so many Americans approve of it is even more fantastic.
Over the past few years the public has heard even more about the so-called "deep state," only to see its methods of propaganda
become even more perversely cynical in their shallowness.
No one needs to support the vile Trump to understand that the United States is undergoing a fundamental shift wherein tens of
millions of Americans who say they believe in democracy support the activities of gangsters who operate out in the open with their
efforts to oust an elected president.
We have crossed the Rubicon and there will be no going back.
In irony a man annihilates what he posits within one and the same act; he leads us to believe in order not to be believed;
he affirms to deny and denies to affirm; he creates a positive object but it has no being other than its nothingness."
Jean-Paul Sartre
It is well known that the United States is infamous for engineering coups against democratically elected governments worldwide.
Voters' preferences are considered beside the point. Iran and Mosaddegh in 1953, Arbenz in Guatemala in 1954, Indonesia and Sukarno
in 1965-7, Allende in Chile in 1973, to name a few from the relatively distant past.
Recently the Obama administration worked their handiwork in Honduras and Ukraine. It would not be hyperbolic to say that overthrowing
democratic governments is as American as apple pie. It's our "democratic" tradition – like waging war.
What is less well known is that elements within the U.S. ruling power elites have also overthrown democratically elected governments
in the United States. One U.S. president, John F. Kennedy, was assassinated because he had turned toward peace and opposed the forces
of war within his own government. He is the lone example of a president who therefore was opposed by all the forces of imperial conquest
within the ruling elites.
Others, despite their backing for the elite deep state's imperial wars, were taken out for various reasons by competing factions
within the shadow government. Nixon waged the war against Vietnam for so long on behalf of the military-industrial complex, but he
was still taken down by the CIA, contrary to popular mythology about Watergate.
Jimmy Carter was front man for the Tri-Lateral Commission's deep-state faction, but was removed by the group represented by George
H. Bush, William Casey, and Reagan through their traitorous actions involving the Iran hostages.
The emcee for the neo-liberal agenda,
Bill Clinton, was rendered politically impotent via the Lewinsky affair, a matter never fully investigated by any media.
Obama, CIA groomed, was smoothly moved into power by the faction that felt Bush needed to be succeeded by a slick smiling
assassin who symbolized "diversity," could speak well, and played hoops. Hit them with the right hand; hit them with the
left. Same coin: Take your pick – heads or tails. Hillary Clinton was expected to complete the trinity.
But surprises happen, and now we have Trump, who is suffering the same fate – albeit at an exponentially faster rate – as his
predecessors that failed to follow the complete script. The day after his surprise election, the interlocking circles of power that
run the show in sun and shadows – what C. Wright Mills long ago termed the Power Elite – met to overthrow him, or at least to render
him more controllable.
These efforts, run out of interconnected power centers, including the liberal corporate legal boardrooms that were the backers
of Obama and Hillary Clinton, had no compunction in planning the overthrow of a legally elected president.
Soon they were joined by their conservative conspirators in doing the necessary work of "democracy" – making certain that only
one of their hand-picked and anointed henchmen was at the helm of state. Of course, the intelligence agencies coordinated their efforts
and their media scribes wrote the cover stories. The pink Pussyhats took to the streets. The deep state was working overtime.
Trump, probably never having expected to win and as shocked as most people when he did, made some crucial mistakes before the
election and before taking office. Some of those mistakes have continued since his inauguration.
Not his derogatory remarks about minorities, immigrants, or women. Not his promise to cut corporate taxes, support energy companies,
oppose strict environmental standards. Not his slogan to "make America great again." Not his promise to build a "wall" along the
Mexican border and make Mexico pay for it. Not his vow to deport immigrants. Not his anti-Muslim pledges. Not his insistence that
NATO countries contribute more to NATO's "defense" of their own countries. Not even his crude rantings and Tweets and his hypersensitive
defensiveness. Not his reality-TV celebrity status, his eponymous golden tower and palatial hotels and sundry real estate holdings.
Not his orange hair and often comical and disturbing demeanor, accentuated by his off the cuff speaking style.
Surely not his massive wealth.
While much of this was viewed with dismay, it was generally acceptable to the power elites who transcend party lines and run the
country. Offensive to hysterical liberal Democrats and traditional Republicans, all this about Trump could be tolerated, if only
he would cooperate on the key issue.
Trump's fatal mistake was saying that he wanted to get along with Russia, that Putin was a good leader, and that he wanted to
end the war against Syria and pull the U.S. back from foreign wars.
This was verboten. And when he said nuclear war was absurd and would only result in nuclear conflagration, he had crossed the
Rubicon. That sealed his fate.
Misogyny, racism, support for Republican conservative positions on a host of issues – all fine. Opposing foreign wars, especially
with Russia – not fine.
Now we have a reality-TV president and a reality-TV coup d'etat in prime time. Hidden in plain sight, the deep-state has gone
shallow. What was once covert is now overt. Once it was necessary to blame a coup on a secretive "crazy lone assassin," Lee Harvey
Oswald. But in this "post-modern" society of the spectacle, the manifest is latent; the obvious, non-obvious; what you see you don't
see. Everyone knows those reality-TV shows aren't real, right?
It may seem like it is a coup against Trump in plain sight, but these shows are tricky, aren't they? He's the TV guy. He runs
the show. He's the sorcerer's apprentice. He wants you to believe in the illusion of the obvious. He's the master media manipulator.
You see it but don't believe it because you are so astute, while he is so blatant. He's brought it upon himself. He's bringing himself
down. Everyone who knows, knows that.
I am reminded of being in a movie theatre in 1998, watching The Truman Show, about a guy who slowly "discovers" that he has been
living in the bubble of a television show his whole life. At the end of the film he makes his "escape" through a door in the constructed
dome that is the studio set.
The liberal audience in a very liberal town stood up and applauded Truman's dash to freedom. I was startled since I had never
before heard an audience applaud in a movie theatre – and a standing ovation at that. I wondered what they were applauding. I quickly
realized they were applauding themselves, their knowingness, their insider astuteness that Truman had finally caught on to what they
already thought they knew. Now he would be free like they were. They couldn't be taken in; now he couldn't.
Except, of course, they were applauding an illusion, a film about being trapped in a reality-TV world, a world in which they stood
in that theatre – their world, their frame. Frames within frames. Truman escapes from one fake frame into another – the movie. The
joke was on them. The film had done its magic as its obvious content concealed its deeper truth: the spectator and the spectacle
were wed. McLuhan was here right: the medium was the message.
This is what George Trow in 1980 called "the context of no context."
Candor as concealment, truth as lies, knowingness as stupidity. Making reality unreal in the service of an agenda that is so obvious
it isn't, even as the cognoscenti applaud themselves for being so smart and in the know.
The more we hear about "the deep state" and begin to grasp its definition, the more we will have descended down the rabbit hole.
Soon this "deep state" will be offering courses on what it is, how it operates, and why it must stay hidden while it "exposes" itself.
Right-wing pundit Bill Kristol tweets:
Liberal CIA critic and JFK assassination researcher, Jefferson Morley, after defining the deep state, writes:
With a docile Republican majority in Congress and a demoralized Democratic Party in opposition, the leaders of the Deep State
are the most – perhaps the only – credible check in Washington on what Senator Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) calls Trump's "wrecking ball
presidency."
These are men who ostensibly share different ideologies, yet agree, and state it publically, that the "deep state" should take
out Trump. Both believe, without evidence, that the Russians intervened to try to get Trump elected. Therefore, both no doubt feel
justified in openly espousing a coup d'etat. They match Trump's blatancy with their own. Nothing deep about this.
Liberals and conservatives are now publically allied in demonizing Putin and Russia, and supporting a very dangerous military
confrontation initiated by Obama and championed by the defeated Hillary Clinton. In the past these opposed political factions accepted
that they would rotate their titular leaders into and out of the White House, and whenever the need arose to depose one or the other,
that business would be left to deep state forces to effect in secret and everyone would play dumb.
Now the game has changed. It's all "obvious." The deep state has seemingly gone shallow. Its supporters say so. All the smart
people can see what's happening. Even when what's happening isn't really happening.
"Only the shallow know themselves," said Oscar Wilde.
Edward Curtin Edward Curtin writes, and his
writing on varied topics has appeared widely over many years. He writes as a public intellectual for the general public, not as a
specialist for a narrow readership. He believes a non-committal sociology is an impossibility and therefore sees all his work as
an effort to enhance human freedom through understanding. His website is edwardcurtin.com
Frank Speaker
I remember this excellent piece the first time around. It's indeed even more pertinent today,
Martin Usher
...The first step in dealing with this is to combat ignorance and misinformation. There may not be one undeniable truth but we
can certainly squash blatant mis-truths. This arena isn't just political -- our culture has a habit of reworking our past in a
contemporary image and so subtly warping the lessons of history. Hollywood is a prime offender but then its no surprise to discover
that the original master of propaganda, Goebbels, recognized that entertainment that pushed cultural values was a far more powerful
tool for propaganda than the media that was, and still is, traditionally associated with propaganda.
John Deehan
If you read Professor Antony C Sutton's books about Wall Street, the Bolshevik Revolution and Hitlers rise to power, it is possible,
as Sutton did, to examine the methodology, ideology and psychology of the string pullers in depth. For exposing them, Hutton was
as he said " persecuted but not prosecuted ".
nottheonly1
Sadly though, an old wisdom brings itself into this ludicrous scenery. It also makes the comparison with the Truman show so apt.
You can't fix stupid.
"... if this is to inform us that Kerry is a duplicitous weasel,then id guess this has been known for at least a decade ..."
"... He is just a puppet of some big families and interest groups. He is their voice. He is maybe good in tactics but not in strategy. That's why he made a faulty assumption in Syria. ..."
"... I can't remember exactly what, but I noticed he was inconsistent in his bullcrapping. So he wanted an election, and democracy – gotta mouth 'democracy' -and he didn't. ..."
"... He of course expected to 'negotiate' with Assad, assuming that after Assad tasted fire he'd get lost, but that didn't go well when the evilest people around, the Russians, who just don't care about international law, were invited in to Syria, lol, because the law is the law. He was all over the place! ..."
"... Meanwhile, How many different scholars and politicians declaim loudly that the US should forget about international law?, starting with Michael Glennon. ..."
"... Those are Kerry's words. Among other things of interest, the recording also shows that the establishment actually do mouth their lies even to themselves, perhaps as a means of disciplining their own ranks. It's institutionalized schizophrenia. ..."
"... It is not a "free and fair" election without US interference! ..."
"... "Democracy has some virtues, folks" – so sayeth the old Bonesman. Enjoy your retirement , John. ..."
On Wednesday, Wikileaks released new evidence of US President-elect On Wednesday, Wikileaks
released new evidence of US President-elect
Donald Trump 's assertion
that Barack Obama was the founder of ISIS – a leaked audio of US Secretary of State John
Kerry's meeting with members of the Syrian opposition at the Dutch Mission of the UN on
September 22.
The audio also is an evidence of the fact that mainstream media colluded with the
Obama's administration in order to push the narrative for regime change in Syria, hiding the
truth about arming and funding ISIS by the US, as it exposed a 35 minute conversation that was
omitted by CNN.
Kerry admits that the primary goal of the
Obama's administration in Syria was regime change and the removal of Syrian President Bahar
al-Assad, as well as that
Washington
didn't calculate that Assad would turn to Russia for help.
In order to achieve this goal, the
White House allowed the Islamic State (IS) terrorist group to rise. The Obama's administration
hoped that growing power of the IS in Syria would force Assad to search for a diplomatic
solution on US terms, forcing him to cede power. In its turn, in order to achieve these two
goals, Washington intentionally armed members of the terrorist group and even attacked a In
order to achieve this goal, the White House allowed the Islamic State (IS) terrorist group to
rise.
The Obama's administration hoped that growing power of the IS in
Syria would force Assad to search for a diplomatic solution on US terms, forcing him to cede
power. In its turn, in order to achieve these two goals, Washington intentionally armed members
of the terrorist group and even attacked a
Syrian
government military convoy, trying to stop a strategic attack on the IS, killing 80 Syrian
soldiers.
According to Wikileaks, "the audio gives a glimpse into what goes on outside
official meetings. Note that it represents the US narrative and not necessarily the entire true
narrative." Earlier the audio was published by the "And we know that this was growing, we were
watching, we saw that DAESH [the IS] was growing in strength, and we thought Assad was
threatened," Kerry said during the meeting.
. "(We)
thought, however," he continued to say, "We could probably manage that Assad might then
negotiate, but instead of negotiating he got Putin to support him." "I lost the argument for
use of force in Syria," Kerry concluded.
Note that it represents the US narrative and not
necessarily the entire true narrative." Earlier the audio was published by the "I lost the
argument for use of force in Syria," Kerry concluded.
Earlier the audio was published by the
New York Times and CNN,
however, the both outlets chose only some its part, reporting on certain aspects, and omitted
the most damning comments made by Kerry. In fact, they tried to hide the statements that would
allow public to understand what has actually taken place in Syria.
The full audio has never
been published by the New York Times; the outlet released only selected snippets. The full
audio has never been published by the New York Times; the outlet released only selected
snippets. The full audio has never been published by the New York Times; the outlet released
only selected snippets.
Mickey
What a surprise!!
Don Rhudy
We know by observation and by reports from the sailors who served with Kerry on a Swiftboat
that Kerry is a coward, liar, and enemy of the United States of America. He faked three
Purple hearts to leave Swiftboat service early and return to the states, and he lied to the
U.S. Congress while under oath. He belongs in Federal Prison.
JamesH
US Secretary of State John Kerry: "The problem is we in the US care about international law
and Russia does not. This is the reason why we can't directly attack Assad forces.
The only
way we can directly intervene is if we have a UN Security Council resolution, or if our
forces are under attack by theirs, or if we are invited by the LEGITIMATE regime well not
saying here they're "legitimate" ok, Assad's regime. The Russians were invited in and we're
not."
The U.S. knows their presence in Syria is illegal
Kerry contradicts himself when he said that Russia does not care about international law when
fact is Russia is legally allowed to operate in Syria at the invitation of the "legitimate"
Syrian regime (admittedly, his tongue slipped at that point)
Cynthia Banks
You are so right and it has been proven, Kerry and Hillary are the ones who armed ISIS a d
ISIS was the one doing the gas attacks. Assad has the right to his nation and Kerry promised
these rebels they could win and they are only seventeen percent of the populace. The people
of Syria support Assad. It was a civil uprising we had no right to get involved in. But as we
learned the US was trying to take over seven nations in seven years.
Its not about Syrian regime change, US also wanted to topple Shiite Iraqi Government through
ISIS to install Sunni/Wahhabi regime to counter the Tehran influences in Iraq.
doug
I had come to the conclusion many years ago that democrats can never be trusted. All the do
is lie and plot and cheat and cast aspersions and smears on everyone who disagrees with them.
The smears are usually them trying to smear others with lacks in character that almost always
apply to themselves. This news is nothing new. Glenn Beck for just one example has claimed
this for years. He has maintained from the fall of Libya and the attack in Benghazzi that it
was all about moving arms to Syria to arm and bolster ISIS.
Barbara
The reason why we can no longer trust the Democrats is because they have been infiltrated by
the Communist party.
Barbara
Also remember this, the war criminals Rumsfeld and Chaney went to Syria to organize and start
pumping out the Syrian oil. They just couldn't wait to get their hands on it. It's about the
oil.
George Cornell
And even that wasn't enough to make honest people out of them.
Inerich
Wrong. No UN resolution when Trump attacked 2 Russian chemical weapons bases in Syria. As
Commander in Chief, President Trump made the decision to bomb and destroy.
Cynthia Banks
You can't trust the RINO's either. Bush got us into this and I voted for him twice.
https://youtu.be/9RC1Mepk_Sw
JDD
PUT him in a rioom with families of the victims of 911. Lock the door.
pavlovscat7
Put him in a room with the families of Sandy Hook and he'd have to take out his wallet again.
D3F1ANT
None of this evidence matters. Look at what happened with Hillary and the proof of her MYRIAD
crimes. Someone could post a video a Democrat breaking the law and it wouldn't matter. Lynch
and Comey and their minions have proven that power-brokers on the Left are simply beyond the
reach of the "long-arm" of the Law.
antirepublocrat
Treason.
Lumpy Gravy
CNN deleted the audio at all, explaining this with the request of
some of the participants out of concern for their personal safety.
So, who then took part in the meeting at the Dutch UN mission? What are the names and the
whereabouts of these so called Syrian opposition types? What are the names of the colluding
Dutch mission staff? Seeing that none them ever cared in the least about the safety of the
Syrian people, why should anyone care for their personal safety? With hundreds of thousands
dead, millions of refugees or internally displaced and the country in ruins these people have
a lot to answer for. I do hope that they and the hyena who over the past five years so
eagerly promoted this mayhem in the western media will be held to account for their crimes at
some point.
bill
if this is to inform us that Kerry is a duplicitous weasel,then id guess this has been known
for at least a decade
Sam
He is just a puppet of some big families and interest groups. He is their voice. He is maybe
good in tactics but not in strategy. That's why he made a faulty assumption in Syria.
I
really hope that all the responsibles of casualties of civilians and innocent people will
face an international tribunal or face the direct cosmic judgement. They betrayed all the
secular and tolerant forces in the Middle East by creating a religious confusion. Just to
remove Assad? What about the feudal system in Saudia, Qatar (slavery, stoning, beheading )?
Where are the Weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Who voted democratically for all those
wars in the US? What is the power of Congress ? Who is going to bring back or payback
taxpayers money? Poverty is rising in the US and the number of homeless people becomes
astronomical.
Ronald Smith
A decade? I've known since he was in Vietnam. Him an John McCain we're both traitors to our
country.
I hope someone, at some point, will be able to provide a transcript. It was a bit hard to
follow, hard as I did. The women talked fast and maybe the accent didn't help.
The audio, which gives us a glimpse into the pathology of politicians who sell their souls
for gain and have to do verbal contortions, speaking in code even to each other (lest
somebody want to stab someone else in the back), in order to communicate. There was so much
vileness attached to Kerry's inconsitent comments.
BigB
Hear hear! I got most of the slime coming from Kerry (and the 2nd American?) – but the
female and particularly the male opposition rep – I couldn't quite pick.
I did get the bit when she had a meltdown when Kerry suggested an open election (because the
US is big on free and fair elections – including their own as we have just seen.)
Apparently the Syrian opposition aren't that keen on them either.
Do I take it from this that the Americans think that if the 'diaspora' is included in the
vote, that there are enough Syrians abroad inculcated by western propaganda to ouster Assad?
Or will that just blowback in their face?
BTW – as most regular commenters are well aware – the recent 2014 Syrian election
was completely 'free and fair' – certainly by American standards. Assad won by a
landslide.
Yes, I think that you have that right. Kerry is keen on an American managed election (a la
Haiti or Honduras) and must believe that the diaspora is sufficiently bamboozled for that to
go swimmingly.
BigB
Kerry said that Assad was worried by the prospect of an election. I wonder where he gets his
intel from – WaPo or the CIA?
Mind you, that's a single-source these days!
I can't remember exactly what, but I noticed he was inconsistent in his bullcrapping. So he
wanted an election, and democracy – gotta mouth 'democracy' -and he didn't.
He of
course expected to 'negotiate' with Assad, assuming that after Assad tasted fire he'd get
lost, but that didn't go well when the evilest people around, the Russians, who just don't
care about international law, were invited in to Syria, lol, because the law is the law. He
was all over the place!
Meanwhile, How many different scholars and politicians declaim loudly
that the US should forget about international law?, starting with Michael Glennon.
Pierre-henri Bredontiot
"the Russians, who just don't care about international law, "
How can you say such a thing?
Only Russians are allowed to fight in Syria. Assad has been choosed by his people, and call
Russia for help, nobody else.
No country but Russia is allowed to put a foot in Syria: that is International Right. That is
ONU's law.
USA, GB, France, Qatar, South Arabia, THEY don't care about international law.
Please excuse my bad language, I'm French. But you understand what I mean.
Those are Kerry's words. Among other things of interest, the recording also shows that the
establishment actually do mouth their lies even to themselves, perhaps as a means of
disciplining their own ranks. It's institutionalized schizophrenia.
Ron
Amen. Kerry babbled about 'all the people in the camps" voting. Yeah, we know how 'free and
fair' the voting will be in Erdogan's camps! -- And we know -- and these hotel-dwelling
shysters know -- how many Syrian missions were closed, as in the US, Australia and many other
countries -- or were denied allowing voting, because they knew bloody well who ex-pat Syrians
would vote for! Over a million Syrian refugees in Lebanon trekked many miles, though
Hariri-occupied salafist ghettos, to vote in 2014, so many that there was chaos finding
enough voting slips. And ALL for Assad!
The tone of this cabal is all. It's losers, and so they will remain.
bevin
"Do I take it from this that the Americans think that if the 'diaspora' is included in the
vote, that there are enough Syrians abroad inculcated by western propaganda to ouster
Assad?"
He was obviously hinting that the opposition need not worry about the 'free and fair' bit.
After all we have seen, in Haiti most clearly, what they will do to ensure that the people
they don't want lose. In Haiti Aristide- a shoo-in- was not allowed to compete. In Yemen only
one (US/Saudi approved) name was allowed on the ballot for President. In Iraq no Socialists
were allowed to run. In Ukraine the Communist Party was banned. The beauty if the diaspora
option is that it would allow ballot boxes to be stuffed in every city in Europe and Arabia,
away from the supervision of the election authorities.
But poor old Kerry's audience didn't understand him-they are afraid he really believes in
'democracy'. They probably think that they are smarter than him and have cheated him by
pretending to subscribe to democracy!
The U.S. Government Supplied ISIS' Iconic Pickup Trucks
Posted on October 12, 2015 by WashingtonsBlog
U.S. counter-terror officials have launched an investigation into how ISIS got so many of
those identical Toyota pickup trucks which they use in their convoys.
They don't have to look very far
The Spectator reported last year:
The [Toyota] Hilux [pics] is light, fast, manoeuvrable and all but indestructible ('bomb-proof' might not, in this instance, be a happy usage). The weapons experts Jane's claimed for the Hilux a similar significance to the longbows of Agincourt or the Huey choppers of Nam.
A US Army Ranger said the Toyota sure 'kicks the hell out of a Humvee' (referring to the clumsy and over-sized High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle made by AM General).
The fact is the Toyotas were supplied by the US government to the Al Nusra Front as
'non-lethal aid' then 'acquired' by ISIS. Al Nusra Front is literally Al Qaeda.
The US govt via the CIA provided Ford F250 in their thousands to "liberation" movements in
Africa back in the 70's.
Brian Harry, Australia
So, the U.S. taxpayers paid for the vehicles. No wonder the USA's National Debt is heading
towards $19 TRILLION. There seems to be no end to the stupidity in America, giving Israel
$3BILLION/year, fighting Israel's wars, and supplying their mercenaries, while the debts keep
piling higher???
Not to mention sacrificing young American soldiers etc.
Is it any wonder that the people who put Obama in the White House(to act as their stooge) are
now in panic mode as Trump readies for the White House, having thumbed his nose at them(by
threatening to "Drain the Swamp"). Despite the USA's image as "The most powerful nation on
Earth", the people in charge now find themselves in a very weak position, and in danger of
loosing control. Trump will need to watch his back during his term as President, the people
behind the façade of Freedom and Democracy will do ANYTHING to hold their grip on
power.
Sav
Wondering if John Hinckley Jr's release was for a reason 🙂
BigB
LMFAO – I expect he'll be having dinner with the Bush family soon! That cut throat
gesture by the old man HW was a promise – not a threat!
Brian Harry, Australia
Sav. Good comment, but, I'm sure the CIA have a ready supply of 'guns for hire' ..
Assad was going to cut a deal with Russia regarding the Russian pipeline through Syria, Iran
and on to China. No way could the US allow this to happen. How to destroy Assad's plan?
Deploy murderous nutters and pretend it was all Assad's own fault with a prepared false
narrative which the complicit MSM would spoon feed their public with. Simple.
Enter Russia's
Putin with the most sophisticated and advanced military force in the world, add
Hezbollah/Iran and China and watch the carnage the US and it's backers have unleashed.
Simple, effective, murderous and criminal.
How much more evidence does one need these days to have these people tried for crimes against
humanity
Hers some historical facts.
Germany in the 30's invaded Czechoslovakia
US and Nato bombed Yugoslavia in the 90's
Germany invaded Poland in the late 30's
US and Nato bombed and invaded Afghanistan in 2001
Germany and Italy bombed Spain in the 30's
Us and nato bombed Iraq in the first Gulf war in 1991
Germany invade France and western europe in the 40's
US and Nato have the biggest military buildup on Russians border since the second world
war
Germany in 42 initiate operation barbarossa and invade the USSR
... ... ...
Using critical thinking and historical analysis.
The difference in time is circa 70 years . All we hear in the west is Russian aggression ,
Chinese aggression, Iranian aggression. The parody is amazing .
FREEDOM JUSTICE AND THE AMERICAN WAY IS LOOKING LIKE FASCISM THE FASCIST WAY.
The washington consensus is loosing badly and just like most bullies is behaving badly and
here where the danger lies. These establishment characters whom ever they may be ( mind u
most of my fellow bloggers know full well whom they r) r dying for a war .
Seeing that their
terrorist islamaphobic narrative can only carry so much destruction we need to really muddy
the waters with a Russia whom historically speaking has been such a bogie man for the west
going back to Peter the Great.
"wc_tw" target="_blank" title="Share On Twitter"
href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=This+excellent+article+demonstrates+how+the+Con...+&url=https%3A%2F%2Foff-guardian.org%2F2019%2F10%2F06%2Fwatch-udo-ulfkotte-bought-journalists%2F%23comment-97161">
This excellent article demonstrates how the Controlling Elite manipulates the Media and the
Message for purposes of misdirecting attention and perception of their true intentions and
objective of securing Global Ownership (aka New World Order).
This approach has been assiduously applied, across the board, over many years, to the point
were they now own and run everything required to subjugate the 'human race' to the horrors of
their psychopathic inclinations. They are presently holding the global economy on hold until
their AI population (social credit) control system/grid is in place before bringing the house
down.
Needless to say, when this happens a disunited and frightened Global Population will be at
their mercy.
If you wish to gain a full insight of what the Controlling Elite is about, and capable of, I
recommend David Icke's latest publication 'Trigger'. I know he's been tagged a 'nutter' over
the past thirty years, but I reckon this book represents the 'gold standard' in terms of
generating awareness as a basis for launching a united global population counter-attack (given
a great strategy) against forces that can only be defined as pure 'EVIL'.
MASTER OF UNIVE
"wc_tw" target="_blank" title="Share On Twitter"
href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Corporate+Journalism+is+all+about+corporatism+a...+&url=https%3A%2F%2Foff-guardian.org%2F2019%2F10%2F06%2Fwatch-udo-ulfkotte-bought-journalists%2F%23comment-97149">
Corporate Journalism is all about corporatism and the continuation of it. If the Intelligence
Community needs greater fools for staffing purposes in the corporate hierarchy they look for
anyone that can be compromised via inducements of whatever the greater fools want. Engaging
in compromise allows both parties to have complicit & explicit understanding that
corruption and falsehood are the tools of the trade. To all-of-a-sudden develop a conscience
after decades of playing the part of a willing participant is understandable in light of the
guilt complex one must develop after screwing everyone in the world out of the critical
assessment we all need to obtain in order to make decisions regarding our futures.
Bought & paid for corporate Journalists are controlled by the Intelligence Agencies
and always have been since at least the Second World War. The CIA typically runs bribery
& blackmail at the state & federal level so that when necessary they have instant
useless eaters to offer up as political sacrifice when required via state run propaganda,
& impression management.
Assuming that journalism is an ethical occupation is naïve and a fools' game even in
the alternative news domain as all writers write from bias & a lack of real knowledge.
Few writers are intellectually honest or even aware of their own limits as writers. The
writer is a failure and not a hero borne in myth. Writers struggle to write & publish.
Bought and paid for writers don't have a struggle in terms of writing because they are told
what to write before they write as automatons for the Intelligence Community knowing that
they sold their collective souls to the Prince of Darkness for whatever trinkets, bobbles, or
bling they could get their greedy hands on at the time.
Developing a conscience late in life is too late.
May all that sell their souls to the Intel agencies understand that pond scum never had a
conscience to begin with.
Once pond scum always pond scum.
Loverat
"wc_tw" target="_blank" title="Share On Twitter"
href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=We+need+to+see+a+few+more+UK+journalists+break+...+&url=https%3A%2F%2Foff-guardian.org%2F2019%2F10%2F06%2Fwatch-udo-ulfkotte-bought-journalists%2F%23comment-97118">
We need to see a few more UK journalists break free from their shackles. Not easy I guess
when they are so brainwashed and seemingly ignorant to start with. Plus the financial
incentives and perks to toe the line.
I think it is Anna Brees who used to work for BBC who resigned and is making a success of
things. I see she is supporting Robert Stuart's documentary about the BBC reporting of an
alleged bombing incident in Syria. Good on her.
On another note I used to hold John Simpson in high regard. He visited and wrote a book on
Iran after the revolution and around the time of the Iran – Iraq war. But look at him
now. He seems like a brainwashed old fool who actually believes what he reports. If I was a
journalist and lied throughout my career for money, I would have given up the pretence when I
reached retirement age. So the fact he still reports rubbish must mean he is totally brain
dead.
Still give him some credit. At least he bothered to visit the countries at war. Nowadays
jounalists just whine about Assad from New York and Beirut cafes their toxic commentary
influenced by their annoyance at being banned from Syria. A few journalists seem to have
lashed out at Russia for similar reasons – I think Luke Harding might have been
one.
But let's see if a few more journalists reach out to the side of truth and sanity. Here's
hoping.
Harry Stotle
"wc_tw" target="_blank" title="Share On Twitter"
href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=The+British+MSM+is+an+important+cog+in+the+war+...+&url=https%3A%2F%2Foff-guardian.org%2F2019%2F10%2F06%2Fwatch-udo-ulfkotte-bought-journalists%2F%23comment-97134">
The British MSM is an important cog in the war machine – it's their job to condition
the public mood so that more people are not revulsed by the west's long-running campaign to
commit terror offences (using bogus rationalisations such as 'humanitarian aid' or 'spreading
democracy').
"... This is the direction in which the world is going at the present time, and the trend lies deep in the political, social and economic foundations of the contemporary world situation. ..."
"... Specifically the danger lies in the structure imposed on Socialist and on Liberal capitalist communities by the necessity to prepare for total war with the U.S.S.R. and the new weapons, of which of course the atomic bomb is the most powerful and the most publicized. But danger lies also in the acceptance of a totalitarian outlook by intellectuals of all colours. ..."
"... Two of the principal super states will obviously be the Anglo-American world and Eurasia. If these two great blocks line up as mortal enemies it is obvious that the Anglo-Americans will not take the name of their opponents and will not dramatize themselves on the scene of history as Communists. Thus they will have to find a new name for themselves. The name suggested in Nineteen Eighty-Four is of course Ingsoc, but in practice a wide range of choices is open. In the U.S.A. the phrase "Americanism" or "hundred per cent Americanism" is suitable and the qualifying adjective is as totalitarian as anyone could wish. ..."
"... Pretty much explains the SDP and NuLabourInc and his name sake Blair and our political landscape of the last 50 years, don't you think? ..."
"... Also pay attention to the 'parody phrase. ' ..."
Because i feel that some agenda is at play. I'm not going to accuse you of trolling, or even a bit of gas lighting, but
it seems like a slide into classic red scaring and recasting of Eric Blair
By way of explaining my emotion and since you mention Warburg, here is an example of Orwellian post humous attribution.
He never said "imagine a boot stamping on a human face, forever."
'from a post-publication press release directed by publisher Fredric Warburg toward readers who "had misinterpreted [Orwell's]
aim, taking the novel as a criticism of the current British Labour Party, or of contemporary socialism in general." The quotation
from the press release was "soon given the status of a last statement or deathbed appeal, given that Orwell was hospitalized
at the time and dead six months later."
You can read more at georgeorwellnovels.com, which provides a great deal of context on this press release, which runs, in
full, as follows:
It has been suggested by some of the reviewers of Nineteen Eighty-Four that it is the author's view that this, or something
like this, is what will happen inside the next forty years in the Western world. This is not correct. I think that, allowing
for the book being after all a parody, something like Nineteen Eighty-Four could happen. This is the direction in which
the world is going at the present time, and the trend lies deep in the political, social and economic foundations of the contemporary
world situation.
Specifically the danger lies in the structure imposed on Socialist and on Liberal capitalist communities by the necessity
to prepare for total war with the U.S.S.R. and the new weapons, of which of course the atomic bomb is the most powerful and
the most publicized. But danger lies also in the acceptance of a totalitarian outlook by intellectuals of all colours.
The moral to be drawn from this dangerous nightmare situation is a simple one: Don't let it happen. It depends on you.
George Orwell assumes that if such societies as he describes in Nineteen Eighty-Four come into being there will be several
super states. This is fully dealt with in the relevant chapters of Nineteen Eighty-Four. It is also discussed from a different
angle by James Burnham in The Managerial Revolution. These super states will naturally be in opposition to each other or (a
novel point) will pretend to be much more in opposition than in fact they are.
Two of the principal super states will obviously be the Anglo-American world and Eurasia. If these two great blocks
line up as mortal enemies it is obvious that the Anglo-Americans will not take the name of their opponents and will not dramatize
themselves on the scene of history as Communists. Thus they will have to find a new name for themselves. The name suggested
in Nineteen Eighty-Four is of course Ingsoc, but in practice a wide range of choices is open. In the U.S.A. the phrase "Americanism"
or "hundred per cent Americanism" is suitable and the qualifying adjective is as totalitarian as anyone could wish.
If there is a failure of nerve and the Labour party breaks down in its attempt to deal with the hard problems with which
it will be faced, tougher types than the present Labour leaders will inevitably take over, drawn probably from the ranks of
the Left, but not sharing the Liberal aspirations of those now in power. Members of the present British government, from Mr.
Attlee and Sir Stafford Cripps down to Aneurin Bevan will never willingly sell the pass to the enemy, and in general the older
men, nurtured in a Liberal tradition, are safe, but the younger generation is suspect and the seeds of totalitarian thought
are probably widespread among them. It is invidious to mention names, but everyone could without difficulty think for himself
of prominent English and American personalities whom the cap would fit.' http://www.openculture.com/2014/11/george-orwells-final-warning.html
-- -- -- -
Pretty much explains the SDP and NuLabourInc and his name sake Blair and our political landscape of the last 50 years, don't
you think?
Also pay attention to the 'parody phrase. '
'
As i wrote earlier, perhaps Blair of Eton ultimately saw how clearly hist talents had been misused by the 'totalitarians' before
he died.
I understand that some of his works are still censored and others never published. As are his state employment in propaganda
on which he probably based his 'parody' on.
Ukraine is not an independent country. It is a de-facto colony of the USA. Trump just ordered
his subordinate (in a very polite ) term to conduct investigation of criminal behaviour of Biden
family.
When the framers of the constitution gave Congress the power to impeach a president, one of
the high crimes they had in mind was acceding to what Alexander Hamilton called "the desire in
foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils". James Madison argued for
impeachment lest a president "might betray his trust to foreign powers".
The second question is whether Trump did this. The answer is also an unqualified yes. In the
published version of his phone conversation with Ukraine's president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy,
Trump asks for the "favor" of digging up dirt on Joe Biden.
Trump is much more than the kid with his hand in the cookie jar, like a brat he smashed the
cookie jar and said "What cookie Jar? Biden did it!"
And the GOP wimps are there, either nodding in agreement, or looking the other way..
Well.. Total Sociopath, then, maybe even a full-on Psychopath.
Anti-social-personality disorders in the highest scale -so to speak- always are there
since childhood. Psychopaths are as such genetically, from birth. Unlike sociopaths.
Sociopaths usually have become as such through things/trauma's experienced in life. Their
initially healthy front-cortex is usually either damaged, or has less influence on their
behaviour. In Psychopaths, the front cortex doesn't function at all it seems, or at
sùch a low level that it can be considered absent. Psychopaths usually have a history
of seriously harming animals, people, insects, around them for fun since childhood.
End-result almost the same, though. Complete and utter lack of empathy, ( though,
Sociopaths often dó have empathy for their direct family/relatives, where Osychopaths
even lack thàt.) stratospherically elevated sense of superiority, prone to
uncontrolled ( sometimes even violent and murderous) tantrums when things do not go as he/she
wants/demands etc... Enjoyment in the suffering of others. No conscience to speak of etc.
The brand value was all he wanted and that has multiplied. It was always win-win.
Heh. I wonder if you underestimate the ruthlessness of the establishment. Once stripped of
the (so far surprisingly robust) protections afforded by elected office I imagine it's more
likely he'll be hounded to his grave pour dencourager les autres than ignored as
merely a spent pol. I doubt they'll observe the decencies of the mafia and leave his family
alone either.
The US is a tinpot republic that ever since the Patriot Act has virtually reduced all
citizens to enemies of a paranoid state, untl proven otherwise.
In a strange sort of way a president like Trump seems like the ideal sort of man to head
such a dysfunctional system (because it reflects how uncivilised it is).
Put another way - even if a piece of political theatre does take place (in the shape of an
impeachment) it is only a matter of time before Trump is replaced by an unequally
unappetising leader who will resume business as usual with powers that really control US
economic and military policy.
all the patriot act did was tell the American people that the government doesn't give a
"hoot" about the US constitution (specifically the 4th amendment). If the American people
wish to trade their freedom for their security, then the constitutionally legal way to do
that is with another amendment effectively repealing the fourth.
In a strange sort of way a president like Trump seems like the ideal sort of man to head
such a dysfunctional system (because it reflects how uncivilised it is).
The American public have been groomed for years, mainly through cutting education budgets, to
accept this kind of president. The pesky internet tends to even things up, but people need to
want to use it. They certainly will when their buying power drops.
Put another way - even if a piece of political theatre does take place (in the shape of
an impeachment) it is only a matter of time before Trump is replaced by an unequally
unappetising leader who will resume business as usual with powers that really control US
economic and military policy.
It goes in a pendulum swing. Bush, Obama, Trump, Someone Else... It's not so much a right
left swing as an Idiot-swing. What the American public want is someone they can admire. Many
people admired Obama but so do many people admire Trump. They're not the same people. What
Obama promised, and delivered, was get the USA out of the shock of 2007-08 and put it back on
its feet again after Bush spent all that money on the Irak war. This keeps everyone happy, as
a large part of the US economy is from consumption. It also keeps a part of industry happy,
as they need to be able to export and import. The public is not happy with a weak dollar, nor
tarifs that both push import prices up. Bush kept the arms industry very happy, for obvious
reasons and Trump's constant tension-building abroad sort of does the same. But it still
comes down to how happy the public is and how much they can or refuse to be manipulated.
They're a bit wiser now.
Newsflash: Politics the world over is a cesspool. History and Ancient history says it has
always been so. Names and places, incidents and scandals are in no short supply to confirm
nothing much has changed in the modern world.
"Politics is a dirty business" is the understatement of all time. While many
politicians are indeed working in the interests of their constituents, many more are not and
political parties have only one interest - themselves.
If you want an indication of how much the table is tilted, witness the recent announcement
that it's ok for politicians to lie when trying to increase their support. If that doesn't
tell us all we need to know - about the links between politics and business, or the
fundamental lack of morals inherent in all politics, of the contempt the public are held in,
I don't know what will.
Yeah but they changed the rules to bypass a vote on an impeachment inquiry specifically to
prevent the accused due process & the ability to challenge the accusations.
In other words they'll vote to impeach after preventing opposing evidence, in this case
the Obama administration meddling in 2016 with the Ukraine's help & the Biden pay for
play operation laughably conducted under the guise of rooting out corruption in
Ukraine.
As grizzled old prosecutor Rudy Giuliani said he learnt early on if you want to find where
the corruption is ignore everything else, follow the money, and it all leads straight to the
Bidens.
That didn't take long. There we have it. The Dems are totally justified conducting a kangaroo
court show trial because 'there is no opposing evidence'.
But then what? Is there any core of decent politicians left to rule the country? Who? The
GOP crooks? The Clinton gang? The Bidens whose son is peddling political influence in corrupt
countries? Peloisi and Schumer who are up to their eyeballs in dirty money from AIPAC and are
savaging the few clean young politicians in their own party ? There's no end to it.
Tulsi Gabbard is the only person running that has the moral authority to run this nation
and the ability to get the required votes in order to win. Doing that is going to extremely
difficult since the media is controlled by the corporations and the corporations don't want
her. Ike warned us about the military industrial complex over 50 years ago and she is the
first candidate to openly challenge its authority since that warning.
We truly have lost all sense today, from the USA to the UK, these two nations have most
certainly lost the plot, I suppose the writing was always on the wall. Most of us are for our
neighbours no matter their class, colour or religion, most of us want a civilised society
where we have the necessities in live, decent wages, health care, education. Services that
protect us. Shame the actual few keep voting against these things, whether that be from their
misery, ignorance or whatever the latest excuse is, those of us who want to return to dignity
and work towards progress must vote the charlatans out.
Western democracy is dying of greed, consumerism and power madness. Xi and Putin can't
believe their dumb luck at how the US and UK are falling apart. People in places like Eastern
Europe, Taiwan, etc., may start wondering whether they should gather winter coats and heavy
shoes and have a talk with their children.
"... Shortly after 9:59 a.m. Brown had been standing on a roof in New York City about 30 blocks from the World Trade Center. He was looking directly at the South Tower as it was destroyed. He was not just a journalist and not just a news anchor: he was an eyewitness. ..."
"... He immediately interrupted a journalist who was reporting live about the Pentagon: ..."
"... Wow! Jamie. Jamie, I need you to stop for a second. There has just been a huge explosion we can see a billowing smoke rising and I can't I'll tell you that I can't see that second Tower. But there was a cascade of sparks and fire and now this it looks almost like a mushroom cloud, explosion, this huge, billowing smoke in the second Tower " (9:59:07 a.m.) ..."
"... Brown: Was there Brian, did it sound like there was an explosion before the second collapse, or was the noise the collapse itself?" (10:41:08 a.m.) ..."
"... Palmer: "Well, from our distance I was not able to distinguish between an explosion and the collapse. We were several hundred yards away. But we clearly saw the building come down. I heard your report of a fourth explosion: I can't confirm that. But we heard some "boom" and then the building fold in on itself." ..."
"... Rose Arce: I'm about a block away. And there were several people that were hanging out the windows right below where the plane crashed, when suddenly you saw the top of the building start to shake, and people began leaping from the windows in the north side of the building. You saw two people at first plummet and then a third one, and then the entire top of the building just blew up ..."
"... Patty: About an hour ago I was on the corner of Broadway and Park Place -- that's about a thousand yards from the World Trade Center -- when the first Tower collapsed. It was a massive explosion. At the time the police were trying desperately to evacuate people from the area. When that explosion occurred it was like a scene out of a horror film. ..."
"... After checking with his reporters, Brown continued to explore his hypotheses, this time by consulting authorities. This was where he was led astray. "Authorities" are less securely tied to evidence than witnesses and may, in fact, be implicated in high level deception. ..."
"... Brown: Sir, do you believe that was there another set of explosions that caused the buildings to collapse, or was it the structural damage caused by the planes?" ( 12:31:45 p.m. ) ..."
"... Later in the afternoon Giuliani got his script right and was more definite in ruling out explosions. But, of course, Giuliani had no right to pronounce on the science of building destruction. Brown should have persisted in his questioning. ..."
9/11: You Weren't Stupid, Mr. Brown! CNN's brief shining moment on September 11, 2001 Graeme MacQueen
Graeme MacQueen
Aaron Brown, news anchor during most of CNN's coverage on September 11, 2001, was interviewed on the 15th anniversary of the event.
He said in that interview that he had felt "profoundly stupid" when he was reporting the destruction of the first Tower (the South
Tower) on that morning.
I I will tell you that a million things had been running through my mind about what might happen. About the effect of a jet
plane hitting people above where the impact was, what might be going on in those buildings. And it just never occurred to me that
they'd come down. And I thought it's the only time I thought, maybe you just don't have what it takes to do a story like this.
Because it just had never occurred to me." (CNN, Sept. 11, 2016, interviewer Brian Stelter)
Is it not remarkable that Brown was made to feel stupid, and to feel inadequate as a news anchor, during the precise moments of
his coverage of that day when his senses and his mind were fully engaged and on the right track?
Shortly after 9:59 a.m. Brown had been standing on a roof in New York City about 30 blocks from the World Trade Center. He
was looking directly at the South Tower as it was destroyed. He was not just a journalist and not just a news anchor: he was an eyewitness.
He immediately interrupted a journalist who was reporting live about the Pentagon:
Wow! Jamie. Jamie, I need you to stop for a second. There has just been a huge explosion we can see a billowing smoke rising
and I can't I'll tell you that I can't see that second Tower. But there was a cascade of sparks and fire and now this it looks
almost like a mushroom cloud, explosion, this huge, billowing smoke in the second Tower " (9:59:07 a.m.)
Having reported honestly what he saw with his own eyes, Brown next did exactly what he should have done as a responsible news
anchor. He let his audience know that while he did not know what had happened it was clear that there were two hypotheses in play,
the explosion hypothesis and the structural failure hypothesis. And then he went to his reporters on the scene, as well as to authorities,
to try and sort out which hypothesis was correct.
Here are examples of his setting forth -- after the first building was destroyed and again after the second was destroyed -- the
rival hypotheses:
and then just in the last several minutes there has been a second explosion or, at least, perhaps not an explosion, perhaps
part of the building simply collapsed. And that's what we saw and that's what we're looking at." ( 10:03:47 )
This is just a few minutes ago we don't know if something happened, another explosion, or if the building was so weakened it
just collapsed." ( 10:04:36 a.m. )
we believe now that we can say that both, that portions of both Towers of the World Trade Centre, have collapsed. Whether there
were second explosions, that is to say, explosions other than the planes hitting them, that caused this to happen we cannot tell
you." ( 10:29:21 a.m. )
Our reporters in the area say they heard loud noises when that happened. It is unclear to them and to us whether those were
explosions going on in the building or if that was simply the sound of the collapse of the buildings as they collapsed, making
these huge noises as they came down." ( 11:17:45 a.m .)
Brown's honest reporting of his perceptions was balanced repeatedly by his caution. Here is an example:
it almost looks it almost looks like one of those implosions of buildings that you see except there is nothing controlled about
this this is devastation." ( 10:53:10 a.m. )
His next move, having set forth the two hypotheses, was to ask his reporters on the scene, who were choking on pulverized debris
and witnessing gruesome scenes, what they perceived.
Reporter Brian Palmer said honestly that he was not in a position to resolve the issue.
Brown: Was there Brian, did it sound like there was an explosion before the second collapse, or was the noise the collapse itself?"
(10:41:08 a.m.)
Palmer: "Well, from our distance I was not able to distinguish between an explosion and the collapse. We were several hundred
yards away. But we clearly saw the building come down. I heard your report of a fourth explosion: I can't confirm that. But we heard
some "boom" and then the building fold in on itself."
Two others were more definite about what they perceived.
Brown: Rose, whadya got? ( 10:29:43 a.m. )
Rose Arce: I'm about a block away. And there were several people that were hanging out the windows right below where the plane
crashed, when suddenly you saw the top of the building start to shake, and people began leaping from the windows in the north side
of the building. You saw two people at first plummet and then a third one, and then the entire top of the building just blew up
Brown: Who do we have on the phone, guys? Just help me out here. Patty, are you there? ( 10:57:51 a.m. )
Patty: Yes, I am here.
Brown: Whaddya got?
Patty: About an hour ago I was on the corner of Broadway and Park Place -- that's about a thousand yards from the World Trade
Center -- when the first Tower collapsed. It was a massive explosion. At the time the police were trying desperately to evacuate
people from the area. When that explosion occurred it was like a scene out of a horror film.
As can be seen, the explosion hypothesis was flourishing. Even the news caption at the bottom of the screen shortly after the
destruction of the South Tower ( 10:03:12 a.m. ) is striking to read today:
"THIRD EXPLOSION SHATTERS WORLD TRADE CENTER IN NEW YORK"
After checking with his reporters, Brown continued to explore his hypotheses, this time by consulting authorities. This was
where he was led astray. "Authorities" are less securely tied to evidence than witnesses and may, in fact, be implicated in high
level deception.
First Brown consulted a political authority. He got the Mayor of New York City on the line.
Brown: Sir, do you believe that was there another set of explosions that caused the buildings to collapse, or was it the structural
damage caused by the planes?" ( 12:31:45 p.m. )
Giuliani: I don't, I don't know, I, uh, I, uh I, I saw the first collapse and heard the second 'cause I was in a building when
the second took place. I think it was structural but I cannot be sure."
Later in the afternoon Giuliani got his script right and was more definite in ruling out explosions. But, of course, Giuliani
had no right to pronounce on the science of building destruction. Brown should have persisted in his questioning.
Finally, Brown brought in an engineer, Jim DeStefano–associated, we were told, with the National Council of Structural Engineers.
DeStefano's brief comments put an end to Brown's explosion hypothesis and rendered CNN's news coverage safe for public consumption.
Brown: Jim De Stefano is a structural engineer. He knows about big buildings and what happens in these sort of catastrophic moments.
He joins us from Deerfield, Connecticut on the phone. Jim, the plane hits what and I hope this isn't a terribly oversimplified question,
but what happens to the building itself? ( 04:20:45 p.m. )
DeStefano: It's a tremendous impact that's applied to the building when a collision like this occurs. And it's clear that that
impact was sufficient to do damage to the columns and the bracing system supporting the building. That coupled with the fire raging
and the high temperatures softening the structural steel then precipitated a destabilization of the columns and clearly the columns
buckled at the lower floors causing the building to collapse.
I am not in a position to call DeStefano a fake or to claim he was reading from a script given to him by others, but I am prepared
to say he was extremely irresponsible. He did not say "here is one hypothesis." He said, in effect, "this is what happened." He was
in no position to make this claim. There had been no photographic or video analysis of the building destruction, no analysis of the
remains of the WTC, no cataloguing of eyewitnesses, nor any of the other methods of evidence gathering. He was shooting in the dark.
He was silencing a journalist who was sincerely trying to discover the truth. As we have known for years now, DeStefano not only
could have been wrong : he was wrong.*
And let us remember that the entire War on Terror, with its suffering and oppression, has depended on this false structural failure
hypothesis. No structural failure hypothesis, no guilty Muslim fanatics. No guilty Muslim fanatics, no War on Terror.
Some readers will feel I am too generous with Brown and with CNN. But I am not interested in portraying them as broadly "dissident"
or as on the political Left. I am simply interested in calling things as I see them and giving credit where credit is due. Anyone
who wants a contrast to Brown's performance is free to watch the work of Fox News anchor, Jon Scott, on September 11, 2001. The same
confidence that allowed him to name Bin Laden as a suspect 42 seconds after the impact of the second plane allowed him to proclaim
the structural failure hypothesis directly after the destruction of the South Tower. He persisted even when his reporters in the
field clearly spoke of explosions.
David Lee Miller reported:
we heard a very loud blast, an explosion. We looked up, and the building literally began to collapse before us " ( 10:01:17
a.m. )
Rick Leventhal said:
The FBI is here, as you can see. They had roped this area off. They were taking photographs and securing this area just prior
to that huge explosion that we all heard and felt." ( 10:06:39 a.m. )
News anchor Scott was troubled by none of this. He overrode, silenced and patronized Fox reporters. At no point did he even
acknowledge the existence of a second reasonable hypothesis for the Trade Center destruction.
Of course, it is true that by the end of the day of September 11, 2001 CNN and Fox were singing from the same hymnbook. But I
believe we ought to acknowledge Brown's brief, shining moment and consider what might happen if journalists found their courage and
trusted their senses and their minds.
Sources:
Same-day coverage by CNN and Fox for September 11, 2001 has been sporadically available on the Internet. My notes are from my
own previously downloaded files. Times should be accurate to within two seconds.
Notes
*Many works have appeared over the years refuting the account of the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers released by
the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). But special note should be taken of two sources:
Ted Walter, Beyond Misinformation: What Science Says About the Destruction of World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2, and 7. Architects
& Engineers for 9/11 Truth, 2015.
In addition, a recent academic report on the related destruction of World Trade Center 7 destroys whatever confidence we might
have in NIST's accounts:
J. L. Hulsey, et al, A Structural Reevaluation of the Collapse of World Trade Center 7 (draft), University of Alaska Fairbanks,
Sept. 2019.
Fact – the WTC's were "shown" to eat the "missing" aeroplanes -- Whole !!!
MASTER OF UNIVE
The Central Intelligence Agency planned the WTC destruction & Controlled Demolition well in advance of their actual detonation
of the buildings via remote control of the planted explosives & USA Military Grade Nanothermite method of cutting all the support
beams that were made of low carbon steel. Photographic evidence can still be found on Google.
George W. Bush is a mass murderer that was put in place pre-911 via wholly suspicious vote counts in Florida where he actually
lost the vote.
Media & punditry should just call a spade a spade and write that the CIA cooked this up as a false flag to usurp voter authority
and usher in a police state that will line the pockets & feather their collective nests much better than the democratic process
would.
George W. Bush & the Neocons are public enemy #1.
MOU
Michael McNulty
I think because 9/11 was in the pipeline the Republicans had Clinton impeached in an attempt to ruin the Democrat chances in
November 2000. They needed to be in the White House to turn back the jet fighters on the day, but more importantly the security
agencies under a Gore White House would have uncovered the treasonous plot. When they failed to stop the Democrats and Gore
won they actually had to go in and steal it which they were able to do in Florida. Otherwise they'd have all faced capital
treason charges.
Editor
Do we think this divides along party lines? The evidence doesn't suggest it
Tim Jenkins
Perhaps somebody could get this chump of the day, Destefano, to give an opinion now today; with the benefit of hindsight &
a greater awareness of the physical scientific impossibilities of what he stated on that day, just perhaps, he would like to
re-consider his inept scientific comprehension of both physics & chemistry ?
And if gets all 'stroppy' & arrogant, invite him to defend his indefensible opinions, in front of a panel of real independent
scientists & demolition experts, on a Livestream; just like we had to endure his BS on that day, we may at least have the chance
to avenge, once & for all, to see clearly whose argumentation and expertise stands up to scientific & public scrutiny, for
the record.
My money would be on Destefano now avoiding ANY further public discussion & confrontation, simply because his attempts to
lie, once again, would be too blatantly obvious, not just to the panel questioning his judgement & knowledge on that day, along
with his pathetic powers of suggestion,
but to all viewers
Therefore, invite him and watch him dodge all relevant issues, as a form of ridicule !
The 11th of September 2001 is many things, but mostly it is a blatant example of how easy it is to fool the public, and also
a blatant example of how we are ruled by criminal psychopaths.
It's really that simple.
Ieuan Einion
9/11 if it is anything is the date on which Salvador Allende's democratically elected government in Chile was overthrown by
US imperialism and 30,000 died as a result. One of the main squares in the departmental capital where I live in France is the
Place Salvador Allende; there are no squares named after George Bush or Tony Blair and there never will be.
Tim Jenkins
Give it time, Ieuan: we 'received' a statue of John McCain in Sofia, last year, and this tearful year of extreme poverty in
Bulgaria, (engineered by NATZO), the Bulgarians received a monumental statue of iconic ironic 'value', (as central banking
financial collapse looms) of Woodrow Wilson talk about marketing & selling yourself and your wholly mathematically inept ways
& means; the USA knows no bounds & ground zero scientific knowledge, let alone mathematical equations, it appears
they debase any Learning from mistakes, at all costs.
"... Kinzer notes that the top-secret nature of Gottlieb's work makes it impossible to measure the human cost of his experiments. "We don't know how many people died, but a number did, and many lives were permanently destroyed," he says. Ultimately, Gottlieb concluded that mind control was not possible. Ultimately, Gottlieb concluded that mind control was not possible. After MK-ULTRA shut down, he went on to lead a CIA program that created poisons and high-tech gadgets for spies to use. Kinzer writes about Gottlieb and MK-ULTRA in his new book, Poisoner in Chief. ..."
"... Sidney Gottlieb, can now be seen as the man who brought LSD to America. He was the unwitting godfather of the entire LSD counterculture. ..."
"... In the early 1950s, he arranged for the CIA to pay $240,000 to buy the world's entire supply of LSD. He brought this to the United States, and he began spreading it around to hospitals, clinics, prisons and other institutions, asking them, through bogus foundations, to carry out research projects and find out what LSD was, how people reacted to it and how it might be able to be used as a tool for mind control. ..."
"... Whitey Bulger was one of the prisoners who volunteered for what he was told was an experiment aimed at finding a cure for schizophrenia. As part of this experiment, he was given LSD every day for more than a year. He later realized that this had nothing to do with schizophrenia and he was a guinea pig in a government experiment aimed at seeing what people's long-term reactions to LSD was. Essentially, could we make a person lose his mind by feeding him LSD every day over such a long period? ..."
"... Bulger wrote afterward about his experiences, which he described as quite horrific. He thought he was going insane. He wrote, "I was in prison for committing a crime, but they committed a greater crime on me." ..."
"... And towards the end of his life, Bulger came to realize the truth of what had happened to him, and he actually told his friends that he was going to find that doctor in Atlanta who was the head of that experiment program in the penitentiary and go kill him. ..."
"... The CIA mind control project, MK-ULTRA, was essentially a continuation of work that began in Japanese and Nazi concentration camps. Not only was it roughly based on those experiments, but the CIA actually hired the vivisectionists and the torturers who had worked in Japan and in Nazi concentration camps to come and explain what they had found out so that we could build on their research. ..."
"... For example, Nazi doctors had conducted extensive experiments with mescaline at the Dachau concentration camp, and the CIA was very interested in figuring out whether mescaline could be the key to mind control that was one of their big avenues of investigation. So they hired the Nazi doctors who had been involved in that project to advise them. ..."
"... CIA officers in Europe and Asia were capturing enemy agents and others who they felt might be suspected persons or were otherwise what they called "expendable." They would grab these people and throw them into cells and then test all kinds of, not just drug potions, but other techniques, like electroshock, extremes of temperature, sensory isolation -- all the meantime bombarding them with questions, trying to see if they could break down resistance and find a way to destroy the human ego. So these were projects designed not only to understand the human mind but to figure out how to destroy it. And that made Gottlieb, although in some ways a very compassionate person, certainly the most prolific torturer of his generation. ..."
"... [Gottlieb] operated almost completely without supervision. He had sort of a checkoff from his titular boss and from his real boss, Richard Helms, and from the CIA director, Allen Dulles. But none of them really wanted to know what he was doing. This guy had a license to kill. He was allowed to requisition human subjects across the United States and around the world and subject them to any kind of abuse that he wanted, even up to the level of it being fatal -- yet nobody looked over his shoulder. He never had to file serious reports to anybody. I think the mentality must have been [that] this project is so important -- mind control, if it can be mastered, is the key to global world power. ..."
"... The end of Gottlieb's career came in 1972, when his patron, Richard Helms, who was then director of the CIA, was removed by [President Richard] Nixon. Once Helms was gone, it was just a matter of time until Gottlieb would be gone, and most important was that Helms was really the only person at the CIA who had an idea of what Gottlieb had been doing. So as they were both on their way out of the CIA, they agreed that they should destroy all records of MK-ULTRA ..."
"... Gottlieb actually drove out to the CIA records center and ordered the archives to destroy boxes full of MK-ULTRA records. ... However, it turns out that there were some [records] found in other places; there was a depot for expense account reports that had not been destroyed, and various other pieces of paper remain. So there is enough out there to reconstruct some of what he did, but his effort to wipe away his traces by destroying all those documents in the early '70s was quite successful. ..."
CIA chemist Sidney Gottlieb headed up the agency's secret MK-ULTRA program, which was charged with developing a mind control drug
that could be weaponized against enemies.
Courtesy of the CIA
During the early period of the Cold War, the CIA became convinced that communists had discovered a drug or technique that would allow
them to control human minds. In response, the CIA began its own secret program, called MK-ULTRA, to search for a mind control drug
that could be weaponized against enemies.
MK-ULTRA, which operated from the 1950s until the early '60s, was created and run by
a chemist named Sidney Gottlieb. Journalist Stephen Kinzer, who spent several years investigating the program, calls the operation
the "most sustained search in history for techniques of mind control."
Some of Gottlieb's experiments were covertly funded at universities and research centers, Kinzer says, while others were conducted
in American prisons and in detention centers in Japan, Germany and the Philippines. Many of his unwitting subjects endured psychological
torture ranging from electroshock to high doses of LSD, according to Kinzer's research.
"Gottlieb wanted to create a way to seize control of people's minds, and he realized it was a two-part process," Kinzer says.
"First, you had to blast away the existing mind. Second, you had to find a way to insert a new mind into that resulting void. We
didn't get too far on number two, but he did a lot of work on number one."
Kinzer notes that the top-secret nature of Gottlieb's work makes it impossible to measure the human cost of his experiments.
"We don't know how many people died, but a number did, and many lives were permanently destroyed," he says. Ultimately, Gottlieb
concluded that mind control was not possible.
Ultimately, Gottlieb concluded that mind control was not possible. After MK-ULTRA shut down, he went on to lead a CIA program
that created poisons and high-tech gadgets for spies to use.
Kinzer writes about Gottlieb and MK-ULTRA in his new book, Poisoner in Chief.
As part of the search for drugs that would allow people to control the human mind, CIA scientists became aware of the existence
of LSD, and this became an obsession for the early directors of MK-ULTRA. Actually, the MK-ULTRA director, Sidney Gottlieb, can
now be seen as the man who brought LSD to America. He was the unwitting godfather of the entire LSD counterculture.
In the early 1950s, he arranged for the CIA to pay $240,000 to buy the world's entire supply of LSD. He brought this to the
United States, and he began spreading it around to hospitals, clinics, prisons and other institutions, asking them, through bogus
foundations, to carry out research projects and find out what LSD was, how people reacted to it and how it might be able to be used
as a tool for mind control.
Now, the people who volunteered for these experiments and began taking LSD, in many cases, found it very pleasurable. They told
their friends about it. Who were those people?
Ken Kesey ,
the author of One Flew
Over the Cuckoo's Nest , got his LSD in an experiment sponsored by the CIA by MK-ULTRA, by Sidney Gottlieb. So did Robert Hunter,
the lyricist for the Grateful Dead, which went on to become a great purveyor of LSD culture.
Allen Ginsberg , the poet who preached the
value of the great personal adventure of using LSD, got his first LSD from Sidney Gottlieb. Although, of course, he never knew that
name.
So the CIA brought LSD to America unwittingly, and actually it's a tremendous irony that the drug that the CIA hoped would be
its key to controlling humanity actually wound up fueling a generational rebellion that was dedicated to destroying everything that
the CIA held dear and defended.
On how MK-ULTRA experimented on prisoners, including crime boss
Whitey Bulger
Whitey Bulger was one of the prisoners who volunteered for what he was told was an experiment aimed at finding a cure for
schizophrenia. As part of this experiment, he was given LSD every day for more than a year. He later realized that this had nothing
to do with schizophrenia and he was a guinea pig in a government experiment aimed at seeing what people's long-term reactions to
LSD was. Essentially, could we make a person lose his mind by feeding him LSD every day over such a long period?
Bulger wrote afterward about his experiences, which he described as quite horrific. He thought he was going insane. He wrote,
"I was in prison for committing a crime, but they committed a greater crime on me."
And towards the end of his life, Bulger came to realize the truth of what had happened to him, and he actually told his friends
that he was going to find that doctor in Atlanta who was the head of that experiment program in the penitentiary and go kill him.
On the CIA hiring Nazi doctors and Japanese torturers to learn methods
The CIA mind control project, MK-ULTRA, was essentially a continuation of work that began in Japanese and Nazi concentration camps.
Stephen Kinzer, author of 'Poisoner in Chief'
The CIA mind control project, MK-ULTRA, was essentially a continuation of work that began in Japanese and Nazi concentration
camps. Not only was it roughly based on those experiments, but the CIA actually hired the vivisectionists and the torturers who had
worked in Japan and in Nazi concentration camps to come and explain what they had found out so that we could build on their research.
For example, Nazi doctors had conducted extensive experiments with mescaline at the Dachau concentration camp, and the CIA
was very interested in figuring out whether mescaline could be the key to mind control that was one of their big avenues of investigation.
So they hired the Nazi doctors who had been involved in that project to advise them.
Another thing the Nazis provided was information about poison gases like sarin, which is still being used. Nazi doctors came to
America to Fort Detrick in Maryland, which was the center of this project, to lecture to CIA officers to tell them how long it took
for people to die from sarin.
On the more extreme experiments Gottlieb conducted overseas
Gottlieb and the CIA established secret detention centers throughout Europe and East Asia, particularly in Japan, Germany and
the Philippines, which were largely under American control in the period of the early '50s, and therefore Gottlieb didn't have to
worry about any legal entanglements in these places. ...
CIA officers in Europe and Asia were capturing enemy agents and others who they felt might be suspected persons or were otherwise
what they called "expendable." They would grab these people and throw them into cells and then test all kinds of, not just drug potions,
but other techniques, like electroshock, extremes of temperature, sensory isolation -- all the meantime bombarding them with questions,
trying to see if they could break down resistance and find a way to destroy the human ego. So these were projects designed not only
to understand the human mind but to figure out how to destroy it. And that made Gottlieb, although in some ways a very compassionate
person, certainly the most prolific torturer of his generation.
On how these experiments were unsupervised
This guy [Sidney Gottlieb] had a license to kill. He was allowed to requisition human subjects across the United States and around
the world and subject them to any kind of abuse that he wanted, even up to the level of it being fatal -- yet nobody looked over
his shoulder.
Stephen Kinzer
[Gottlieb] operated almost completely without supervision. He had sort of a checkoff from his titular boss and from his real
boss, Richard Helms, and from the CIA director, Allen Dulles. But none of them really wanted to know what he was doing. This guy
had a license to kill. He was allowed to requisition human subjects across the United States and around the world and subject them
to any kind of abuse that he wanted, even up to the level of it being fatal -- yet nobody looked over his shoulder. He never had
to file serious reports to anybody. I think the mentality must have been [that] this project is so important -- mind control, if
it can be mastered, is the key to global world power.
On how Gottlieb destroyed evidence about his experiments when he left the CIA
The end of Gottlieb's career came in 1972, when his patron, Richard Helms, who was then director of the CIA, was removed by
[President Richard] Nixon. Once Helms was gone, it was just a matter of time until Gottlieb would be gone, and most important was
that Helms was really the only person at the CIA who had an idea of what Gottlieb had been doing. So as they were both on their way
out of the CIA, they agreed that they should destroy all records of MK-ULTRA.
Gottlieb actually drove out to the CIA records center and ordered the archives to destroy boxes full of MK-ULTRA records.
... However, it turns out that there were some [records] found in other places; there was a depot for expense account reports that
had not been destroyed, and various other pieces of paper remain. So there is enough out there to reconstruct some of what he did,
but his effort to wipe away his traces by destroying all those documents in the early '70s was quite successful.
Sam Briger and Thea Chaloner produced and edited the audio of this interview. Bridget Bentz, Molly Seavy-Nesper and Meghan
Sullivan adapted it for the Web.
Correction Sept. 9, 2019
A previous photo caption incorrectly referred to the CIA's MK-ULTRA program as MS-ULTRA.
"... Or alternatively, Smolenkov might have been someone who was turned after recruitment or a genuine agent who was trying to respond to urgent demands from his controller in Washington, who was de facto ..."
"... Scott also believes, as do I, that the story was leaked because John Brennan and his associates knew that they were deliberately marketing phony intelligence on Russia to undermine Trump and are trying to preempt any investigation by Attorney General William Barr on the provenance of the Russiagate story. ..."
"... The reality is that spying is a highly creative profession, with operational twists and turns limited only by one's imagination. In this case, unless someone actually succeeds in interviewing Oleg Smolenkov and he decides to tell the complete truth as he sees it, the American public might never know the reality behind the latest spy story. ..."
The account that appeared in the mainstream media went something like this: A midlevel
Russian official named Oleg Smolenkov was recruited decades ago by the CIA. He eventually wound
up in an important office in the Kremlin that gave him access to President Vladimir Putin.
Smolenkov was the principal source of information confirming that Russia, acting on Putin's
instructions, was trying to interfere in the 2016 presidential election to defeat Hillary
Clinton and elect Donald Trump. It was claimed that Smolenkov was actually able to photograph
documents in Putin's desk. CIA concerns that a mole hunt in the Kremlin resulting from the
media revelations concerning Russian interference in the election might lead to Smolenkov
resulted in a 2016 offer to extract him and his family from Russia. This was successfully
executed during a Smolenkov family vacation trip to Montenegro in 2017. The family now resides
in Virginia.
The CNN story and other mainstream media that picked up on the tale embroidered it somewhat,
suggesting that although Smolenkov was the CIA's crown jewel, the US has a number of "high
level" spies in Moscow. It was also claimed that the timetable for the exfiltration was pushed
forward by CIA in 2017 after it was noted that Donald Trump was particularly careless with
classified information and might inadvertently reveal the existence of the source. The
allegation about Trump carelessness came, according to CNN, after a May 2017 meeting between
Trump and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in which the president reportedly shared
sensitive information on Syria and ISIS that had been provided by Israel.
Variants of the CNN story appeared subsequently in the New York Times headlined
C.I.A. Informant Extracted From Russia Had Sent Secrets to US for Decades , which confirmed
that the extraction took place in 2017 though it also asserts that the decision to make the
move came in 2016 when Barack Obama was still president.
Taibbi observes, correctly, that CNN and the other mainstream elements reporting the story
elaborated on it through commentary coming from anonymous "former senior intelligence
officials." As the networks have all hired ex-spooks, it raises the interesting possibility
that employees of the media are themselves providing comments on intelligence operations that
they were personally involved in, meaning that they might deliberately promote a narrative that
does not cast them in a bad light.
Next morning's Washington Post story
US got key asset out of Russia following election hacking touched all bases and also tried
hard to implicate Trump. It confirmed 2016 as the time frame for the decision to carry out the
exfiltration and also mentioned the president's talk with Lavrov in May 2017, though the
meeting itself was not cited as the reason for the move. As Taibbi observes, "So why mention
it?"
The Russians have denied that Smolenkov was an important official and have insisted that the
whole story might be something of a fabrication. And the alleged CIA handling of the claimed
top-level defector somewhat bears out that conclusion. Normally, a former top spy is resettled
in the US or somewhere overseas in a fake name to protect him or her from any possible attempt
at revenge by their former countrymen. In Smolenkov's case, easily public accessible online
county real estate records indicate that he bought a $1 million house in Stafford Virginia in
2018 using
his own true name .
If the Russians were truly conducting a mole hunt that endangered Smolenkov it may have been
because the US media and their anonymous intelligence sources have been bragging about how they
have "penetrated the Kremlin." A Washington Post June 2017 articled called "
Obama's Secret Struggle to Punish Russia for Putin's Election Assault is typical. In
that
article , the author describes how CIA Director John Brennan secured a "feat of espionage"
by running spies "deep within the Russian government" that revealed Russia's electoral
interference.
So, the Smolenkov story has inconsistencies and one has to question why it was deliberately
leaked at this time. The only constant in the media coverage is the repeated but completely
evidence-free suggestion that the mole was endangered and had to be removed because of Donald
Trump's inability to keep a secret. One has to consider the possibility that the story has been
leaked at least in part due to the continuing effort by the national security state to "get
Trump."
Highly recommended is former weapons inspector Scott Ritter's fascinating detailed
dissection of Smolenkov's career as well as a history of the evolution of CIA spying against
Russia . Scott speculates on why the leak of the story took place at all, examining a
number of scenarios along the way. Smolenkov, who, according to former CIA officer Larry
Johnson, has oddly
never been polygraphed to establish his bona fides , might have been a double
agent from the start, possibly a low level functionary allowed to work for the Americans so the
Russian FSB intelligence service could feed low level information and control the narrative. It
is a "dirty secret" within the Agency that many agents are recruited by case officers for no
other reason than to enhance one's career. Such agents normally have no real access and provide
little reporting.
Or alternatively, Smolenkov might have been someone who was turned after recruitment or
a genuine agent who was trying to respond to urgent demands from his controller in Washington,
who was de facto John Brennan, by producing a dramatic report that was basically
fabricated. Or the story itself might be completely false, an attempt by some former and
current officials at CIA to demonstrate a great success at a time when the intelligence
community is under considerable pressure.
Scott also believes, as do I, that the story was leaked because John Brennan and his
associates knew that they were deliberately marketing phony intelligence on Russia to undermine
Trump and are trying to preempt any investigation by Attorney General William Barr on the
provenance of the Russiagate story. If it can be demonstrated somehow that the claims of
Kremlin interference came from a highly regarded credible Russian source then Brennan and
company can claim that they acted in good faith. Of course, that tale might break down if
anyone bothers to interview Smolenkov.
Another theory that I tend to like is that the CIA might be making public the Smolenkov case
in an attempt to lower the heat on another actual high-level source still operating in Moscow.
If Russia can be convinced that Smolenkov was the only significant spy working in the Kremlin
it might ratchet down efforts to find another mole. It is an interesting theory worthy of spy
vs. spy, but one can be pretty sure that Russian counterintelligence has already thought of
that possibility and will not be fooled.
The reality is that spying is a highly creative profession, with operational twists and
turns limited only by one's imagination. In this case, unless someone actually succeeds in
interviewing Oleg Smolenkov and he decides to tell the complete truth as he sees it, the
American public might never know the reality behind the latest spy story.
Essentially neoliberal MSM were hijacked. Which was easy to do. The current anti-Russian campaign is conducted under
the direct guidance of MI6 and similar agencies
Notable quotes:
"... committee minutes note the secretary saying: "The Guardian was obliged to seek advice under the terms of the DA notice code." The minutes add: "This failure to seek advice was a key source of concern and considerable efforts had been made to address it." ..."
"... These "considerable efforts" included a D-Notice sent out by the committee on 7 June 2013 – the day after The Guardian published the first documents – to all major UK media editors, saying they should refrain from publishing information that would "jeopardise both national security and possibly UK personnel". It was marked "private and confidential: not for publication, broadcast or use on social media". ..."
"... "The FT [Financial Times] and The Times did not mention it [the initial Snowden revelations] and the Telegraph published only a short". It continued by noting that only The Independent "followed up the substantive allegations". It added, "The BBC has also chosen to largely ignore the story." ..."
"... The British security services had carried out more than a "symbolic act". It was both a show of strength and a clear threat. The Guardian was then the only major newspaper that could be relied upon by whistleblowers in the US and British security bodies to receive and cover their exposures, a situation which posed a challenge to security agencies. ..."
"... The increasingly aggressive overtures made to The Guardian worked. The committee chair noted that after GCHQ had overseen the smashing up of the newspaper's laptops "engagement with The Guardian had continued to strengthen". ..."
"... But the most important part of this charm and threat offensive was getting The Guardian to agree to take a seat on the D-Notice Committee itself. The committee minutes are explicit on this, noting that "the process had culminated by [sic] the appointment of Paul Johnson (deputy editor Guardian News and Media) as a DPBAC [i.e. D-Notice Committee] member". ..."
"... The Guardian's deputy editor went directly from the corporation's basement with an angle-grinder to sitting on the D-Notice Committee alongside the security service officials who had tried to stop his paper publishing. ..."
"... In November 2016, The Guardian published an unprecedented "exclusive" with Andrew Parker, the head of MI5, Britain's domestic security service. The article noted that this was the "first newspaper interview given by an incumbent MI5 chief in the service's 107-year history". It was co-written by deputy editor Paul Johnson, who had never written about the security services before and who was still sitting on the D-Notice Committee. This was not mentioned in the article. ..."
"... The MI5 chief was given copious space to make claims about the national security threat posed by an "increasingly aggressive" Russia. Johnson and his co-author noted, "Parker said he was talking to The Guardian rather than any other newspaper despite the publication of the Snowden files." ..."
"... Just two weeks before the interview with MI6's chief was published, The Guardian itself reported on the high court stating that it would "hear an application for a judicial review of the Crown Prosecution Service's decision not to charge MI6's former counterterrorism director, Sir Mark Allen, over the abduction of Abdel Hakim Belhaj and his pregnant wife who were transferred to Libya in a joint CIA-MI6 operation in 2004". ..."
"... The security services were probably feeding The Guardian these "exclusives" as part of the process of bringing it onside and neutralising the only independent newspaper with the resources to receive and cover a leak such as Snowden's. They were possibly acting to prevent any revelations of this kind happening again. ..."
"... The Guardian's coverage of anti-Semitism in Labour has been suspiciously extensive, compared to the known extent of the problem in the party, and its focus on Corbyn personally suggests that the issue is being used politically. While anti-Semitism does exist in the Labour Party, evidence suggests it is at relatively low levels. Since September 2015, when Corbyn became Labour leader, 0.06% of the Labour membership has been investigated for anti-Semitic comments or posts. In 2016, an independent inquiry commissioned by Labour concluded that the party "is not overrun by anti-Semitism, Islamophobia or other forms of racism. Further, it is the party that initiated every single United Kingdom race equality law." ..."
"... A former Guardian journalist similarly told us: "It is significant that exclusive stories recently about British collusion in torture and policy towards the interrogation of terror suspects and other detainees have been passed to other papers including The Times rather than The Guardian." ..."
"... The Guardian had gone in six short years from being the natural outlet to place stories exposing wrongdoing by the security state to a platform trusted by the security state to amplify its information operations. A once relatively independent media platform has been largely neutralised by UK security services fearful of being exposed further. Which begs the question: where does the next Snowden go? DM ..."
The Guardian, Britain's leading liberal newspaper with a global reputation for independent and critical journalism, has been
successfully targeted by security agencies to neutralise its adversarial reporting of the 'security state', according to newly released
documents and evidence from former and current Guardian journalists.
The UK security services targeted The Guardian after the newspaper started publishing the contents of secret US government documents
leaked by National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden in June 2013.
Snowden's bombshell revelations continued for months and were the largest-ever leak of classified material covering the NSA and
its UK equivalent, the Government Communications Headquarters. They revealed programmes of
mass surveillance
operated by both agencies.
According to minutes of meetings of the UK's Defence and Security Media Advisory
Committee, the revelations caused alarm in the British security services and Ministry of Defence.
" This event was very concerning because at the outset The Guardian avoided engaging with the [committee] before publishing the
first tranche of information," state
minutes of a 7 November
2013 meeting at the MOD.
The DSMA Committee, more commonly known as the D-Notice Committee, is run by the MOD, where it meets every six months. A small
number of journalists are also invited to sit on the committee. Its
stated purpose is to "prevent inadvertent public disclosure
of information that would compromise UK military and intelligence operations". It can issue "notices" to the media to encourage them
not to publish certain information.
The committee is currently chaired by the MOD's director-general of security policy Dominic Wilson, who was
previously director of security and intelligence
in the British Cabinet Office. Its secretary is Brigadier Geoffrey Dodds OBE, who
describes himself as an "accomplished, senior
ex-military commander with extensive experience of operational level leadership".
The D-Notice system describes itself as voluntary ,
placing no obligations on the media to comply with any notice issued. This means there should have been no need for the Guardian
to consult the MOD before publishing the Snowden documents.
Yet committee minutes note the secretary saying: "The Guardian was obliged to seek advice under the terms of the DA notice code." The minutes
add: "This failure to seek advice was a key source of concern and considerable efforts had been made to address it."
' Considerable efforts'
These "considerable efforts" included a D-Notice sent out by the committee on 7 June 2013 – the day after The Guardian published
the first documents – to all major UK media editors, saying they should refrain from publishing information that would "jeopardise
both national security and possibly UK personnel". It was
marked "private and confidential: not
for publication, broadcast or use on social media".
Clearly the committee did not want its issuing of the notice to be publicised, and it was nearly successful. Only the right-wing
blog Guido Fawkes made it public.
At the time, according to the committee
minutes , the "intelligence
agencies in particular had continued to ask for more advisories [i.e. D-Notices] to be sent out". Such D-Notices were clearly seen
by the intelligence services not so much as a tool to advise the media but rather a way to threaten it not to publish further Snowden
revelations.
One night, amidst the first Snowden stories being published, the D-Notice Committee's then-secretary Air Vice-Marshal Andrew Vallance
personally called Alan Rusbridger, then editor of The Guardian. Vallance "made clear his concern that The Guardian had failed to
consult him in advance before telling the world",
according to a Guardian journalist who interviewed Rusbridger.
Later in the year, Prime Minister David Cameron again used the D-Notice system as a threat to the media.
" I don't want to have to use injunctions or D-Notices or the other tougher measures," he
said
in a statement to MPs. "I think it's much better to appeal to newspapers' sense of social responsibility. But if they don't
demonstrate some social responsibility it would be very difficult for government to stand back and not to act."
The threats worked. The Press Gazette reported
at the time that "The FT [Financial Times] and The Times did not mention it [the initial Snowden revelations] and the Telegraph
published only a short". It continued by noting that only The Independent "followed up the substantive allegations". It added, "The
BBC has also chosen to largely ignore the story."
The Guardian, however, remained uncowed.
According to the committee
minutes , the fact
The Guardian would not stop publishing "undoubtedly raised questions in some minds about the system's future usefulness". If the
D-Notice system could not prevent The Guardian publishing GCHQ's most sensitive secrets, what was it good for?
It was time to rein in The Guardian and make sure this never happened again.
GCHQ and laptops
The security services ratcheted up their "considerable efforts" to deal with the exposures. On 20 July 2013, GCHQ officials
entered The Guardian's offices at King's Cross in London, six weeks after the first Snowden-related article had been published. At the request of the government and security services, Guardian deputy editor Paul Johnson, along with two others, spent
three hours destroying the laptops containing the Snowden documents.
The Guardian staffers, according to one of the newspaper's reporters,
brought "angle-grinders, dremels – drills with revolving bits – and masks". The reporter added, "The spy agency provided
one piece of hi-tech equipment, a 'degausser', which destroys magnetic fields and erases data."
Johnson
claims
that the destruction of the computers was "purely a symbolic act", adding that "the government and GCHQ knew, because we
had told them, that the material had been taken to the US to be shared with the New York Times. The reporting would go on. The episode
hadn't changed anything."
Yet the episode did change something. As the D-Notice Committee
minutes for November
2013 outlined: "Towards the end of July [as the computers were being destroyed], The Guardian had begun to seek and accept D-Notice
advice not to publish certain highly sensitive details and since then the dialogue [with the committee] had been reasonable and improving."
The British security services had carried out more than a "symbolic act". It was both a show of strength and a clear threat. The
Guardian was then the only major newspaper that could be relied upon by whistleblowers in the US and British security bodies to receive
and cover their exposures, a situation which posed a challenge to security agencies.
The increasingly aggressive overtures made to The Guardian worked. The committee chair
noted that after
GCHQ had overseen the smashing up of the newspaper's laptops "engagement with The Guardian had continued to strengthen".
Moreover, he added
, there were now "regular dialogues between the secretary and deputy secretaries and Guardian journalists". Rusbridger later
testified to the Home Affairs Committee that Air Vice-Marshal Vallance of the D-Notice committee and himself "collaborated"
in the aftermath of the Snowden affair and that Vallance had even "been at The Guardian offices to talk to all our reporters".
But the most important part of this charm and threat offensive was getting The Guardian to agree to take a seat on the D-Notice
Committee itself. The committee minutes are explicit on this,
noting that "the
process had culminated by [sic] the appointment of Paul Johnson (deputy editor Guardian News and Media) as a DPBAC [i.e. D-Notice
Committee] member".
At some point in 2013 or early 2014, Johnson – the same deputy editor who had smashed up his newspaper's computers under the watchful
gaze of British intelligence agents – was approached to take up a seat on the committee. Johnson attended his first meeting in
May 2014 and was
to remain on it until
October 2018
.
The Guardian's deputy editor went directly from the corporation's basement with an angle-grinder to sitting on the D-Notice Committee
alongside the security service officials who had tried to stop his paper publishing.
A new editor
Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger withstood intense pressure not to publish some of the Snowden revelations but agreed to Johnson
taking a seat on the D-Notice Committee as a tactical sop to the security services. Throughout his tenure, The Guardian continued
to publish some stories critical of the security services.
But in March 2015, the situation changed when the Guardian
appointed a new editor, Katharine Viner, who had less experience than Rusbridger of dealing with the security services. Viner
had started out on fashion and entertainment magazine Cosmopolitan and had no history in national security reporting. According
to insiders, she showed much less leadership during the Snowden affair than Janine Gibson in the US (Gibson was another
candidate
to be Rusbridger's successor).
Viner was then editor-in-chief of Guardian Australia, which was
launched just two weeks before the first Snowden
revelations were published. Australia and New Zealand comprise two-fifths of the so-called
"Five Eyes" surveillance alliance exposed by Snowden.
This was an opportunity for the security services. It appears that their seduction began the following year.
In November 2016, The Guardian
published an unprecedented "exclusive" with Andrew Parker, the head of MI5, Britain's domestic security service. The article
noted that this was the "first newspaper interview given by an incumbent MI5 chief in the service's 107-year history". It was co-written
by deputy editor Paul Johnson, who had never written about the security services before and who was still sitting on the D-Notice
Committee. This was not mentioned in the article.
The MI5 chief was given
copious space to make claims about the national security threat posed by an "increasingly aggressive" Russia. Johnson
and his co-author noted, "Parker said he was talking to The Guardian rather than any other newspaper despite the publication of the
Snowden files."
Parker told the two reporters, "We recognise that in a changing world we have to change too. We have a responsibility to talk
about our work and explain it."
Four months after the MI5 interview, in March 2017, the Guardian
published another unprecedented "exclusive", this time with Alex Younger, the sitting chief of MI6, Britain's external
intelligence agency. This exclusive was awarded by the Secret Intelligence Service to The Guardian's investigations editor, Nick
Hopkins, who had been appointed 14 months previously.
The interview was the first Younger had given to a national newspaper and was again softball.
Titled "MI6 returns to 'tapping up' in an effort to recruit black and Asian officers", it focused almost entirely on the
intelligence service's stated desire to recruit from ethnic minority communities.
" Simply, we have to attract the best of modern Britain," Younger told Hopkins. "Every community from every part of Britain should
feel they have what it takes, no matter what their background or status."
Just two weeks before the interview with MI6's chief was published, The Guardian itself
reported on the high court stating that it would "hear an application for a judicial review of the Crown Prosecution Service's
decision not to charge MI6's former counterterrorism director, Sir Mark Allen, over the abduction of Abdel Hakim Belhaj and his pregnant
wife who were transferred to Libya in a joint CIA-MI6 operation in 2004".
None of this featured in The Guardian article, which did, however, cover discussions of whether the James Bond actor Daniel Craig
would qualify for the intelligence service. "He would not get into MI6," Younger told Hopkins.
More recently, in August 2019, The Guardian was
awarded yet another exclusive, this time with Metropolitan police assistant commissioner Neil Basu, Britain's most senior
counter-terrorism officer. This was Basu's " first major interview since taking up his post" the previous year and resulted in a
three-part series of articles, one of which was
entitled "Met police examine Vladimir Putin's role in Salisbury attack".
The security services were probably feeding The Guardian these "exclusives" as part of the process of bringing it onside and neutralising
the only independent newspaper with the resources to receive and cover a leak such as Snowden's. They were possibly acting to prevent
any revelations of this kind happening again.
What, if any, private conversations have taken place between Viner and the security services during her tenure as editor are not
known. But in 2018, when Paul Johnson eventually left the D-Notice Committee, its chair, the MOD's Dominic Wilson,
praised Johnson who, he said, had been "instrumental in re-establishing links with The Guardian".
Decline in critical reporting
Amidst these spoon-fed intelligence exclusives, Viner also oversaw the breakup of The Guardian's celebrated investigative team,
whose muck-racking journalists were told to apply for other jobs outside of investigations.
One well-placed source
told the Press Gazette at the time that journalists on the investigations team "have not felt backed by senior
editors over the last year", and that "some also feel the company has become more risk-averse in the same period".
In the period since Snowden, The Guardian has lost many of its top investigative reporters who had covered national security issues,
notably Shiv Malik, Nick Davies, David Leigh, Richard Norton-Taylor, Ewen MacAskill and Ian Cobain. The few journalists who were
replaced were succeeded by less experienced reporters with apparently less commitment to exposing the security state. The current
defence and security editor, Dan Sabbagh,
started
at The Guardian as head of media and technology and has no history of covering national security.
" It seems they've got rid of everyone who seemed to cover the security services and military in an adversarial way," one current
Guardian journalist told us.
Indeed, during the last two years of Rusbridger's editorship, The Guardian published about 110 articles per year tagged as MI6
on its website. Since Viner took over, the average per year has halved and is decreasing year by year.
" Effective scrutiny of the security and intelligence agencies -- epitomised by the Snowden scoops but also many other stories
-- appears to have been abandoned," a former Guardian journalist told us. The former reporter added that, in recent years, it "sometimes
seems The Guardian is worried about upsetting the spooks."
A second former Guardian journalist added: "The Guardian no longer seems to have such a challenging relationship with the intelligence
services, and is perhaps seeking to mend fences since Snowden. This is concerning, because spooks are always manipulative and not
always to be trusted."
While some articles critical of the security services still do appear in the paper, its "scoops" increasingly focus on issues
more acceptable to them. Since the Snowden affair, The Guardian does not appear to have published any articles based on an intelligence
or security services source that was not officially sanctioned to speak.
The Guardian has, by contrast,
published a steady stream of exclusives on the major official enemy of the security services, Russia, exposing Putin,
his friends and the work of its intelligence services and military.
In the Panama Papers leak in April 2016, which revealed how companies and individuals around the world were using an offshore
law firm to avoid paying tax, The Guardian's front-page launch scoop was authored by Luke Harding, who has received many security
service
tips focused on the "Russia threat", and was
titled "Revealed:
the $2bn offshore trail that leads to Vladimir Putin".
Three sentences into the piece, however, Harding notes that "the president's name does not appear in any of the records" although
he insists that "the data reveals a pattern – his friends have earned millions from deals that seemingly could not have been secured
without his patronage".
There was a much
bigger story
in the Panama Papers which The Guardian chose to downplay by leaving it to the following day. This concerned the father of
the then Prime Minister, David Cameron, who "ran an offshore fund that avoided ever having to pay tax in Britain by hiring a small
army of Bahamas residents – including a part-time bishop – to sign its paperwork".
We understand there was some argument between journalists about not leading with the Cameron story as the launch splash. Putin's
friends were eventually deemed more important than the Prime Minister of the country where the paper published.
Getting Julian Assange
The Guardian also appears to have been engaged in a campaign against the WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange, who had been a collaborator
during the early WikiLeaks revelations in 2010.
One 2017 story came from investigative reporter Carole Cadwalladr, who writes for The Guardian's sister paper The Observer,
titled "When Nigel Farage met Julian Assange". This concerned the visit of former UKIP leader Nigel Farage to the Ecuadorian embassy
in March 2017,
organised by the radio station LBC, for whom Farage worked as a presenter. Farage's producer at LBC accompanied Farage
at the meeting, but this was not mentioned by Cadwalladr.
Rather, she posited that this meeting was "potentially a channel of communication" between WikiLeaks, Farage and Donald Trump,
who were all said to be closely linked to Russia, adding that these actors were in a "political alignment" and that " WikiLeaks is,
in many ways, the swirling vortex at the centre of everything".
Yet Cadwalladr's one official on-the-record source for this speculation was a "highly placed contact with links to US intelligence",
who told her, "When the heat is turned up and all electronic communication, you have to assume, is being intensely monitored, then
those are the times when intelligence communication falls back on human couriers. Where you have individuals passing information
in ways and places that cannot be monitored."
It seems likely this was innuendo being fed to The Observer by an intelligence-linked individual to promote disinformation to
undermine Assange.
In 2018, however, The Guardian's attempted vilification of Assange was significantly stepped up. A new string of articles began
on 18 May 2018 with
one alleging Assange's "long-standing relationship with RT", the Russian state broadcaster. The series, which has been
closely
documented elsewhere, lasted for several months, consistently alleging with little or the most minimal circumstantial
evidence that Assange had ties to Russia or the Kremlin.
One story, co-authored again by Luke Harding,
claimed that "Russian diplomats held secret talks in London with people close to Julian Assange to assess whether they
could help him flee the UK, The Guardian has learned". The former consul in the Ecuadorian embassy in London at this time, Fidel
Narvaez, vigorously denies the existence of any such "escape plot" involving Russia and is involved in a complaint process with The
Guardian for insinuating he coordinated such a plot.
This apparent mini-campaign ran until November 2018, culminating in a front-page
splash , based on anonymous sources, claiming that Assange had three secret meetings at the Ecuadorian embassy with Trump's
former campaign manager Paul Manafort.
This "scoop" failed all tests of journalistic credibility since it would have been impossible for anyone to have entered the highly
secured Ecuadorian embassy three times with no proof. WikiLeaks and others have strongly argued that the story was
manufactured
and it is telling that The Guardian has since failed to refer to it in its subsequent articles on the Assange case. The Guardian,
however, has still not retracted or apologised for the story which remains on its website.
The "exclusive" appeared just two weeks after Paul Johnson had been congratulated for "re-establishing links" between The Guardian
and the security services.
The string of Guardian articles, along with the vilification and smear stories about Assange elsewhere in the British media, helped
create the conditions for
a deal between Ecuador, the UK and the US to expel Assange from the embassy in April. Assange now sits in Belmarsh maximum-security
prison where he faces extradition to the US, and life in prison there, on charges under the Espionage Act.
Acting for the establishment
Another major focus of The Guardian's energies under Viner's editorship has been to attack the leader of the UK Labour Party,
Jeremy Corbyn.
The context is that Corbyn appears to have recently been a target of the security services. In 2015, soon after he was elected
Labour leader, the Sunday Times
reported a
serving general warning that "there would be a direct challenge from the army and mass resignations if Corbyn became prime minister".
The source told the newspaper: "The Army just wouldn't stand for it. The general staff would not allow a prime minister to jeopardise
the security of this country and I think people would use whatever means possible, fair or foul, to prevent that."
On 20 May 2017, a little over two weeks before the 2017 General Election, the Daily Telegraph was
fed the story that "MI5 opened a file on Jeremy Corbyn amid concerns over his links to the IRA". It formed part of a Telegraph
investigation claiming to reveal "Mr Corbyn's full links to the IRA" and was sourced to an individual "close to" the MI5 investigation,
who said "a file had been opened on him by the early nineties".
The Metropolitan Police Special Branch was also said to be monitoring Corbyn in the same period.
Then, on the very eve of the General Election, the Telegraph gave space to an
article from Sir Richard Dearlove, the former director of MI6, under a headline: "Jeremy Corbyn is a danger to this nation.
At MI6, which I once led, he wouldn't clear the security vetting."
Further, in September 2018, two anonymous senior government sources
told The Times that Corbyn had been "summoned" for a "'facts of life' talk on terror" by MI5 chief Andrew Parker.
Just two weeks after news of this private meeting was leaked by the government, the Daily Mail
reported another leak, this time revealing that "Jeremy Corbyn's most influential House of Commons adviser has been barred
from entering Ukraine on the grounds that he is a national security threat because of his alleged links to Vladimir Putin's 'global
propaganda network'."
The article concerned Andrew Murray, who had been working in Corbyn's office for a year but had still not received a security
pass to enter the UK parliament. The Mail reported, based on what it called "a senior parliamentary source", that Murray's application
had encountered "vetting problems".
Murray later heavily suggested that the security services had leaked the story to the Mail. "Call me sceptical if you must, but
I do not see journalistic enterprise behind the Mail's sudden capacity to tease obscure information out of the [Ukrainian security
service]," he wrote
in the New Statesman. He added, "Someone else is doing the hard work – possibly someone being paid by the taxpayer. I doubt
if their job description is preventing the election of a Corbyn government, but who knows?"
Murray told us he was approached by the New Statesman after the story about him being banned from Ukraine was leaked. "However,"
he added, "I wouldn't dream of suggesting anything like that to The Guardian, since I do not know any journalists still working there
who I could trust."
The Guardian itself has run a remarkable number of news and comment articles criticising Corbyn since he was elected in 2015 and
the paper's clearly hostile stance has been widely
noted .
Given its appeal to traditional Labour supporters, the paper has probably done more to undermine Corbyn than any other. In particular,
its massive coverage of alleged widespread anti-Semitism in the Labour Party has helped to disparage Corbyn more than other smears
carried in the media.
The Guardian's coverage of anti-Semitism in Labour has been suspiciously extensive, compared to the known extent of the problem
in the party, and its focus on Corbyn personally suggests that the issue is being used politically. While anti-Semitism does exist in the Labour Party, evidence suggests it is at relatively low levels. Since September 2015, when
Corbyn became Labour leader, 0.06% of the Labour membership has been
investigated for anti-Semitic comments or posts. In 2016, an independent inquiry commissioned by Labour
concluded
that the party "is not overrun by anti-Semitism, Islamophobia or other forms of racism. Further, it is the party that initiated
every single United Kingdom race equality law."
Analysis of two YouGov surveys, conducted in 2015 and 2017,
shows that anti-Semitic views held by Labour voters declined substantially in the first two years of Corbyn's tenure and
that such views were significantly more common among Conservative voters.
Despite this, since January 2016, The Guardian has published 1,215 stories mentioning Labour and anti-Semitism, an average of
around one per day, according to a search on Factiva, the database of newspaper articles. In the same period, The Guardian published
just 194 articles mentioning the Conservative Party's much more serious problem with Islamophobia. A YouGov poll in 2019, for example,
found that nearly half of the Tory Party membership would prefer not to have a Muslim prime minister.
At the same time, some stories which paint Corbyn's critics in a negative light have been suppressed by The Guardian. According
to someone with knowledge of the matter, The Guardian declined to publish the results of a months-long critical investigation by
one of its reporters into a prominent anti-Corbyn Labour MP, citing only vague legal issues.
In July 2016, one of this article's authors emailed a Guardian editor asking if he could pitch an investigation about the first
attempt by the right-wing of the Labour Party to remove Corbyn, informing The Guardian of very good inside sources on those behind
the attempt and their real plans. The approach was rejected as being of no interest before a pitch was even sent.
A reliable publication?
On 20 May 2019, The Times newspaper
reported on a Freedom of Information request made by the Rendition Project, a group of academic experts working on torture
and rendition issues, which showed that the MOD had been "developing a secret policy on torture that allows ministers to sign off
intelligence-sharing that could lead to the abuse of detainees".
This might traditionally have been a Guardian story, not something for the Rupert Murdoch-owned Times. According to one civil
society source, however, many groups working in this field no longer trust The Guardian.
A former Guardian journalist similarly told us: "It is significant that exclusive stories recently about British collusion in
torture and policy towards the interrogation of terror suspects and other detainees have been passed to other papers including The
Times rather than The Guardian."
The Times published its scoop under a strong
headline , "Torture: Britain breaks law in Ministry of Defence secret policy". However, before the article was published,
the MOD fed The Guardian the same documents The Times were about to splash with, believing it could soften the impact of the revelations
by telling its side of the story.
The Guardian
posted its own article just before The Times, with a headline that would have pleased the government: "MoD says revised
torture guidance does not lower standards".
Its lead paragraph was a simple summary of the MOD's position: "The Ministry of Defence has insisted that newly emerged departmental
guidance on the sharing of intelligence derived from torture with allies, remains in line with practices agreed in the aftermath
of a series of scandals following the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq." However, an inspection of the documents showed this was clearly
disinformation.
The Guardian had gone in six short years from being the natural outlet to place stories exposing wrongdoing by the security state
to a platform trusted by the security state to amplify its information operations. A once relatively independent media platform has
been largely neutralised by UK security services fearful of being exposed further. Which begs the question: where does the next Snowden
go? DM
The Guardian did not respond to a request for comment.
Daily Maverick will formally launch Declassified – a new UK-focused investigation and analysis organisation run by the
authors of this article – in November 2019.
Matt Kennard is an investigative journalist and co-founder of Declassified . He was previously director of the
Centre for Investigative Journalism in London, and before that a reporter for the Financial Times in the US and UK. He is the author
of two books, Irregular Army and The Racket .
Mark Curtis is a leading UK foreign policy analyst, journalist and the author of six books including Web of
Deceit: Britain's Real Role in the World and Secret Affairs: Britain's Collusion with Radical Islam .
The collapse of neoliberalism naturally lead to the collapse of the US influence over the globe. and to the treats to the dollar
as the world reserve currency. That's why the US foreign policy became so aggressive and violent. Neocons want to fight for the
world hegemony to the last American.
Notable quotes:
"... US foreign policy is ever more unstable and confrontational ..."
"... Bolton's brutal defenestration has raised hopes that Trump, who worries that voters may view him as a warmonger, may begin to moderate some of his more confrontational international policies. As the 2020 election looms, he is desperate for a big foreign policy peace-making success. And, in Trump world, winning matters more than ideology, principles or personnel. ..."
"... Since taking office in January 2017, Trump has not merely broken with diplomatic and geopolitical convention. He has taken a wrecking ball to venerated alliances, multilateral cooperation and the postwar international rules-based order. ..."
"... The resulting new world disorder – to adapt George HW Bush's famous 1991 phrase – will be hard to put right. Like its creator, Trump world is unstable, unpredictable and threatening. Trump has been called America's first rogue president. Whether or not he wins a second term, this Trumpian era of epic disruption, the very worst form of American exceptionalism, is already deeply entrenched. ..."
"... driven by a chronic desire for re-election, Trump's behaviour could become more, not less, confrontational during his remaining time in office, suggested Eliot Cohen, professor of strategic studies at Johns Hopkins university. ..."
"... "The president has proved himself to be what many critics have long accused him of being: belligerent, bullying, impatient, irresponsible, intellectually lazy, short-tempered and self-obsessed," Cohen wrote in Foreign Affairs journal . "Remarkably, however, those shortcomings have not yet translated into obvious disaster. But [that] should not distract from a building crisis of US foreign policy." ..."
"... This pending crisis stems from Trump's crudely Manichaean division of the world into two camps: adversaries/competitors and supporters/customers. A man with few close confidants, Trump has real trouble distinguishing between allies and enemies, friends and foes, and often confuses the two. In Trump world, old rules don't apply. Alliances are optional. Loyalty is weakness. And trust is fungible. ..."
"... The crunch came last weekend when a bizarre, secret summit with Taliban chiefs at Camp David was cancelled . It was classic Trump. He wanted quick 'n' easy, primetime credit for a dramatic peace deal, pushed ahead blindly, then changed his mind at the last minute. Furious over a debacle of his own making, he turned his wrath on others, notably Bolton – who, ironically, had opposed the summit all along. ..."
"... With Trump's blessing, Israel is enmeshed in escalating, multi-fronted armed confrontation with Iran and its allies in Iraq, Lebanon and Syria. Add to this recent violence in the Gulf, the disastrous Trump-backed, Saudi-led war in Yemen, mayhem in Syria's Idlib province, border friction with Turkey, and Islamic State resurgence in northern Iraq, and a region-wide explosion looks ever more likely. ..."
"... "the bipartisan consensus forged in the 1990s – in which the US towered over the world and, at low cost, sought to remake it in America's image – has failed and cannot be revived", ..."
With John Bolton dismissed, Taliban peace talks a fiasco and
a trade war with China, US foreign policy is ever more unstable and confrontational
It was by all accounts, a furious row.
Donald Trump was talking about relaxing sanctions on
Iran and holding a summit with its president, Hassan Rouhani, at this month's UN general assembly in New York. John Bolton, his hawkish
national security adviser, was dead against it and forcefully rejected Trump's ideas during a tense meeting in the Oval Office on
Monday.
...Bolton's brutal defenestration has raised hopes that Trump, who worries that voters may view him as a warmonger, may begin
to moderate some of his more confrontational international policies. As the 2020 election looms, he is desperate for a big foreign
policy peace-making success. And, in Trump world, winning matters more than ideology, principles or personnel.
The US president is now saying he is also open to a repeat meeting with North Korea's leader, Kim Jong-un, to reboot stalled nuclear
disarmament talks. On another front, he has offered an olive branch to China, delaying a planned tariff increase on $250bn of Chinese
goods pending renewed trade negotiations next month. Meanwhile, he says, new tariffs on European car imports could be dropped, too.
Is a genuine dove-ish shift under way? It seems improbable. Since taking office in January 2017, Trump has not merely broken with
diplomatic and geopolitical convention. He has taken a wrecking ball to venerated alliances, multilateral cooperation and the postwar
international rules-based order. He has cosied up to autocrats, attacked old friends and blundered into sensitive conflicts he does
not fully comprehend.
The resulting new world disorder – to adapt George HW Bush's famous 1991 phrase – will be hard to put right. Like its creator,
Trump world is unstable, unpredictable and threatening. Trump has been called America's first rogue president. Whether or not he
wins a second term, this Trumpian era of epic disruption, the very worst form of American exceptionalism, is already deeply entrenched.
The suggestion that Trump will make nice and back off as election time nears thus elicits considerable scepticism. US analysts
and commentators say the president's erratic, impulsive and egotistic personality means any shift towards conciliation may be short-lived
and could quickly be reversed, Bolton or no Bolton.
Trump wanted quick 'n' easy, primetime credit for a dramatic peace deal in Afghanistan with the Taliban, pushed ahead blindly,
then changed his mind at the last minute
Trump is notorious for blowing hot and cold, performing policy zigzags and suddenly changing his mind. "Regardless of who has
advised Mr Trump on foreign affairs all have proved powerless before [his] zest for chaos," the
New York Times noted last week
.
Lacking experienced diplomatic and military advisers (he has sacked most of the good ones), surrounded by an inner circle of cynical
sycophants such as secretary of state Mike Pompeo, and driven by a chronic desire for re-election, Trump's behaviour could become
more, not less, confrontational during his remaining time in office, suggested Eliot Cohen, professor of strategic studies at Johns
Hopkins university.
"The president has proved himself to be what many critics have long accused him of being: belligerent, bullying, impatient, irresponsible,
intellectually lazy, short-tempered and self-obsessed," Cohen wrote
in Foreign
Affairs journal . "Remarkably, however, those shortcomings have not yet translated into obvious disaster. But [that] should
not distract from a building crisis of US foreign policy."
This pending crisis stems from Trump's crudely Manichaean division of the world into two camps: adversaries/competitors and supporters/customers.
A man with few close confidants, Trump has real trouble distinguishing between allies and enemies, friends and foes, and often confuses
the two. In Trump world, old rules don't apply. Alliances are optional. Loyalty is weakness. And trust is fungible.
As a result, the US today finds itself at odds with much of the world to an unprecedented and dangerous degree. America, the postwar
global saviour, has been widely recast as villain. Nor is this a passing phase. Trump seems to have permanently changed the way the
US views the world and vice versa. Whatever follows, it will never be quite the same again.
Clues as to what he does next may be found in what he has done so far. His is a truly calamitous record, as exemplified by Afghanistan.
Having vowed in 2016 to end America's longest war, he began with a troop surge, lost interest and sued for peace. A withdrawal deal
proved elusive. Meanwhile, US-led forces
inflicted record civilian casualties .
Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest The US and Israeli flags are projected on the walls of Jerusalem's Old City in May, marking the anniversary of
the US embassy transfer from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Photograph: Ahmad Gharabli/Getty
The crunch came last weekend when a bizarre, secret
summit with Taliban chiefs at Camp David was cancelled . It was classic Trump. He wanted quick 'n' easy, primetime credit for
a dramatic peace deal, pushed ahead blindly, then changed his mind at the last minute. Furious over a debacle of his own making,
he turned his wrath on others, notably Bolton – who, ironically, had opposed the summit all along.
All sides are now vowing to step up the violence, with the insurgents aiming to disrupt this month's presidential election in
Afghanistan. In short, Trump's self-glorifying Afghan reality show, of which he was the Nobel-winning star, has made matters worse.
Much the same is true of his North Korea summitry, where expectations were raised, then dashed when he got
cold feet
in Hanoi , provoking a backlash from Pyongyang.
The current crisis over Iran's nuclear programme is almost entirely of Trump's making, sparked by his decision last year to renege
on the 2015 UN-endorsed deal with Tehran. His subsequent "maximum pressure" campaign of punitive sanctions has
failed to cow
Iranians while alienating European allies. And it has led Iran to resume banned nuclear activities – a seriously counterproductive,
entirely predictable outcome.
Trump's unconditional, unthinking support for Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel's aggressively rightwing prime minister – including tacit
US backing for his proposed annexation of swathes of the occupied territories – is pushing the Palestinians back to the brink, energising
Hamas and Hezbollah, and
raising tensions across the region .
With Trump's blessing, Israel is enmeshed in escalating, multi-fronted armed confrontation with Iran and its allies in Iraq,
Lebanon and Syria. Add to this recent violence in the Gulf, the disastrous Trump-backed, Saudi-led war in Yemen, mayhem in Syria's
Idlib province, border friction with Turkey, and Islamic State resurgence in northern Iraq, and a region-wide explosion looks ever
more likely.
The bipartisan consensus forged in the 1990s – in which the US towered over the world and, at low cost, sought to remake it
in America's image – has failed and cannot be revived
Stephen Wertheim, historian
Yet Trump, oblivious to the point of recklessness, remains determined to unveil his absurdly unbalanced Israel-Palestine "deal
of the century" after Tuesday's Israeli elections. He and his gormless son-in-law, Jared Kushner, may be the only people who don't
realise their plan has a shorter life expectancy than a snowball on a hot day in Gaza.
... ... ...
...he is consistently out of line, out on his own – and out of control. This, broadly, is Trump world as it has come to exist
since January 2017. And this, in a nutshell, is the intensifying foreign policy crisis of which Professor Cohen warned. The days
when responsible, trustworthy, principled US international leadership could be taken for granted are gone. No vague change of tone
on North Korea or Iran will by itself halt the Trump-led slide into expanding global conflict and division.
Historians such as Stephen Wertheim say change had to come. US politicians of left and right mostly agreed that "the bipartisan
consensus forged in the 1990s – in which the US towered over the world and, at low cost, sought to remake it in America's image –
has failed and cannot be revived",Wertheim wrote earlier this year
. "But agreement ends there " he continued: "One camp holds that the US erred by coddling China and Russia, and urges a new competition
against these great power rivals. The other camp, which says the US has been too belligerent and ambitious around the world, counsels
restraint, not another crusade against grand enemies."
This debate among grownups over America's future place in the world will form part of next year's election contest. But before
any fundamental change of direction can occur, the international community – and the US itself – must first survive another 16 months
of Trump world and the wayward child-president's poll-fixated, ego-driven destructive tendencies.
Survival is not guaranteed. The immediate choice facing US friends and foes alike is stark and urgent: ignore, bypass and marginalise
Trump – or actively, openly, resist him.
Here are some of the key flashpoints around the globe
United Nations
Trump is deeply hostile to the UN. It embodies the multilateralist, globalist policy approaches he most abhors – because they
supposedly infringe America's sovereignty and inhibit its freedom of action. Under him, self-interested US behaviour has undermined
the authority of the UN security council's authority. The US has rejected a series of international treaties and agreements, including
the Paris climate change accord and the Iran nuclear deal. The UN-backed international criminal court is beyond the pale. Trump's
attitude fits with his "America First" isolationism, which questions traditional ideas about America's essential global leadership
role.
Germany
Trump rarely misses a chance to bash Germany, perhaps because it is Europe's most successful economy and represents the EU, which
he detests. He is obsessed by German car imports, on which protectionist US tariffs will be levied this autumn. He accuses Berlin
– and Europe– of piggy-backing on America by failing to pay its fair share of Nato defence costs. Special venom is reserved for Germany's
chancellor, Angela Merkel, most likely because she is
a woman who stands up to him . Trump recently insulted another female European leader, Denmark's
Mette Frederiksen, after she refused to sell him Greenland .
Israel
Trump has made a great show of unconditional friendship towards Israel and its rightwing prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, who
has skilfully maximised his White House influence. But by moving the US embassy to Jerusalem, officially condoning Israel's annexation
of the Golan Heights, and withdrawing funding and other support from the Palestinians, the president has abandoned the long-standing
US policy of playing honest broker in the peace process. Trump has also tried to exploit antisemitism for political advantage, accusing
US Democrat Jews who oppose Netanyahu's policies of "disloyalty" to Israel.
Repeating lies over and over makes old-fashioned Joseph Goebbels-type propaganda.
Repeating lies, then contradicting them; moving them from one government-paid think-tank to
another; footnoting a new lie to an older version; quoting policemen and gangsters saying
fatuities; adding slang and the words of pop songs -- this is still Goebbels-type but
stretched out and product-diversified to make its author more money. This is Mark Galeotti's
method .
####
The rest at the link and a deep dive on Galeotti himself.
"We have a president who, unlike any other president in modern history, is willing to use
sensitive, classified intelligence however he sees fit," said Steven L. Hall, a former C.I.A.
official who led the agency's Russia operations. "He does it in front of our adversaries. He
does it by tweet. We are in uncharted waters."
But the government had indicated that the source existed long before Mr. Trump took office,
first in
formally accusing Russia of interference in October 2016 and then when intelligence
officials declassified parts of their assessment about the interference campaign for public
release in January 2017. News agencies,
including NBC , began reporting around that time about Mr. Putin's involvement in the
election sabotage and on the C.I.A.'s possible sources for the assessment.
The news reporting in the spring and summer of 2017 convinced United States government
officials that they had to update and revive their extraction plan, according to people
familiar the matter.
The extraction ensured the informant was in a safer position and rewarded for a long career
in service to the United States. But it came at a great cost: It left the C.I.A. struggling to
understand what was going on inside the highest ranks of the Kremlin.
The agency has long struggled to recruit sources close to Mr. Putin, a former intelligence
officer himself wary of C.I.A. operations. He confides in only a small group of people and has
rigorous operational security, eschewing electronic communications.
James R. Clapper Jr., the former director of national intelligence who left office at the
end of the Obama administration, said he had no knowledge of the decision to conduct an
extraction. But, he said, there was little doubt that revelations about the extraction were
"going to make recruiting assets in Russia even more difficult than it already is." Correction
: Sept. 10, 2019
An earlier version of this article referred incorrectly to the timing of the initial
reporting on the C.I.A.'s 2016 exfiltration offer to a Russian informant. An offer that appears
to be the same one that The New York Times described was reported in 2018 in Bob Woodward's
book "Fear."
What can the Russians do to get ahead of the narrative on the likely impending demise of
Smolenkov by novichok or polonium poisoning?
I know some here might say "Everyone would know it is a false flag if Smolenkov gets
assassinated!" and that is certainly true if by "everyone" one means the regular
readers here and at a few other analysis sites that are not controlled by the empire.
The concern is about the three hundred million other Americans who are at least partially
captured by the false narratives pumped out non-stop from their Plato's Cave displays.
Is there anything that the Russians can do now to inoculate some Americans against the hard
sell they will be facing when the corporate mass media ( Mighty Wurlitzer ) cranks up
the multi-channel marketing campaign for the United States' own Skripal farce?
"... Macron then outdid himself: "We are living the end of Western hegemony," he told the assembled envoys. ..."
"... Macron is an opportunistic main-chancer in European politics, and it is not at all certain how far he can or will attempt to advance his new vision of either the West or Europe in the Continent's councils of state. But as evidence of a new current in Western thinking about Russia, the non–West in general, and Europe's long-nursed desire for greater independence from Washington, the importance of his comments is beyond dispute. ..."
"... Macron may prove a pushover, or a would-be Gaullist who fails to make the grade. Or he may have just announced a long-awaited inflection point in trans–Atlantic ties. Either way, he has put highly significant questions on the table. It will be interesting to see what responses they may elicit, not least from the Trump White House. ..."
"... who in their right mind would trust the U.S. anymore for any reason? ..."
"... Until now, the conflict with Russia has resulted in the conversion of the Ukrainian (and other formerly eastern bloc countries) economy from highly industrial to a supplier of cheap labor, some agricultural products, and raw materials to the EU. ..."
"... The empire's war machine always needs a boogeyman. ..."
"... America has earned the mistrust of most of the world. Although establishing a good relationship with Russia is a good idea, using it to isolate Russia probably will not work. ..."
"... Many of Patrick's observations are astute and well-reasoned. But he is ABSOLUTELY WRONG to put any faith whatsoever in Trump being able to negotiate ANYTHING of importance, whether it be with North Korea or Russia. Wake up! There is "no one home" in Donald Trump!! ..."
"... We are witnessing a severely incapacitated, mentally ill individual pretending to be a leader, who is endangering the entire planet. If this doesn't scare the shit out of you, you need to have your head examined! ..."
"... IMHO, it is a fool's errand for our policy makers to think that Russia can be "peeled away from China", or that Russia and China has not seen through that strategy as another ploy by the West to retain hegemony. ..."
"... The West has been hostile to Russia since its inception as a non-monarchy in 1917. ..."
"... The New York Times has played an effective Orwellian role in recent years, simply by reflecting unannounced policy directives – notably the smooth shifts in designated official enemies from ISIS to Russia/Putin to China/Xi all in the space of six short years. ..."
"... The Times has become nothing but a bunch of stenographers for the Intelligence Community. ..."
"... You nailed it in calling it Orwellian. ISIS as "official" enemy indeed is a classic representation of 'doublespeak.' All of those *accidental* U.S. arms-drops on their positions, helicopters showing up to rescue their leaders, the apparent invisibility of those oil tanker fleets freely and blatantly running the highways into Turkey for several years ..."
"... As much of that oil was shipped to Israel by Erdogan's kid at below market prices, it was another testament to the duplicitous nature of the entire scheme to bring Syria down. Fail. Epic fail. I love it. That egg looks great on Netanyahu's face. ..."
"... Trump and the establishment punish and sanction Russia but get along fine with MBS Mohammad Bone Sawman. I voted for Trump but got Hillary's foreign policy. The Devil runs America. ..."
In desultory fashion over the past month or so, we have had indications that the policy
cliques in Washington are indeed reconsidering the Cold War II they set in motion during the
Obama administration's final years. And President Donald Trump, persistent in his effort to
reconstruct relations with Russia, now finds an unlikely ally in Emmanuel Macron. This suggests
a nascent momentum in a new direction.
"Pushing Russia away from Europe is a profound strategic mistake," the French president
asserted in a stunning series of
remarks to European diplomats immediately after the Group of 7 summit in Biarritz late last
month.
This alone is a bold if implicit attack on the hawkish Russophobes Trump now battles in
Washington. Macron then outdid himself: "We are living the end of Western hegemony," he told
the assembled envoys.
It is difficult to recall when a Western leader last spoke so truthfully and insightfully of
our 21 st century realities, chief among them the inevitable rise of
non–Western nations to positions of parity with the Atlantic world. You have nonetheless
read no word of this occasion in our corporate media: Macron's startling observations run
entirely counter to the frayed triumphalism and nostalgia that grip Washington as its era of
preeminence fades.
President Donald J. Trump and French President Emmanuel Macron in joint press conference in
Biarritz, France, site of the G7 Summit, Aug. 26, 2019. (White House/ Andrea Hanks)
There is much to indicate that the West's aggressively hostile posture toward Russia remains
unchanged. The Russophobic rhetoric emanating from Washington and featured daily in our
corporate television broadcasts continues unabated. Last month Washington formally abandoned
the bilateral treaty limiting deployment of intermediate-range ballistic missiles, signed with
Moscow in 1987. As anyone could have predicted, NATO now suggests it will
upgrade its missile defense systems in Poland and Romania. This amounts to an engraved
invitation to the Russian Federation to begin a new arms race.
But a counter-argument favoring a constructive relationship with Russia is now evident. This
is not unlike the abrupt
volte-face in Washington's thinking on North Korea: It is now broadly accepted that the
Korean crisis can be resolved only at the negotiating table.
The Times Are Changing
The New York Times seems to be on board with this this sharp turn in foreign policy.
It reported the
new consensus on North Korea in a news analysis on July 11. Ten days later it published another
arguing that it's time to put down the spear and make amends with Moscow. Here is the
astonishing pith of the piece: "China, not Russia, represents by far the greater challenge to
American objectives over the long term. That means President Trump is correct to try to
establish a sounder relationship with Russia and peel it away from China."
It is encouraging that the Times has at last discovered the well-elaborated alliance
between Moscow and Beijing. It took the one-time newspaper of record long enough. But there is
another feature of this article that is important to note: It was published as a lead
editorial. This is not insignificant.
It is essential, when reading the Times , to understand the close -- not to say
corrupt -- relations it has maintained with political power in Washington over many
generations. This is well-documented in histories of the paper and of institutions such as the
CIA. An editorial advancing a policy shift of this magnitude almost certainly reflects the
paper's close consultations, at senior levels of management, with policy-setting officials at
the National Security Council, the State Department, or at the Pentagon. The editorial is
wholly in keeping with Washington's pronounced new campaign to designate China as America's
most dangerous threat.
It is impossible to say whether Trump is emboldened by an inchoate shift of opinion on
Russia, but he flew his banner high at the Biarritz G–7. Prior to his departure for the
summit in southwest France he asserted that Russia should be
readmitted to the group when it convenes in the U.S. next year. Russia was excluded in
2014, following its annexation of Crimea in response to the coup in Kiev.
Trump repeated the thought in Biarritz, claiming there was
support among other members for the restoration of the G–8. "I think it's a work in
progress," he said. "We have a number of people that would like to see Russia back."
Macron is plainly one of those people. It was just after Trump sounded his theme amid
Biarritz's faded grandeur -- and what an excellent choice for a convention of the Western
powers -- that the French president made his own plea for repairing ties with Russia and for
Europe to escape its fate as "a theater for strategic struggle between the U.S. and
Russia."
Biarritz from the Pointe Saint-Martin, 1999. (Wikimedia Commons)
"The European continent will never be stable, will never be secure, if we don't pacify and
clarify our relations with Russia," Macron said in his
address to Western diplomats. Then came his flourish on the imminent end of the Atlantic
world's preeminence.
"The world order is being shaken like never before. It's being shaken because of errors
made by the West in certain crises, but also by the choices made by the United States in the
past few years -- and not just by the current administration."
Macron is an opportunistic main-chancer in European politics, and it is not at all certain
how far he can or will attempt to advance his new vision of either the West or Europe in the
Continent's councils of state. But as evidence of a new current in Western thinking about
Russia, the non–West in general, and Europe's long-nursed desire for greater independence
from Washington, the importance of his comments is beyond dispute.
The question now is whether or how soon better ties with Moscow will translate into
practical realities. At present, Trump and Macron share a good idea without much substance to
it.
Better US-Russia Ties May Be in Pipeline
But Trump may have taken a step in the right direction. Within days of his return from
Biarritz, he
put a hold on the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative, a military aid program that was
to provide Kiev with $250 million in assistance during the 2019 fiscal year, which begins Oct.
1 and runs to Sept. 30, 2020. The funds are designated for weaponry, training and intelligence
support.
Trump has asked his national security advisers to review the commitment. The delay, coming
hard on his proposal to readmit Russia to a reconstituted G–8, cannot possibly be read as
a coincidence.
There will be other things to watch for in months to come. High among these is Trump's
policy toward the Nord Stream 2 pipeline linking Russian gas fields to terminals in Western
Europe, thereby cutting Ukraine out of the loop. Trump, his desire to improve ties with Moscow
notwithstanding, has vigorously opposed this project.
The Treasury Department has threatened sanctions against European contractors working on
it. If Trump is serious about bringing Russia back into the fold, this policy will have to go.
This may mean going up against the energy lobby in Washington and Ukraine's many advocates on
Capitol Hill.
To date, U.S. threats to retaliate against construction of Nord Stream 2 have done nothing
but irritate Europeans, who have ignored them, while furthering the Continent's desire to
escape Washington's suffocating embrace. This is precisely the kind of contradiction Macron
addressed when he protested that Europeans need to begin acting in their own interests rather
than acquiesce as Washington force-marches them on a never-ending anti–Russia
crusade.
Macron may prove a pushover, or a would-be Gaullist who fails to make the grade. Or he may
have just announced a long-awaited inflection point in trans–Atlantic ties. Either way,
he has put highly significant questions on the table. It will be interesting to see what
responses they may elicit, not least from the Trump White House.
Patrick Lawrence, a correspondent abroad for many years, chiefly for the International
Herald Tribune , is a columnist, essayist, author and lecturer. His most recent book is
"Time No Longer: Americans After the American Century" (Yale). Follow him on Twitter @thefloutist . His web site is Patrick Lawrence . Support his work via
his Patreon site .
Erelis , September 10, 2019 at 18:49
A few European countries may develop warmer relations .but reproachment with Russia will
not happen in our lifetimes. Macron offered nothing but rhetoric. The West continues economic
warfare and a militaristic stance toward Russia. Western institutions and interests are too
tied into Russo-phobia to give it up–it is a financial and emotional heroin to the
West. Break the Russian/Chinese alliance? Ain't gonna happen.
As for the NYTimes. They recently have published unsubstantiated accounts about some spy
close to Putin who swears by gawd that Putin personally ordered Trump's victory. How is it
going to be possible for Trump or even a new democratic president to engage Russia
diplomatically with such widely published and accepted propaganda?. Every leading democratic
party candidate have sworn to the Russiagate hoax and issued highly aggressive rhetoric. They
will be called traitors if they even speak with Putin unless they attempt to punch out
Putin.
Jim Glover , September 10, 2019 at 17:36
Now that the war monger Bolton is gone that is good news for pursuing Peace.
It is also good that Patrick points out what has been hiding in plain site from the divide
and conquer propaganda from the mass media that the Cold War and the old ones have always
been about the West against the East. Maybe the Trump challengers can join the new Pursuit of
Peace for the good of Humanity. It Can't hurt!
Stephen M , September 10, 2019 at 15:14
This is as good a time as any to point to an alternative vision of foreign policy. One
based on the principle of non-interference, respect for sovereignty, territorial integrity,
and, above all, international law. One based on peaceful coexistence and mutual cooperation.
A vision of the world at peace and undivided by arbitrary distinctions. Such a world is
possible and even though there are currently players around the world who are striving in
that direction we need look no further than our own history for inspiration. Ladies and
gentlemen, I give you one Henry A. Wallace, for your consideration.
(The following excerpts from an article by Dr. Dennis Etler. Link to the full article
provided below.) --
The highest profile figure who articulated an alternative vision for American foreign
policy was the politician Henry Wallace, who served as vice president under Franklin D.
Roosevelt from 1940-1944 and ran for president in 1948 as the candidate of the Progressive
Party.
After he became vice president in 1940, as Roosevelt was increasingly ill, Wallace
promoted a new vision for America's role in the world that suggested that rather than playing
catch up with the imperial powers, the United States should work with partners to establish a
new world order that eliminated militarism, colonialism and imperialism.
Wallace gave a speech in 1942 that declared a "Century of the Common Man." He described a
post-war world that offered "freedom from want," a new order in which ordinary citizens,
rather than the rich and powerful, would play a decisive role in politics.
That speech made direct analogy between the Second World War and the Civil War, suggesting
that the Second World War was being fought to end economic slavery and to create a more equal
society. Wallace demanded that the imperialist powers like Britain and France give up their
colonies at the end of the war.
In diplomacy, Wallace imagined a multi-polar world founded on the United Nations Charter with
a focus on peaceful cooperation. In contrast, in 1941 Henry Luce, publisher of Time Magazine,
had called for an 'American century,' suggesting that victory in war would allow the United
States to "exert upon the world the full impact of our influence, for such purposes as we see
fit and by such means as we see fit."
Wallace responded to Luce with a demand to create a world in which "no nation will have the
God-given right to exploit other nations. Older nations will have the privilege to help
younger nations get started on the path to industrialization, but there must be neither
military nor economic imperialism." Wallace took the New Deal global. His foreign policy was
to be based on non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries and mutual respect
for each other's territorial integrity and sovereignty.
--
Sadly, since then, despite occasional efforts to head in a new direction, the core
constituency for US foreign policy has been corporations, rather than the "common man" either
in the United States, or the other nations of the world, and United States foreign relations
have been dominated by interference in the political affairs of other nations. As a result
the military was transformed from an "arsenal for democracy" during the Second World War into
a defender of privilege at home and abroad afterwards.
-- -
Foreign aid for Wallace was not a tool to foster economic dominance as it was to become, but
rather "economic assistance without political conditions to further the independent economic
development of the Latin American and Caribbean countries." He held high "the principle of
self-determination for the peoples of Africa, Asia, the West Indies, and other colonial
areas." He saw the key policy for the United States to be based on "the principles of
non-interference in the internal affairs of other nations and acceptance of the right of
peoples to choose their own form of government and economic system."
--
Wallace's legacy suggests that it is possible to put forth a vision of an honest
internationalism in US foreign policy that is in essence American. His approach was proactive
not reactive. It would go far beyond anything Democrats propose today, who can only suggest
that the United States should not start an unprovoked war with Iran or North Korea, but who
embrace sanctions and propagandist reports that demonize those countries.
Rather than ridiculing Trump's overtures to North Korea, they should go further to reduce
tensions between the North and the South by pushing for the eventual withdrawal of troops
from South Korea and Japan (a position fully in line with Wallace and many other politicians
of that age).
Rather than demonizing and isolating Russia (as a means to score political points against
Trump), progressives should call for a real détente, that recognizes Russia's core
interests, proposes that NATO withdraw troops from Russia's borders, ends sanctions and
reintegrates Russia into the greater European economy. They could even call for an end to
NATO and the perpetuation of the dangerous global rift between East and West that it
perpetuates.
Rather than attempt to thwart China's rise, and attack Trump for not punishing it enough,
progressives should seek to create new synergies between China and the US economically,
politically and socioculturally.
-- -
In contrast to the US policy of perpetual war and "destroying nations in order to save them,"
China's BRI proposes an open plan for development that is not grounded in the models of
French and British imperialism. It has proposed global infrastructure and science projects
that include participants from nations in Africa, Asia, South and Central America previously
ignored by American and European elites -- much as Wallace proposed an equal engagement with
Latin America. When offering developmental aid and investment China does not demand that free
market principles be adopted or that the public sector be privatized and opened up for global
investment banks to ravish.
--
The United States should be emulating China, its Belt and Road Initiative and Community of
Common Destiny, as a means of revitalizing its political culture and kicking its addiction to
a neo-colonial concept of economic development and growth. Rather than relying on
militarization and its attendant wars to spark the economy, progressives should demand that
the US work in conjunction with nations such as China and Russia in building a sustainable
future rather than creating one failed state after another.
Now it is clear why the CIA spilled the phony beans on a spy they had in Putin's inner
circle – to revive the anti-Russian animus that has been dying down.
Rob , September 10, 2019 at 12:00
But if there is a rapprochement between the U.S. and Russia, will that put the brakes on
the new arms race?Surely, the defense industry will fight that with every fiber of their
being. China alone is not so great a potential military adversary as to warrant so a great
expenditure. Or is it? I have little doubt that some interested parties will see it that
way.
David Otness , September 10, 2019 at 11:16
A breath of fresh air ?
Dare we hope?
Good luck peeling away Russia from China, they have some very solid bonds established.
Besides, who in their right mind would trust the U.S. anymore for any reason?
... ... ...
Vera Gottlieb , September 10, 2019 at 11:04
Well, for far too long has Europe allowed itself to be "run" by the US. And sadly, Europe
– up to now- has lacked the backbone to stand up to the Americans. Time to realize
that, even without the US, the sun will still rise in the East America this America the other
why should we have to wait until the US makes up it's mind on anything. We are grown up folks
who can manage very well by ourselves without constantly having to worry as to what the US
might do or say. Enough of this blackmail.
Insightful, Patrick. This new shift will present many new challenges and opportunities for
the US and Russia. I can see that if Trump is permitted (by deep state and NATO) as much
access to Putin as Netanyahu has had, I can see a far more balanced US foreign policy and
certainly a large step toward reducing world conflicts. Iran may be convinced to negotiate
with Trump for removal of sanctions coupled with a new nuclear deal. I have no idea if this
will impact the Iran-China oil/security agreement which is a (very expensive, unpopular but
necessary) lifesaver for Iran and huge investment opportunity for China (backed with up to
5000 Chinese military). Syria needs the removal of US sanctions to stabilize its economy, and
with the US onside, more pressure can be put on Turkey to stop arming the terrorists in
Idlib, enforce their removal/surrender, and accommodate the Kurds within Syria. Finally, with
EU participation, I can see rapid settlement of the civil war in Eastern Ukraine, and
normalization of trade with Russia. Until now, the conflict with Russia has resulted in the
conversion of the Ukrainian (and other formerly eastern bloc countries) economy from highly
industrial to a supplier of cheap labor, some agricultural products, and raw materials to the
EU.
AnneR , September 10, 2019 at 09:51
Mr Lawrence, apparently the tune has not changed re Russiagate, not really. That is if the
news item on the BBC World Service this a.m. is owt to go by.
This was all about some supposed CIA asset in the Kremlin that they got out in 2017
(Smolenkov according to RT and Sputnik) who played a role, so the BBC said in furtherance of
maintaining Russophobia, in providing said "reputable" secret agency (as now so viewed by the
Demrats and DNC) with info about Russian – nay, Putin's personal – interference
in the 2016 US presidential election. All of the (dis/mis) information that the MSM
presstitutes have been selling us on both sides of the pond re the "heinous" activities of
Russia-Putin were rehearsed again from Russiagate to Russian attempted and completed
assassinations of escaped/released ex-spies, Skripal among them.
They, the US-UK-IS deep states, will not let it go. And their stenographers in the MSM
continue to propagate the real dis/misinformation in order to keep the
corporate-capitalist-imperialist western dominance warmongering/war-profiteering status quo
in operation.
Meanwhile, NPR (and PBS doubtless) are to be headed by one John Lansing, who till now was
in charge of that dispenser of "the truth, whole and unadulterated" the Voice of America and
Radio Marti; and the BBC is partnering with DARPA-Mossad via Google, FB, Twit and the rest of
the internet behemoths, as they told us (well, they didn't advert to the underlying
structure, of course). Why is the BBC so doing? In order, they said, to ensure that we, the
plebeians, the mindless bewildered herd, are no longer subjected to, no longer have our
perspectives distorted by "Dis or Misinformation."
Heartening to know, ain't it, that they – the really existing state-funded and
controlled media – have our best interests at heart?
I'm v pleased you picked up on this shard of nonsense, AnneR, and then took the trouble to
write of it. I thought to do the same while reading this morn's New York Times. A flimsier,
more obvious propaganda ploy I have not seen in a while, and this is saying something. This
fellow must be Guccifer 2's in-law or something. My read: Those who recklessly over-invested
in the Russiagate universe thought it would go away the instant HRC was elected. They're now
stuck w/ it three years on, and this is another effort to keep it alive long enough to get it
into the histories. They'll never make it. Transparently horse-droppings. Tks again for
writing. Patrick.
Skip Scott , September 10, 2019 at 09:23
The empire's war machine always needs a boogeyman. Macron is proposing transitioning to a
multi-polar world, and ending its vassal status to empire. Good luck with that. We can only
hope that Putin's countering of our war machine keeps MAD a reality, and that the example
that Russia and China are setting in opposition to empire will encourage other vassals to
rebel. Waging peace in a multi-polar world is the only moral course of action. The war
machine, with its huge waste of manpower and resources, is the main factor in our current
path to extinction. Reining it in is the first step to ensure mankind's survival.
America has earned the mistrust of most of the world. Although establishing a good
relationship with Russia is a good idea, using it to isolate Russia probably will not work.
Meremark's comments puts it very well. Meeremark is on the mark.
Many of Patrick's observations are astute and well-reasoned. But he is ABSOLUTELY WRONG to
put any faith whatsoever in Trump being able to negotiate ANYTHING of importance, whether it
be with North Korea or Russia. Wake up! There is "no one home" in Donald Trump!!
We are
witnessing a severely incapacitated, mentally ill individual pretending to be a leader, who
is endangering the entire planet. If this doesn't scare the shit out of you, you need to have
your head examined!
The US has been fed b.s. for so long and it's hard to see getting the country in any
decent shape, foreign policy or otherwise. The Pentagon and alphabet agencies have been
calling the shots since the days of the Dulles bros. I can't see anything other than a top
heavy collapse since this long con. It's good to hear Macron saying this and good for Orange
Bejesus wanting to get along with Russia, but how far gone have humans gone before Mother
Nature gives us the swiftest kick due to our stupidity?
I agree with Patrick Lawrence's perceptive analyses of 'frayed triumphalism and nostalgia'.
An empire on the rise, for example modern China, is probably less dangerous than one in
decline. There are more of the latter type, making geopolitics dangerously unstable, and
increasingly difficult to prevent world war, where the pattern of history seems to be
pointing us. https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/
Moi , September 10, 2019 at 02:54
Zhu, if you are not aware, China has just delivered the biggest F.You to the US in geopolitical history by more or less
buying Iran oil.
China is to invest $US280 billion upgrading Iran's oil and gas sectors, unlocking a
further $500 billion of otherwise unrecoverable oil, upping it's own oil purchases, opening
factories to make "made in China" products, etc.
They also get to deploy 5,000 Chinese "security officers" so if the US attacks Iran they
could kill lots of Chinese military.
IMHO, it is a fool's errand for our policy makers to think that Russia can be "peeled away
from China", or that Russia and China has not seen through that strategy as another ploy by
the West to retain hegemony. As for inviting Russia back into the G-8 and Russia's response,
the following exchange at last week's Eastern Economic Forum in Vliadivostok is instructive
[Yandex/Google translation of the Russian text]:
Sergey Brilev: Mr Abe, I would like to ask you about this. When I just said, "the big
Seven" We all heard the report that President Trump was at the last summit of the "Seven" a
kind of lawyer [advocate] for the Russian Federation and Vladimir Putin. You've seen it from
the inside. Without breaking any obvious rules, after all it is a closed club, maybe you will
tell how it was? (Laughter.)
Shinzo Abe: As for the G–7, there used to be a G-8, there was a discussion that
creative influence on the international community is important. But as President Putin is
well aware, because he took part in the" G-8″, there are such rules: you can only quote
yourself, so other leaders can not be quoted. So I can't say exactly what President Trump
said there, for example. But I personally said that Russian influence, Russian creative
influence, plays an important role in solving international problems. Therefore, I raised the
issue of Russia's possible return to this format. (Applause.)
Sergei Brilev: if they call, will you go, Mr President?
Vladimir Putin: Where?
S. Brilev: The "G-8". In the States, I think it's next. There, however, will be the height
of Trump's campaign.
Vladimir Putin: At the time, the next "G-8" was to be held in Russia.
Sergei Brilev: In Sochi, yes.
Vladimir Putin: We are open. If our partners want to come to us, we will be happy.
(Applause.) But we did not postpone it, our partners postponed it. If they want to restore
the "Eight", please. But I think it's clear to everyone today, and President Macron just
recently said publicly that the West's leadership is coming to an end. I cannot imagine an
effective international organization that works without India and without China.
(Applause.)
Any format is always good, it is always a positive exchange of views, even when it is held
in a raised tone, as far as I understand, and it was this time in the "Seven", it is still
useful. Therefore, we do not refuse any format of cooperation.
Jeff Harrison , September 10, 2019 at 00:32
I have to object on several levels, Patrick.
"Are Western democracies, the U.S. and France in the lead, rethinking the hostility toward
Russia they conjured out of nothing since Moscow responded to the coup Washington cultivated
in Ukraine five years ago?" Good question but it beggars the truth that The West has been
hostile to Russia since its inception as a non-monarchy in 1917. The US refused to recognize
it until 1933. The classic phrase "godless communist hordes" was intended to drive home the
point that the commies were theoretically atheists and they were not capitalists. Russia
helped it along by trying to spread communism just as the US is trying to spread capitalism
now (we like to claim we're spreading democracy but that's bunk.) I'm not sure which is more
distasteful, having some foreign economic structure shoved down your throat (communism) or
some foreign political structure shoved down your throat (totalitarian dictatorship). Both
suck.
"China, not Russia, represents by far the greater challenge to American objectives over
the long term. That means President Trump is correct to try to establish a sounder
relationship with Russia and peel it away from China." I realize you're quoting the Times but
mind if I ask, what, precisely, are American objectives? If our objective was to simply live
peaceably with the other nations of the world and dazzle them with the brilliance of every
little thing we did, nobody, not Russia, not China, nobody could challenge that objective.
But that's not our objective, now is it? It could be best characterized by the weekly
exchange between Pinkie and The Brain. Pinkie: What are we going to do this week, Brain?
Brain: Same thing we do every week, Pinkie. Establish world domination. That's never going to
work. There are too many people in this world and too many countries in this world who will
not put up with diktats from somebody else for the Brain to succeed.
As for the G7 becoming the G8, as I've already said, it's not gonna happen. Putin has
already said that it should include India and China. The West won't accept that. Frankly, if
membership in "the club" can be lifted as easily as it was last time, why should Russia be
interested? As I've said, I think that Russia has turned eastward. If the west has something
on offer, great but they wouldn't be looking for it. Russia has managed to make the sanctions
regime very painful for the EU even though the EU doesn't seem to notice. Offering Russia a
very junior chair at the G7 whilst maintaining the sanctions and other visions of economic
warfare against Russia is not a calculus that Russia will be interested in.
This could turn into the one bridge too far for the Europeans.
Zhu , September 9, 2019 at 21:13
It'll be China, China, china, next. How dare they prosper! How dare they not submit and not
obey!
jaycee , September 9, 2019 at 20:07
The New York Times has played an effective Orwellian role in recent years, simply by
reflecting unannounced policy directives – notably the smooth shifts in designated
official enemies from ISIS to Russia/Putin to China/Xi all in the space of six short years.
Judging by the Times' own comment sections, a fair number of the general public are quick to
internalize a hatred of the "enemy" without reflection on how/why the object of their ire can
be one day one villain, and then a whole new villain the next.
Steve , September 10, 2019 at 07:11
The Times has become nothing but a bunch of stenographers for the Intelligence Community.
The days of them treating their sources with skepticism are LONG gone. I'm no fan of Ben
Rhodes, but that guy was spot-on when he referred to the Washington press corps as a bunch of
20-something know-nothings whose ignorance makes them easily manipulated into becoming an
echo chamber of support for whatever policies their government sources are pushing.
lysias , September 10, 2019 at 08:21
Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
David Otness , September 10, 2019 at 11:01
" .. notably the smooth shifts in designated official enemies from ISIS to Russia/Putin to
China/Xi all in the space of six short years."
You nailed it in calling it Orwellian. ISIS as "official" enemy indeed is a classic
representation of 'doublespeak.' All of those *accidental* U.S. arms-drops on their
positions, helicopters showing up to rescue their leaders, the apparent invisibility of those
oil tanker fleets freely and blatantly running the highways into Turkey for several years.
(The Russians sure found them in a hurry.) As much of that oil was shipped to Israel by Erdogan's kid at below market prices, it was another testament to the duplicitous nature of
the entire scheme to bring Syria down. Fail. Epic fail. I love it. That egg looks great on
Netanyahu's face.
Brent , September 9, 2019 at 20:00
Trump and the establishment punish and sanction Russia but get along fine with MBS
Mohammad Bone Sawman. I voted for Trump but got Hillary's foreign policy. The Devil runs
America.
Tim , September 9, 2019 at 19:48
Yes Bob, it would be a good change, except, if Britain is co-opted by the US, then it will
be a wholly owned subsidy and block change in Europe.
Tim Jones , September 9, 2019 at 20:50
subsidiary
Tim Jones , September 9, 2019 at 19:40
Just hope Brexit is negotiated and Britain is not fully taken over by Washington as a new
investment opportunity.
Ikallicrates , September 10, 2019 at 10:57
US corporations did indeed anticipate that post Brexit UK would be a new investment
opportunity. The US health insurance industry, for example, was poised to swoop down on the
UK as soon as the Tories finished destroying the NHS. But thanks to BoJo's bungling of
Brexit, the Tories could lose the next general election, so they've reversed direction and
are appeasing angry Brits by promising to save the NHS. By bringing down the Tories, BoJo may
make Britain great again (#MBGA).
Meremark , September 9, 2019 at 19:18
RT said Putin says Russia in G-8 is improvident without China and India economies and
geo-strategies also figured in. A G-10 league?
Putin's chessmanship is operaticly clean. not to be confused with poker as people
generally do confuse. This lacks the bluffing of poker; in this the pieces of global power
projection are standing on the board, chess obvious.
Maybe not so easy to peel Russia apart from China, if that's Plan B kicking around the
Pentagon.
At some point maybe they can consider Plan Delta ? which stands for change.
Steve , September 10, 2019 at 07:03
Let's be honest, the G-7 is pretty outdated. Canada and Italy are pretty much out of their
league. America's hat and a fourth western European power seem unnecessary. Replace them with
China and India, and bring Russia back in to make it the G-8.
Thank you, Meremark. Putin does not take his directives from the NYT.
Daniel Rich , September 9, 2019 at 19:17
Macron, a Rothschild pawn, gives as much abut true Democrat as he does about the Yellow
Vests' protest
No, no, not the Hong Kong, US flags waving goons, but ordinary French citizens who're fed
up with the direction their government moves onward to, the ones you hear nothing about.
Bob Van Noy , September 9, 2019 at 17:25
Thank you Patrick Lawrence, if your analysis is correct it would be a turning point in
international relations and extremely significant. I like to think that the web has put us
about a week or two ahead of the headlines here at CN, so if the NYT is finally calling the
events accurately, it would by a stunning breakthrough
"... Rickards had previously worked for the CIA (possibly still does – who knows?) but now seems to be a free-wheeling business executive, writer and strategic analyst. He tends to circulate outside of the usual middle-ranking semi-elite circles preferring to consort with the less observable, higher-ranking coteries of the inner-party. Moreover, he has nothing but disdain for the run-of-the-mill talking heads to be found (in abundance) in the media and academia – the outer-party. ..."
"... History is the first casualty of media micro-second attention span. An army of pseudo-savants saturate the airways to explain that tariffs are bad, trade wars hurt growth and mercantilism are a throwback to the 17th century. These sentiments come from mainstream liberals and conservatives and tag-along journalists trained in the orthodoxy of so-called free-trade and the false if comforting belief that trade deficits are the flipside of capital surpluses. So, what is the problem? The problem is that perpetual trade deficits have put the United States on a path to a crisis of the US$."[ 1 ] ..."
"... Obama, both Bushes, and Bill Clinton were globalists, defined as those willing to trade-off or compromise US interests for the sake of a stronger global community even conservative hawks like Reagan and JFK were firmly in the globalist camp, as they relied on NATO, the UN and the IMF to pursue their cold war goals. ..."
"... LBJ's administration contrived to conduct the Vietnam War as well as an expensive social programme, simultaneously. A guns plus butter economy. (The original version of the Guns versus butter argument was given in a speech on January 17, 1936, in Nazi Germany. The then Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels stated: "We can do without butter, but, despite all our love of peace, not without arms." ) ..."
"... Globally, the leading manufacturer of auto-vehicles is Volkswagen followed by Toyota. GM are 4th and Ford are 8th of ten. Hardly market leaders anymore, but Rickards apportions the blame to 'unfair practices' by foreign manufacturers and argues instead for tariffs. The same goes for other trade partners. Fact that the United States has to a large extent been deindustrialised was a political choice of its own making. ..."
"... There were a number of advantages which accrued to the dollar contingent on the ending of gold convertibility which Eichengreen listed these in his book. But the principle one was making the surplus nations of the world pay for America's wars with an unconvertible currency. Instead of being paid for in gold, or at least a gold-backed currency the world produced goods and services for a piece of green paper backed by nothing. ..."
"... This was to be expected quite simply because at bottom Rickards is a sophist much in the tradition of Protagoras, Gorgias and Thrasymachus "I say that justice is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger" [ 12 ] ..."
"... A view which Rickards would certainly endorse. Beneath the Upper Manhattan, polished chic, there resides a ruthless Cold Warrior. The further one digs into the book, the more this becomes apparent. ..."
"... Many of us are aware of the problems of the USD but few are able to so succinctly explain why and connect the dots to expose the true picture. The bottom line is that the lifespan of the USD as king is almost over ..."
"... The US has been exposed, and so well said, as a predator nation .There must be a reason why China and Russia are buying up as much gold as their economy will permit .The exchange medium used for trade since time immemorial . ..."
"... The Wall Street ethos has always been 'kill or be killed' where bears eat, and bulls eat, but pigs get slaughtered! The problem with today's market & stock valuations is that they are as hyperinflated as Real Estate Commercial & Residential sectors are which leaves no wiggle room for price discovery until there is a system wide crash that mean reverts the valuations back to a realistic price. ..."
"... All that is happening now is that Trump is trying to solve his country's intractable economic and financial problems by looting the rest of the planet. This is not a new development, but Trump is at least refreshingly honest in his public pronouncements. ..."
"... The Nazi Empire imposed tribute on its conquests in identical fashion. Send us your industrial output, agricultural produce and raw materials. In return we'll give you a big credit balance at the Reichsbank. ..."
"... The current (real) military budget is $1,134 billion, around 60% higher than the fictitious figure that is normally touted. ..."
"... Gold could form some kind of basis for exchange in a collapse setting. Other desirable barter items would be alcohol, cigarettes, basic drugs like aspirin and paracetamol, electrical batteries, fuel and similar goods. Maybe ammunition as well. Goods were priced in cigarettes in postwar Germany. ..."
"... Bismarck is normally credited with the choice between Guns and Butter. Goebbels was suggesting that Guns will bring Butter. ..."
"... The crime in all this is in the pursuit of money -- ultimately a wholly artificial concept -- we're wasting immense amounts of resources and human potential, spreading misery and despoliation all over the planet and generally behaving like really awful global citizens. We can and must do better. ..."
"... American exceptionalism, for example, takes it for granted that we in the West are good, and therefore the East must become more like us. But we are logically, and morally, obliged to look at this from the opposite perspective too: What if the Chinese take it for granted that they are good, and therefore the West must become more like them? ..."
"... American parasitism writ large over the last half century has amply signified to the entire world that 'manifest destiny' was merely a ruse to foist American hegemony onto all sovereign nations at the behest of an out-of-control American Oligopoly that was power-tripping post WW2 & drunk on the souls of the poor sots all over the entire world with their power hungry warmongering Military Industrial Complex. ..."
"... Its not "American". We just happen to be the chosen host for this part of history. Before us it was the British Empire that was top dog. ..."
"... You have made the common mistake of asserting that it is America, instead of those who govern (the USA and its pundits) that have engineered the problems you point out. ..."
"... To condense this lengthy essay: This ship is sinking. ..."
"Aftermath" is the latest addition to three previous publications by Rickards, Currency Wars (2011), The Death of Money (2014),
The Road to Ruin (2016). Together, with the present offering (Aftermath, 2019), the author uses the analogy of the Four Horsemen
of the Apocalypse to illustrate the themes of his four books. The latest book is thematic in its approach to the events which have
taken place in the world in general and the United States in particular during this period.
HIGH SOCIETY
Rickards had previously worked for the CIA (possibly still does – who knows?) but now seems to be a free-wheeling business executive,
writer and strategic analyst. He tends to circulate outside of the usual middle-ranking semi-elite circles preferring to consort
with the less observable, higher-ranking coteries of the inner-party. Moreover, he has nothing but disdain for the run-of-the-mill
talking heads to be found (in abundance) in the media and academia – the outer-party.
His observations of this social stratum are unapologetic and caustic:
History is the first casualty of media micro-second attention span. An army of pseudo-savants saturate the airways to explain
that tariffs are bad, trade wars hurt growth and mercantilism are a throwback to the 17th century. These sentiments come from
mainstream liberals and conservatives and tag-along journalists trained in the orthodoxy of so-called free-trade and the false
if comforting belief that trade deficits are the flipside of capital surpluses. So, what is the problem? The problem is that perpetual
trade deficits have put the United States on a path to a crisis of the US$."[
1 ]
As is apparent, his contempt is palpable.
It should be said that much of his writing and theorising is at times occasioned by a high level of sophistication, alas sadly
lacking in most of his contemporaries. But for all his refinement and eloquence that doesn't stop him being, from Off Guardian's
perspective (and mine), on the other side – the side of the Anglo-Zionist empire.
THE GREAT BETRAYAL
Throughout this book and previous books there runs a familiar leitmotif; a sense of betrayal by the present dominant section of
the US elite. This is not by any means an unusual political phenomenon and bears comparison with the stab-in-the-back myth – a notion
doing the rounds in Germany circa 1918.
It held that the German Army did not lose World War I on the battlefield but it was 'traitors' on the home front, especially the
traitorous republicans who overthrew the Hohenzollern monarchy in the German Revolution of 1918–19.
This precedent loosely corresponds to Rickards' belief in the perfidy of the current leadership of the US and his vitriol is directed
against this globalist faction who are firmly ensconced in both Democrat and Republican parties and whom, he argues, have sold the
pass in terms of America's strategic interests. He writes:
Obama, both Bushes, and Bill Clinton were globalists, defined as those willing to trade-off or compromise US interests for
the sake of a stronger global community even conservative hawks like Reagan and JFK were firmly in the globalist camp, as they
relied on NATO, the UN and the IMF to pursue their cold war goals.
However, all was not lost. As a result of
the Presidential election of 2016 when Donald Trump was sworn in on 17 January 2017 as the strongest nationalist since Theodore
Roosevelt. For the first time in 100 years a committed nationalist was sitting in the Oval Office." [
2 ]
The event was obviously political grist to Rickards' mill.
However, precisely how this liberation of the US from the domestic globalists' stranglehold was to be brought about wasn't made
clear, and in fact is barely touched upon by Rickards.
Trump, for all his bombast and promises to Make America Great Again (MAGA), and pursue a radical foreign policy of withdrawal
from globalist wars of choice and military adventurism, has been conspicuous by its absence.
Moreover, from the outset he has been beset by the ancien regime of neo-conservatives and neo-liberals – Bolton, Pompeo and Pence
– entrenched in key US institutions, as well as various think-tanks and media who are still doggedly set upon the realization of
neo-con foreign policy goals.
It seems odd that Rickards doesn't see fit to comment on this important development given that Trumps' campaign promises have
disappeared almost without trace since he entered the Oval Office.
IT'S THE ECONOMY STUPID
Rickards is on firmer ground, however, when dissecting the 8th wonder of the world – US economic policy. The US sovereign debt
(i.e., the debt of the Federal Government) to GDP is now at a record, this is unprecedented for a peacetime administration.
In addition, it is also worth noting the magnitude of US private debt and unfunded future liabilities, pensions, Medicaid, social
security and so forth.
This would include household debt, student debt, financial debt, corporate debt, and municipal debt. Add this to sovereign debt
and you get a figure roughly 5 times US sovereign debt, and even this is regarded as being a conservative figure according to many
– see David Stockman, John Mauldin et al).
According to Rickards, the present situation has been largely the result of excess spending by both Democratic and Republican
administrations. The spending has either been on 'Defence' – a Republican favourite – or social like L.B. Johnson's 'Great Society'
programme – a Democratic favourite.
LBJ's administration contrived to conduct the Vietnam War as well as an expensive social programme, simultaneously. A guns plus
butter economy. (The original version of the Guns versus butter argument was given in a speech on January 17, 1936, in Nazi Germany.
The then Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels stated: "We can do without butter, but, despite all our love of peace, not without
arms." )
LBJ's guns-and-butter policies were enacted in the late sixties at the height of the Vietnam war and the Tet Offensive. The utopian
attempt to have the best of both worlds brought LBJ's administration to an end; more importantly, perhaps it was also the beginning
of the process which brought down the curtain on the post WW2 economic world order established at the Bretton Woods conference in
1944.
Because the costs of the Vietnam war were superimposed on the economy not far effectively from full employment, the US domestic
sector was severely destabilised.
Instead of taxing the nation to pay for the war, the government engaged in the more acceptable practice of deficit financing
Vietnam showed that neither the United States nor any other democratic nation can ever again afford the foreign exchange costs
of conventional warfare, although the periphery was still kept in line by American military initiatives most recently in Yugoslavia
and Afghanistan.
The lesson in the long term is that peace will be maintained only by governments refusing to finance the military and other
excesses of the increasingly indebted imperial power." [
3 ]
The figure for the US sovereign debt – began to rise relentlessly from the 1980s onwards approaching wartime levels by the time
of the 2008 blowout.
It has been estimated by some economic theorists that any sovereign Debt-to-GDP figure greater than 60% represents a tripwire
whereby governments should act to rein in government expenditures.
The EU Maastricht criteria, for example, stipulated that EU Debt-to-GDP should not go over 60% except in certain circumstances
and an annual budgetary deficit should not be more than 3%.
That is a pretty tight monetary and fiscal policy EU style, but not to be outdone the spendthrift US was to go on a wild binge
in both fiscal and monetary terms the result of which is a now an unpayable mountain of debt. This gives an indication of how far
US economic policymaking has drifted away from any viable economic strategy.
Rickards fulminates:
To see how America came to this pretty pass we, one needs to review almost 40 years of fiscal policy under Presidents Reagan,
Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2, Obama and Trump from the period 1981-2019." [
4 ]
Under Reagan in 1981 US Debt-to-GDP ratio was 32.5%. The President was gung-ho for tax cuts and big spending increases, particularly
'defence' spending. This trend was continued under the tutelage of the Bushes and Clinton, and Debt-to-GDP ratio rose to 56.4% when
Bush Jr, took office and had risen to 82% by the time he left.
The Obama years saw the Debt-to-GDP rise to 100%. The diagram below 2009 debt-to-GDP was 82.3% This figure has risen inexorably
to over 100% in 2018. Yep, here we have the dreaded law of Diminishing returns. Every new dollar of input gives you 90 cents of output.
The above diagram illustrates the growth of debt vis-à-vis National Income (GDP) since the 2008 blowout. Debt has been growing
progressively faster than National Income.
The US economy, like the US shale oil industry, has become a Ponzi scheme in all but name. The Fed's issuance of new debt to pay
off existing debt signals the key moment of the Minsky crisis.[
5 ]
There doesn't appear to be any viable way out this predicament short of a straight default. But Rickards argues that 'the United
States will never default on its debt because the Fed can simply print the money and to pay it off.' This will involve an engineered
inflation to wipe out the debt. But in fact, inflation is the default, a default by the back door. Getting paid in worthless currency
is in essence no different than not getting paid at all.
NO EXIT
As for solutions to a crisis which has seemingly reached the point of no return, all that Rickards can offer is a Japanese scenario
of low or zero growth punctuated by recession for the United States and by implication for the rest of the world. The United States
had its first long decade from 2007 to 2017 and is now into its second decade.
This growth pattern will persist absent of inflationary breakout which the Fed seems powerless to ignite in the short run;
a war; or severe depression perhaps caused by a new financial crisis.[
6 ]
Not much of a prospect for the average family then. But Rickards does give some useful advice to his more opulent readers on how
they should diversify their assets.
There are apparently "luxury bombproof bunkers built in former missile silos and expansive estates in New Zealand loaded with
rations and good wines."
Really? At this point one wonders if Mr Rickards is being serious or just smug.
SOCIAL IMMOBILITY AND THE RISE OF OLIGARCHY
The social and economic impact on levels of inequality in both the US and globally have been extremely deleterious and seem set
to continue. Inequality in income and wealth – a phenomenon identified and outlined by Thomas Piketty – is resulting in societies
which more and more resemble feudal economic and social structures rather than textbook capitalism. Social class is hardening into
social caste and rates of social mobility are decelerating at an alarming rate.
The liberal notion that the individual is the author of his/her own destiny has become a very dubious proposition when the drawbridges
of advantage, birth and preferment are drawn up. Moreover, high levels of income/wealth are not conducive to growth since the new
aristocracy owns most of the wealth/income which is hoarded rather than spent on investment and/or consumption. Stagnation, idled
capital and rent extraction becomes the economic norm.
Inequality is common in college admissions where the wealthy and connected continue to send their sons and daughters to elite schools
while the middle-class are restrained by sky-high tuitions and the burden of student loans.
It's true in the housing market where the rich picked up mansions on the cheap in foreclosure sales whilst the middle-class were
frozen in mortgage negative equity.
It's true in health care, where the rich could afford all the insurance they needed while the middle class were handicapped by
unemployment and the loss of job-related benefits. These disparities also affected the adult children of the middle-class. There
are no gold-plated benefits packages in the gig society
Research shows that fewer than 50% of all children aged 30 today earn more than their parents did at the same age. This 50% figure
compares with 60% who earned more in 1971, and 80% who earned more in 1950.
The American dream of each generation earning more than the prior generation is collapsing before our eyes The middle class is
getting poorer on a relative basis and lagging further behind the rich whose incomes absorb an increasing share of total GDP The
manner in which the rich become rich is variable.
It could be due to a number of unrelated factors Problems arise in the way that the rich stay rich become richer and pass on wealth
to their children and grandchildren." [
7 ]
It is a matter of common knowledge that the traditional techniques of preserving and creating wealth have been long established
in law, customs, education and socialization; these traditional methods being practised over decades, if not centuries, have produced
a system of elite self-recruitment, one moreover which endures through time.
Many of the richest US citizens – e.g., Buffet, Bezos, Zuckerberg – pay minimal tax demands. Much of the wealth of the richest
Americans is never taxed because they hold onto real estate and stocks and pass them onto their beneficiaries tax-free. This is one
of a perfectly legal method of avoiding tax; there are many more too numerous to cite which include various other examples of tax
avoidance/evasion.
Levels of income and wealth inequality within states are usually measured by what is called the Gini Co-efficient. This measure
is a commonly used measure of income inequality that condenses the entire income distribution for a country into a single number
between 0 and 1 or 0% to 100%: the higher the number, the greater the degree of inequality. A rough estimate of inequality is a figure
above 40%.
The United States and China are in the low forties, surrounded by underdeveloped and developing states such as The Democratic
Republic of the Congo, Uganda, Burundi and El Salvador. At the other end of the spectrum are Sweden, Norway and Iceland.
In this connection the by now well-known study carried out by two American academics at Princeton University Prof Martin Gilens
and North western University Prof Benjamin Page argue that the US is dominated by a rich and powerful elite.
Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organised groups representing business interests have substantial
independent impacts on US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent
influence."
In plain English: the wealthy few move policy, while the average American has little power.
The two professors came to this conclusion after reviewing answers to 1,779 survey questions asked between 1981 and 2002 on public
policy issues. They broke the responses down by income level, and then determined how often certain income levels and organised interest
groups saw their policy preferences enacted.
Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association
and a widespread (if still contested) franchise. But we believe that if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organisations
and a small number of affluent Americans, then America's claims to be a democratic society are seriously threatened."
In summation, both gentlemen concluded that in essence the US was an oligarchy not a properly functioning democracy. All very
true but somewhat self-evident.
Rickards regards the present situation as being irreversible. He does not present any alternative to this trend other than some
vague hopes that the 'nationalist' President in the Oval Office will turn things around – MAGA in fact.
The golden age of post WW2 capitalism ended when Nixon took the dollar off the gold standard in August 1971, which was in effect
a default by the US. Holders of surplus dollars in Europe who were no longer able to swap these dollars for gold but were merely
presented with other US$s with which they had to purchase US Treasurys (Bonds) debts which were never going to be repaid. In the
age of fiat currencies Europe and various other holders of US Treasuries were in fact subsidizing the United States.
POOR LITTLE AMERICA
At this point the book becomes one long whinge about how hard done-by America has been and how the rest of the world has taken
advantage of this benign gentle giant. This rather bizarre belief calls for further analysis. The US pays some of the bill for NATO
whilst European nations pay insufficient amounts for the 'defence' of their countries.
It should be pointed out, however, that in terms of military hardware the NATO alliance is standardized to American specifications.
This means large-scale purchasing of US war materiel which is a gift bonus to the US armaments industry.
Then Germany has the nerve to buy Russian gas transported to Europe via Nordstream 2 which is cheaper and more reliable than US
Liquified Natural Gas (LNG), when in fact they should be buying more expensive and less reliable US LNG. Apparently, Germany ought
really to be subsidising the US shale oil Ponzi racket. Bad, ungrateful Germany.
Then comes the incessant carping regarding trade policy and trade deals. The US in its speed to become a cool, post-modern, financialised
economy apparently forgot about the importance of production. In the automobile industry the once dominant US triad of General Motors,
Ford and Chrysler are no longer in the vanguard and Japan, with South Korea catching up, is now the leading country in the export
of auto vehicles, a position which the US once held. It was the Japanese auto industry which pioneered production methods including
just-in-time deliveries and lean production (Toyota). Was anyone stopping the Americans from innovating?
In rank order. Figures quoted in Global Shift – Peter Dicken.
Globally, the leading manufacturer of auto-vehicles is Volkswagen followed by Toyota. GM are 4th and Ford are 8th of ten.
Hardly market leaders anymore, but Rickards apportions the blame to 'unfair practices' by foreign manufacturers and argues instead
for tariffs. The same goes for other trade partners. Fact that the United States has to a large extent been deindustrialised was
a political choice of its own making.
If the US has lost ground in the competition for trade on world markets that is because of its own insular provincialism and hubris,
not foreign competitive malpractice. Moreover, much of its productive industry which remains has been outsourced to low cost venues
such as China. The US more than anyone should know that its competitors are simply using the same policies that it itself used during
the 19th century to break British trade hegemony.
It has been the same story with agriculture. Trade liberalization (this must rank as the greatest misnomer of trade theory) and
trade treaties have been an example of the blatant unfairness of such agreements. During the Uruguay round of 'talks' (1982-2000):
the United States pushed other countries to open up their markets to areas of 'our' (i.e. the US's) strength, but resisted, successfully
so, to efforts to make us reciprocate.
Construction and maritime services, the areas of advantage of many developing countries were not included in the new agreement.
Worse still, financial services liberalization was arguably even harmful to some developing countries: as large international (read
American) banks squelched local competitors denying them the funds they garnered would be channelled to the international firms with
which they felt comfortable, not the small and medium-sized local firms
As foreign banks took over the banking systems of like Argentina and Mexico worries about small and medium sized firms within
these countries being starved of funds have been repeatedly voiced.
Whether these concerns are valid or not, whether they are exaggerated or not, is not the issue: the issue is that countries should
have the right to make these decisions themselves, as the United States did in its own country during its formative years; but under
the new international rules that America had pushed, countries were being deprived of that right.
Suffice it to say that agriculture has always been a flagrant example of the double standards inherent in the US trade liberalization
agenda. Although we insisted that other countries reduce their barriers to our products and eliminate the subsidies for which those
products competed against ours, the United States kept barriers for the goods produced by the developing countries, and the US continued
massive subsidies to its own produce. [
8 ] EXORBITANT PRIVILEGE
Oh, I almost forgot: the imperial tribute that the world pays to the hegemon; aka the reserve status of the dollar. The role of
the US dollar in the world's political economy gives it advantages which the rest of the dollar surplus-states are dragooned into
accepting. In the late sixties early seventies, the US was on the verge of technical bankruptcy due to its spending profligacy at
home and military adventurism in Indochina. It had three choices of how to deal with this acute problem.
[The] 3 courses open to the US government on the collapse of the Gold Pool in London in 1968 were: immediately pull out of
the war in South-East Asia and cut back overseas and domestic military expenditure to allow the dollar to firm again on world
markets; to continue the war paying for its foreign exchange costs with further outflows of Fort Knox gold; or to induce the Europeans
and other payments surplus areas to continue to accumulate surplus dollars and dollar equivalents (US Treasuries) not convertible
into gold." [ 9 ]
Of course, it was option three that appealed and Nixon in his television broadcast was to announce a 'temporary' suspension of
gold sales by the US to its overseas 'partners'.
The date in question, 15 August 1971, marked the end of one epoch and the beginning of another. The temporary suspension soon
morphed into a permanent one and a global fiat currency regime based on the dollar came into being. This represented a culmination
of a situation in which the US manipulation of the dollar was termed the 'Exorbitant Privilege' by the senior French politician Valery
Giscard d'Estaing. And privilege it was.
The central political fact is that the dollar standard places the direction of the world monetary policy in the hands of a
single country which thereby acquires great influence over the economic destiny of others. It is one thing to sacrifice sovereignty
in the interests of interdependence; it is quite another when the relationship is one-way.
The difference is that between the EEC(EU) and a colonial empire. The brute fact is that the acceptance of a dollar standard
necessarily implies a degree of asymmetry in power which, although it actually existed in the early post-war years, had vanished
by the time that the world sliding into a reluctant dollar standard." [
10 ]
There were a number of advantages which accrued to the dollar contingent on the ending of gold convertibility which Eichengreen
listed these in his book. But the principle one was making the surplus nations of the world pay for America's wars with an unconvertible
currency. Instead of being paid for in gold, or at least a gold-backed currency the world produced goods and services for a piece
of green paper backed by nothing.
Quite a clever little racket when you think about it.
Better still is the way that the two biggest surplus nations, Japan and China, have been the US's main creditors, bankrolling
the US by buying its Treasuries. This had another intended, or perhaps unintended effect: long term interest rates on US bonds came
down (since bond prices and bond interest rates move in opposite directions) and enabled the property bubble to expand until the
inevitable blow-out in 2008.
In mafia terms the US dollar has been a 'made' currency enjoying a set of privileges and protection which it did not earn but
foisted upon others. This is a unique dispensation which is enjoyed by the US to which the rest of the world is excluded.
However, it is in the nature of things that privileges will ultimately get abused. In pushing its luck to the point of abuse the
US should be aware that initial signs are that the world is sloughing off the US dollar. As it proceeds in that direction, the US
currency will lose its position as the global reserve asset. Holders of trillions of dollar-denominated assets will become sellers
eventuating in a collapse of the currency.
The US economy lives like a parasite off its partners in the global system, with virtually no savings of its own. The World
produces whilst North America consumes. The advantage of the US is that of a predator whose advantage is covered, by what others
agree, or are forced, to contribute.
Washington uses various means to make up for its deficiencies: for example, repeated violations of the principles of liberalism,
arms exports, and the hunting-down of oil super-profits (which involves the periodic felling of producers; one of the real motives
behind the wars in Iraq and Central Asia).
But the fact is that the bulk of the American deficit is covered by capital inputs from Europe and Japan, China and the South,
rich oil-producing countries and comprador classes from all regions, including the poorest, in the third world, to which should
be added the debt-service levy that is imposed on nearly every country in the periphery of the global system. The US superpower
depends from day to day on the flow of capital which sustains its economy and society. The vulnerability of the United States
represents a serious danger to Washington's project." [
11 ]
In light of the above we may conclude that – in spite of the irritating name-dropping – Rickards' books are interesting well written
and well-argued; per contra they are very light on facts which have been left deliberately unexamined as well as counter-narratives
which have also been ignored.
This was to be expected quite simply because at bottom Rickards is a sophist much in the tradition of Protagoras, Gorgias
and Thrasymachus "I say that justice is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger" [
12 ]
A view which Rickards would certainly endorse. Beneath the Upper Manhattan, polished chic, there resides a ruthless Cold Warrior.
The further one digs into the book, the more this becomes apparent.
NOTES:-
[1] Rickards – Aftermath – page.21
[2] Ibid., – page.65
[3] Michael Hudson – Super Imperialism – pp.298/99, 32.
[4] Rickards – Ibid. – page.66
[5] Hyman Minsky's theories about debt accumulation received revived attention in the media during the subprime mortgage crisis
of the late 2000s. The New Yorker has labelled it "the Minsky Moment". Minsky argued that a key mechanism that pushes an economy
towards a crisis is the accumulation of debt by the non-government sector. He identified three types of borrowers that contribute
to the accumulation of insolvent debt: hedge borrowers, speculative borrowers, and Ponzi borrowers.
The "hedge borrower" can make debt payments (covering interest and principal) from current cash flows from investments. For
the "speculative borrower", the cash flow from investments can service the debt, i.e., cover the interest due, but the borrower
must regularly roll over, or re-borrow, the principal. The "Ponzi borrower" (named for Charles Ponzi, see also Ponzi scheme) borrows
based on the belief that the appreciation of the value of the asset will be sufficient to refinance the debt but could not make
sufficient payments on interest or principal with the cash flow from investments; only the appreciating asset value can keep the
Ponzi borrower afloat.
[6] Rickards – Ibid., page.85
[7] Rickards – Ibid., page.239
[8] Joseph Stiglitz – The Roaring 90s – pp.206/207
[9] Gold Pool 1968. The price of one troy ounce of gold was pegged to US$35. The larger the gap, known as the gold window,
between free market gold price and the foreign exchange rate, the more tempting it was for nations to deal with internal economic
crises by buying gold at the Bretton Woods price and selling it in the gold markets. It couldn't last and it didn't.
[10] Michael Hudson – Ibid. – p.309
[11] Barry Eichengreen – Exorbitant Privilege – passim.
Frank Lee left school at age 15 without any qualifications,
but gained degrees from both New College Oxford and the London School of Economics (it's a long story). He spent many years as a
lecturer in politics and economics, and in the Civil Service, before retirement. He lives in Sutton with his wife and little dog.
Guy
Excellent article by Frank Lee. Many of us are aware of the problems of the USD but few are able to so succinctly explain
why and connect the dots to expose the true picture. The bottom line is that the lifespan of the USD as king is almost over
.There will not be any rabbit pulled out of the hat to make America great again.That is a feel good cliché used to further
induce the population to go back to sleep.
The US has been exposed, and so well said, as a predator nation .There must be a reason why China and Russia are buying
up as much gold as their economy will permit .The exchange medium used for trade since time immemorial .
FoodBowl
Measuring 'National Debt as a Portion of the US Economy' is for economics classes and for newspapers to publish. The Criminal
Elites look at things differently. They measure the National Debt as a Portion of the 'FEROCIOUS BOMBING POWER the US Possess'.
Also, 'Spreading Chaos Capabilities' is added to the Bombing Power.
From this point of view, they see enormous assets, and the debts becomes less worrying as they see less urgency to deal with
this ever growing liabilities.
Fair dinkum
No analysis required because it's always been the same. The few exploit the many. This has fed the cancers of psychopathy, messiah
complexes and endless wars.
We are rushing towards the midnight sun.
MASTER OF UNIVE
The Wall Street ethos has always been 'kill or be killed' where bears eat, and bulls eat, but pigs get slaughtered! The problem
with today's market & stock valuations is that they are as hyperinflated as Real Estate Commercial & Residential sectors are which
leaves no wiggle room for price discovery until there is a system wide crash that mean reverts the valuations back to a realistic
price.
Warren Buffett is currently sitting on $55 billion in cash so that he does not get destroyed on the upcoming systemic wide
crash. Buffett has never pulled this kind of bread from the table in his lifetime whilst waiting for a systemic crash & the inevitable
fat tail blowout that is poised to rip the face off of the USA & EU as their eyeballs get ripped out too.
Ripping a face off & ripping eyeballs out is day trader speak for kicking counterparties in the groin for the deal. The French
Revolution was all about teaching the financial elite predator class of monetary control freaks who the boss really is when the
gravy train slows during Financial Winter.
And if they can't take the heat they should get out of the kitchen!
RW
mark
All that is happening now is that Trump is trying to solve his country's intractable economic and financial problems by looting
the rest of the planet. This is not a new development, but Trump is at least refreshingly honest in his public pronouncements.
It has always been thus.
The Roman Empire imposed tribute on its subjects. You have to send us so much grain, cattle, so many slaves, so much timber
for shipbuilding, so much precious metal and base metal, so many wild beasts for our circuses. In return we won't kill you.
The Nazi Empire imposed tribute on its conquests in identical fashion. Send us your industrial output, agricultural
produce and raw materials. In return we'll give you a big credit balance at the Reichsbank.
Uncle Sugar says send me your BMWs, fine wines, electronic gadgets, oil and minerals. In return I'll give you some worthless
little pieces of green paper you can exchange for worthless IOUs called Treasury Bills.
The current (real) military budget is $1,134 billion, around 60% higher than the fictitious figure that is normally touted.
The trade deficit is $900 billion. The budget deficit $1,175 billion, over 20% of the overall budget.
America is borrowing around $4 billion a day from the rest of the world. Uncle Sam is the biggest scrounger, parasite, leech,
bludger, and panhandler in the history of the planet.
The official national debt of $22.5 trillion understates the true position by a factor of over ten. Every US man, woman, child,
and babe in arms is in hock to the tune of over $700,000.
The global economy is about to crash, yet again (because it's never really recovered from the 2008 crash)'. Answers on a postcard,
please (and one that doesn't involve giving the banksters eye-watering amounts of money).
Frank Lodge
Without reading the book in question, this seems like an thoroughly sound and incisive review. Just one thing, "cometh" takes
a singular subject.
BigB
Rickards attitude is famously: "Buy gold" to which he creates a fear porn scenario around the coming recession. His solution:
"Buy gold". Not, lets look at the conditions that are causing the underlying boom and bust business cycles and find a solution
that works for humanity. His solution: "Buy gold" which the likes of he and the others who are driving the business cyclical waves
of mutilation have already done to hedge their portfolios. Fuck Ricards. I have no time for those who wish to profit from the
overfinancial immiseration of humanity. And you know where you can stick your gold.
Good luck to anyone who produces gold in an actual collapse scenario. So you need to buy guns and bodyguards for self-protection
if you buy gold...
mark
Gold could form some kind of basis for exchange in a collapse setting. Other desirable barter items would be alcohol, cigarettes,
basic drugs like aspirin and paracetamol, electrical batteries, fuel and similar goods. Maybe ammunition as well. Goods were priced
in cigarettes in postwar Germany.
Gold would probably be of use. Gemstones, jewellery, would not. 99.9% of people are unable to distinguish a real diamond from
a piece of glass.
bevin
"he original version of the Guns versus butter argument was given in a speech on January 17, 1936, in Nazi Germany." Not for the
first time Wikipedia is wrong here. Bismarck is normally credited with the choice between Guns and Butter. Goebbels was suggesting
that Guns will bring Butter.
Martin Usher
Its nice to see this in a book but its really common knowledge. The only thing I'd dispute is this notion of an 'elite', there
is no such thing, its just greed holding the reins -- its like a mass FOMO, nobody's willing to take the long view because it
might mean they'll miss out on what they can grab right now.
The danger we face from this is that if a large enough economic bloc runs by more rational rules then its going to eventually
cream us economically. This forces us to destroy it. This is what's at the bottom of our problems with China. The USSR wasn't
strong or well organized enough to pose a real threat to us so it could be taken down primarily by economic means. The Chinese
learned their lesson from the Russian experience and 'played nice' which they built their country up -- we all heard the commentariat
from a few years ago about them 'not really being communists any more'. Now they're in a position to look us in the eye so we've
got to confront them, to take them down. (You'll notice that one of the conditions that will end the trade war is the 'liberalizing
of capital markets' -- that is, we need to take over their banking system and currency.) If -- when -- this fails then the only
recourse would be actual war.
The crime in all this is in the pursuit of money -- ultimately a wholly artificial concept -- we're wasting immense amounts
of resources and human potential, spreading misery and despoliation all over the planet and generally behaving like really awful
global citizens. We can and must do better.
wardropper
And we certainly must stop talking about "taking down" the Chinese, and instead actually try to understand where they come from,
with their roots in a far more ancient civilized society than ours.
American exceptionalism, for example, takes it for granted that we in the West are good, and therefore the East must become
more like us. But we are logically, and morally, obliged to look at this from the opposite perspective too: What if the Chinese
take it for granted that they are good, and therefore the West must become more like them?
I have been to China, and found the people there to consist of the same mixtures of honest, good, nondescript, sinister and
deplorable as we have here at home.
They also share exactly the same fundamental problem as we do: Their politicians and their people, like ours, are two entirely
separate things. Of course the origins of Chinese, or Russian, society are different from ours, but that is no reason to despise
them. Our origins are often pretty despicable too.
Antonym
The Chinese people are as materialistic or spiritual as any; it is the local deep state (CPC) totalitarian culture that needs
to change.
Robbobbobin
"The crime in all this is in the pursuit of money -- [w]e can and must do better."
Three thousand years?
He that loveth silver shall not be satisfied with silver; nor he that loveth abundance with increase: this is also vanity.
–Ecclesiastes 5:10
Two thousand years?
For the love of money is the root of all evil –1 Timothy 6:10
Surely the Anti Deceased Equine Distress Society has lobbied some sort of statute of limitations onto the books by now?
MASTER OF UNIVE
American parasitism writ large over the last half century has amply signified to the entire world that 'manifest destiny'
was merely a ruse to foist American hegemony onto all sovereign nations at the behest of an out-of-control American Oligopoly
that was power-tripping post WW2 & drunk on the souls of the poor sots all over the entire world with their power hungry warmongering
Military Industrial Complex.
Proof of their combined ignorance with respect to Cybernetics & Systems Theory was their willingness to follow the likes of
the Vietnam War architects that assumed incorrectly that they could impose a closed-looped cybernetic control system over world
finance & mercantilism throughout the entire world at the behest of academic failures like Macnamera who would not know a 'closed-looped
cybernetic' from an open-looped cybernetic if his life & legacy depended on it.
Simply put, American printing presses at the privately owned Federal Reserve cannot even remotely help or assist in anymore
financial profligacy for the Neoconservative or Neoliberal camps of the cerebrally sclerotic & Early Onset Dementia riddled, &
uneducated, financial buffoons that emanated out of the now defunct Chicago School headed up by Strauss et al. in the 60s & 70s.
All the macroeconomic indicators over the last two decades have clearly indicated that the Greenspan era of asset inflation
was nothing more than the undoing of Federal Reserve Chair Paul Volcker's hard won success during his tenure pre-Greenspan 'Maestro'
halcyon days of animal spirits run amok.
In brief, the United States of America can eat my shorts as it is solely responsible for manufacturing a finance control system
& requisite money pump fraud that is nothing more than a worldwide Ponzi scheme to defraud the entire world of disposable income
& discretionary income gain so that all gains accrue to the rentier class of speculative investors like Warren Buffett & Bob Paulson.
Bottom line is that Warren Buffett will have to purchase all the new automobiles, trucks, houses, mansions, cottages, farms,
cites, towns, railroads, roads, & precious metals as the emerging markets & first world markets all decouple just as Professor
Emeritus Benoit Mandelbrot hypothesized they would just before he died.
Go ahead, America, print the fake fiat greenbacks to infinity in vain hope of extricating yourselves from the intractable financial
muck & mire you are most assuredly going to find yourselves in this approaching October 2019.
Go ahead, Punk, make my day!
Are you feeling lucky, Punk?
RW
Martin Usher
Its not "American". We just happen to be the chosen host for this part of history. Before us it was the British Empire that
was top dog.
Money has no particular loyalty to a country. In pre-WW1 Europe the bourgeois were all intermarried, connected primarily by
wealth and power regardless of their nominal nationality, our present equivalent are similarly connected. Just like WW1 when the
chips are down we -- the ordinary people -- will be sacrificed on the alter of patriotism while they'll survive and prosper.
MASTER OF UNIVE
March 10th 2008 around 11:00am Bear Stearns time New York shitty was the virtual end of American hegemony worldwide forever more
into the obvious future of Macroeconomics & Macroprudential Policy as an ongoing concern. Debt-to-GDP of all sovereign Western
imperialist nations is intractably North of any semblance of sustainability vis-a-vis Finance worldwide or within Emerging Economies
or First World Developed Economies.
Intractable debt limits were broached when Nixon declared the bankruptcy of the Bretton Woods infrastructure of gold backed
USA Reserve Currency Status and then opted in ignorance for the petro-dollar bait & switch fiat USD Finance capture worldwide
which has now come home to roost across the rust belt of the heartland USA, and in places that were once bastions of manufacturing
for the middle class USA blue collar worker such as Detroit or Chicago. Today the business model of the USA is transnationalist
whereby places across the USA are not even remotely financed into that transnationalist Wall Street model of Finance that is wholly
parasitic to the point of crashing mainstreet USA across all sectors of the Service Sector Industries that were supposed to be
replacing the long lost USA Manufacturing Base that was offshored to the Third World sovereigns that would temporarly increase
profit margins for the transnationalist class of corporate parasites run amok to collectively destroy all life on Planet Earth
for centuries to come if we are lucky.
RW
martin
You have made the common mistake of asserting that it is America, instead of those who govern (the USA and its pundits)
that have engineered the problems you point out.
Why would the two parties in congress (Article II followers) and the two fellows with the Article II power, continue to [expand
the debt in fake, made up and useless expenses], unless they were controlled by external forces?
Maybe bankers and their high powered corporations are finding they can no longer easily dupe Americans into delivering their
resources into the pockets of the wealthy. Maybe the American people have drawn the line, no more, will they produce for the IMF,
world bank?
Maybe Americans have decided to refuse the tax burdens imposed to retire the fed debt? Maybe foreign nations have denied the
banks and their corporations access to their resources as a means to pay the USA debt? Maybe script has been recognized as a false
capital in-capable of ruling the world? Maybe organized criminals have taken up positions in the western governments and used
those positions to force on the governed many things? Maybe burdening the USA with debt is part of the plan to bankrupt America?
<==but why should the banks bankrupt America, why has access to education been limited, why has the USA spied on Americans? Why
have the governed Americans been denied access to the USA? Has the USA retired Americans from productive jobs, in order to accelerate
the demise of America? The USA has made Americans into debtors obligated to pay bankers in the form of taxes to be collected by
the USA and remitted to the bankers. <= just as is now occurring in Britain, Greece, France, and other places. Privatization,
monopolization and conversion from public to private franchising and ownership have served as the transforming agents that have
made the elite so wealthy.
Economic Zionism. as opposed to government regulated capitalism, condones no competition, allows no prisoners and either
takes or destroys all likely competitive elements (persons, corporations, or nations) Economic Zionism demands the government
that governs (as in USA governance over Americans) assist in rendering Americans broke. Is it because until Americans are broke,
the EZ bandits are hampered? Is scooping resources into private, monopoly powered, already wealthy hands, the goodies to be had
the goal? Maybe the USA is a privatizing agent instead of a benefactor serving Americans?
In USA governed America, there is much very-productive farm land, millions of tons of minerals, many productive seaports, and
tons and tons of money making monopolies (patents, copyrights, royalties, government franchised goodies, lucrative government
contracts, and plenty of government services and resources) to be privatized for profit. The goodies are located in thousands
of acres of rich farmland, the major ports and services attached thereto, and embedded within little domestic American companies
which the USA debt will eventually burden into bankruptcy. After all "scalping a bankruptcy" is historically a speciality of economic
zionism.
MASTER OF UNIVE
In 1994 JPMorgan management & traders went on a little holiday in Miami to concoct the Global Ponzi of debt & risk associated
with loans into what is known today as the Financialization Process whereby bank risk would be shuffled off of investment bank
balance sheets and onto those speculators that wanted to purchase all that risk involved in the bank portfolios en masse because
they knew how to offload that risk to unsuspecting greater fools that were always certain to come knocking in a climate of upward
growth and yield curve convexity. But the chink in their financial alchemy was obviously debt limits and the ability to track
the risk to the system as a whole given that all transactions in the derivatives world are dark & unregulated due to the helmsmen
like the Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson who previous to being nominated as Treasury Secretary was in fact the top man at Goldman
Sachs where he raked in approximately a smooth billion before traversing the revolving door between the Whore House & Goldman
Sachs New York shitty offices.
Casino Banking morphed into Late Stage Ponzi Capitalism when Bob Paulson wanted more Residential Mortgage Backed Security issuance
and pressured Goldman Sachs into providing more issuance via NINJA loans & Liar Loans after 05 when the Wall Street speculators
had to go bottom feeding for loan issuance in order to meet investor demand & apatite for their unhinged Gordon Gecko greed.
'Maestro' Greenspan emphasized his 'flaw' in his macroeconomic model of the world when the investor greed broached fat tails
on the order of a 10% crash of the power laws of distributions of loan issuance. Greenspan never assumed that the Financialization
Process would exceed a default scenario greater than 5-7% of no-performing loans in the subprime issuance tranche.
American exceptionalism via Henry Paulson USA Treasury Secretary 08 is what rendered American Late Stage Ponzi Capitalism wholly
defunct going forward into 2020 & beyond with a permanent lower bound CB Interest Rate Regime & specter of WW3 hot conflagration.
My money is on the pinko Commie bastards this time round the sovereign insolvency loop of domestic misery USA.
WELCOME to the New World Disorder!
RW
nottheonly1
To condense this lengthy essay: This ship is sinking.
This would include household debt, student debt, financial debt, corporate debt, and municipal debt. Add this to sovereign
debt and you get a figure roughly 5 times US sovereign debt, and even this is regarded as being a conservative figure according
to many
One – at least on this side of the screen – cannot but think that all this is by design. The cart is driven intentionally off
the cliff. To start off with a clean slate? Where the wealthy still have their wealth, but the suckers are depending on hand-outs?
An old proverb alledges that: To borrow brings sorrow.
To which only those who make loads of money from lending will disagree. Where are the solutions? No solutions, just listicles
as to how bad it all is? Sure, the West is reminiscent of the HMS Titanic – with the slight difference of the hole made by the
iceberg (debt) extending over the whole length of the ship. It is listing beyond dancing.
Well, I am willing to tell a secret (that isn't one anymore for quite some time):
Outlaw/prohibit Interest .
Prohibit capital gains . Or tax them with 99%.
Prevent under all circumstances a continuation of Performanceless Profits .
Make them punishable with prison time of no less than half of the age at which they were perpetrated. You're 30? You're going
in for 15. You're 65? Easy math.
Fact is, that there are solutions galore to save our souls. Problem is, those whose lives are depending on them, don't demand
them to be implemented. And why would the wealthy tax non-payers like Bezos et al want to change their 'winning team'? That is
a well known no-no. The only solution the masses of the little people can hope for is 'Force Majeur' that works to their benefit.
Shall we wait for that to happen?
And we certainly must stop talking about "taking down" the Chinese, and instead actually try to understand where they come from,
with their roots in a far more ancient civilized society than ours.
. But we are logically, and morally, obliged to look at this from the opposite perspective too: What if the Chinese
take it for granted that they are good, and therefore the West must become more like them?
I have been to China, and found the people there to consist of the same mixtures of honest, good, nondescript, sinister and deplorable
as we have here at home.
They also share exactly the same fundamental problem as we do: Their politicians and their people, like ours, are two entirely
separate things.
Of course the origins of Chinese, or Russian, society are different from ours, but that is no reason to despise them.
Our origins are often pretty despicable too.
The main achievement of neoliberal and imperial (warmongering) propaganda in the USA is that it achieved the complete,
undisputed dominance in MSM
Pot Calling the Kettle Black: "The Kremlin’s propaganda and disinformation machine is being unleashed via new platforms and continues to grow in Russia and
internationally. Russia seeks to destroy the very idea of an objective, verifiable set of facts as it attempts to influence opinions
about the United States and its allies. It is not an understatement to say that this new form of combat on the information battlefield
may be the fight of the 21st century."
Notable quotes:
"... Back in the 1960s, the CIA official Cord Meyer said the agency needed to "court the compatible left." ..."
"... The CIA therefore secretly worked to influence American and world opinion through the literary and intellectual elites. ..."
"... Then in 1977, Carl Bernstein wrote a long piece for Esquire – “The CIA and the Media” – naming names of journalists and media (The New York Times, CBS, etc.) that worked hand-in-glove with the CIA, propagandizing the American people and the rest of the world. ..."
Back in the 1960s, the CIA official Cord Meyer said the agency needed to "court the compatible left."
Right-wing and left-wing collaborators were needed to create a powerful propaganda apparatus that would be capable of hypnotizing
audiences into believing the myth of American exceptionalism and its divine right to rule the world.
The CIA therefore secretly worked to influence American and world opinion through the literary and intellectual elites.
Frances Stonor Saunders comprehensively covers this in her 1999 book, The Cultural Cold War: The CIA And The World Of Arts
And Letters, and Joel Whitney followed this up in 2016 with Finks: How the CIA Tricked the World’s Best Writers,
with particular emphasis on the complicity between the CIA and the famous literary journal, The Paris Review.
By the mid-1970s, as a result of the Church Committee hearings, it seemed as if the CIA, NSA, FBI, etc. had been caught in flagrante
delicto and disgraced, confessed their sins, and resolved to go and sin no more.
Then in 1977, Carl Bernstein wrote a long piece for Esquire – “The CIA and the Media” – naming names of journalists and media
(The New York Times, CBS, etc.) that worked hand-in-glove with the CIA, propagandizing the American people and the rest of the world.
It seemed as if all would be hunky-dory now with the bad boys purged from the American “free” press. Seemed to the most naïve,
that is, by which I mean the vast numbers of people who wanted to re-stick their heads in the sand and believe, as Ronald Reagan’s
team of truthtellers would announce, that it was “Morning in America” again with the free press reigning and the neo-conservatives,
many of whom had been “converted” from their leftist views, running things in Washington.
USAGM provides consistently accurate and compelling journalism that reflects the values of our society: freedom, openness,
democracy, and hope. Our guiding principles—enshrined in law—are to provide a reliable, authoritative, and independent source
of news that adheres to the strictest standards of journalism…
Russian Disinformation. And make no mistake, we are living through a global explosion of disinformation, state propaganda,
and lies generated by multiple authoritarian regimes around the world. The weaponization of information we are seeing today is
real. The Russian government and other authoritarian regimes engage in far-reaching malign influence campaigns across national
boundaries and language barriers.
The Kremlin’s propaganda and disinformation machine is being unleashed via new platforms and continues to grow in Russia and
internationally. Russia seeks to destroy the very idea of an objective, verifiable set of facts as it attempts to influence opinions
about the United States and its allies. It is not an understatement to say that this new form of combat on the information battlefield
may be the fight of the 21st century.
Then research the history of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, the Voice of America, Radio and Television Marti, etc. You will
be reassured that Lansing’s July testimony was his job interview to head National Propaganda Radio.
Edward Curtin writes, and his writing on varied topics has appeared widely over many years. He writes as a public
intellectual for the general public, not as a specialist for a narrow readership. He believes a non-committal sociology is an
impossibility and therefore sees all his work as an effort to enhance human freedom through understanding. His website is
edwardcurtin.com
In comparison with Joe Biden or Kamala Harris, Warren is huge progress even with her warts and all.
Notable quotes:
"... the DNC is already gaming polls, cherry-picking which are "official" for their 2% threshhold. MSNBC and other networks and pundits also cherry-pick. Or even simply outright lie if the poll doesn't match what they want it to. ..."
"... Polling should either be eliminated or held to MUCH more consistent and much more scientific standards. (demographics, prediction analysis, neutral rather than leading questions, standardized formats, etc.) Until then they're simply more and more useless as predictors of the real poll, the primaries or general. ..."
"... The difference no is, that countries like Canada, the U.S., Australia, UK, Poland, Ukraine, Hungary and with the AfD Germany are either as fascist, or more fascist than ever before. Once again, Russia is hyped up to be the eternal arch enemy of 'Western fascist values', 'freedom and democracy'. How much more difficult would it be today to round up resistance against a fascist axis that is hellbent to march again Russia? ..."
"... Sure, Trudeau is nothing but a bag of lukewarm air, but he employs hard core fascists in his cabinet – paid for by the Canadian people. ..."
"... History will look at the Sanders Warren debacle in the same way it must look now at the theft of the nomination of Henry A. Wallace in favor of the person that had no whatsoever second thoughts about dropping two nukes on an enemy that had already succumbed to the Soviet forces. Henry A. Wallace would heve never dropped these nukes. He was a staunch supporter of the 'common man'. All his policies reflected that. He was a presidential nominee for, of and by the people. ..."
"... To all the mindless party members of the Democratic fascist party: if you repeat history by allowing for the second time to install a puppet of the fascist powers in the U.S., you bear the full responsibilty for the dropping of the next nukes. ..."
"... The difference between Sanders and Wallace is a painful one. Wallace fought against the theft of his nomination with all he got. Subsequently, he realized that the 'Democratic' party would never allow for a person with integrity and the well being of the people at heart to win any nomination. He would have won the following presidency as a third party nominee – Trumann however knew how to prevent that. ..."
"... Much of what is sickening about the US as an imperial power today was present well before 1944 – indeed was present during the 19th century when the US made colonies of Hawaii and the Philippines in the 1890s, and occupied Haiti in 1915 (?), not leaving that country until the 1930s. ..."
"... Forgive me for saying so, but is a party of working folks really supposed to be grovelling for favours from billionaires? ..."
"... I think Gabbard is as authentic a new voice as i have ever seen in the DNC. She may well make it as an independent. Would Sanders? ..."
"... I'd say if a Gabbard/Paul grassroots campaign run by the Sanders 'momentum' network got their act together the USA may finally mature into a proper democracy not owned by their neolib con artistes. ..."
"... America where democracy has been extinguished and their increasingly paranoid voters are under the mistaken belief that yet another talking head can return them to a fair and impartial existence. ..."
"... Too late. Money is king and those that have most want more. The sideshow of elections produces the performing clowns such as Trump, Obama, Bush etc.all spouting the same vacuous promises on behalf of their wealthy benefactors. No real choice or change and an illusion of caring for the welfare of their citizenry. Listen carefully to the clowns, it's the sound of money talking. ..."
So: the rise of Elizabeth Warren gives the billionaires a 'progressive' candidate who might either win the
nomination or else at least split progressive voters during the primaries (between Sanders and Warren) and thus give
the nomination to Buttigieg, who is their first choice (especially since both Biden and Harris have been faltering so
badly of late).
I feel like any analysis that even mentions polls is guesswork, because nowadays polls are almost
entirely useless. In that they aren't accurately measuring people who are actually going to go to
open/semi-open or even closed primaries, and caucuses. The cohort of likely voters is different from
the cohort who bothers to pick up a phone call from an unknown (polling) number. Or make it through a
whole poll. Or do any online polls. Or have a reachable phone # at all.
Plus the fact that the DNC is already gaming polls, cherry-picking which are "official" for their
2% threshhold. MSNBC and other networks and pundits also cherry-pick. Or even simply outright lie if
the poll doesn't match what they want it to.
Polling should either be eliminated or held to MUCH more consistent and much more scientific
standards. (demographics, prediction analysis, neutral rather than leading questions, standardized
formats, etc.) Until then they're simply more and more useless as predictors of the real poll, the
primaries or general.
I liked the article other than that though.
mark
"Vote for me, I'm gay!"
"Vote for me, I'm a Red Indian!"
Daniel Rich
Do these 'Democratic Party billionaires ' have names and further affiliations?
Could it be that most of these 'Democratic Party billionaires ' favor the Apartheid State?
Hmmmmm?
George Cornell
David Bradley's The Atlanticmagazine headlined on August 26th, "Elizabeth Warren Manages to Woo the
Democratic Establishment". Wooing in American politics = betraying your principles, cutting deals,
bending to the wishes of the powerful, and all round submissive boot-licking.
Roberto
That would be describing successful politics in any country at any time in history.
An unsuccessful politician would do the inverse of what you list. For those with good memories,
let's try to name some.
George Cornell
Not everyone would agree with that definition of success, but you are quite right.
wardropper
Voice in the "Emperor's New Clothes" story:
"Why don't we just ban all financial support of presidential candidates? – I thought this was supposed
to be about the person best qualified and best suited to run the country "
HEY! Somebody shut that
child up right now, will you!
The significance of Sanders is this: if he wins the nomination he will have done so by leading an
insurrectionary movement, not only within the Democratic Party but in US society itself. He simply
cannot win otherwise. And if he wins the primaries it will have been in spite of the great mass of
money and Establishment influence having been mobilised against him.
In other words he is right to call his supporters a "revolution."
It is of course equally true of the Corbyn movement- any victories are immense defeats for both the
Establishment and its media. That, in itself is important.
And nowhere more than in Canada where the third and fourth parties- the NDP and the Greens- continue
to tack further and further to the right, trying to catch up with the rightward swing of the Liberal
Party -now close to full on neo-naziism- and the ultra right Tories.
Thank You for the link. While I am keenly aware of the untold history of WWII and the fact that
Hitler would have never gotten where he was from 1933-1941 without the propping up by both U.S. and
Zionist interests (mind the redundancy), eager to crush the perceived anti-capitalist behemoth
Soviet Union, I am wondering about the present re-run of the same story unfolding.
The difference
no is, that countries like Canada, the U.S., Australia, UK, Poland, Ukraine, Hungary and with the
AfD Germany are either as fascist, or more fascist than ever before. Once again, Russia is hyped up
to be the eternal arch enemy of 'Western fascist values', 'freedom and democracy'. How much more
difficult would it be today to round up resistance against a fascist axis that is hellbent to march
again Russia?
Sure, Trudeau is nothing but a bag of lukewarm air, but he employs hard core fascists in his
cabinet – paid for by the Canadian people. The rest of the what goes for the 'value West' is more
of a disgrace than at any time before. These are the real dark ages, as I have stated before.
Nothing good can come from these psychopathic puppets in control of countries that ought to deserve
much better. Maybe, just maybe, the people of the countries in question should read Rudi Dutschke's
works about 'Extra Parliamentary Opposition' – for Dummies?
Until Turkey is able to produce S-400 anti-aircraft missile systems – it will buy weapons from Russia.
Turkey intends to buy from Russia additional S-400 air defense systems
While Bernie Sanders is no Henry A. Wallace by a long shot, Elizabeth Warren is the new Harry Trumann.
The Democrats are still the Democratic fascist Party of America and have their party base hypnotized
into believing that it has the well being of its voters on its mind.
That is of course a lie and
pure propaganda. And since the U.S. is the second most vulnerable nation to propaganda and fascism –
with Germany being the number one, in both the past and the present – the people that refuse to leave
the Democratic Fascist Party are remiscent of those people who kept following Hitler, even after it
had become clear that his 'party' would drive Germany into the abyss.
For the brownshirt-like followers of proven war criminals that both lead, or finance the 'party',
absolutely no crime is big enough that would warrant to turn their back on the fascist party.
History
will look at the Sanders Warren debacle in the same way it must look now at
the theft
of the nomination of Henry A. Wallace
in favor of the person that had no whatsoever second
thoughts about dropping two nukes on an enemy that had already succumbed to the Soviet forces. Henry
A. Wallace would heve never dropped these nukes. He was a staunch supporter of the 'common man'. All
his policies reflected that. He was a presidential nominee for, of and by the people.
That did not sit too well with the fascists and they stole the nomination from him. Present day
America has turned into this corrupt cesspool because of this stolen nomination. Everything that is
sickening about the U.S. today, started in 1944. All the surveillance, the mindcontrol, the cold war
and the transformation into a wannabe empire – they are all the result of this infamy by the hands of
the Democratic fascists.
To all the mindless party members of the Democratic fascist party: if you repeat history by
allowing for the second time to install a puppet of the fascist powers in the U.S., you bear the full
responsibilty for the dropping of the next nukes. Suffering from such deep sitting cognitive
dissonance, party members will find all kinds of excuses to prevent the truth from coming out. Just as
there was no war crime by Clinton and Obama sufficient enough to not cheer them like the greatest
baseball team ever. Leave the Democratic fascist party now, or have history piss on your graves.
Norcal
Very convincing argument and link, perfectly done. Thank you nottheonly1.
nottheonly1
Thank You, Norcal. It may be best to download these video clips, since they are all taken down
one after another based on 'copyright issues'.
The difference between Sanders and Wallace is a painful one. Wallace fought against the theft
of his nomination with all he got. Subsequently, he realized that the 'Democratic' party would
never allow for a person with integrity and the well being of the people at heart to win any
nomination. He would have won the following presidency as a third party nominee – Trumann
however knew how to prevent that. As the clip states, the American people only have to be
frightened and you can sell them their own demise on a golden platter. The ridicule and shaming
of those who want a third party can also be traced back to this time.
It is equally very disturbing that the owner class managed to brain wash the people into
accepting the use of 'oligarchs', 'billionaires', or 'donors' when in truth they are the real
fascists Henry Wallace had warned about. This must be reversed by all means available. People
must understand that the concerted use of these euphemisms will make it next to impossible to
accept what these persons really are and what their goals are.
Jen
Much of what is sickening about the US as an imperial power today was present well before 1944 –
indeed was present during the 19th century when the US made colonies of Hawaii and the Philippines
in the 1890s, and occupied Haiti in 1915 (?), not leaving that country until the 1930s. Of course
there was also the genocide of First Nations peoples through the theft of their lands, the wars
waged to force them onto reservations, and the massive slaughter of bison as a way of destroying
many indigenous cultures.
nottheonly1
Yes, but never before was the deliberate change of course towards fascism so blatant than with
the ouster of Wallace. This was the watershed moment that turned the U.S. into the greatest
threat for humanity. When You read about Wallace, You will find out that he generally wanted
reconcile with the Native Indian Nation. He wanted cooperation with the Soviet Union/Russians
for a lasting global peace and prosperity for everyone, not just a few American maggots. Present
day U.S. started at that real day of infamy.
Lysias
Wallace was also a big supporter of establishing Israel.
Seamus Padraig
So, whereas they would be able to deal with Warren, they wouldn't be able to deal with Sanders,
whose policy-record is remarkably progressive in all respects, and not only on domestic U.S.
matters.
Frankly, Bernie could be better on foreign policy. While he
did
vote against the Iraq War–I give him all due credit for that–he hasn't really opposed any of
Washington's other wars, coups and régime-change operations in recent memory. Oh: and Bernie, the
self-described socialist, once referred to Hugo Chavez as a "dead dictator". That being said, he would
still be preferable to the remaining flotsam in the today's Democrap Party.
Rhys Jaggar
Forgive me for saying so, but is a party of working folks really supposed to be grovelling for favours
from billionaires? The Republicans are supposed to be the party for the rich, not the Democrats .
And is not time for billionaires to be bumped off by politicians, not politicians bumped off by
billionaires?
A tad uncritical on Sanders, especially his foreign policies, but otherwise an excellent and closely
argued takedown of the risible but sadly widespread delusion that America is a democracy. Thanks Eric.
Wilmers31
Democracy itself does not say anything about quality of life, it's just a system. US democracy runs
on money. Most thing in life do – pretending it is otherwise, that's where the problem is.
Democracy is just the shell – if you fill it with sh1t it's bad; if you fill it with honey it's
sweet.
Biden is remote-controllable, he'd do as told – so of course big money would prefer him.
I've just the other day written
this piece on democracy
. The immediate context is
the fiasco re the UK Queen granting Boris Johnson's request to prorogue (temporarily dissolve)
parliament, but the issues run deeper and wider.
Dungroanin
I skimmed through and didn't spot one mention of Gabbard!
Seems as if she is being non-personed
and ignored as a viable candidate (much like JC has been over here).
There is a long way to that election yet. (The US, ours is finally within reach, unless some
wildebeast tramples in )
The DNC dirty tricks won't wash this time – perhaps its time to start reading and talking about
the nitty gritty of these leaked mails – if for nothing else for the bravery and ultimate sacrifice
of Seth Rich.
Well I'm already stretched perilous thin, DG, but will give it thought.
Meantime,
this piece from last week
by Katia Novella Miller, first of a two parts with second part to
follow on the same KBNB World News site, gives a precis of what Wikileaks showed the world.
The lack of mention of Gabbard is telling, as is the fact the Billionaire crowd (Rubinites) are
pushing for a candidate I ain't even heard of.
The fact remains, a Sanders – Gabbard ticket
against Trump is the preferable outcome for many observers on the Left.
Just as a reminder, neither Sanders & Gabbard are God like figures, in much the same way
Corbyn ain't, however, they are the best available at this juncture in time if we really want
some change, even if it is incremental.
Dungroanin
I think Gabbard is as authentic a new voice as i have ever seen in the DNC. She may well make
it as an independent. Would Sanders?
I read somewhere that the US electorate were self
identified as third Republican, Democrat and independent.
If they were given an independent ticket- not part of the two billionaire funded main
parties then enough may join the independent third from these.
I'd say if a Gabbard/Paul grassroots campaign run by the Sanders 'momentum' network got
their act together the USA may finally mature into a proper democracy not owned by their
neolib con artistes.
Grafter
America where democracy has been extinguished and their increasingly paranoid voters are under the
mistaken belief that yet another talking head can return them to a fair and impartial existence.
Too
late. Money is king and those that have most want more. The sideshow of elections produces the
performing clowns such as Trump, Obama, Bush etc.all spouting the same vacuous promises on behalf of
their wealthy benefactors. No real choice or change and an illusion of caring for the welfare of their
citizenry. Listen carefully to the clowns, it's the sound of money talking.
"... Anyone read Ronan Farrows "War on Peace: The End of Diplomacy and the Decline of American Influence"? In one passage he describes a meeting at the State Department where they are complaining that nobody is interested in their policy prescriptions and decide that the problem is that they need some graphs. They all turn to Farrrow and look at him as he is the youngest in the meeting and figure he is the only one who would know how to do that. "Ageism" he thought. ..."
"... The problem with the mainstream media calling out Trump is that this is like the pot calling a kettle black. Trump is awful, sure. But so is the corporate media with its pro-war and neoliberal economic agenda. ..."
"... As Ian Welsh notes, the press is Trump's enemy, not the servant of the people: https://www.ianwelsh.net/the-press-is-trumps-enemy-not-the-lefts-friend/ ..."
"... RussiaRussiaRussia has been very profitable, not only personally for the talking heads in the intelligence community but for the press. Removing clearance not only hits the talking heads in the wallet, it disrupts the relation between the press and its network of anonymous sources. ..."
"... Re 2), there seems to be an element of induced demand to support the preponderance of repetitive coverage, somewhat akin to the dopamine manipulation in video games and on social media websites. Bug and feature. ..."
This author is right. I do not know if you would call what the media did a form of virtue-signalling or whatever but the net
effect is a demonstration that the media is into coordinated campaigns. I do not think that people have forgotten the "This Is
Extremely Dangerous to Our Democracy" Sinclair script a few months ago. This is just more of the same.
I don't even know why they act so b***-hurt when Trump attacks their honesty. In the last few months I have seen them call him
a traitor, a gay-bitch, they have called for a military coup to unseat him, they have begged for the deep state to rescue them,
they have elevated people who are responsible for the deaths of thousands of American soldiers to the ranks of noble heroes of
the Republic. As far as I am concerned, they have made their own bed and now they can lay in it, even if they have to share it
with Donald J. Trump.
Yesterday when I looked at the NYT online, the big featured graphic in the center of the page, typically a photo, was a rotating
feed of Trump tweets, in headline-sized text. It struck me as a new low in the pathetic Trump-media feedback loop. It's all a
game of "made you look!"
Yeah, they probably got a summer intern to do that.
Anyone read Ronan Farrows "War on Peace: The End of Diplomacy and the Decline of American Influence"? In one passage he describes a meeting at the State Department where they are complaining that nobody is interested in their
policy prescriptions and decide that the problem is that they need some graphs. They all turn to Farrrow and look at him as he
is the youngest in the meeting and figure he is the only one who would know how to do that. "Ageism" he thought.
The problem with the mainstream media calling out Trump is that this is like the pot calling a kettle black. Trump is awful, sure. But so is the corporate media with its pro-war and neoliberal economic agenda.
A case could be made that independent media like Naked Capitalism is doing a key public service. Not the corporate media though,
whose main objective is always to maximize advertising revenues and to impose the views of its owners, the very rich, on society.
1) The best justification for giving officials formally out of government clearance on either side of the revolving
door is that you may need to call on them for advice. It seems to me that this incentivizes "intelligence" over wisdom. And for
wisdom, long experience plus open sources should be enough. (For example, if you want to call in an ex-official on North Korean
nukes, they don't really need to know the details of the latest weaponry, or Kim's weight gain, or whatever. That can be explained
to them by the customer , as needed. What's really needed is an outside voice -- the role played by an honest consultant
-- plus wisdom about power relations on the Korean peninsula. No need for clearance there.)
2) RussiaRussiaRussia has been very profitable, not only personally for the talking heads in the intelligence community but
for the press. Removing clearance not only hits the talking heads in the wallet, it disrupts the relation between the press and
its network of anonymous sources.
Enquiring Mind, August 18, 2018 at 9:02 pm
Re 2), there seems to be an element of induced demand to support the preponderance of repetitive coverage, somewhat
akin to the dopamine manipulation in video games and on social media websites. Bug and feature.
It is not vey clear for whom Epstein used to work. Mossad connection is just one hypothesis.
What sovereign state would allow compromising politician by a foreign intelligence service. This
just does not compute.
But the whole tone of discussion below clearly point to the crisis of legitimacy of
neoliberal elite. And Russiagate had shown that the elite cares about it and tried to patch the
cracks.
As Eric
Rasmusen writes: "Everybody, it seems, in New York society knew by 2000 that Jeffrey
Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell were corrupting teenage girls, but the press wouldn't cover it."
Likewise, everybody in New York society has long known that Larry Silverstein, who bought the
asbestos-riddled white elephant World Trade Center in July 2001 and immediately doubled the
insurance, is a mobbed-up friend of Netanyahu and a confessed participant in the controlled
demolition of Building 7 , from which he earned over 700 million insurance dollars on the
pretext that al-Qaeda had somehow brought it down. But the press won't cover that either.
The New York Times , America's newspaper of record, has the investigative talent and
resources to expose major corruption in New York. Why did the Times spend almost two
decades ignoring the all-too-obvious antics of Epstein and Silverstein? Why is it letting the
absurd tale of Epstein's alleged suicide stand? Why hasn't it used the work of Architects and
Engineers for 9/11 Truth -- including the brand-new University of Alaska study on the controlled
demolition of WTC-7 -- to expose the biggest scandal of the 21 st century, if
not all of American history?
The only conceivable answer is that The New York Times is somehow complicit in these
monstrous crimes. It must be protecting its friends in high places. So who are those friends,
and where are those high places?
One thing Epstein and Silverstein have in common, besides names ending in "-stein," is
alleged involvement in the illicit sex industry. Epstein's antics, or at least some of them,
are by now well-known. Not so for Silverstein, who apparently began his rags-to-9/11-riches
story as a pimp supplying prostitutes and nude dancers to the shadier venues of NYC, alongside
other illicit activities including "the heroin trade, money laundering
and New York Police corruption." All of this was exposed in a mid-1990s lawsuit. But good
luck finding any investigative reports in The New York Times .
Another Epstein-Silverstein connection is their relationships to major American Jewish
organizations. Even while he was allegedly pimping girls and running heroin, Larry Silverstein
served as president for United Jewish Appeal of New York. As for Epstein, he was the boy toy
and protégé of Les Wexner, co-founder of
the Mega Group of Jewish billionaires associated with the World Jewish Congress, the
Anti-Defamation League, and other pro-Israel groups. Indeed, there is no evidence that
"self-made billionaire" Epstein ever earned significant amounts of money; his only investment
"client" was Les Wexner. Epstein, a professional sexual blackmailer, used his supposed
billionaire status as a cover story. In fact, he was just an employee working for Wexner and
associated criminal/intelligence networks.
Which brings us to the third and most important Epstein-Silverstein similarity: They were
both close to the government of Israel. Jeffrey Epstein's handler was Ghislaine Maxwell,
daughter of Mossad super-spy Robert Maxwell; among his friends was Ehud Barak, who is currently
challenging Netanyahu for leadership of Israel. Larry Silverstein, too, has friends in high
Israeli places. According to Haaretz , Silverstein has "close ties with Netanyahu"
(speaking to him on the phone every weekend) as well as with Ehud Barak, "whom Silverstein in
the past offered a job as his representative in Israel" and who called Silverstein immediately
after 9/11.
We may reasonably surmise that both Jeffrey Epstein and Larry Silverstein have been carrying
on very important work on behalf of the state of Israel. And we may also surmise that this is
the reason The New York Times has been covering up the scandals associated with both
Israeli agents for almost two decades. The Times , though it pretends to be America's
newspaper of record, has always been Jewish-owned-and-operated. Its coverage has always been
grotesquely
distorted in favor of Israel . It has no interest in exposing the way Israel controls the
United States by blackmailing its leaders (Epstein) and staging a fake "Arab-Muslim attack on
America" (Silverstein). The awful truth is that The New York Times is part of the same
Jewish-Zionist "
we control America " network as Jeffrey Epstein and Larry Silverstein.
Epstein "Suicide" Illustrates Zionist Control of USA -- and the Decadence and Depravity
of Western Secularism
Since The New York Times and other mainstream media won't go there, let's reflect on
the facts and lessons of the Jeffrey Epstein suicide scandal -- a national disgrace that ought
to shock Americans into rethinking their worldviews in general, and their views on the official
myth of 9/11 in particular.
On Saturday, August 10, 2019, convicted child sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein was allegedly
found dead in his cell at Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC) in New York City, one of
America's most corrupt prisons. The authorities claim Epstein hanged himself. But nobody, not
even the presstitutes of America's corporate propaganda media, convincingly pretends to believe
the official story.
Jeffrey Epstein was a pedophile pimp to presidents and potentates. His job was recruiting
young girls for sex, then offering them to powerful men -- in settings outfitted with hidden
video cameras. When police raided his New York townhouse on July 6-7 2019 they found locked
safes full of pornographic pictures of underage girls, along with piles of compact discs
labeled "young (name of girl) + (name of VIP)." Epstein had been openly and brazenly carrying
on such activities for more than two decades, as reported throughout most of that period by
alternative media outlets including my own Truth Jihad Radio and False Flag Weekly News . (Even
before the 2016 elections, my audience knew that both Bill Clinton and Donald Trump were
blackmailed clients of Jeffrey Epstein, that Clinton was a frequent flyer on Epstein's "Lolita
Express" private jet, and that Trump had been credibly accused in a lawsuit of joining Epstein
in the brutal rape of a 13-year-old, to whom Trump then allegedly issued death threats.) It was
only in the summer of 2019 that mainstream media and New York City prosecutors started talking
about what used to be consigned to the world of "conspiracy theories."
So who was Epstein working for? His primary employer was undoubtedly the Israeli Mossad and
its worldwide Zionist crime network. Epstein's handler was Ghislaine Maxwell, daughter of
Mossad super-spy Robert Maxwell. According to sworn depositions, Ghislaine Maxwell recruited
underage girls for Epstein and oversaw his sex trafficking operations. As the New Yorker
reported August 16: "In court papers that were unsealed on August 9th, it was alleged that
Maxwell had been Epstein's central accomplice, first as his girlfriend, and, later, as his
trusted friend and procuress, grooming a steady stream of girls, some as young as fourteen,
coercing them to have sex with Epstein at his various residences around the world, and
occasionally participating in the sexual abuse herself." Alongside Maxwell, Epstein's other
Mossad handler was
Les Wexner, co-founder of the notorious Mega Group of billionaire Israeli spies , who
appears to have originally recruited the penniless Epstein and handed him a phony fortune so
Epstein could pose as a billionaire playboy.
Even after Epstein's shady "suicide" mega-Mossadnik Maxwell continued to flaunt her impunity
from American justice. She no doubt conspired to publicize the August 15 New York Post
photograph of herself smiling and looking "chillingly serene" at In-And-Out-Burger in Los
Angeles, reading The Book of Honor: The Secret Lives and Deaths of C.I.A. Operatives .
That nauseating photo inspired the New
Yorker to accuse her of having "gall" -- a euphemism for the Yiddish chutzpah , a quality
that flourishes in the overlapping Zionist and Kosher Nostra communities.
Maxwell and The New York Post , both Kosher Nostra/Mossad assets, were obviously
sending a message to the CIA: Don't mess with us or we will expose your complicity in these
scandalous crimes. That is the Mossad's standard operating procedure: Infiltrate and compromise
Western intelligence services in order to prevent them from interfering with the Zionists'
over-the-top atrocities. According to French historian
Laurent Guyénot's hypothesis, the CIA's false flag fake assassination attempt on
President John F. Kennedy, designed to be blamed on Cuba, was transformed by Mossad into a real
assassination -- and the CIA couldn't expose it due to its own complicity. (The motive: Stop
JFK from ending Israel's nuclear program.) The same scenario, Guyénot argues, explains
the anomalies of the Mohamed Merah affair
, the Charlie Hebdo killings, and the 9/11 false flag operation. It would not be surprising if
Zionist-infiltrated elements of the CIA were made complicit in Jeffrey Epstein's sexual
blackmail activities, in order to protect Israel in the event Epstein had to be "burned" (which
is apparently what has finally occurred).
So what really happened to Epstein? Perhaps the most likely scenario is that the Kosher
Nostra, which owns New York in general and the mobbed-up MCC prison in particular, allowed the
Mossad to exfiltrate Epstein to Occupied Palestine, where he will be given a facelift, a
pension, a luxury suite overlooking the Mediterranean, and a steady stream of young sex slaves
(Israel is the world's capital of human trafficking, an honor it claimed from the Kosher Nostra
enclaves of Odessa after World War II). Once the media heat wave blows over, Epstein will
undoubtedly enjoy visits from his former Mossad handler Ghislaine Maxwell, his good friend Ehud
Barak, and various other Zionist VIPs. He may even offer fresh sex slaves to visiting American
congressmen.
This is not just a paranoid fantasy scenario. According to Eric
Rasmusen : "The Justice Dept. had better not have let Epstein's body be cremated. And
they'd better give us convincing evidence that it's his body. If I had $100 million to get out
of jail with, acquiring a corpse and bribing a few people to switch fingerprints and DNA
wouldn't be hard. I find it worrying that the government has not released proof that Epstein is
dead or a copy of the autopsy."
But didn't the alleged autopsy reportedly find broken neck bones that are more commonly
associated with strangulation murders than suicides? That controversy may have been scripted to
distract the public from
an insider report on 4chan , first published before the news of Epstein's "suicide" broke,
that Epstein had been "switched out" of MCC. If so, the body with the broken neck bones wasn't
Epstein's.
The Epstein affair (like 9/11) illustrates two critically important truths about Western
secularism: there is no truth, and there are no limits. A society that no longer believes in
God no longer believes in truth, since God is al-haqq, THE truth, without Whom the whole
notion of truth has no metaphysical basis. The postmodern philosophers understand this
perfectly well. They taught a whole generation of Western humanities scholars that truth is
merely a function of power: people accept something as "true" to the extent that they are
forced by power to accept it. So when the most powerful people in the world insist that three
enormous steel-frame skyscrapers were blown to smithereens by relatively modest office fires on
9/11, that absurd assertion becomes the official "truth" as constructed by such Western
institutions as governments, courts, media, and academia. Likewise, the assertion that Jeffrey
Epstein committed suicide under circumstances that render that assertion absurd will probably
become the official "truth" as recorded and promulgated by the West's ruling institutions, even
though nobody will ever really believe it.
Epstein's career as a shameless, openly-operating Mossad sexual blackmailer -- like the
in-your-face 9/11 coup -- also illustrates another core truth of Western secularism: If there
is no God, there are no limits (in this case, to human depravity and what it can get away
with). Or as Dostoevsky famously put it: "If God does not exist, everything is permitted."
Since God alone can establish metaphysically-grounded limits between what is permitted and what
is forbidden, a world without God will feature no such limits; in such a world Aleister
Crowley's satanic motto "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law" becomes the one and
only commandment. In today's Godless West, why should men not "do what they wilt" and
indulge their libidos by raping young girls if they can get away with it? After all, all the
other sexual taboos are being broken, one by one. Fornication, adultery, homosexuality,
sadomasochism, gender-bending all of these have been transformed during my lifetime from crimes
and vices to "human rights" enjoyed by the most liberal and fashionable right-thinking Western
secularists. Even bestiality and necrophilia are poised to become normalized "sexual
identities" whose practitioners will soon be proudly marching in "bestiality pride" and
"necrophilia pride" parades. So why not normalize pedophilia and other forms of rape
perpetrated by the strong against the weak? And why not add torture and murder in service to
sexual gratification? After all, the secret bible of the sexual identity movement is the
collected works of the Marquis de Sade, the satanic prophet of sexual liberation, with whom the
liberal progressivist secular West is finally catching up. It will not be surprising if, just a
few years after the Jeffrey Epstein "suicide" is consigned to the memory hole, we will be
witnessing LGBTQBNPR parades, with the BNPR standing for bestiality, necrophilia, pedophilia,
and rape. (It would have been LGBTQBNPRG, with the final G standing for Gropers like President
Trump, except that the G was already taken by the gays.) The P's, pioneers of pedophile pride
parades, will undoubtedly celebrate Jeffrey Epstein as an ahead-of-his-time misunderstood hero
who was unjustly persecuted on the basis of his unusual sexual orientation.
It is getting harder and harder to satirize the decadence and depravity of the secular West,
which insists on parodying itself with ever-increasing outlandishness. When the book on this
once-mighty civilization is written, and the ink is dry, readers will be astounded by the
limitless lies of the drunk-on-chutzpah psychopaths who ran it into the ground.
Correct me if I am wrong but I thought Lucky Larry only leased the WTC buildings rather than
actually purchased them. I think I have read that his investment was in the region of 150
mill for which he has recouped a whopping 4 bill.
Would you please answer a preliminary question before I put finishing this on my busy agenda?
You stake a fair bit of your credit on what you say about Larry Silverstein and insurance. My
present understanding is that the insurance cover for WTC 1 and 2 was increased as a routine
part of the financing deal he had made for a purchase which was only months old. Not true?
Not the full story? Convince us.
As to WTC 7 my understanding is that he had owned the building for some years and had not
recently increased the insurance. Not true? And when did any clause get into his WTC7
insurance contract which might have had some effect on inflating the payout?
“Trump had been credibly accused in a lawsuit of joining Epstein in the brutal rape of
a 13-year-old, to whom Trump then allegedly issued death threats.)”
The “Katie Johnson” case collapsed in 2016 when it was revealed that
“she” was in fact a middle-aged man, a stringer for the Jerry Springer show. Just
another Gloria Allred fraud.
“a society that no longer believes in god no longer believes in the truth, since god is
the truth….blah blah blah”
This is thin gruel indeed…..just silly platitudes from a muzzie convert. There are at
least 100 billion galaxies in the universe with each galaxy containing as many as 100 billion
stars. And there is no telling how many universes there are. Does anyone really believe
Barrett’s preferred deity takes a time out from running this vast empire to service
Barrett’s yearning for “truth”? Just goes to prove that humans will believe
almost any idea as long as it’s sufficiently idiotic.
“The principal conclusion of our study is that fire did not cause the collapse
of WTC 7 on 9/11, contrary to the conclusions of NIST and private engineering firms that
studied the collapse.”
“It is our conclusion based upon these findings that the collapse of WTC 7 was a
global failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of all columns in the building and
not a progressive collapse involving the sequential failure of columns throughout the
building.”
Speaking of the truth v. parody I’d really rather work on the cause of
Epstein’s death –yes I think he’s dead– suicide or
strangulation ?
There are some things the Justice Dept. could do if they wanted to. Why they apparently
didn’t want to expose the corpse in greater detail, let media view the cell, have
correspondent(s) interview the ex- cellmate of Epstein, et.al just leads to suspicions.
This is something they should have to answer for . That includes AG Barr. Trump could make
it happen–like every thing else– if Barr says no. The President won’t.
Dostoyevsky with his “If God does not exist, everything is permitted.”
overlooked the Jewish God who permits much more when it comes to Jewish gentile relations.
The Jewish God is not limited by the Kant’s First Moral Imperative. The Jewish
God’s moral laws are not universal. They are context dependent according to the
Leninist Who, whom rule.
Not so for Silverstein, who apparently began his rags-to-9/11-riches story as a pimp
supplying prostitutes and nude dancers to the shadier venues of NYC, alongside other
illicit activities including “the heroin trade, money laundering and New York
Police corruption.”
I would like to see more about the beginnings of Silverstein’s career.
Good work Kevin, Irrelevant exactly what Silverstein did in way of insurance.The FACT is
that WTC7 DID NOT FALL due to fires. Neither did WTC1 or 2. The 6 million dollar question
is ‘WHO put the ‘bang’ in the building?’ to bring them down, by
what ever means. Im in favour of nukes for 1 and 2.
Answer that! Why isnt Silverstein arrested? I think Kevin provided the answer in the
article..
I just stumbled onto your article from a link on reddit, r/epstein. You make some
convincing arguments. I was thrilled that you brought 9/11 into this – because the
Epstein “suicide” and how it is being covered reminds me so much of how I felt
after 9/11 and the run-up to the war. -But you lost me at the end with the stuff about
Godless secularism. I’ve read the bible and it is not the answer to what’s
wrong with the world.
Why did the Times spend almost two decades ignoring the all-too-obvious antics of
Epstein and Silverstein? Why is it letting the absurd tale of Epstein’s alleged
suicide stand?
One thing cannot be denied : Epstein was arrested, denied bail and jailed awaiting trail
on a Federal indictment for much the same offence he had pleaded guilty to a decade ago,
which did not involve even a single homicide yet made him universally reviled and in as
much trouble with the legal system as a man could be (almost certain never to get out
again). Epstein was in far more trouble that anyone of his financial resources has ever
been, but then that was for paying for sex acts with young teen girls.
What an awesomely impressive testament to the impunity enjoyed by the Jewish
elite Epstein is. It is no wonder that Larry Silverstein was insouciant about the risks of
a Jewish lightning fraud controlled demolition killing thousands of people in a building he
had just bought and increased the insurance coverage of. After all, it wasn’t
anything serious like paying for getting hundreds of handjobs from underage girls. And it
is not like someone like the Pizzagate nut that fired his AR15 into underground child
molestation complex beneath the Dems restaurant/pedophile centre would take all those WTC
deaths seriously enough to shoot at him just because of inevitable internet accusations of
mass murder. Mr Barrett, why don’t you step up and do it, thereby proving you
believe the things you say .
@NoseytheDuke Yes, he leased the World Trade Center buildings one and two from the Port
Authority of New York and New Jersey. He built World Trade Center building seven, having
acquired a ground lease from Port Authority.
I can’t imagine why you ask this question in a public venue. I found the answer in
less than one minute on the internet.
I assume the insurance policies were for the present value of his net profits for the
duration of the leases.
I recall reading about this guy prior to the event. I believe it was USATODAY . He and a
silent partner had bought the complex with a down of 63million and had it insured for
7billion. I thought it odd that the port authority would let go of the property at the
time.
As the building deficiencies became known afterwards,my thoughts were along the line of
insurance fraud.
I came across a copy of the rand Corp “state of the world 2000” which
accurately describes the scenario and resulting culture of terror as “one possible
future “…. funny how it’s taken all these years to discover this
website.
Indeed, there is no evidence that “self-made billionaire” Epstein ever
earned significant amounts of money.
Good thing that Wexner is Jewish so we can discount the possibility that he was telling
the truth the other month when he said that Epstein stole vast amounts of Wexner money
Alongside Maxwell, Epstein’s other Mossad handler was Les Wexner, co-founder of
the notorious Mega Group of billionaire Israeli spies
Wexner and his fellow Mossad spy Maxwell leaving Virginia Roberts alive to repeatedly
sue them, and use the world”s media to accuse them of sexually abusing, trafficking,
pimping her out to VIPs, and fiming the trysts was a brilliant way to keep everything a
secret.
Mossad handler Ghislaine Maxwell, his good friend Ehud Barak, and various other
Zionist VIPs.
Yes, they are the greatest covert operatives ever.
Epstein’s crimes are simple breaches of etiquette when compared to Silverstein. I
believe the term “Silverstein valleys” has been used to describe the melted
granite discovered beneath the former towers, Silverstein grins widely in interviews, while
so many suffered horribly.
One might even consider the 9/11 deaths to be something of a “holocaust”.
Certainly one of the most evil human beings to have walked the Earth.
@Wizard of Oz Silverstein said he gave the okay for wtc 7 to be “pulled”.
The building was on fire at the time. Either someone wired it to be pulled while it was on
fire and already damaged or it was wired for demolition beforehand. The second scenario
seems a lot more likely. In that case all the insurance contract details are largely
irrelevant to the bigger picture.
The idea that the CIA is somehow independent of Mossad and that Mossad would have to warn
the CIA off of the Epstein matter is implausible to me. Guyenot’s hypothesis tends to
give cover to the CIA in the assassination of JFK by claiming that the CIA plot was set in
motion as some sort of attempt to control JFK and that it was hijacked into an actual
assassination by Mossad. That just isn’t credible.
It’s much more accurate to observe that the CIA was erected by the same zionists
who oversaw the creation of Israel and later the forming of Mossad, and that the two
agencies have been joined at the hip ever since.
@WorkingClass Bad cop good cop. NYT is trying to destroy him . Israel says to him
:” send this , do this ,allow us to do this , increase this by this amount , and we
will make sure that in final analysis you don’t get hurt ”
Trump possibly knows that the only people who could hurt him is the Jewish people of power
.
Has NYT ever criticized Trump for relocating embassy , recognizing Golan, for allowing
Israel use Anerican resources to hit Syria or Gaza , for allowing Israel drag US into more
military involvement. for allowing Israel wage war against Gaza ,? Has NYT ever explored
the dynamics behind abrogation of JCPOA and application of more sanctions?
NYT has focused on Russia gate knowing in advance that it has no merit and no public
traction, Is it hurting Trump or itself ?
People with normal IQ would believe that Epstein killed himself, if the following took
place –
Media day and night asking questions about him from 360 degree of inquiries
1 why the surveillance video were not functioning despite the serious nature of the
charges against a man who could rat out a lot in court against powerful people
2 why the coroner initially thought that Epstein was murdered
3 how many guards and how many fell asleep?
4 who and why allowed the spin story around Epstein brilliance and high IQ build up over
the years ?
5 how does Epstein come to get linked to non -Jews people who have absolute loyalty to
Israel
6 how did Epstein get involved with Jewish leaders ?
7 How did Epstein continue to enjoy seat on Harvard and enjoy social celebrity status after
plea deal ?
8 Why did Wexner allow this man so much control over his asset ?
9 Media felt if terrorism were unique Muslim thing , why media is not alluding to the fact
that pedophilia is a unique Jewish thing ?
10 why the angle of Israel being sex slavery capital and Epstein being sex slave pimp not
being connected ?
11 how death in prison in foreign unfriendly countries often become causus celebre by US
media , politicians , NGO and US treasury – why not this death ?
@Fozzy Bear Not true. A respectable civil rights attorney, Lisa Bloom, handled Katie
Johnson’s case. Shortly before the scheduled press conference at which Johnson was to
appear publicly, she received multiple death threats: “Bloom said that her
firm’s website was hacked, that Anonymous had claimed responsibility, and that death
threats and a bomb threat came in afterwards.”
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/3/13501364/trump-rape-13-year-old-lawsuit-katie-johnson-allegation
Johnson folded because she was terrified (and perhaps paid off).
@Twodees Partain In “Body of Secrets” by James Bamford, a newspaper article
from the Truman era is referenced where the OSS, predecessor of the CIA, is described as
“a converted vault in Washington used as an office space for 5 or 6 Jews working to
protect our national secrets” (or similar wording).
Going from memory and gave away my copy of the book….. sorry for the vague
reference, but you can look it up.
@nsa An atheist like “nsa” must concede Dosteovsky’s point from his
novel The Possessed that even for the atheist the concept of God represents the collective
consciousness, highest principles, and ontological aspirations of believers. Given this
sense, “nsa’s” real animus is more than likely an atavistic hatred of
Christians and Muslims, probably for just being alive in his paranoid mind. What imbecility
when this clown cites a multiverse of universes that has no proof and less plausibility for
its existence than the tooth fairy. I’d also bet “nsa” speaks algebra,
too, like the recently deceased mathematical genius, Jeffrey Epstein.
What’s Mr. Wexner’s, Mega’s, and Mossad/CIA’s involvement?
That’s the real question trolls like “nsa” and the Dems and Republicans
alike are crapping in their pants we’ll find out. When evidence starts to cascade out
of their ability to spin or suppress it, things will get interesting. Meanwhile, Fox News
is still doing its best from what I can tell to run cover for 911, now extended to the
suspiciously related perps in the Epstein affair.
“The Epstein affair (like 9/11) illustrates two critically important truths about
Western secularism: there is no truth, and there are no limits. A society that no longer
believes in God no longer believes in truth…..”
“While the Zionists try to make the rest of the World believe that the national
consciousness of the Jew finds its satisfaction in the creation of a Palestinian state,
the Jews again slyly dupe the dumb Goyim. It doesn’t even enter their heads to
build up a Jewish state in Palestine for the purpose of living there; all they want is a
central organisation for their international world swindler, endowed with its own
sovereign rights and removed from the intervention of other states: a haven for convicted
scoundrels and a university for budding crooks.
It is a sign of their rising confidence and sense of security that at a time when one
section is still playing the German, French-man, or Englishman, the other with open
effrontery comes out as the Jewish race.”
More prophetic words were ever spoken or written by any of the statesmen of the
Twentieth Century than these, even though they themselves were insufficient to describe the
horrors that the Zionist state would bring upon the world if left unchecked- and its power
and influence have been unchecked since the 1960’s. The last time that the world
stood up to Zionist power in an appreciable way was during the Suez Crisis.
DOT.. Port loses claim for asbestos removal | Business Insurance https://www.businessinsurance.com › article
› ISSUE01 › port-loses-claim-… May 13, 2001 – The suit sought claim of the Port Authority’s huge cost
of removing asbestos from hundreds of properties ranging from the enormous World Trade
Center complex
DOT…Silverstein knew when he leased WTC 7 that he would have to pay out of pocket
for asbestos abatement removal in WTC 7, multiple millions, which is why the Port Authority
leased it so cheaply.
DOT…In May, 2000, a year before, signing the lease, he already had the design
drawn for a new WTC building. Silverstein had no plans to remove the asbestos as he already
had plans to replace it.
DOT… Larry Silverstein signs the lease just six weeks before the WTC’s twin
towers were brought to the ground by terrorists in the September 11, 2001, attacks.
DOT….After leasing the complex, Silverstein negotiated with 24 insurance
companies for a maximum coverage of $3.55 billion per catastrophic occurrence.
However, the agreements had not been finalized before 9/11.
DOT…..Silverstein tries to sue insurers for double the payout claiming 2
catastrophic occurrences because of 2 planes involved.
DOT….Silver loses that lawsuit but sues the air lines and settles for almost
another billion, $ 750,000,000.
Just another Jew insurance fire folks. He planned on tearing down WTC 7 to begin with.
The only missing DOT is who he hired to set the demolition explosives in WTC 7. Were they
imported from our ME ally?
While people do not agree of detail the main theme is common: government stories explaining
both 9/11 and Epstein death are not credible. And that government tried to create an "artificial
reality" to hide real events and real culprits.
Absence of credible information create fertile ground for creation of myths and rumors,
sometimes absurd. But that'a well known sociaological phenomenon studies by late Tamotsu Shibutani in the
context of WWII rumors ( Improvised News: A Sociological Study of Rumor (1966)).
Now we can interpret famous quote of
William Casey "We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American
public believes is false as an admission of the fact that the government can create artificial
reality" much like in film Matrix and due to thick smoke of propaganda people are simply unable
to discern the truth.
A foreign policy of "maximum pressure" and swagger: tawdry bribes, heavy-handed threats,
and complete failure ..now what group does this remind me of?
US State Dept Program Offers $15 Million to Iran Revolutionary Guards September 4,
2019
The US State Department has unveiled a new $15 million "reward program" for anyone who
provides information on the financial inner workings of Iran's Revolutionary Guard, in an
attempt to further disrupt them.
The program comes after the US declared the Revolutionary Guards "terrorists," but remains
very unusual, in as much as it targets an agency of a national government instead of just
some random militant group.
The Financial Times reports on the farce that is our government's Iran policy:
Four days before the US imposed sanctions on an Iranian tanker suspected of shipping oil
to Syria, the vessel's Indian captain received an unusual email from the top Iran official at
the Department of State.
"This is Brian Hook . . . I work for secretary of state Mike
Pompeo and serve as the US Representative for Iran," Mr Hook wrote to Akhilesh Kumar on
August 26, according to several emails seen by the Financial Times. "I am writing with good
news."
The "good news" was that the Trump administration was offering Mr Kumar several million
dollars to pilot the ship -- until recently known as the Grace 1 -- to a country that would
impound the vessel on behalf of the US. To make sure Mr Kumar did not mistake the email for a
scam, it included an official state department phone number.
The administration's Iran obsession has reached a point where they are now trying to bribe
people to act as pirates on their behalf. When the U.S. was blocked by a court in Gibraltar
from taking the ship, they sought to buy the loyalty of the captain in order to steal it.
Failing that, they resorted to their favorite tool of sanctions to punish the captain and his
crew for ignoring their illegitimate demand. The captain didn't respond to the first message,
so Hook persisted with his embarrassing scheme:
"With this money you can have any life you wish and be well-off in old age," Mr Hook wrote in
a second email to Mr Kumar that also included a warning. "If you choose not to take this easy
path, life will be much harder for you."
Many people have already mocked Hook's message for its resemblance to a Nigerian prince
e-mail scam, and I might add that he comes across here sounding like a B-movie gangster.
Hook's contact was not an isolated incident, but part of a series of e-mails and texts that
he has sent to various ships' captains in a vain effort to intimidate them into falling in
line with the administration's economic war. This is what comes of a foreign policy of
"maximum pressure" and swagger: tawdry bribes, heavy-handed threats, and complete
failure.
The Committee of 300 is an evolution of the British East Indies Company Council of 300. The
list personally last seen included many Windsors (Prince Andrew), Rothchilds, other Royals.
Some of the Americans included some now dead and other still living: George HW Bush, Bill
Clinton Tom Steyer, Al Gore, John Kerry, Netanyahu, lots of bankers, Woolsey (ex CIA),
journalists like Michael Bloomberg, Paul Krugman, activists and politians like Tony Blair,
now dead Zbigniew Brzezinski, CEOs Charles and Edgar Bronfman. The list is long and out of
date but these people control much of what goes on whether good or bad. Their hands are
everywhere doing good and maybe some of this bad stuff.
Given the facts a 10 year-old child could see that the official 911 explanation was totally
flawed. Just three of these facts are sufficient, the 'dancing Israelis', Silverstein
admitting to the 'pull (demolish) it' order and the collapse of steel-framed WTC 7 in
freefall despite not being hit. It is not hyperbole to say that America is a failed state
given that the known perpetrators were never even charged. ZOG indeed.
A respectable civil rights attorney, Lisa Bloom, handled Katie Johnson's case.
"Respectable"?
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!
You do realize that Lisa Bloom is the daughter of Glora Allred and defender of Harvey
Weinstein do you not?
You people are so desperate to try to link Trump to Epstein it's pathetic.
I suggest you go back to your gatekeeping nonsense of trying to discredit the 9/11 Truth
Movement by spreading misinformation about nukes in the towers.
This article stakes out much important ground of information and interpretation Kevin
Barrett. The essay resonates as a historic statement of some of our current predicaments.
What about the comparisons that might be made concerning the mysteries attending the
disappearing corpses of Osama bin Laden and Jeffrey Epstein. And according to Christopher
Ketcham, the release of the High Fivin' Urban Movers back to Israel was partially negotiated
by Alan Dershowitz who played a big role in defending Epstein over a long period.
@anon The ultimate "nutjob quackery" of 9/11 is Phillip Zelikow's 9/11 Commission Report,
a document that stands as a testimony and marker signifying the USA's descent into a mad
hatter's imperium of lies. legend and illusion.
It is getting harder and harder to satirize the decadence and depravity of the secular
West, which insists on parodying itself with ever-increasing outlandishness. When the book
on this once-mighty civilization is written, and the ink is dry, readers will be astounded
by the limitless lies of the drunk-on-chutzpah psychopaths who ran it into the ground
@Kevin Barrett Adding to Junior's comment, I quit reading after you wrote of "credible
accusations" of Mr. Trump being involved "in the brutal rape of a 13 year old." And feminist
shakedown artist Lisa Bloom, daughter of the even more infamous feminist shakedown artist G.
Allred, is your "credible source?" Bloom has about as much credibility as the sicko democrat
women who tried to derail Judge Kavanaugh.
Regardless of how much one might hate Trump (and I'm no Trump supporter) levelling such
unfounded accusations is journalistic malfeasance. Did we elect the Devil Incarnate? Mr.
Barrett, I'm done reading you.
The special relationship between the CIA and the Mossad was driven partly by the efforts of
CIA officer James Angleton . Philip Weiss in his article in Mondoweiss entitled "The goy and
the golem: James Angleton and the rise of Israel." states that Angleton's " greatest service
to Israel was his willingness no to say a word about the apparent diversion of highly
enriched plutonium from a plant in Western Pennsylvania to Israel's nascent nuclear program "
The same program which JFK tried to curtail which efforts may have led to his assassination .
a confessed participant in the controlled demolition of Building 7,
For the love of God, this is stupid. Larry Silverstein was talking about the Fire
Commander , for fuck's sake. The Fire Commander made the decision to pull the
firefighters out of the building because they could not put the fire out and were in
unnecessary danger. That's all he meant. There is not one word in this that has anything to
do with a controlled demolition whatsoever.
In order to believe what the 9/11 Douchers would have you believe about this comment, you
would have to believe that 1) Building 7 was wired for demolition beforehand; 2) That the NYC
Fire Commander somehow knew about this; 3) That the NYC Fire Commander was perfectly okay
with allowing his men to spend hours inside a burning building in which he knew that
explosive charges had already been rigged to blow; 4) That the NYC Fire Commander had the
authority to decide when the charges should be blown and had access to the master switch that
would blow them all; 5) That after 7 hours of attempting to fight the fire, the NYC Fire
Commander (who by now can be nothing but a full-fledged member of the conspiracy) decides,
after briefly consulting with Larry Silverstein, "Oh, the hell with this! Let's just blow up
the building now!", to which Larry Silverstein agrees; 6) That after spending 7 hours in a
burning building that had fires burning randomly throughout it and that had been struck by
multiple pieces of debris, all of the explosive charges and their detonators were still in
perfect working order; 7) That none of the firefighters extensively searching the building
for survivors happened to notice any of the pre-placed explosive charges nor thought it
necessary to report about such; 8) That the NYC Fire Commander then proceeds to "pull" the
building after presumably giving some other order for the men to evacuate, which order was
never recorded because the "pull" order must have meant "blow up the building"; 9) And that
Larry Silverstein, after being part of a massive conspiracy involving insurance fraud,
murder, and arson which, if exposed, would send him to a federal death sentence, just decides
to casually mention all of this in a television interview for all and sundry to see, but it
is only the 9/11 Douchers who pick up on the significance of it.
Does any of this sound remotely believable? Did anyone subscribing to this nonsense stop
to think about the context in which this conversation took place? Do any of you 9/11 Douchers
even care that you're being completely ridiculous and grasping at nonexistent straws in your
vain attempt to establish some sort of case for controlled demolition? Do you even care that
everybody can see that what you are saying makes no sense at all? It is perfectly
obvious that Larry Silverstein is NOT talking about controlled demolition here. To
believe otherwise would require you to literally be insane, to not understand the plain
meaning of words and to have no awareness of conversational contexts; yet not only have you
swallowed all of this, you have been beating the drum of this insanity for nearly 20
years.
There is no point in reasoning with an insane person. There is, however, the possibility
that you don't really believe what you are saying and are just flogging a hobbyhorse, in
which case it is you who are engaging in mendacious journalism and trafficking in
lies. In either case, you need to be silenced. Neither lies nor insanity have any "right" to
be uttered in the public square. You 9/11 Douchers are really the ones doing everything you
accuse the mainstream media of doing, and worse. You have become a danger to the public weal
and must be stopped. Your conspiratorial nonsense just isn't cute anymore.
The official stories about the Kennedy assassination, Epstein's death, and 9/11 are
clearly suspect. No one with the capacity for critical thinking can seriously deny this.
Which elements of these stories are true and which are false will never be resolved.
Because:
The mainstream media including Fox News have abdicated their mission as fact finders and
truth tellers. They peddle entertainment and sell ad space. Rachel Maddow foaming at the
mouth about Trump's pee tape and Hannity fulminating about FISA abuse are the same product,
simply aimed at different demographics.
Nothing in the above two paragraphs is even remotely novel. It's all been said before
twenty bazillion times.
Being a feminist or Democrat (or nonfeminist or Republican) is irrelevant to a person's
credibility. It's possible that Lisa Bloom was part of a conspiracy to invent a fictitious
Katy Johnson story, in which case Bloom is guilty of criminal fraud as well as civil libel.
That would be quite a risk for her to take, to say the least. It's also possible that she was
somehow duped by others, in which case they would be running the civil and criminal
liabilities, while she would just get disbarred for negligence.
The same is true of Johnson's attorney Thomas Meagher.
It is also possible that Johnson's story is at least roughly accurate. There is supporting
testimony from another Epstein victim.
If you set aside your prejudices about Democrats-Republicans, feminists-antifeminists,
Trump-Hillary, etc., and just look at what's been reported, you'll agree with me that the
allegations are credible (but of course unproven). If you suffer emotional blocks against
thinking such things about a President, as so many did when similar things were reported
about Bill Clinton, I sympathize but also urge you to get psychiatric treatment so you can
learn to face unpleasant facts and then get to work cleaning up this country.
The release of Prof. J. Leroy Hulsey report on the finite element analysis of the WTC7
collapse should be a big news.
But won't be.
Democracy works this way. The ruling elite, via the media, Hollywood, etc., tell the
people what to think, the people then vote according to the way they think.
So the truth of 9/11 will never be known to the majority unless we have a public statement
from George W. Bush acknowledging that he personally lit the fuse that set off the explosions
that brought WTC 7 down at free-fall
speed .
This is fortunate for the intrepid Dr. Hulsey* who would, presumably, otherwise have had
to be dispatched by a sudden heart attack, traffic accident, weight-lifting accident suicide
with a bullet to the back of the head. As it is, hardly anyone will ever know what he will
say or what it means.
* Fortunate also for those who so rashly advocate for truth here and elsewhere on the yet
to be fully controlled Internets.
Nicely done. Article will not be featured on front page NYT & discussed on TV.
There are many highlights in your article. This is one.
Epstein's career as a shameless, openly-operating Mossad sexual blackmailer -- like the
in-your-face 9/11 coup -- also illustrates another core truth of Western secularism: If
there is no God, there are no limits (in this case, to human depravity and what it can get
away with). Or as Dostoevsky famously put it: "If God does not exist, everything is
permitted."
Please consult the following papers about the CIA/Mossad crimes against humanity and their
pimps who pose as 'politicians' of the fake Western 'democracy' where Epstein was their agent
serving their interest as a PIMP.
{from being the work of a single political party, intelligence agency or country, the
power structure revealed by the network connected to Epstein is nothing less than a criminal
enterprise that is willing to use and abuse children in the pursuit of ever more power,
wealth and control.}
Instead, imagine that human face staring mesmerized into the screen of some kind of
nifty futuristic device on which every word, sound, and image has been algorithmically
approved for consumption by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency ("DARPA") and its
"innovation ecosystem" of "academic, corporate, and governmental partners."
I'd say we're already 80% there. The good news is that the truth can't be further
suppressed without ever increasing oppression which in turn exposes the lies of the
oppressor. Everything changes when the lies stop working on their own and the liar resorts to
force. His audience switches from being cooperative dupes to uncooperative rebels who will
have to be forced into compliance. That's a very different environment and the clock starts
ticking.
The other good news is that we already have a critical mass of people who are fairly
red-pilled and they can't be plugged back into the matrix. It doesn't work like that.
"Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been
repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered.
And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing
exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right." ― George Orwell,
1984
"Now I will tell you the answer to my question. It is this. The Party seeks power entirely
for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in
power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from
the oligarchies of the past in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who
resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists
came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own
motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly
and for a limited time, and that just around the corner there lay a paradise where human
beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power
with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not
establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in
order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of
torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now you begin to understand me."
― George Orwell, 1984
but the global capitalist ruling classes need to keep everyone whipped up into a
shrieking apoplectic frenzy over anything other than global capitalism until they can win
the War on Populism and globally implement the New Normality, after which the really
serious reality policing can finally begin.
A plurality of idiots is already whipped up into " a shrieking apoplectic frenzy" over
things that are nothing but magnified trivia or worse than useless. Hymiewood and the
entertainment industrial complex, which includes but is not limited to counter-cultural
merde celebrity gossip and vacuous spectator sports, has done what no top down
totalitarian (whether soft or hard) agenda could ever hope to do.
Panem et circenses no longer require a geographically fixed venue, of course.
All the kosher vanguard of Antichrist requires is enough slack jawed infotainment
consumers to gaze in passive and somnolent wonderment at the flat screen. The screen is a
modern day temple of Moloch wherein the physical sacrificing of offspring is not necessary
(there is enough of that nowadays anyway). The only sacrifice required is that of one's
conscience and reason- to make one a better and more inclusive citizen, of course.
Restricting the freedom of Xinjiang jihadis is a thorn in the backside of the criminals in
Washington as they see their ability to brainwash, recruit and train more terrorists from the
area is hugely reduced.
One of the cancers that needs to be eliminated is the propaganda device called VOA, voice
of america. It needs to be dealt with and eliminated from all Asian countries. Even today, in
VietNam, there are brainaltered creatures who listen to VOA and believe that the US is a
force for freedom and democracy.
vexarb
Andre: "Suddenly "
You wrote of course "Suddenly" as shorthand for 7 years of blood sweat and tears by the
Axis of Resistance (Syria, Hezb'Allah, Iran and Russia). Preceded by decades of individual
resistance before these Allies came together in a united front.
"A thousand years is but the blink of an eyelid to The Lord". -- Old Testament
mark
Cue more crocodile tears for "the poor Uighurs" from the same people who killed half a
million Iraqi children under 5 in Iraq.
mark
I'm just a suspicious of stories about 6 million moslem Uighurs in concentration camps being
turned into lamp soap and shades from the same people who are currently waging a hybrid war
against China, and who are obviously so, so concerned about the welfare of moslems.
uncle tungsten
The USA is soooo concerned about theUighurs that it totally forgot to reserve some concern
for the Venezuelan people that it is currently starving and denying national wealth to so
they can purchase hospitals, expand education services build new infrastructure etc.
The USA has so much concern that even its poodle over the Atlantic at airstrip one has
stolen the Venezuelan people's gold so they cannot improve health services, expand education
etc etc. The five eyes look on approvingly and should any vassal blink then the USA will
simply push up the price of oil as punishment. That increase will not affect the USA as it
continues to stripmine the wealth of its future generations to achieve self sufficiency right
now.
The poorest country in Asia – Afghanistan – has totally collapsed
under NATO occupation.
Complete BS! It is the continued Pakistani ISI influence in
Afghanistan presently though their Haqqani Taliban network plus ISIS that is terrorizing Afghanistan,
including intentional bombings of wedding parties
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nadahan_wedding_bombing
&
https://www.apnews.com
/b5ceb0cfb33d4d73aaaadf5eee19fe9d
The Pakistani army wants Afghanistan as "strategic depth" in case of a conflict with India.
Tony
Ah! So the US-led invasion, with it's endless stream of weak US-approved 'governments', has had
nothing to do with Afghanistan's continued instability then. Got it!!!
Pakistan is the only overland supply route available for the US military; roads via Iran and
Russia are politically out. All their fuel, ammo and food towards Afghanistan is under Pakistani
ISI control from 1978 till now, with the interruption of 2009 – 2015 .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_logistics_in_the_Afghan_War#History
mark
Afghanistan has been the victim and playground for Neocon intrigue for years.
A liberal, progressive left wing regime that furthered women's rights and social provision was
destroyed by Uncle Sam in its own interests to weaken Russia.
Bin Laden and his splendid chaps were put on the CIA payroll for the purpose.
The result was a long running bloodbath with 28,000 Russian and 1,4 million Afghan dead.
Followed by years of civil war, US invasion and the imposition of a narco warlord puppet government
on the country.
Tony
Hasn't Afghanistan gone from having hardly any opium production prior to the US-led invasion, to
currently being the source of something like 99% of the world's source for heroin?
mark
The Cocaine Import Agency runs the coke trade out of South America.
Might as well run the heroin trade out of Afghanistan as well.
Martin Usher
Have you considered that the Pakistan of 1980 may not be the same country with the same players as
the Pakistan of 2019? Also, when you get a weak/chaotic government then its quite likely that
different factions or forces within a country may pursue widely different goals?
It has now come to the stage where NATO cannot fight a ground war against Russia, China,
or even Iran. Since firstly, there would be huge opposition to such another crackpot piece of
military adventurism, in both the US and more so in its vassals. The Korean, Vietnam
(Indo-China), and Iraq wars ended the era of massive ground conflicts in which hundreds of
thousands of ground troops were involved.
More importantly was the draft, which met with massive opposition in the US itself.
Secondly there was the enormous cost of such a dubious venture. The cost of these wars led to
a run on the dollar as other states were cashing in their surplus dollars for gold, all of
which resulted to Nixon taking the dollar off the gold standard in August 1971. Empires, as
the US is learning, are expensive little items, and as the British also found out during
their long retreat, beginning with India.
NATO, like the EU bureaucracy, is little more than a job creation scheme for the otherwise
unemployable. It must be difficult to dream up a scheme in which these otherwise redundant
individuals can be employed in doing useful. But NATO like the EU is a bureaucracy, and
bureaucracies by their nature strive to exist and expand with no particular goals or
objectives to realise. It is just a matter or going through the motions: the means, the
routine becomes and end in itself. As Joseph Alois Schumpeter observed: " That in Egypt a
class of professional soldiers formed during the war against the Hyksos, persisted, even when
those were over, along with its warlike instincts and interests this military grouping
created by wars that required it, now created the wars in required."
Bittersweet
Who will plan economies: Financial managers (Trump and Wall St), or democratic governments
(Bernie)?
Bonnie Faulkner: If there were pressures to create a New International Economic Order in
the 1970s, what was this new order looking to achieve?
Michael Hudson: Other countries wanted to do for their economies what the United States
has long done for its own economy: to use their governments' deficit spending to build up
their infrastructure, raise living standards, create housing and promote progressive taxation
that would prevent a rentier class, a landlord and financial class from taking over economic
management.
In the financial field, they wanted governments to create their own money, to promote
their own development, just like the United States does. The role of neoliberalism was the
opposite: it was to promote the financial and real estate sector and monopolies to take
economic management away from government.
So the real question from the 1980s on was about who would be the basic planning center of
society. Would it be the financial sector – the banks and bondholders, whose interest
is really the One Percent that own most of the banks' bonds and stocks?
Or, is it going to be governments trying to subsidize the economy to help the 99 Percent
grow and prosper? That was the social democratic view opposed by Thatcherism and
Reaganism.
I didn't know that. I always thought it stand for 'Venom of America'. Or worse.
Robbobbobin
'It might help, Glasshopper, if you identify your sources on "the longstanding and increasing
oppression of Uigurs in Xinjiang".'
Erm:
Have you travelled all over the region as i have? Do you have friends who've married
into the community?
Patient "anecdotal" evidence bad, identifiable textbook assertion definitive? Ever thought
of becoming a medic?
DunGroanin
The highwater mark for the centuries long Anglo Imperialism is constantly reached across the
globe. Indian subcontinent, Tibet, Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia in the east. Afghanistan and
across back to the ME now the desperate bottom of the barrel petty caesars of the declining
Empire are now splashing around in the Med' – Boltons latest missive by twitter:
"All hands on deck in the campaign to stop Iran from funding terror, destabilizing the
globe, and breaking international sanctions. The illicit oil heading to Turkey on the Adrian
Darya 1 must not be allowed off-loaded in port or at sea."
!!!!!!!!!!!
How the fuck can anyone take the failing Empire at all seriously when one of its highly
placed unelected arseholes starts telling the World about what not to do with ONE fully laden
oil tanker, thoisands of miles from his homeland?? Who the fuck do they think they are
telling never mind talking to? And we are supposed to salute and say yes sir, will do,
whatever you say, massa.
Fuck 'em.
nottheonly1
Bolton is a mentally ill subject whose sense for reality is so much compromised,that he lives
in a fantasy world like anybody who believes to be Napoleon, or worse. He is constantly
projecting his own criminal activities onto others.
Part of his mental illness is that he is incapable to realize that nobody is taking him
serious anymore – but people that are mentally worse off then him. He and his fan base
belong into closed mental healthcare, where they can wear their Napoleon hats and hide their
hands under their jackets.
Father Beyond
My diagnosis of the life-condition of John Bolton is that he displays all the classic
attributes of the psychopath.
He tries to present a charming facade, behind which lies a
complete lack of empathy with human life, which to these warmongering delinquents, remains a
commodity to be disposed of in the satisfaction of their lusts and cravings for money, power,
influence and status, at the base of which lies a perversion of the dignity and worth of all
life, human or otherwise, which struggles to survive in the face of extinction on this
planet, which is the property of no-one yet the property of all.. He is a high priest of
Neo-liberalism and he expounds the "Monroe Doctrine" – which is but one of the
heretical doctrines of Imperialism. The criticisms being directed towards Andre Vitchek here
(and elsewhere) are unfounded and give the impression that these superior beings who mock him
from above, have never read any of his books, let alone given any serious consideration to
the issues he raises. I don't agree with all of his views, but it appears he displays more
courage and integrity than those who like to take cheap shots at him, seeking refuge in the
knowledge that few will even bother to challenge them. Just remember one thing – you
are as bad as the person you condemn. Looking into the mirror of your life-condition, you
will see the "clown", the 'muppet", the "idiot", the "racist" and the 'virtue signaller".
Call the next patient in please. . . . . .
Martin Usher
There are plenty more Boltons where he comes from. Most are a bit more subtle in their
approach but they still share the same goals.
I m
In all honesty and in reply to 'Father Beyond' i'm convinced these people are simply crazed
from watching too many superhero movies.
George
Another issue is what this means for the home populations of the Western nations. As the
Western ruling class finds it harder and harder to intimidate the countries it has been
bleeding, it will find its own formerly luxuriant position in danger and will start to demand
more and more from its lower classes. And since the threat of a worker's revolution (posed
very concretely by Russia and China in the first half of the 20th century) no longer applies,
the welfare state (formed as a concession to keep the proles in line) will become
increasingly decimated. Our ruling class no longer even has to pretend to care. In short, the
UK and US publics will start to become more and more like the foreign native populations
targeted by the West.
So it seems that the 'workers revolutions' were not 100% grassroots up risings, just as
today's "Colour Revolutions" often arise out of the hidden hand of various change agents and
NGO's whose cover is as providing humanitarian support etc.
The Welfare State may have been as you say a concession, but there could conceivably be
other reasons too maybe?
George
I think the Western governments, having had decades of practice and observation, know full
well not only to control the opposition and not only to lead it but to create it too. In a
way, all this is just an extension of capitalist consumerism. The idea is to find out what
everyone wants and then manufacture the image of it, but not the reality.
According to the Adam Curtis documentary, "Century of the Self", Edward Bernays, father of
the modern PR industry, was asked by cigarette manufacturers how to get women to smoke (in
those days it was considered a male activity and the cig industry figured it was missing out
on a huge potential market demographic). Bernays did a bit of research and found out that
what women wanted was to be more independent "like men". So Bernays staged a publicity stunt
whereby a number of young attractive women were to gather and light "torches of freedom"
– this info being delivered with maximum publicity throughout the media. So the day
comes, the women appear and light cigarettes and smoke them. You hear that and think, "Oh
come on now!" But it apparently worked. (Actually I don't think it was a simple case of
fooling the public but of signalling via the press that it was no longer "unseemly" for women
to smoke.) the point being that women wanted freedom, were delivered a "substitute" which
turned out to be little cancer sticks. That's the way capitalism works. And that's also the
way the propaganda system works too.
You could call this "the genius of capitalism". Capitalism says, "Whatever you want, we
can give! You want beauty? Here it is! You want ugliness? Have it! You want violence? Here!
You want rebellion? Here again! You want the overthrow of the capitalist system? No problem!"
Of course it doesn't intend the actual delivery of any of these. It simply drudges up more
commodities.
Thus we can expect the creation of any number of phoney oppositions. Now it may be
paranoia but I think that Dave McGowan's "Weird Scenes Inside the Canyon" about the
deliberate manufacture of trendy rebellious pop music has got a lot of credibility. There's a
book called "A Century of Spin" all about the PR industry and how it works through
organisations that sound like worker's groups or concerned citizen groups but they are just
corporate hack entities. If these were easy enough to create in the pre-internet days, just
think how much easier it is to do now.
mark
Our ruling elite has run out of places to loot.
Unfortunately those pesky Russkies/ Chinks/ Eye-ranians won't play ball any more.
So they have to cannibalise their own societies, eat their own tail and loot their own
countries instead.
Wilmers31
For a one-son family no reason is good enough for war.
Since 'the pill' people adapt their family size to their financial or other means. This
results in one-son families at a significant percentage. Russia is quite an example. Due to
their housing restrictions they had (have) small families. When I heard in 1982 how
distraught Soviet mothers were who had to bury welded zinc coffins (coming from Afghanistan)
I knew the Soviet Union was on borrowed time – and then they threw the whole system
out.
"But it is too cowardly, too spoiled to risk the lives of its soldiers." No, mothers do
not like to see their one son used for war, war that serves the big corporations and not the
people who are told it is their fight.
that's not true. West stored in Ukraine, argentina and Bnrasil to name a few. and it managed to create troubles for China in
Hong Cong and paralyze Venezuela.
In addition the USA is hell-bent on regime change in Iran and Russia.
Notable quotes:
"... Why everyone on this site thinks the massive power vacuum created by the fall of the Imperial West will be filled by China and Russia filling the world with peaceful rainbows and unicorns. ..."
It used to be done regularly and it worked: The West identified a country as its enemy, unleashed its
professional propaganda against it, then administered a series of sanctions, starving and murdering children, the
elderly and other vulnerable groups. If the country did not collapse within months or just couple of years, the
bombing would begin.
And the nation, totally shaken, in pain, and in disarray, would collapse like a house of cards, once the first
NATO boots hit its ground.
Such scenarios were re-enacted, again and again, from Yugoslavia to Iraq.
But suddenly, something significant has happened. This horrific lawlessness, this chaos stopped; was deterred.
The West keeps using the same tactics, it tries to terrorize independent-minded countries, to frighten people into
submission, to overthrow what it defines as 'regimes', but its power, its monstrously destructive power has all of a
sudden become ineffective.
It hits, and the attacked nation shakes, screams, sheds blood, but keeps standing, keeps proudly erect.
*
What we are experiencing is a great moment in human history. Imperialism has not yet been defeated, but it is
losing its global grip on power.
Now we have to clearly understand 'Why?', so we can continue our struggle, with even greater determination, with
even greater effectiveness.
First of all, by now we know that the West cannot fight. It can spend trillions on 'defense', it can build nuclear
bombs, 'smart missiles' and strategic warplanes. But it is too cowardly, too spoiled to risk the lives of its
soldiers.
It either kills remotely, or by using regional mercenaries. Whenever it becomes clear that the presence of its
troops would be required, it backs up.
Secondly, it, the West, is totally horrified of the fact that there are now two super-powerful countries – China
and Russia – which are unwilling to abandon their allies. Washington and London do all they can to smear Russia and
to intimidate China.
Russia is being provoked continuously: by propaganda, by military bases, sanctions and by new and newer bizarre
mass media inventions that depict it as the villain in all imaginable circumstances.
China has been provoked practically and insanely, 'on all fronts' – from Taiwan, Hong Kong, Tibet and the
so-called 'Uyghur Issue', to trade.
Any strategy that could weaken these two countries, is applied. Yet, Russia and China do not crumble. They do not
surrender. And they do not abandon their friends. Instead, they are building great railroads in Africa and Asia, they
educate people from almost all poor and desperate countries, and stand by those who are being terrorized by both
North America and Europe.
Thirdly, all the countries in the world are now clearly aware of what would happen to them, if they give up and
get 'liberated' by the Western empire. Iraq, Honduras, Indonesia, Libya and Afghanistan, are the 'best' examples.
Submitting themselves to the West, countries can only expect misery, absolute collapse and the ruthless extraction
of their resources. The poorest country in Asia – Afghanistan – has totally collapsed under NATO occupation.
The suffering and pain of the Afghan and Iraqi people is very well known to the citizens of Iran and Venezuela.
They are not giving up, because no matter how tough their life is under sanctions and the West-administered terror,
they are well-aware of the fact that things could get worse, much worse, if their countries were to be occupied and
governed by the Washington and London-injected maniacs.
And everyone knows the fate of the people living in Palestine or Gollan Heights, places which have been overrun by
the closest ally of the West in the Middle East, Israel.
*
Of course, there are other reasons why the West cannot get any of its adversaries to kneel.
One is – that the toughest ones are left. Russia, Cuba, China, North Korea (DPRK), Iran, Syria and Venezuela are
not going to run away from the battlefield. These are the most determined nations on earth. These are the countries
that have already lost thousands, millions, even tens of millions of their people, in the fight against Western
imperialism and colonialism.
If one is following the latest attacks of the West carefully, the scenario is pathetic, almost grotesque:
Washington and often the EU, too, are trying hard; they are hitting, they are spending billions of dollars, using the
local mercenaries (or call it 'local opposition'), and then they quickly withdraw after wretched but anticipated
defeat.
So far, Venezuela has survived. Syria survived. Iran survived. China is fighting horrible Western-backed
subversions, but it is proudly surviving. Russia is standing tall.
This is a tremendous moment in human history. For the first time, Western imperialism is being not only defeated,
but fully unveiled and humiliated. Many are now laughing at it, openly.
But we should not celebrate, yet. We should understand what and why this is happening, and then continue fighting.
There are many, many battles ahead us. But we are on the right track.
Let them try. We know how to fight. We know how to prevail. We have already fought fascism, in many of its forms.
We know what freedom is. Their 'freedom' is not our freedom. Their 'liberty' is not our liberty. What they call
'democracy' is not how we want our people to rule and to be ruled. Let them go away; we, our people, do not want
them!
They cannot overthrow our systems, because they are, precisely our systems! Systems that we want, that our people
want; systems we are ready to fight and die for!
Andre Vltchek is a philosopher, novelist, filmmaker and investigative
journalist. He has covered wars and conflicts in dozens of countries. Three of his latest books are
Revolutionary Optimism, Western Nihilism
, a revolutionary novel
"Aurora"
and a bestselling work of political non-fiction:
"Exposing Lies Of The Empire"
. View his other books here. Watch
Rwanda Gambit
, his groundbreaking documentary about Rwanda and DRCongo and his film/dialogue with Noam
Chomsky
"On Western Terrorism"
. Vltchek presently resides in East Asia and the Middle East, and continues to
work around the world. He can be reached through his
website
and his Twitter.
can you spare $1.00 a month to support independent media
OffGuardian does not accept advertising or sponsored content. We have no large financial backers. We are
not funded by any government or NGO. Donations from our readers is our only means of income. Even the
smallest amount of support is hugely appreciated.
Jack Leon
Why everyone on this site thinks the massive power vacuum created by the fall of the Imperial West
will be filled by China and Russia filling the world with peaceful rainbows and unicorns.
... ... ...
BigB
I might add – following yesterdays comment getting the usual treatment for stating brute economic
realities – that the globalised economy being a dollarised one is not something you can have an
opinion about. It is a fact. That so many can hold a contrafactual opinion above fact can only be due
to economic illiteracy. Willfully held cherished opinion elevated despite the fact.
Which could be
more excusable if we had not had the ultimate in living proof of economic reality within recent living
memory. If the global economic system was not largely dollarised (to 60% of the global Reserve): then
a relatively minor mortgage crisis (or "savings glut") could not possibly have become global and
extending for over a decade to date. There is just no way that China and the rest of the world could
be pulled in a relatively small perturbation in the value of the dollar. It is proof positive of
interlinking – the fact that the global financial crisis was global.
There are no separate systems. It is an extreme failure of economic intelligence to predicate
otherwise. If not through economic illiteracy: then through false memory syndrome! FFS: it was only
twelve years ago that the system crashed. The interlinking is EVEN MORE integrated now. A loss of
confidence or 'moral contagion' will flash around the globe in close to real time. To posit
differential 'systems to fight and die for' in the face of economic and historical realism requires a
monumental feat of reality aversion and denial. Andre has lost his grip on economic reality. Don't
naively follow him.
vexarb
BigB, I think you are right to remind us that Love of Money is the Root of All Evil, but wrong
to criticize someone who rejoices when he sees that some branches of that Money Tree of Evil are
withering away. The end of Hitler's regime change plan for Europe was an occasion for rejoicing;
even though it did not mean the end of Capitalist resource wars, at least a relatively united
Europe enjoyed 40 years of relative peace and socialist prosperity. The end of NATZO's regime
change plan for socialist Syria and communist Iran may likewise herald a period of relative
unity, peace and socialist prosperity for the ME. That is one reason to cheer; two other reasons
are the re-emergence of China and Russia into a period of relative security and prosperity. So a
big three cheers are justified.
I remember, when socialist Syria began its resistance to AZC terrorism on Syrian soil, some
Trots complained that it was not correct to defend Syria on the ground because the real enemy
was global Capitalism up there in the sky.
Well, yeah: there is a relative geopolitical stability with the reshaping of a multipolar
world. But this is undermined by the underlying geoeconomic fragility and instability arising
from globalisation and a contracting global economy. So it is as a burning mirage shimmering
in a heat haze above the desert of humanities impoverishment.
We all like a story we can
rejoice in: a mythic tale of a kingdom of evil and a kingdom of good battling in a primordial
duel to the death. In the fantasy story light always overcomes the kingdom of evils dark
destruction: so we naturally align with the forces of good heroifying the mythic contenders
and denigrating the primal chaotic forces of evil. But for all the relevance this has: we
might as well cast Trump as Voldemort and turn to the Harry Potter novels for economic
literacy.
To coin a phrase you favour: meanwhile, back in the real world The dollar and the yuan
are inextricably and intentionally linked in value. They have been since 1994: 'hard pegged'
to 2005; and 'soft pegged' ever since. Do not believe the Chinese denials. The value is set
daily: and only a 2% fluctuation is allowed either way. This is economic reality. There are
no separate systems that are not underpinned by the value of the yuan: that is in turn
determined by the floating value of the dollar. It is a form of criminal negligence to not
know this basic fact: and concoct a poorly characterised quasi-mythological fantasy narrative
contrafactually.
In the most basic sense: if the dollar and yuan are relatively priced – there are no
separate systems. The value of the yuan follows the value of the dollar. Which has been a
weakening trend: culminating in the yuan being at its lowest rate since before the GFC.
Absolutely anyone can check out this fact: but they don't. When they encounter it: they
deny it. That's because the in stories we tell ourselves – it is the coherence of the
narrative construction that matters not the facts. The whole facts are sacred thing is also
contrafactual: the story is sacred. Because we identify with our inner story – facts like the
dollar/yuan peg are ignored. Andre is the JK Rowling of economic reality. Only his plotlines
and script are not nearly as inventive. In the real world – global capitalism is the dark
destructive force only, there is no alternative. This is Capitalist Realism. If we as a
humanity want to create an alternative: we need to face the hard economic reality. Fantasy
narratives are just a faery tale distraction from that. Myths that mean that the dark
destructivism carries on unresisted while we spin a good, if ultimately unbelievable, yarn.
vexarb
BigB, many thanks for your reply, and I always give you a plus for your clarity in
exposing a truth which invites rejection because it is both obscure and unpleasant. And I
by no means include you among those Soros-funded Trots who "attack from the Left". But I
am a simple minded person, and believe we have a right to rejoice in our little victories,
even if we do not slay Mammon himself. And there is the ROI to consider – the cumulative
Return on Investment. Perhaps Mammon will not be killed in some final Apocalyptic battle
between Powers and Principalities in the Heavens: perhaps Mammon will die the death of a
thousand cuts; perhaps the branches of the Evil Money Tree with bleed their sap and wither
away, one little victory at a time from the little people in Syria, Lebanon, Iran Russia
and China -- for whom already we have given 3 cheers.
Andre also mentions some little
victories in America: for example, Cuba and Venezuela. To which we might add back Brazil
and give a 4th cheer -- because Lula's back in town!
The bogeyman strategy only works if there is a clear a simple target to bang on on relentlessly. For a
while it was Russia, but now Washington can't make it's mind up whether it's North Korea, Syria,
Russia, Venezuela, Iran or China, and so it keeps flip-flopping it's focus. There's isn't even a
shared ideology that connects these rogue states, other than their very natural desire for
sovereignty. Even the public that buys into the mainstream media's framing of the narrowtive is
intuitively sensing a lack of conviction.
nwwoods
"Narrowtive" ..nice turn of phrase
Aiwl
".. these rogue states,"
You meant 'accused of being rogue' by fascist regimes (i.e. US/UK/KSA/Australia etc.. ), right?
Soviet Union was a theocratic state. The fact that it was simultaneously military empire is only of secondary importance. When
Bolshevik's
ideology collapsed after the WWII (despite the fact that USSR emerged as the victor), the writing was on the wall as there was no force
able to which stand nationalism, fueled by West financial injections and support. nationalism turn the USSR apart. Attempt to colonize
the post Soviet state and convert it in a new Latin America by the USA and other western countries was only partially successful. Russia
despite huge losses due to drunk Yeltsin period when briefly it was a colony of the USA escaped the clutches and due to economic rape
experienced became a staunch opponent of the US imperialism. Which drives the US neoliberal elite crazy if we judge it by the level
of anti-Russian hysteria in the USA now (although there are some domestic motive to fuel anti-Russian hysteria -- it helps to unite the
fractured society using the fake threat from the "enemy" and thus to patch cracks in the neoliberal facede of the US society)
The USA now is experiencing the situation somewhat similar to the situation of the USSR in 70th or early 80th. Neoliberal idology
collapsed in 2008. That means that forces that keep the US global financial empire together with the network of treaties and US financial
dominance weakered and nationalism started to show its face prompting country after country engage in attempts to diminish the USA influence
and/or revoke vassal status.
The US neoliberal elite now is so de-generated that in comparison the level of degeneration of Soviet Politburo under Brezhnev looks
pretty mild. And that also speed up the demise of the US controlled global neoliberal empire. Trump launched trade war with China without
understanding possible consequences for the world economic order and the US empire and the situation might go out of control,
when the USA will be ostracized fist in "China friendly space" (which BTW is probably half of total global population and then
one by one among former vassals in EU and Latin America.
Neoliberals in Congress slowly by surely work on dismantling of the USA neoliberal empire not because they want such an
outcome but because
they do not understand what are the steps that might help to prevent it other then a switch to gangster capitalism. Add to this possible fracturing of the country (God knows
what will happen
when the dollar loses the reserve currency status)
In any case this is a slow process. It took the USSR 46 years to collapse after the victory in WWII. It might take even longer for
the USA empire to collapse. Much depends on the speed of oil depletion.
Notable quotes:
"... The Soviet Union – much as (the pre-Deng's) China itself – was far more of a classic continental military empire (overtly brutal; rigid, authoritative, anti-individual, apparent, secretive), while the US was more a financial-trading empire (covertly coercive; hierarchical, yet asocial, exploitive, pervasive, polarizing). ..."
"... However, the US imperium managed to survive and to outlive the Soviets. How? The United States, with its financial capital (or an outfoxing illusion of it), evolved into a debtor empire through the Wall Street guaranties. ..."
"... These two pillars of the US might from the East coast (the US Treasury/Wall Street and Pentagon) together with the two pillars of the West coast – both financed and amplified by the US dollar, and spread through the open sea-routs (Silicone Valley and Hollywood), are an essence of the US posture. ..."
"... This very nature of power explains why the Americans have missed to take the mankind into completely other direction; towards the non-confrontational, decarbonized, de-monetized/de-financialized and de-psychologized, the self-realizing and green humankind. ..."
"... Sadly enough, that was not the first missed opportunity for the US to soften and delay its forthcoming, imminent multidimensional imperial retreat. The very epilogue of the WWII meant a full security guaranty for the US: Geo-economically – 54% of anything manufactured in the world was carrying the Made in USA label, and geostrategically – the US had uninterruptedly enjoyed nearly a decade of the 'nuclear monopoly'. ..."
"... Look the map, at Russia or China and their packed surroundings. The US is blessed with its insular position, by neighboring oceans. All that should harbor tranquility, peace and prosperity, foresightedness. ..."
"... Indeed, no successful and enduring empire does merely rely on coercion, be it abroad or at home. The grand design of every empire in past rested on a skillful calibration between obedience and initiative – at home, and between bandwagoning and engagement – abroad. ..."
"... To sum up; After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Americans accelerated expansion while waiting for (real or imagined) adversaries to further decline, 'liberalize' and bandwagon behind the US. ..."
"... When the Soviets lost their own indigenous ideological matrix and maverick confrontational stance, and when the US dominated West missed to triumph although winning the Cold War, how to expect from the imitator to score the lasting moral, or even a momentary economic victory? ..."
"... The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is what the most attribute as an instrument of the Chinese planetary posture. Chinese leaders promised massive infrastructure projects all around by burning trillions of dollars. ..."
"... In 9 more days, high school begins in China, so many of the thrill-seekers will be in class, while the US-paid street criminals will be exposed and ridiculed.. Hopefully locked up for a very long time.. ..."
"... When communism collapsed in 1989, a whole class of smug self satisfied individuals like Fukuyama and the Neocons and Ziocons feeding off them patted themselves on the pack, assured of their complete moral superiority and unlimited virtue. They had won, and could now throw their weight around the planet however they pleased. ..."
"... People who were a little bit more far sighted subsequently concluded that communism collapsed FIRST. The prevailing system in the Anglozionist empire just took longer to collapse. Our system of crony capitalism, crapitalism, parasitic financial capitalism, looting kleptocracy, managed to endure for another 20 years before it collapsed in turn over 2007-8, never to recover. It has remained on life support ever since, sustaining its zombie existence through the printing of tens of trillions of toilet paper money backed by nothing but thin air, negative interest rates, and draconian austerity ravaging societies and entire countries. ..."
"... The world could have been re ordered for the better after 1989. Genuine cooperation between great powers. Wide ranging disarmament. A new security structure for all the countries of the planet. The dismantling of relics like NATO. The resolution of previously intractable conflicts. A much better deal for developing countries with new terms of trade. The needs of billions of people given the priority they deserved. This was all up for grabs. But the opportunity for a better world was thrown away and will never return. ..."
"... Instead, militarism and aggression were given their head. NATO expanded deep into the former Soviet Union in breach of all the undertakings that were given to the contrary. Russia was comprehensively looted and reduced to destitution and misery. One country after another was invaded and destroyed. Millions died and tens of millions immiserated. The whole planet was destabilised. Trillions were squandered that could have been devoted to productive purposes and real human needs. ..."
"... Successful use of propaganda as a means of social control requires a number of conditions: The will to use it, the skills to produce the propaganda, the means to deiiseminate it; and the use of significant symbols with real power over emotional reactions – ideally symbols of the sacred and satanic (Light vs DARK) ..."
"... Nice essay! Indeed, the US empire has survived [hopefully for not much longer] by swindling, and, fraudulent treaties. One critical aspect of the widespread of US influence is SPYING! Highly likely, most of what the US achieved would not have been possible without the spying apparatus that have infiltrated every corner of the world. Of course, spying did not start with the Internet, although now it is made 'natural'. ..."
"... Their education is first and foremost about recognizing the importance of the existing hierarchy and knowing their place in it. Any facts or ideas they learn after this are recognized, understood and acted upon within the context of performing that role. ..."
"... Most of the rewards and punishments of being a middle class professional are not related to being right or wrong, justified or not, honest or dishonest. They are to do with being obedient or not, disciplined or indisciplined, "normal" or eccentric. ..."
Does our history only appear overheated, while it is essentially calmly predetermined? Is it directional or conceivable, dialectic
and eclectic or cyclical, and therefore cynical? Surely, our history warns. Does it also provide for a hope? Hence, what is in front
of us: destiny or future?
Theory loves to teach us that extensive debates on what kind of economic system is most conductive to human wellbeing is what
consumed most of our civilizational vertical.
However, our history has a different say: It seems that the manipulation of the global political economy – far more than the introduction
of ideologies – is the dominant and arguably more durable way that human elites usually conspired to build or break civilizations,
as planned projects.
Somewhere down the process, it deceived us, becoming the self-entrapment. How?
*
One of the biggest (nearly schizophrenic) dilemmas of liberalism, ever since David Hume and Adam Smith, was an insight into reality:
Whether the world is essentially Hobbesian or Kantian. As postulated, the main task of any liberal state is to enable and maintain
wealth of its nation, which of course rests upon wealthy individuals inhabiting the particular state.
That imperative brought about another dilemma: if wealthy individual, the state will rob you, but in absence of it, the pauperized
masses will mob you.
The invisible hand of Smith's followers have found the satisfactory answer – sovereign debt. That 'invention' meant: relatively
strong central government of the state. Instead of popular control through the democratic checks-&-balance mechanism, such a state
should be rather heavily indebted. Debt – firstly to local merchants, than to foreigners – is a far more powerful deterrent, as it
resides outside the popular check domain.
With such a mixed blessing, no empire can easily demonetize its legitimacy, and abandon its hierarchical but invisible and unconstitutional
controls. This is how a debtor empire was born. A blessing or totalitarian curse?
Let us briefly examine it.
The Soviet Union – much as (the pre-Deng's) China itself – was far more of a classic continental military empire (overtly
brutal; rigid, authoritative, anti-individual, apparent, secretive), while the US was more a financial-trading empire (covertly coercive;
hierarchical, yet asocial, exploitive, pervasive, polarizing).
On opposite sides of the globe and cognition, to each other they remained enigmatic, mysterious and incalculable: Bear of
permafrost vs. Fish of the warm seas. Sparta vs. Athens. Rome vs. Phoenicia However, common for the both was a super-appetite for
omnipresence. Along with the price to pay for it.
Consequently, the Soviets went bankrupt by mid 1980s – they cracked under its own weight, imperially overstretched. So did the
Americans – the 'white man burden' fractured them already by the Vietnam war, with the Nixon shock only officializing it.
However, the US imperium managed to survive and to outlive the Soviets. How? The United States, with its financial capital
(or an outfoxing illusion of it), evolved into a debtor empire through the Wall Street guaranties.
Titanium-made Sputnik vs. gold mine of printed-paper
Nothing epitomizes this better than the words of the longest serving US Federal Reserve's boss, Alan Greenspan, who famously quoted
J.B. Connally to then French President Jacques Chirac: "True, the dollar is our currency, but your problem" .
Hegemony vs. hegemoney .
House of Cards
Conventional economic theory teaches us that money is a universal equivalent to all goods. Historically, currencies were a space
and time-related, to say locality-dependent. However, like no currency ever before, the US dollar became – past the WWII – the universal
equivalent to all other moneys of the world.
According to history of currencies, the core component of the non-precious metals' money is a so-called promissory note – intangible
belief that, by any given point in future, a particular shiny paper (self-styled as money) will be smoothly exchanged for real goods.
Thus, roughly speaking, money is nothing else but a civilizational construct about imagined/projected tomorrow – that the next
day (which nobody has ever seen in the history of humankind, but everybody operates with) definitely comes (i), and that this tomorrow
will certainly be a better day then our yesterday or even our today (ii).
This and similar types of collective constructs (horizontal and vertical) over our social contracts hold society together as much
as its economy keeps it alive and evolving. Hence, it is money that powers economy, but our blind faith in constructed (imagined)
tomorrows and its alleged certainty is what empowers money.
Clearly, the universal equivalent of all equivalents – the US dollar – follows the same pattern: Bold and widely accepted promise.
What does the US dollar promise when there is no gold cover attached to it ever since the time of Nixon shock of 1971?
Pentagon promises that the oceanic sea-lanes will remain opened (read: controlled by the US Navy), pathways unhindered, and that
the most traded world's commodity – oil, will be delivered.
So, it is not a crude or its delivery what is a cover to the US dollar – it is a promise that oil of tomorrow will be deliverable.
That is a real might of the US dollar, which in return finances Pentagon's massive expenditures and shoulders its supremacy.
Admired and feared, the Pentagon further fans our planetary belief in tomorrow's deliverability – if we only keep our faith in
dollar (and hydrocarbons' energized economy), and so on and on in perpetuated circle of mutual reinforcements.
These two pillars of the US might from the East coast (the US Treasury/Wall Street and Pentagon) together with the two pillars
of the West coast – both financed and amplified by the US dollar, and spread through the open sea-routs (Silicone Valley and Hollywood),
are an essence of the US posture.
This very nature of power explains why the Americans have missed to take the mankind into completely other direction; towards
the non-confrontational, decarbonized, de-monetized/de-financialized and de-psychologized, the self-realizing and green humankind.
In short, to turn history into a moral success story. They had such a chance when, past the Gorbachev's unconditional surrender
of the Soviet bloc, and the Deng's Copernicus-shift of China, the US – unconstrained as a lonely superpower – solely dictated terms
of reference; our common destiny and direction/s to our future/s.
Winner is rarely a game-changer
Sadly enough, that was not the first missed opportunity for the US to soften and delay its forthcoming, imminent multidimensional
imperial retreat. The very epilogue of the WWII meant a full security guaranty for the US: Geo-economically – 54% of anything manufactured
in the world was carrying the Made in USA label, and geostrategically – the US had uninterruptedly enjoyed nearly a decade of the
'nuclear monopoly'.
Up to this very day, the US scores the biggest number of N-tests conducted, the largest stockpile of nuclear weaponry, and
it represents the only power ever deploying this 'ultimate weapon' on other nation. To complete the irony, Americans enjoy geographic
advantage like no other empire before. Save the US, as Ikenberry notes:
" every major power in the world lives in a crowded geopolitical neighborhood where shifts in power routinely provoke counterbalancing".
Look the map, at Russia or China and their packed surroundings. The US is blessed with its insular position, by neighboring
oceans. All that should harbor tranquility, peace and prosperity, foresightedness.
Why the lonely might, an empire by invitation did not evolve into empire of relaxation, a generator of harmony?
Why does it hold (extra-judicially) captive more political prisoners on Cuban soil than the badmouthed Cuban regime has ever
had? Why does it remain obsessed with armament for at home and abroad?
Why existential anxieties for at home and security challenges for abroad?
Whydid the fall of Berlin Wall 30 years ago mark a beginning of decades of stagnant or failing incomes in the US (and elsewhere
in the OECD world) coupled with alarming inequalities?
What are we talking about here; the inadequate intensity of our tireless confrontational push or about the false course of
our civilizational direction?
Indeed, no successful and enduring empire does merely rely on coercion, be it abroad or at home. The grand design of every
empire in past rested on a skillful calibration between obedience and initiative – at home, and between bandwagoning and engagement
– abroad.
In XXI century, one wins when one convinces not when one coerces. Hence, if unable to escape its inner logics and deeply-rooted
appeal of confrontational nostalgia, the prevailing archrival is only a winner, rarely a game-changer.
To sum up; After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Americans accelerated expansion while waiting for (real or imagined) adversaries
to further decline, 'liberalize' and bandwagon behind the US.
Expansion is the path to security dictatum only exacerbated the problems afflicting the Pax Americana. That is how the capability
of the US to maintain its order started to erode faster than the capacity of its opponents to challenge it. A classical imperial
self-entrapment!
The repeated failure to notice and recalibrate its imperial retreat brought the painful hangovers to Washington by the last presidential
elections. Inability to manage the rising costs of sustaining the imperial order only increased the domestic popular revolt and political
pressure to abandon its 'mission' altogether. Perfectly hitting the target to miss everything else
Hence, Americans are not fixing the world any more. They are only managing its decline. Look at their (winner) footprint in former
Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria – to mention but a few.
*
When the Soviets lost their own indigenous ideological matrix and maverick confrontational stance, and when the US dominated
West missed to triumph although winning the Cold War, how to expect from the imitator to score the lasting moral, or even a momentary
economic victory?
Neither more confrontation and more carbons nor more weaponized trade and traded weapons will save our day. It failed in past,
it will fail again any given day.
Interestingly, China opposed the 1st World, left the 2nd in rift, and ever since Bandung of 1955 it neither won over nor (truly)
joined the 3rd Way.
Today, many see it as a main contestant. But, where is a lasting success?
The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is what the most attribute as an instrument of the Chinese planetary posture. Chinese leaders
promised massive infrastructure projects all around by burning trillions of dollars.
Still, numbers are more moderate. As the recent The second BRI Summit has shown, so far, Chinese companies had invested $90 [billions]
worldwide. Seems, neither People's Republic is as rich as many (wish to) think nor it will be able to finance its promised projects
without seeking for a global private capital. Such a capital – if ever – will not flow without conditionalities.
The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) and the BRICS – or 'New Development' – Bank have some $150 billion at hand, and
the Silk Road Infrastructure Fund (SRIF) has up to $40 billion. Chinese state and semi-private companies can access – according to
the OECD estimates – just another $600 billion (much of it tight) from the home, state-controlled financial sector.
That means that China runs short on the BRI deliveries worldwide. Ergo, either bad news to the (BRI) world or the conditionalities'
constrained China.
Greening international relations along with a greening of economy – geopolitical and environmental understanding, de-acidification
and relaxation is the only way out.
That necessitates both at once: less confrontation over the art-of-day technology and their monopolies' redistribution (as preached
by the Sino-American high priests of globalization) as well as the resolute work on the so-called Tesla-ian implosive/fusion-holistic
systems (including free-energy technologies; carbon-sequestration; antigravity and self-navigational solutions; bioinformatics and
nanorobotics).
More of initiative than of obedience (including more public control over data hoovering). More effort to excellence (creation)
than struggle for preeminence (partition).
Finally, no global leader has ever in history emerged from a shaky and distrustful neighborhood, or by offering a little bit more
of the same in lieu of an innovative technological advancement. (Eg. many see the Chinese 5G as an illiberal innovation, which may
end up servicing authoritarianism, anywhere.
And indeed, the AI deep learning inspired by biological neurons (neural science) including its three methods: supervised, unsupervised
and reinforced learning can end up used for the digital authoritarianism, predictive policing and manufactured social governance
based on the bonus-malus behavioral social credits.)
Ergo, it all starts from within, from at home. Without support from a home base (including that of Hong Kong, Xinjiang and Tibet),
there is no game changer. China's home is Asia. Its size and its centrality along with its impressive output is constraining it enough.
Hence, it is not only a new, non-imitative, turn of technology what is needed. Without truly and sincerely embracing mechanisms
such as the NaM, ASEAN and SAARC (eventually even the OSCE) and the main champions of multilateralism in Asia, those being India
Indonesia and Japan first of all, China has no future of what is planetary awaited – the third force, a game-changer, lasting visionary
and trusted global leader.
Post Scriptum: To varying degrees, but all throughout a premodern and modern history, nearly every world's major foreign
policy originator was dependent (and still depends) on what happens in, and to, Russia. It is not only a size, but also centrality
of Russia that matters. It is as much (if not even more), as it is an omnipresence of the US and as it is a hyperproduction of the
PR China.
Ergo, it is an uninterrupted flow of manufactured goods to the whole world, it is balancing of the oversized and centrally positioned
one, and it is the ability to controllably destruct the way in and insert itself of the peripheral one. The oscillatory interplay
of these three is what characterizes our days.
Professor Anis H. Bajrektarević is chairperson and professor in international law and global political studies, Vienna,
Austria. He has authored six books (for American and European publishers) and numerous articles on, mainly, geopolitics energy and
technology. His 7th book, From WWI to www. – Europe and the World 1918-2018 was to released in December.
Memo to author: try an analogy with Macau; China's other SAR (special administrative region); the 2nd wealthiest city in the world,
and the world leader in gambling profit.. From 05:30 until 23:00, Mainlanders flock into the City, 7 days a week; like an
entire country migrating daily.. No protests there, unlike their sinking cousins across the Bay in Hong Kong..
The author suggests that Xinjiang and Tibet be included as somehow vital to China's dynamic progress, when they are empty of
resources, and only need to be stabilized as a transit point for the BRI, which is progressing very well indeed.. People here
think of it as the New Silk Road, not BRI..
The author is welcome to visit next year, when the 600 k.p.h. Maglev (magnetic levitation) train enters operation, and compare
it to say, Amtrak in America, which is like a system from an 1860's cowboy and Indian film..
In 9 more days, high school begins in China, so many of the thrill-seekers will be in class, while the US-paid street criminals
will be exposed and ridiculed.. Hopefully locked up for a very long time..
Jack Leon
Hopefully locked up for a very long time..
Ahh the blessed joys of absolute power literally controlling every aspect of peoples thoughts and daily lives, can't wait to
move there. People in Macau cannot be black holed into a Chinese gulag that's exactly why it is so successful, no one with any
money goes to gamble and party in Beijing. Mainlanders flock there to escape the prison state that is modern China.
"Please move to the back of the Maglev or you will be punished. Discredited Entities are not welcome on this ride."
mark
When communism collapsed in 1989, a whole class of smug self satisfied individuals like Fukuyama and the Neocons and Ziocons
feeding off them patted themselves on the pack, assured of their complete moral superiority and unlimited virtue. They had won,
and could now throw their weight around the planet however they pleased.
People who were a little bit more far sighted subsequently concluded that communism collapsed FIRST. The prevailing system
in the Anglozionist empire just took longer to collapse. Our system of crony capitalism, crapitalism, parasitic financial capitalism,
looting kleptocracy, managed to endure for another 20 years before it collapsed in turn over 2007-8, never to recover. It has
remained on life support ever since, sustaining its zombie existence through the printing of tens of trillions of toilet paper
money backed by nothing but thin air, negative interest rates, and draconian austerity ravaging societies and entire countries.
The world could have been re ordered for the better after 1989. Genuine cooperation between great powers. Wide ranging
disarmament. A new security structure for all the countries of the planet. The dismantling of relics like NATO. The resolution
of previously intractable conflicts. A much better deal for developing countries with new terms of trade. The needs of billions
of people given the priority they deserved. This was all up for grabs. But the opportunity for a better world was thrown away
and will never return.
Instead, militarism and aggression were given their head. NATO expanded deep into the former Soviet Union in breach of
all the undertakings that were given to the contrary. Russia was comprehensively looted and reduced to destitution and misery.
One country after another was invaded and destroyed. Millions died and tens of millions immiserated. The whole planet was destabilised.
Trillions were squandered that could have been devoted to productive purposes and real human needs.
We now face disaster on multiple fronts. The very real possibility of war on a scale never seen before in human history, leading
to human extinction. Financial, economic and social collapse dwarfing the experience of 1929. Political chaos and upheaval. All
of this completely unnecessary.
mark
The US National Debt Clock is whizzing round at $25,000 a second. The current budget deficit is $1,175 billion. Trump is trying
to loot the rest of the planet to get himself out of the economic hole he is in.
Jack Leon
The world could have been re ordered for the better after 1989. Genuine cooperation between great powers. Wide ranging disarmament."
All very true and concise, but do you truly believe that had the USSR won the cold war and the USA gone bankrupt, they would
have even extended the olive branch the other way? Although impossible to definitively say, my guess is yeah right the Soviets
would make Perestroika look like a bargain. We'd be wearing shitty Communist clothes, eating Borscht and watching as the party
ravaged every resource for the Soviet oligarchs.
Capitalism is ths best system for economic growth, undeniably proven over and over, problem is, your right we live in a corporate
communist state, which destroyed the greatest economic system ever created. And I would also agree 2007 was the official end of
our great Republic although building for decades to that point.
vexarb
"the main champions of multilateralism in Asia, those being India Indonesia and Japan first of all"
Read that slowly and all will become crystal clear -- despite the author's Germanic gnomic English.
vexarb
Sorry, I was being pretty gnomic myself. The Herr Professor is saying that the Chief Champions of Multi-Lateralism are countries
which are either allied to the Empire (India) or have been crushed by the Empire (Indonesia) or both (Japan).
TheThinker
BigB – I wrote this over on the thread a couple of articles back in a reply to George. But, it seemed pertinent to what you say
above, perhaps even reinforces it. As I am double posting, Admin, feel free to delete if it is not useful to the discussion.
I've been reading a collection of essays by a Australian guy called Careys – on Democracy and propaganda, fully named, Taking
the Risk out of Democracy. He died unpublished but his papers were collated in a book after. Here some bits from my read that
were interesting.
In Jan 1994 David Hume reflecting on the consequences of the recent state terrorist projects that Washington had organised
and directed in its Central American domains, with the Church a prime target. They took special note of 'what weight' the culture
of terror has had in domestically the expectations of the majority vis-a-vis alternatives different for the powerful; the destruction
of hope, they recognised, is one of the greatest achievements of the free world doctrine of 'low intensity conflict' what is called
'terror' when conducted by official enemies. Noam Chomsky 1994
Propaganda is the management of collective attitudes by the manipulation of significant symbolism collective attitudes are
amenable to many modes of alteration . intimidation intimidation .economic coercion drill
But their arrangement and rearrangement occurs principally under the importers of significant symbolism and the technique of
using significant symbols for this purpose is propaganda. Lasswell, Bardson & Janowitz 1953
Successful use of propaganda as a means of social control requires a number of conditions: The will to use it, the skills
to produce the propaganda, the means to deiiseminate it; and the use of significant symbols with real power over emotional reactions
– ideally symbols of the sacred and satanic (Light vs DARK)
A society or culture which is disposed to view the world in Manichean terms will be more vulnerable to control by propaganda.
Conversely, a society where propaganda is extensively employed as a means of control, will tend to retain a Manichean world view,
a view dominated by symbols and visions of the sacred and satanic.
Manichean – an adherent of the dualistic systems (dual = 2) religious systems of Manes, a combination of Gnostic, Buddiasm,
Zoroastrianism and various other elements with a doctrine of a conflict between the Light and Dark, matter being regarded as dark
and light / good vs evil – love vs hate
The 'public mind' was recognised long ago by corporate leaders to be 'the only serious danger confronting' their enterprise
& major hazards facing industrialists along with the newly realised political power of the masses, which had to be beaten back.
Big Business in the US stated started the Americanise Movement ostensibly to Americanise worker, who was being perceived as
being under threat from subversive forces of the Industrial Workers of the world.
what started as a method of controlling the political opinion of immigrant workers quickly turned into a massive program for
the thinking of an entire population. One of the most startling examples of the escalation of the whole population in processes
of propaganda was how Americanisation Program ( a word which conjures up the 'thought police') came to be transformed into a National
Celebration Day for the 4th July, to many of us (Carey's words not mine) it comes as a shock to discover that American Independence
Day had it's beginning in a Business led program to control public opinion rather than as a direct expression of a Nation celebrating
its historical birth.
Gary Weglarz
("The Soviet Union – much as (the pre-Deng's) China itself – was far more of a classic continental military empire (overtly brutal;
rigid, authoritative, anti-individual, apparent, secretive), while the US was more a financial-trading empire (covertly coercive;
hierarchical, yet asocial, exploitive, pervasive, polarizing).").
– sorry, but this line left me laughing out loud and gasping for a little air. If the meaning of the term's "covertly coercive"
and "exploitive" actually are simply euphemisms to mean things like carpet bombing peasant societies into the 'stone age,' running,
training and arming death squads and torture operations decade upon decade, over-throwing democratic populist governments and
installing brutal dictators, and organizing and supporting mass murder and torture on an epic scale from Indonesia to Chile to
Vietnam to Guatemala, and of course endless others, then yes, I suppose we American's have been "covertly coercive" and "exploitive."
I wonder, however, why such routine U.S. mayhem fails to rise to the level of the former Soviet's "overtly brutal" designation?
As usual when I read the world as described by Western "academics" I am confused by the carefully coded language used to describe
the absolute amoral brutality of Western empire. But hey, perhaps describing the willful murder of a half-a-million Iraqi children
as "worth it," is simply an example of America's "asocial" tendencies rather than of actual barbarity.
wardropper
The worst of it all is that none of it NEEDS to have "meaning".
Another sex scandal, or a bank scandal of huge proportions is plastered all over the media, and, two days later, while people
are still trying to digest it with the most superficial thought processes they can muster, we suddenly find we are at war with
China, Russia – or Denmark, for that matter
"Oh, we seem to be at war again!", would seem to be the most likely response, while we eagerly await the next scandal
The owners of our media honestly deserve the same end that Goebbels faced , but we share guilt inasfar as we have all-too readily
allowed them to confuse our thinking until it isn't even thinking any more, but merely knee-jerk reaction to click-bait.
Russia's centrality? I wouldn't be fooled by the CIA's apparent obsession with Russia; the rest of the world knows that China
is now no. 2. The Chinese have caught up technologically by study and crook, and are financially and population wise much stronger
than Russia.
In fact Russian Siberia must look quite juicy for Beijing with all its space and minerals , were it not for those damn old
Russian MIRVs.
Note well
Nice essay! Indeed, the US empire has survived [hopefully for not much longer] by swindling, and, fraudulent treaties. One
critical aspect of the widespread of US influence is SPYING! Highly likely, most of what the US achieved would not have been possible
without the spying apparatus that have infiltrated every corner of the world. Of course, spying did not start with the Internet,
although now it is made 'natural'.
SPYING, and the ubiquitousness of it, should be stated every time US influence is mentioned.
Antonym
Why would only growing Indian or Chinese middle classes be cancer? Any greed is cancer, whether from a beggar or a billionaire.
be they be India, Chinese, American, British etc.
Fair dinkum
The Western middle class has pushed the planet to the precipice. The 400 million plus Chinese and Indian middle class will bury
the world at the bottom of it.
Roland Spansky
Oh give it a rest, Chicken Little. People such as yourself have been squawking about the planet being on the edge of a precipice
for – conservatively – the last sixty years. Open your eyes. It's a con. You've been had.
wardropper
It seems to have escaped your attention that the middle classes are the main victims of "austerity" these days. The aim is to
wipe them out, and have the 1% vs. the enslaved 99% as the new norm. It would be very uncomfortable to have a flourishing 55%
middle class against the 1%, which is why we have austerity in the first place.
As for "deadly cancers", well, we obviously have our own fair share of those, but it so happens that they are not the middle class.
Dominic Berry
Their education is first and foremost about recognizing the importance of the existing hierarchy and knowing their place in
it. Any facts or ideas they learn after this are recognized, understood and acted upon within the context of performing that role.
Implicitly anti hierarchical facts provoke a cognitive dissonance which prevents them being recognized, but even when it is
recognized as important, not accounted for by the existing procedures, critically important, (e.g., ecological collapse, nuclear
weapons, austerity economics,) even when we see that something has to be done, well, "What am I supposed to do?"
Most of the rewards and punishments of being a middle class professional are not related to being right or wrong, justified
or not, honest or dishonest. They are to do with being obedient or not, disciplined or indisciplined, "normal" or eccentric.
"... The game they play is getting easier to fall for and harder to resist. The more you hear those dreary repetitions about Labour anti-Semitism, the more you feel like screaming abuse at "the Jews". And then they have you exactly where they want. Then they can point a finger at you and say (with justification) "Ah! Anti-Semitism!" ..."
"... It would be entirely legitimate to say "the Russians" did it. This wouldn't be racist, or bigoted, or anything else. It wouldn't mean that all 150 million Russians were personally involved, or approved of this action, or played an active part in it, or even that they knew of it or could care less about it. ..."
9/11 was conceived, written and performed by the Chosen Folk, a large number of dual nationals, with the assistance of a few
key goy stooges. It was a Zionist operation from beginning to end, a USS Liberty/ JFK writ large. The same pattern can be seen
in every element of the operation. It was carried out by a Mossad network 200 strong. Lucky Larry Silverstein was the man on
the ground in charge of the WTC site, and he made billions out of the atrocity. A score of moslem Lee Harvey Oswalds had a
walk on part as convenient patsies. There is no "propaganda" involved. Just fact.
OffG
Your squeamish euphemisms notwithstanding, claiming 'the Jews' did 9/11 is ultimately just another way of shutting down
rational inquiry. It's obvious to anyone that 'the Jews' as an entire ethnicity did not plan 9/11, any more than 'the
Gentiles' or 'the Moslems' or 'the WASPS' did. People are turned away by your simplistic racism and want to look no
further.
You could lead with 'Israel did it', or 'Mossad did it' – points you introduce later. But no, to you 'the Jews' did it.
All of em. Including mr Cohen three doors down who says hello to you in the street.
You are rational and insightful on many other topics yet become a self-defeating bigot whenever you discuss Jewishness –
which is far more often than occasions demand.
George
Plus the fact that blaming "the Jews" is exactly what the propagandists want you to do. (And I refer somewhat vaguely to
"propagandists" because I really mean the ruling class, who couldn't care less about ethnicity, religion, race etc. Just
as long as the wealthy keep their grip on the media and on society through their wealth.)
The game they play is getting easier to fall for and harder to resist. The more you hear those dreary repetitions
about Labour anti-Semitism, the more you feel like screaming abuse at "the Jews". And then they have you exactly where
they want. Then they can point a finger at you and say (with justification) "Ah! Anti-Semitism!"
mark
This is a case of setting up a ludicrous straw man.
Suppose for the sake of argument it was established that the
Russian state actually did try to kill Skripal. Of course they didn't, but assume they did.
It would be entirely legitimate to say "the Russians" did it. This wouldn't be racist, or bigoted, or anything else.
It wouldn't mean that all 150 million Russians were personally involved, or approved of this action, or played an active
part in it, or even that they knew of it or could care less about it.
It wouldn't be some kind of racist trope that bus driver Mr. Ivanovich in Novosibirsk was somehow responsible.
Any more than 300 million Americans and 60 million British were personally responsible for the conspiracy to invade
Iraq, or Bush's and Blair's criminal war of aggression.
In like manner the 9/11 atrocity was carried out by a few hundred individuals. Mostly Israeli and dual national
Americans, and a significant number of Israel First stooge goys serving Zionist interests.
The vast majority of Jews and Israelis in the world played no part at all, and are just passive recipients of the
cover conspiracy theories to explain it away.
This is just a smokecreen that is habitually thrown up whenever anyone connects the dots between Silverstein, a 200
strong Mossad ring, Chertoff, and so many others.
crank
I don't think anyone would seriously interpret the statement as meaning every Jewish person in the world was
complicit in 9/11. I think OffGuardian Admin know this full well.
They, like many in the 9/11 truth community – let's face it – cannot allow an honest dispassionate consideration of
the facts regarding 9/11 suspects, and the consequent unavoidable conclusion that a hugely disproportionate number of
them are Jewish. They are conditioned into turning away from any conclusion which might challenge the more conforting
idea that 'elements within the US secret state did 9/11' or 'a private intelligence network were responsible'. With
honest consideration though it's hard to dispute your conclusion with respect to the perpetrators.
As you say, the Truth is 'antisemitic'. It stinks of hypocrisy when those who regard themselves as 'truth tellers' or
'truth inquirers' display the very same sophistry as the ones they rightly criticise when it comes to this issue.
This issue is still the key to understanding the politics of our age.
OffG
Are you genuinely deranged? No one on this site is 'sycophantic' to anyone, and you are not being asked to be
so.
As we already said once and are saying for the second and last time – you and everyone else are free here
to critique Israel and individual Jewish people and any other nation or group or individual on any grounds –
EXCEPT THEIR RACE
If you find that's restrictive – well, you are a racist.
We're asking you for the second time to leave this discussion here. Move on to something useful or
interesting.
crank
As we already said once and are saying for the second and last time – you and everyone else are free
here to critique Israel and individual Jewish people and any other nation or group or individual on any
grounds – EXCEPT THEIR RACE
Can we criticise their ideology?
Mandy Miller
"Their ideology"?? And what is that? I'm one of "them". What is my ideology, pray?
I've read your and Mark's attempts to twist your collective denigration of Jews into some type of
political analysis. It's like reading Nazi rationalisations of their Final Solution. "The Jews believe
they are chosen. The Jews run the banking system and only look after their own, so we have to put them in
camps to save the country"
How many Jews do you talk to? Do you think we all run the banking system?
I find you disgusting. I applaud OffG's commitment to free speech, but all you do is exploit and abuse
it.
mark
Don't take any notice of me, Mandy. I'm just a goy donkey. Get it straight from the horse's mouth.
"If we get caught, they will just replace us with persons of the same cloth. So it does not matter
what you do. America is a golden calf and we will suck it dry, chop it up, and sell it off piece by
piece until there is nothing left but the world's biggest welfare state that we will create and
control. Why? Because it is the Will of God and America is big enough to take the hit. So we can do it
again and again and again. This is what we do to countries that we hate. We destroy them very slowly
and make them suffer for refusing to be our slaves." – Netanyahu.
"Goyim were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world – only to serve
the People of Israel. Imagine that one's donkey would die, they'd lose their money. This is his
servant. That's why he gets a long life, to work well for this Jew. Why are Gentiles needed? They will
work, they will plough, they will reap. We will sit like an effendi, and eat." – Ovadia Yosef, Chief
Rabbi of Israel.
"Our Race is the Master Race. We are divine gods on this planet. We are as different from the
inferior races as they are from insects. Other races are beasts and insects, cattle at best. Our
destiny is to rule over the inferior races. The masses will lick our feet and serve us as our slaves."
– Menachem Begin.
Mandy Miller
Oh what a nasty trick you try to pull. Quoting our biggest lunatics at me.
Yosef is dismissed by most sensible Jews as a crazy old bigot and racist. Begin was crazy too and a
terrorist. Netanyahu? A thug and a racist fool.
I might as well put quotes up here from Hitler and Goebbels and say that means all white anglo
saxons are Nazis.
What is wrong with you? Why is your response to racism to become a racist? Why do you so clearly
hate me simply because I was born a Jew? I don't hate you, I do not think you are a donkey. I don't
call you a goy. Why are you so full of such hate toward the Jewish race because some Jews are wackos?
Newsflash, some white men are wackos also.
I think you have found a way to repeat up-vote your posts and those of the other racists on here. I
hope so anyway, if not I am sad .
TheThinker
I've been reading a collection of essays by a Australian guy called Careys – on Democracy and propaganda, fully named, Taking the
Risk out of Democracy. He died unpublished but his papers were collated in a book after. Here some bits from my read that were
interesting.
In Jan 1994 David Hume reflecting on the consequences of the recent state terrorist projects that Washington had
organised and directed in its Central American domains, with the Church a prime target. They took special note of 'what weight'
the culture of terror has had in domestically the expectations of the majority vis-a-vis alternatives different for the powerful;
the destruction of hope, they recognised, is one of the greatest achievements of the free world doctrine of 'low intensity
conflict' what is called 'terror' when conducted by official enemies. Noam Chomsky 1994
Propaganda is the management of collective attitudes by the manipulation of significant symbolism collective attitudes are
amenable to many modes of alteration . intimidation intimidation .economic coercion drill
But their arrangement and rearrangement occurs principally under the importers of significant symbolism and the technique of
using significant symbols for this purpose is propaganda. Lasswell, Bardson & Janowitz 1953
Successful use of propaganda as a means of social control requires a number of conditions: The will to use it, the skills to
produce the propaganda, the means to disseminate it; and the use of significant symbols with real power over emotional reactions
– ideally symbols of the sacred and satanic (Light vs DARK)
A society or culture which is disposed to view the world in Manichean terms will be more vulnerable to control by
propaganda. Conversely, a society where propaganda is extensively employed as a means of control, will tend to retain a Manichean
world view, a view dominated by symbols and visions of the sacred and satanic.
Manichean – an adherent of the dualistic systems (dual = 2) religious systems of Manes, a combination of Gnostic,
Buddiasm, Zoroastrianism and various other elements with a doctrine of a conflict between the Light and Dark, matter being
regarded as dark and light / good vs evil – love vs hate
The 'public mind' was recognised long ago by corporate leaders to be 'the only serious danger confronting' their enterprise &
major hazards facing industrialists along with the newly realised political power of the masses, which had to be beaten back.
Big Business in the US stated started the Americanise Movement ostensibly to Americanise worker, who was being perceived as
being under threat from subversive forces of the Industrial Workers of the world.
what started as a method of controlling the political opinion of immigrant workers quickly turned into a massive program for
the thinking of an entire population. One of the most startling examples of the escalation of the whole population in processes
of propaganda was how Americanisation Program ( a word which conjures up the 'thought police') came to be transformed into a
National Celebration Day for the 4th July, to many of us (Carey's words not mine) it comes as a shock to discover that American
Independence Day had it's beginning in a Business led program to control public opinion rather than as a direct expression of a
Nation celebrating its historical birth.
The Chosen Folk are so "chosen" and clever they have Lucky Larry as their 911 made billionaire poster boy bragging he
gave the order to pull 7. Not to mention Epstein, flaunting his sexcapades in the so called "news" like he's some kind
of Charles in Charge. No, the one in charge is the Superior General. And the one who claims it all (you included) by
Papal Bull enjoys his duper's delight and the inquisition continues unimpeded. Of course the owner of 3/4's of Jerusalem
is never mentioned. The ruse (and who benefits) is plain as day.
Admin
The 'chosen folk' is a reductionist racist term. As is the ridiculous suggestion that an entire ethnicity can be
blamed for the crimes of a few individuals who share that ethnicity. We're fairly sure you don't believe all white
Anglo Saxons are responsible for every crime of the British empire. Please extend the same courtesy to Jewish people,
many of whom deplore Zionism and Israel's own racism.
crank
@Admin
I don't think this is a coherent intervention.
Ethnicity is not racial; it describes cultural, linguistic and national associations. Race is generally
understood as a reference to common biological ancestry.
Jewishness might, by some be accurately described as an ethnicity, but not as a race, as there are Jews from
different 'racial groups' (-if one subscribes to such a notion at all).
If you are going to intervene with a response like the one above, I would suggest that you go the full mile and
explore in an article or three which aspects of Jewishness which relate to ethnicity and which to ideology.
'Fins Mcgee' denotes 'chosenness' as a defining ideological characteristic of those who self identify as
'Jewish'. Writers and thinkers like Gilad Atzmon, Israel Shamir and others would be in agreement. If that is a
fair summation, then anyone who strongly identifies as 'Jewish' is, in truth, self identifying as somehow 'chosen'
or special or superior to non Jews.
If that is unfair or wrong, then explain yourself and explain why. Explain what is 'Jewishness' ?
Taking your comment as it stands as the extent of your view would mean that all criticism of Jewish ideology
is, in essence, 'racist'.
Even when he was 'sent down' to the cushy jail – he had it made easy. He was able to buy all he wanted. Including kiddie size
girl panties! In prison!!
His charitable work was supposed to be at a charity set up just before he went in prison guards accompanying him on his daily
escapades and multi 'chiropractory' appointments per day were paid by him and had to dress in business suits the records of who
met have been destroyed.
But the prison has had to release a whole bunch of records that still exist.
This is a exploding can of worms that doesn't look like stopping anytime soon.
"... To say "we will never know" is the mantra of a postmodern culture created to keep people running in circles. (Note the commentaries about the Jeffrey Epstein case.) Elusive and allusive indeterminacy characterizes everything in the culture of postmodernity. ..."
"... The ruling ideology since the fall of the Berlin Wall, or even earlier, is postmodernism. This is the ideological embellishment that the brutal neoliberal attack on Western societies' welfare (that was launched in the late 1970s) required in order to attain a "human", "liberal" and "progressive" face. ..."
"... This coalition between an economic policy that serves the interest of a tiny minority, and an ideology that appears to "include" everybody is what Nancy Fraser has aptly called "progressive neoliberalism". It consists of neoliberalism, plus postmodernism as its ideological superstructure. ..."
"... Money buys souls, and the number of those who have sold theirs is numerous, including those leftists who have been bought by the CIA, as Cord Meyer, the CIA official phrased it so sexually in the 1950s: we need to "court the compatible left." He knew that drawing leftists into the CIA's orbit was the key to efficient propaganda. ..."
"... For so many of the compatible left, those making a lot of money posing as opponents of the ruling elites but taking the money of the super-rich, the JFK assassination and the truth of September 11, 2001 are inconsequential, never to be broached, as if they never happened, except as the authorities say they did. ..."
"... By ignoring these most in-your-face events with their eyes wide shut, a coterie of influential leftists has done the work of Orwell's crime-stop and has effectively succeeded in situating current events in an ahistorical and therefore misleading context that abets U.S. propaganda. ..."
People hunger for these stories, not for the real truth that impacts their lives, but for
the titillation that gives a frisson to their humdrum lives. It is why post-modern detective
stories are so popular, as if never solving the crime is the point.
To say "we will never know" is the mantra of a postmodern culture created to keep people
running in circles. (Note the commentaries about the Jeffrey Epstein case.) Elusive and
allusive indeterminacy characterizes everything in the culture of postmodernity.
Robert Pfaller, a professor at the University of Art and Industrial Design in Linz, Austria
and a founding member of the Viennese psychoanalytic research group "stuzzicandenti,"
put it clearly in a recent interview :
The ruling ideology since the fall of the Berlin Wall, or even earlier, is postmodernism.
This is the ideological embellishment that the brutal neoliberal attack on Western societies'
welfare (that was launched in the late 1970s) required in order to attain a "human",
"liberal" and "progressive" face.
This coalition between an economic policy that serves the
interest of a tiny minority, and an ideology that appears to "include" everybody is what
Nancy Fraser has aptly called "progressive neoliberalism". It consists of neoliberalism, plus
postmodernism as its ideological superstructure.
The propagandists know this; they created it. They are psychologically astute, having hijacked many intelligent but soul-less people of
the right and left to do their handiwork.
Money buys souls, and the number of those who have sold theirs is numerous, including those
leftists who have been bought by the CIA, as Cord Meyer, the CIA official phrased it so
sexually in the 1950s: we need to "court the compatible left." He knew that drawing
leftists into the CIA's orbit was the key to efficient propaganda.
For so many of the compatible left, those making a lot of money posing as opponents of the
ruling elites but taking the money of the super-rich, the JFK assassination and the truth of
September 11, 2001 are inconsequential, never to be broached, as if they never happened, except
as the authorities say they did.
By ignoring these most in-your-face events with their eyes wide shut, a coterie of
influential leftists has done the work of Orwell's crime-stop and has effectively succeeded in
situating current events in an ahistorical and therefore misleading context that abets U.S.
propaganda.
George
The use of the word "hate" has become another thought-stopper. It's like calling something "Evil" without further explanation.
I first realised this when I found the following article which is specifically about Off-Guardian:
The title is in the URL itself but it's worth emphasising since it headlines the article:
"Russian trolls exiled from Guardian find home for their hate"
And there it is – the simple assertion "hate". It's so crass. It's like cartoon propaganda – which may well be the most
effective kind. And it echoes that old staple, "They just hate us!", "They are haters!" and, best of all, "Hatred of the good
for being good." That last one is a masterstroke since it absolves one side of investigation while shoving all blame onto the
other side. Best of all, the more "they" hate us, the more "good" we must be!
19
0
Reply
Aug 22, 2019 5:25 PM
Reader
Ramdan
F*** . am I russian now? ..and where can we pick our passports??
Capricornia Man
The article you provide a link to offers the following wisdom:
'In line with the Kremlin's goals, OffGuardian seeks to undermine trust in the "mainstream media".'
Capricornia Man
Wanted to finish my above post by observing that, for anyone capable of a moderate level of independent
thought, the "mainstream media" have done a brilliant job of forfeiting trust all by themselves.
Elementor
LOL – my favorite bit of that article is where they cite Kit's use of the internet-4Chan meme "accidentally
the " as evidence English isn't his first language!!!!
ROFL I literally nearly fell of my chair laughing.
This lady is revealed as either truly ancient, a cultural hermit or or herself a non-native English
speaker.
Also she lies her ancient ass off about Ukraine.
Roland Spansky
That is fricken priceless
Rhys Jaggar
The real difficulty with all 'hate crime' stuff is proving that a hating state of mind exists. The key point
here is that those offended by statements or those victimised may assume hate to be present when it may be
hatred of an individual, not their sex, religion, sexual orientation etc.
Here are few hard questions:
1. If I state, correctly, that several leaders of Russian mob families are- or have been Jewish, does that
make me antisemitic?
I say absolutely it does not. I would back that up by saying that several other crime overlords profess to
have Christian ancestry. So not all mob capos are Jewish ..and being Jewish does not make you more likely to
lead a life of crime .
2. So what about if I killed a Jewish mobster because his hoods sexually abused my daughter? Does that make
me antisemitic??
Absolutely not. I would kill any mob capo whose vermin attacked my daughter. Jewishness does not come into
it. I certainly hated the mobster, but I did not hate his Jewishness .
3. What about if I say that the Israeli Secret Service, the Mossad, is a terrorist organisation?
Here we are talking about the official Intelligence Service of the Jewish State. Those folks are going to be
Jews, representing Jewry. Is that anti-semitic?
Why?? Being a terrorist basically means you have either a very violent religion or you do not uphold the
principles of a less violent one. I would point to the known terrorism in the histories of MI6, the CIA, the
OSS and several others to prove that it is not Jewishness that drives the terror, rather the precepts under
which Intelligence agencies are run.
4. What if I say that Jews are over-represented amongst the Western media and banking elites? Is that
anti-semitic??
Well, firstly the data suggests I am being factual, namely that the actual number of Jews in such positions
is far higher than might be expected on a population-based pro rata outcome. Secondly, have I said it is either
good or bad? I think I am suggesting that society might discuss why that has come about, whether any
consequences have ensued and whether the majority in a society consider those consequences to be appropriate.
It is not anti-semitic to ask if a small minority holding inordinate influence/power is aggreable to the
majority of the citizenry. After all, we are continually suggesting that white, public-school-educated male
graduates of Oxbridge should not dominate UK society in this day and age .
5. What if I say that a small minority of Jews proclaim the Jewish people to be superior to all goyim? Is
that factual or anti-semitic??
What if I say to hold such a view makes that subset of Jews to be racist?
My view again is that that is factually accurate. It does not imply all Jews think like that, does it? It is
like saying in the 1970s that the National Front was racist: said nothing about the majority of British people,
did I?
I would really dare some Jewish people to challenge those arguments.
Not by smearing, scaremongering, bursting into tears or any other melodrama.
Nor by power plays, threats, blackmail or libel.
By cool, reasoned argument .
OffG
Can we try to keep at least one thread free from discussing the antisemitism issue.
If you want to debate that subject there is an ongoing and currently civilised discussion between Mark
and Mandy Miller on one of the Epstein threads. Feel free to re-post this comment there.
This article is about the media manipulation of the concept of 'hate'.
wardropper
I share Norman Finkelstein's view that the appropriate response, both by us and by the Labour Party, for
example, is to funnel any such accusations to a small unit which will answer any serious charges in
detail, leaving the rest of us to state quite clearly, "It's over. We're not having our wide political
and global interests forced into an endless, energy-sapping and time-wasting series of protests against
ridiculous charges. We are not answering them any more. Take them to the relevant unit, and leave our
free speech alone."
That said, Rhys does a great job of making his point, and perhaps the concept of "hate" is not so
irrelevant to that point.
Martin Usher
Antisemitism is not what's being discussed, its just a well known example of 'hate' that we can all more
or less agree on. Its a tricky subject to discuss because its the closest thing that we have to
Thoughtcrime in contemporary society so we need some sort of ground state we can work from.
The example
of Jewish mob bosses is useful but we could have chosen American ones rather than Russian ones -- the
Jewish 'mob' was preeminent in US cities before being displaced by the Italians/Sicilians. What I think
is important, though, isn't stated and that's the idea that tribal identity has gradually been made
important with our identity is inextricably bound up with our tribe, a tribe differentiated by religion,
race or orientation but not notably by our economic class. The question shouldn't be to argue among
ourselves about details and crumbs but to ask why allowing ourselves to sliced and diced into potentially
warring groups. The media is full of it (literally and metaphorically) -- if its not race or gender then
its the latest millennial versus baby boomer BS. To me the answer is obvious -- you don't want people
uniting around common goals and expectations, you need to have them at each other's throats, fighting for
those crumbs.
Incidentally, having to put up with racist jerks is the unfortunate side effect of espousing free
speech. There's no easy way to winnow the good from the bad and you just know that if you let Big Brother
decide for you then sooner rather than later it will be *you* that they'll be coming for.
Obviously, it must be a legality
because these events are so full of obvious holes they have to be deliberate and in some cases what happens is
virtually impossible such as in the event that happened in my own city last week. Mert Ney brandishes a knife
in the middle of an amazingly empty Clarence St with BROWN EYES but when we see him pinned ludicrously under
the milk crate he has BLUE EYES, a change in eye-colour obviously effected with blue-tinted contact lenses.
Does anyone seriously believe that a dextrous Mert pulled out and inserted these contact lenses between his
knife-brandishing and being pinned?
Scrutinise the media stories. Notice all the contradictions in the various versions of the story. Notice all
the misspellings, the inappropriate tone and register of language. The phony loved ones and witnesses. The
nauseating heroes pimping their employer on morning TV. The complete absence of any sense of reality to these
highly improbable crimes. What will it take for the recognition of these events to catch on? I simply do not
understand.
Here is the word "Staged" inserted incongruously into this text. "Must have been a hell of a drug bender
"?????? How much clearer do they have to make it?
Sydney stabbing LIVE: NSW Police confirm body found in Clarence Street unit linked to attack
BREAKING: We can confirm the death of the woman in the Clarence Street unit in Sydney's CBD is linked to the
stabbing on the street below.
Staged
Must have been a hell of a drug bender
The blue/brown eyes thing is a non-issue, it can be created simply by changes in lighting levels or
resolution. We pointed this out to you once already.
If you genuinely want to engage people and are not – as many claim – a troll please take some advice:
Add the words 'I think' or 'could be' occasionally.
Don't comport like a missionary trying to convert unbelievers.
Put forward suggestions rather than pronouncements of dogma.
That way your posts might provoke some genuine discussion. If you ignore these suggestions and continue
with these repeat-posted manifestos of certitude it's going to start looking as if the claims of trollery
are not misplaced.
PS –
this commenter below
is inviting discussion of potential hoax shootings – why not engage with him ?
PPS – The link you added to the alleged contact lenses is broken, so we're removing it. Add another below
and we'll add it to this post of yours
The blue/brown eyes thing is a non-issue, it can be created simply by changes in lighting levels or
resolution. We pointed this out to you once already.
Apologies, I do not remember seeing that, however, I'm not sure your assertion is valid – you'd have
to show an example that matches mine. When you say the link didn't work I wonder if you copied the entire
link or just clicked because obviously the link wasn't underlined for its entirety and for it to work you
needed to copy and paste it. In any case I found a better link – see below.
As usual, OffG, you select one item only – which you don't manage to debunk in any case. There are so
very many things wrong with the stabbing incident story. Unsurprisingly, you fail to make a comment on
the word "Staged" appearing incongruously for example. Please, I beg you, OffG, what is your explanation
for the word "Staged" appearing incongruously in the middle of a paragraph on this story and are you
going to tell me that it is just sloppy journalism to say " must have been a hell of a drug-bender" when
a woman has just been knifed to death and another woman injured? Are you going to tell me, "sloppy
journalism"?
You seem unable to confront evidence, OffG. I have the feeling that you believe it is more scientific
to reserve judgement, that one must always sit on the fence about evidence. This is a fallacy. When all
the evidence points in a certain direction and none points in any other direction, the scientific thing
to do is to call it. It is sitting on the fence that is unscientific.
I wonder what you actually call. Do you think that it might have been 19 terrorists armed with
boxcutters responsible for 9/11 after all? Perhaps you do.
INCONTROVERTIBLE FACT
No one, despite the offer to choose your own judge, has responded to my 10-point Occam's Razor challenge
for 5 separate events nor has anyone come up with even a single point. The fact that that to you is
insignificant means you do not know how to judge logic and evidence. I have put my money where my mouth
is but, OffG, you never, ever do that.
https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/5000-challenge.html
different frank
Just because there are uniforms, it does not mean they are cops.
No, but I think they often are because these events are really drills pushed out as real and response
agencies are key players. In this video, the very observant Woodrow Wobbles identifies training going on.
He notices one guy hanging around the milk crate who looks like a guy at an event in Melbourne and he
identifies the words, "Lock it, lock it, lock it Let go," suggesting the police are being trained.
I am in agreement with you Flax. Definitely looks like a training drill.
Doctortrinate
Flaxgirl: I looked at the Philly cop video you posted – very interesting, as am also unsure of it's
authenticity – though perhaps not for the same reason as yourself .as to myself , the drops/drips and
dribbles themselves seem to be counterfeit, possibly edited into the film – and detectable by slowly (frame
by frame) playing through it revealing some unusual and seemingly unfeasible characteristics ..of couse,
would still be fakery , but with a twist – Media created even.
Elementor
Agree. It looks at first glance as if those dots just appear, which leads to thinking the cop "sprays"
them or something similar, but on close analysis it looks wrong. I suspect it's been faked, a honeypot
for the unwary hoax-buff.
Doctortrinate
precisely Elementor – well seen and put " a honeypot for the unwary hoax-buff"
quite possibly.
Cheers.
Seamus Padraig
'Hate crimes' are just
thought-crimes
, pure and simple. They are now criminalizing political points of
view. The Constitution is dead.
even though the once-revered ACLU does not oppose the Second Amendment.
Of course the American Civil Liberties Union doesn't oppose the Second Amendment–it's a civil liberty! That
being said, with things going the way they're going, I wouldn't be at all surprised in the ACLU eventually
does
turn against the Second Amendment. Once upon a time, not so many years ago, they were free speech
absolutists as well–does anyone else here remember the infamous Skokie Nazis? The ACLU actually argued their
case pro bono! But in more recent times, they have succumbed to the logic of the campus 'hate speech' craze.
Many legal scholars would respond that the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and the Due
Process Clause in the Fifth Amendment already provides all American citizens with the guaranteed right to
equal protection under the law
And they would, too, if only the US government still followed its own constitution.
Harry Stotle
"Today, I am also directing the Department of Justice to propose legislation ensuring that those who commit
hate crimes and mass murders face the death penalty, and that this capital punishment be delivered quickly,
decisively, and without years of needless delay" – unless they are neocons in which case they can kill with
impunity under the usual rubrics – 'liberal intervention', 'bringing democracy' or 'humanitarian aid'.
Hell,
we can even stage pop-festivals and invite grotesque figures like Sir Richard to belt out 'Imagine' while the
local militia tool up with CIA hardware before wreaking havoc on unarmed civilians.
If western audiences become slightly sceptical the MSM will do its usual job of reassuring them that mass
murder is an inconvenient externality when it comes to building a brighter future.
Elementor
Why should the American public trust the MSM for what may have already been determined to be a 'hate'
crime without providing evidence of the hate
Terrific point. Where do we draw the line on skepticism about official narratives? How much do we really
know about these shootings, the identities of the shooters, even the reality of the crimes?
I don't want to get into full "it's a hoax" mode, but surely it's only intelligent to recall there are
documented cases of fake events and therefore being prepared to allow the possibility any event may be fake is
objectively the only rational response. What stops us? Nothing more than the same kneejerk rejection that makes
other people refuse to consider 9/11 may have been an inside job or JFK may not have been shot by LHO.
It's not per se crazy to entertain the possibility, or per se offensive either. Fakery happens, we are
constantly being manipulated, being aware of all possibilities is our only defense.
The same intelligence entities that coined the phrase "conspiracy theory" have also closed down any Youtube
channels that dare to question, even in the most restrained and respectful way, the reality of any mass
shooting. But sites like this condone that censorship, not seeing the connection.
Is it possible to have a non-binary, rational, fact-based discussion about the possibility some mass
shootings may be fake?
I invite thoughts
John Thatcher
The old adage,"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance" comes immediately to mind,and that particularly
applies to government and government action.As you rightly point out,there have been too many examples of
fake events and official lies for anybody to be complacent.Treat all with caution and judge on the weight
and quality of the evidence.If the evidence is not conclusive in any direction maintain a sceptical state of
mind.
Elementor
So very true. And yet so many of the enlightened are unwilling to assimilate this into their thinking.
You can call it laziness maybe. It's tempting to simply replace the received wisdom of the mainstream
media with the received wisdoms of the alternative media. But in this case what are we doing? More is
needed of us, as you so rightly say.
How many are prepared for the continuous effort of questioning and
skepticism required in order to be a truly independent and responsible human being?
The lack of responses so far here is not a good sign.
Hey there OffG columnists Phil Roddis, Ed Curtin, CJ Hopkins, Eric Zuesse, Renee Parsons, and hey
there BigB, Jen, Maggie, Antonym, Mark, and other "stars" of this forum. People actually come here to
read what you guys have to say. This question of fakery is a major subject impinging on our future
freedom.
Who of you dares to address it?
edited by Admin at author's request to correct typo
Elementor
So no one wants to have a serious non-kerazee debate about the
potential
for fake shootings?
Too far outside the Overton Window? How disappointing. It's bizarre, even flaxgirl would rather troll
the admins that just have a sensible debate with someone who'd like to talk to her.
Anna
Very good and valid question Elementor.
Not so very long ago, I happily dismissed most 'fake
shooting' narratives as either merely far-right/lumpen (sorry for such a crass
term)-baiting/monetising, conspiracy theories – of the Alex Jones variety.
However, after about two-three years of observing media biases, I find it so much easier to spot
where the overriding narratives appear to reside. However the actual events unfold is often less
important than their ultimate goal, which is of course mass censorship and getting round that
terribly inconvenient Second Amendment. This is I believe, the main agenda of the so-called Hate
Crime. Yes, I am aware that this makes me appear to some rather Info-Wars but that's the joy of
shedding my own confirmation bias!
I do now assume that there is state or states involvement in all these terror events. They are
manipulated/controlled (of sorts), whether the perpetrator knows of it or not. Some may indeed be
fake from the onset.
Empty vessels make the most noise and that is I'm afraid the state of corporate 'journalism',
who mostly whore themselves for the state/oligarchy narrative. Be very aware of ANY story that is
shilled verboten by these hacks, as they are awfully telling in the identification of agendas and
the direction of our further enslavement.
This is a case of setting up a ludicrous straw man.
Suppose for the sake of argument it was established that the Russian
state actually did try to kill Skripal. Of course they didn't, but assume they did.
It would be entirely legitimate to say "the Russians" did it. This wouldn't be racist, or bigoted, or anything else. It
wouldn't mean that all 150 million Russians were personally involved, or approved of this action, or played an active part in
it, or even that they knew of it or could care less about it.
It wouldn't be some kind of racist trope that bus driver Mr. Ivanovich in Novosibirsk was somehow responsible.
Any more than 300 million Americans and 60 million British were personally responsible for the conspiracy to invade Iraq,
or Bush's and Blair's criminal war of aggression.
In like manner the 9/11 atrocity was carried out by a few hundred individuals. Mostly Israeli and dual national Americans,
and a significant number of Israel First stooge goys serving Zionist interests.
The vast majority of Jews and Israelis in the world played no part at all, and are just passive recipients of the cover
conspiracy theories to explain it away.
This is just a smokecreen that is habitually thrown up whenever anyone connects the dots between Silverstein, a 200 strong
Mossad ring, Chertoff, and so many others.
"... Only 38 percent said national political coverage is accurate and reliable, while 42 percent said it is not. "We asked about national political reporters. Are they credible? Are they reliable?" said Rasmussen. "And you know, a little more than 1 out of 3 people say yes. When we ask about Wikipedia, we get the exact same answer. So what's -- what's happening is we have a world where people look at journalists like they look at Wikipedia." ..."
"... All this created a national hunger for alternative sources of information. The addition of Fox News, conservative talk radio, and conservative news websites and blogs in the '90s is decried as the dawn of a new era of "misinformation." ..."
"... The media's dramatic tilt has clearly taken a toll on their image. Rasmussen told Attkisson that 78 percent of voters say reporters don't report news so much as they promote their agenda: "They think they use incidents as props for their agenda rather than seeking accurate record of what happened. Only 14 percent think that a journalist is actually reporting what happened." ..."
On her weekly Sinclair TV show, "Full Measure," on Aug. 18, former CBS News correspondent
Sharyl Attkisson interviewed pollster Scott Rasmussen about journalists' standing in the public
square. They're about as trusted as Wikipedia, the website considered so unreliable that school
teachers often tell students they can't cite it as a source for their research papers.
Only 38 percent said national political coverage is accurate and reliable, while 42 percent
said it is not. "We asked about national political reporters. Are they credible? Are they
reliable?" said Rasmussen. "And you know, a little more than 1 out of 3 people say yes. When we
ask about Wikipedia, we get the exact same answer. So what's -- what's happening is we have a
world where people look at journalists like they look at Wikipedia."
You hear the media elites often break out the nostalgia for an era when the American people
had "shared facts." Translation: a time when all Americans had the "mainstream" media to tell
them what the "facts" were, and when those in that "mainstream" enjoyed a monopoly in their
industry. Facts always seemed carefully arranged for political impact. For example, the TV
anchors told us the Vietnam War was an unwinnable quagmire. Watergate was the worst scandal in
American history. The Soviet Union only wanted peace. The wealthy were greedy. Planet Earth
would succumb to global warming. And Planned Parenthood cares about children.
All this created a national hunger for alternative sources of information. The addition of
Fox News, conservative talk radio, and conservative news websites and blogs in the '90s is
decried as the dawn of a new era of "misinformation."
The media's dramatic tilt has clearly taken a toll on their image. Rasmussen told Attkisson
that 78 percent of voters say reporters don't report news so much as they promote their agenda:
"They think they use incidents as props for their agenda rather than seeking accurate record of
what happened. Only 14 percent think that a journalist is actually reporting what
happened."
That result is just devastating. The "news" media no longer exist.
Then Rasmussen added a layer of public cynicism: "If a reporter found out something that
would hurt their favorite candidate, only 36 percent of voters think that they would report
that." The public sees the media for what they are: flagrant activists manipulating the
democratic process.
Attkisson also interviewed former CNN anchor Frank Sesno to react to this massive
credibility problem. Sesno toed the company line and, in so doing, tripped over his own tongue.
"The public understands fundamentally what journalism should be," he said. "They don't
understand how it's actually practiced." What does that mean? The public isn't well-informed
enough to know how well-informed it would be if it were to trust the press?
If media organizations really wanted to improve their image, they would address public
skepticism seriously, taking some very simple steps. Stop trying to bury every bit of good news
for President Trump and every bit of bad news for Bernie, Biden & Co. Try to acknowledge
that policy debates have two sides. It is fair to question climate change, support our national
identity and oppose the abortion industry trafficking human carnage.
Is it too late? Conservatives have walked away from these networks and newspapers, which
means that their audiences are now mostly liberals who reject everything conservatives
champion. Obviously, from all we've witnessed, liberal journalists are much more sensitive to
criticism from fellow liberals than they are to the American public. That's unlikely to change,
so the credibility crisis will only deepen.
As the mainstream media consistently rush to judgment, speculation too often becomes fact
before all the evidence is considered (ie Russiagate) as the MSM is relied on to provide
factual and critical background information.
And yet since 65% of the American public believe that the MSM is
peddling fake news begs the question of why should detailed reporting on these tragic
events be left to a discredited media establishment or that their information on these recent
shootings be considered truthful?
Why should the American public trust the MSM for what may have already been determined to be
a 'hate' crime without providing evidence of the hate – as the Divide and Rule Game
continues undeterred sowing division and conflict among the American people.
It remains unclear exactly why either tragedy is being specifically labeled a "hate" crime
instead of felony murder as if there is a larger agenda to establish 'hate' as a bona fide.
Obviously, such barbaric mass killings are not normal behavior as the rationale for such
conduct must stem from some deep emotional depravity just as the epidemic
of suicides of young white males who have lost hope in American society makes no more
sense.
There is an endemic crisis throughout the country and the political class are responsible.
Decades after federal government elimination of grants for community mental health programs,
'hate' is the favorite determinant factor as the world's most violent nation creates a
generation of emotionally or mentally unstable young men, many of whom may be on mind-numbing
psychiatric drugs.
Since the MSM has failed to inform the American public of advanced mind control practices;
perhaps the MSM itself and the young shooters are part of widespread experiment using
MK
Ultra or other state-of-the-art brain manipulation techniques. How would the American
public ever know which might be true?
If you say "the Americans" or "the British" invaded Iraq in 2003 and someone tried to close down discussion by screaming
"racism" they wouldn't get much mileage out of it.
The Chosen Folk can talk about "the Arabs" or "the moslems" (all 2
billion of them) till the cows come home without so much as a raised eyebrow.
But any reference to the Chosen Folk that is not dripping with nauseating, sycophantic, lickspittle toadying, is
automatically unacceptable and off limits.
"All of the pro-Israel groups taken together constitute a veritable political juggernaut that
seeks to advantage Israel and benefit it directly without regard for the damage done to American democracy and to actual U.S.
interests. They should rightly be seen as organizations that regard their loyalty to the United States as negotiable, but they
try to obfuscate the issue by claiming, wrongly, that there exist compelling reasons why Israel and the U.S. should continue to
be best friends.
As Americans increasingly begin to appreciate how Israel is in fact a serious liability, that line will not continue to sell
very well, no matter how many congressmen and tame journalists are bought and no matter how many new groups pop up like mushrooms
funded by Jewish billionaires. Change is coming."
"... Palestinians are:- "beasts walking on two legs" (Begin), "drugged cockroaches in a bottle" (Eitan), "hungry crocodiles" (Barak), who "must be crushed like grasshoppers" (Shamir). ..."
"... We have fringe racist groups in the UK and US and elsewhere. But the KKK in the US just get drunk and burn a few crosses now and again. They are totally irrelevant. If they supplied ALL the heads of state, Begin, Shamir, Sharon, Barak, Netanyahu, ALL the heads of the armed forces, ALL the religious leaders, and the media in the country, anyone with two brain cells to rub together would have to acknowledge there is a difference. ..."
"... You can't criticise ANY of these people because it "offends" AIPAC, the Board of Deputies, the Friends of Israel, and "hurts their feelings." You are not allowed to call them out without incurring unprecedented draconian penalties unless you have first solved world hunger, global warming, criticised every other nation on the planet, and obtained a written permit from the Board of Deputies specifying exactly what terms and language you are authorised to use. ..."
"... Why obsess about Talmudistan? Because it is the tail that wags the dog. It exercises a complete stranglehold over the politics and foreign policy of the US and its satellites like the UK. It incites endless wars which those countries are expected to prosecute on its behalf. ..."
mark
I'll give you some "truly horrible expressions of bigotry." Palestinians are:- "beasts walking on two legs" (Begin), "drugged cockroaches in a bottle" (Eitan), "hungry crocodiles" (Barak),
who "must be crushed like grasshoppers" (Shamir).
Truly horrible racist stuff. 8 -4 Reply Aug 22, 2019 1:39 AM Reader
Mandy Miller
What is it with you Mark, that you keep just bringing up the same four or six quotes from the most bigoted Jews you can find who
are mostly dead? I am curious what you think it proves about anything?
Sure there are lunatics and there are racists and some of both are Jews, just as some are not Jews. Taking the words of the
racist Jews and using that to fire up your own racist hate of all Jews, even those like me who think Begin was a one-eyed
lunatic, is a waste of your life and breeds nothing but more hate. I hope God grants you peace in your heart, Mark.
mark
These are not four random annoying saloon bar bores blowing off steam after one too many. They are three successive prime ministers
and the head of the armed forces. Four typical political and military leaders. You could say the same about any other political
and military figures. Or religious figures like the Chief Rabbi. This is normal and routine. There is a great deal that is far
worse, like "Justice" Minister Shaked, who called for all Palestinian mothers to be murdered so that no Palestinian children could
be born. Or a national newspaper called The Times of Israel openly advocating the extermination of the Palestinian people at concentration
camps in the desert, "When Genocide Is Justified." Or two leading rabbis calling for the murder of all Palestinian children.
Imagine that Cameron, or May, or Johnson, called Jews cockroaches or grasshoppers, let alone calling for Jews to be murdered.
And every leading UK politician and military figure had done the same as a matter of routine for decades. Imagine the outrage.
Rightly so.
I would never call Jews cockroaches. But ALL these Zionist figures ROUTINELY speak of Palestinians in these terms. This is
completely normal. And nobody so much as raises an eyebrow. It is perfectly okay for the Chosen Folk to do this.
That is the point. It would be of benefit to the world if there was a little peace in the hearts of these people as well.
Mandy Miller
I didn't say they were insignificant I said they were regarded by most sensible Jews that I know as lunatics.
Begin did not speak for most Jews while he was alive and certainly doesn't now he's dead. I'm sure he liked to think he did,
but why believe that racist schmuck? Ditto for Binyamin, who is as stupid and racist as he is crazy.
Like I said you might as well quote Hitler or Goebbels as being representative of today's Germany or claim they speak for all
gentiles everywhere unless individuals specifically state otherwise. I was born a Jew, my kids were born Jews, we didn't volunteer
to join! We should not need to officially repudiate Zionism or the crazy ravings of our leaders past or present in order to be
assumed good people, any more than you, Mark, should have to repudiate Nazism or Mr Churchill's racism or mr Johnson's anti-Russian
schtick to be considered a good person.
I would like to see a good study of Zionism here, I support the Palestinians in their struggle as again do many many Jews of
my acquaintance (though, sadly not all I will admit). But do you not see how alienating and hurtful it is to see comments such
as "the chosen people did 9/11", or (as was talked about a short while back) "Hebrews have a tendency toward pedophilia"? Please!
Have a little respect is all. Talk about the evils of Zionism but don't conflate that with Judaism or with everyone lucky or unlucky
enough to be born a Jew!
And all that oy vey goy stuff you do feels quite hurtful also, I am just curious what you think it brings to the conversation
by way of enlightenment, communication and brotherly love, Mark? It just looks like you are hating on Jewishness in the same way
those Nazi images of guys with hook noses etcetera did. It feels nasty. What does it achieve? Would it be a nice and helpful gesture
to at least drop all that?
mark
We have fringe racist groups in the UK and US and elsewhere. But the KKK in the US just get drunk and burn a few crosses now
and again. They are totally irrelevant. If they supplied ALL the heads of state, Begin, Shamir, Sharon, Barak, Netanyahu, ALL
the heads of the armed forces, ALL the religious leaders, and the media in the country, anyone with two brain cells to rub together
would have to acknowledge there is a difference.
You can't criticise ANY of these people because it "offends" AIPAC, the Board of Deputies, the Friends of Israel, and "hurts
their feelings." You are not allowed to call them out without incurring unprecedented draconian penalties unless you have first
solved world hunger, global warming, criticised every other nation on the planet, and obtained a written permit from the Board
of Deputies specifying exactly what terms and language you are authorised to use.
Why obsess about Talmudistan? Because it is the tail that wags the dog. It exercises a complete stranglehold over the politics
and foreign policy of the US and its satellites like the UK. It incites endless wars which those countries are expected to prosecute
on its behalf. It destabilises the entire planet causing indescribable suffering and human misery. It expects and receives
a free pass to commit genocide and possess a huge illegal arsenal of WMD it constantly threatens to use. It extorts unimaginable
amounts of tribute from other countries. It commits terrorist atrocities like 9/11 with complete impunity. Its endless intrigues
and subversion poison the whole public space in entire countries. The smear campaign against Corbyn and the Epstein organisation
are just two fairly trivial recent examples. Politicians and ordinary people are not required to swear loyalty oaths to Botswana
or Bolivia on pain of instant dismissal. That is the difference.
A bit of kvetching about all the above seems a little bit justified under the circumstances.
Mandy Miller
Ok, Mark, I understand that you think Israel is a bigger racist problem than the UK and all the NATO non-democracies, and I can
agree with you about that. Israel is for me and many (not all) of my family and friends a place of terrible evil and shame. I
hate that the suffering of so many Jews under the Nazis has been turned into an excuse to impose more suffering on other innocent
people simply because of their race. So, let's agree Israel is indefensible in its treatment of the Palestinians and in its appalling
foreign policy. Just awful.
My question is, how helpful is it to express those facts in racial terms? Why do you use these words that only have the effect
of turning people away from you and closing down there receptiveness?
Ok, what I'm saying is, if you try to tell the average non-political nice well meaning Jewish person or liberal, of which my
sister is a good example (both) that Israel is the aggressor nation in so many instances and if you tell them about the terrible
plight of the Palestinian people it will be hard for you to get them to listen even if you don't use words that make you sound
like a racist. But as soon as you start throwing around words such as Talmudistan and "chosen folk" and mockery of Yiddish with
your "oy vey goy" routine, you are giving them a route to the exit door., which is what they want. You are giving them permission
to ignore you! They can say "oh what a racist", and just leave the building.
So, my question is, why use that language? What good is it doing you that makes it worthwhile to lose so much credibility among
people you could perhaps convert if you approached it differently?
I guess my question is, what does this aggressive use of offensive terms do for you that you hold on to it to the point of
undoing any good you could do? Why not just say "Israel"? Why terms such as goy and chosen folk and language that can sound soooo
racist and threatening?
I believe you Mark that you don't entertain real racist thoughts, but can you communicate with me why you use that language
that makes it sound as if you do? Maybe you don't realize it but to a Jew it feels like a slap across the face. It triggers centuries
of dormant fears of persecution. I have to try hard to put that aside and approach you without fear or anger. So I'm asking you,
as a gesture toward understanding, to please not use those terms in our conversation? And maybe you might find you don't need
that armour, or comfort blanket or whatever it is to you. Maybe you will find your message, which as put above is something I
can get on board with, gets across more clearly.
Can we take that step, Mark? I am asking with peace and love in my heart.
Spot-on . Whenever I read this nonsense in the NYT or elsewhere I always ask myself the
same question ' Is this deliberate or are they really ignorant ? ' . I suspect the latter,
but I could be wrong.
"... "The sentiment out in farm country is getting grimmer by the day," said John Heisdorffer, the chairman of the American Soybean Association. "Our patience is waning, our finances are suffering and the stress from months of living with the consequences of these tariffs is mounting. ..."
"... The Republican senator Chuck Grassley, who represents Iowa, a state heavily reliant on agriculture, has called for a quick resolution to the dispute. "Americans understand the need to hold China accountable, but they also need to know that the administration understands the economic pain they would feel in a prolonged trade war," Grassley said in a statement. ..."
American farmers are likely to feel the pain first. Soybean exports to China collapsed last year when the trade war began, and
agricultural exports will be hit harder when, or if, the new tariffs are imposed. Farmers are also suffering from extensive flooding
that has delayed planting.
"The sentiment out in farm country is getting grimmer by the day," said John Heisdorffer, the chairman of the American Soybean
Association. "Our patience is waning, our finances are suffering and the stress from months of living with the consequences of these
tariffs is mounting."
The new round of tariffs will hit other parts of the US food industry, with beans, lentils, honey, flour, corn and oats all on
the list of goods that will be taxed.
... ... ...
The Republican senator Chuck Grassley, who represents Iowa, a state heavily reliant on agriculture, has called for a quick
resolution to the dispute. "Americans understand the need to hold China accountable, but they also need to know that the administration
understands the economic pain they would feel in a prolonged trade war," Grassley said in a statement.
'Second officer was poisoned with Novichok in Salisbury incident, police reveal', ,
"Counter Terrorism Detectives, who are investigating the nerve agent attack in 2018, have confirmed that traces of Novichok have
been found in a blood sample which was taken at the time from a second police officer.
The officer from Wiltshire Police, who does not wish to be identified , was involved in the response to the poisoning of Sergei
and Yulia Skripal.
The Telegraph understands the male officer displayed signs at the time of the incident that indicated exposure to a very small
amount of Novichok .
He received appropriate medical treatment at the time and returned to duties shortly afterwards.
A police spokesman told the Telegraph the officer was part of the initial response.
Forensic examination of the officer's blood sample, taken in March 2018, has since been carried out by scientists at the Defence
Science and Technology Laboratory.
The forensic test – which uses a different method to that used to assess the clinical effects of nerve agent poisoning – has now
given detectives confirmation that traces of Novichok were present.
The officer, the fourth person to be confirmed through forensic testing as a victim of the initial Salisbury attack, has been
informed and continues to receive support from Wiltshire Police along with other officers and staff affected by the events in Salisbury
and Amesbury last year."
Well, now that number depends on Gina Haspel's report about
the
dead ducks and sick children poisoned by the Novichoked bread the Skripals had been tossing to the ducks, doesn't it? But Officer
Nick Baily was allegedly #5.
"The spokesman said: "some of the other police officers that attended the scene may have been exposed, but it is possible to find
forensic traces [of Novichok] in blood that have no health implications at the time". [snip]
"The UK
expelled
23 Russian diplomats and the US expelled 60 more in retaliation for poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal in March last year,
blaming the Russian military intelligence service, the GRU, for the botched assassination attempt."
From the link above:
'British authorities are confident they know "everything worth knowing" about the assassination attempt on Sergei Skripal, including
a trail right up to Vladimir Putin."
"The Russian intelligence agency behind the Salisbury nerve agent attack has been
dismantled in the UK [<Moscow spins webb of lies] and will remain out of action for years to come, according to government sources.
The threat posed by the GRU, which carried out the attempted assassination of Skripal last March, has been severely curtailed
as a result of the counter-terror investigation that exposed the agents who carried out the attack.'
"Counter-terror police working with the intelligence services were able to piece together the plot to murder Colonel Skripal,
a former GRU officer who had sold secrets to MI6, using CCTV, including footage from the streets close to the Col Skripal's home
in Salisbury, and from passenger flight manifests and immigration data at the time of the attempted hit."
(with photos of GRU Boris and Natasha)
'Novichok Sickened 2nd British Officer, Police Say',
August
15, 2019 , nytimes.com, Anna Schaverien
"Another officer, Detective Sgt. Nick Bailey, became critically ill after going to Mr. Skripal's home to investigate the attack.
Mr. Skripal, a former colonel in Russia's military intelligence, and his daughter, Yulia, had been found unconscious and slumped
on a bench.
Sergeant Bailey, who made contact with the nerve agent through the house's door handle, made a full recovery. Last Sunday,
he ran a marathon to raise money for the intensive-care unit at the hospital where he was treated.
Two other people, Dawn Sturgess and Charlie Rowley, also suffered high levels of exposure to Novichok as a result of the poisoning.
They were accidentally exposed to residue in Amesbury, a town near Salisbury, months after the initial episode .
Both were critically sickened on July 1 when Ms. Sturgess
sprayed
a substance that she thought was [Nina Ricci l'air du Novichoque ] perfume onto her wrist from a bottle that Mr. Rowley,
her boyfriend, had found. Investigators believe the vial was used to transport the Novichok that poisoned the Skripals. Mr. Rowley
survived, but
Ms. Sturgess died .
In the wake of the attack, tensions escalated to their highest pitch in decades between Britain and Russia, which London blamed
for the poisoning. Moscow denied any involvement." [snip]
"The European Union placed economic sanctions on the two suspects and two senior Russian military intelligence officials in January.
And this month President Trump signed an
executive
order imposing new sanctions on Russia over the episode."
From the Aug. 1 NYT : 'Mr. Trump has been reluctant to take punitive actions against Russia, instead seeking better
relations with Moscow despite its well-documented interference in the 2016 election.
But in recent weeks, lawmakers from both sides of the aisle have criticized his administration's delay in taking what they
have called legally mandated action to follow up on sanctions imposed last August.' [snip]
On Monday, the top Democrat and Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Committee sent a joint letter to the White House threatening
new congressional action to force the administration's hand.
"Failure by the administration to respond to Russia's unabashed aggression is unacceptable and would necessitate that Congress
take corrective action," wrote the members, Eliot L. Engel, Democrat of New York, and Michael McCaul, Republican of Texas.
The law provided the administration with numerous sanctions to choose from. The executive order released by the White House
on Thursday banned loans or other assistance to Russia by international financial institutions and prohibited most loans from American
banks to Russia's government."
"They are suspected groundlessly," the Kremlin's spokesman told reporters when the European Union imposed travel bans and asset
freezes on the suspects. " We have still not heard any evidence ."
A year after the poisoning, and after 13,000 hours of cleaning, the
British government announced that the decontamination of the former Skripal home was complete. But the investigation into the
attack continues.
"There are parts of the picture that we are continuing to piece together," the Metropolitan Police statement said."
All of which begs the question: what new sanctions will the US and UK levy on Russia? Of course we'll never know where Sergei
and Yulia are, will we?
And sure we remember when they raised a new roof because some of that Novichok gel (or was it a spray?) on the Skripal's front
door knob migrated upstairs into the attic or something
This may have been my favorite story, though: ' Public toilet in Salisbury 'may have been used by Russian agents to prepare deadly
Novichok', themirror.co./uk.com
, Aug. 4, 2018
"A public toilet may be where Russian agents mixed deadly Novichok used to try and assassinate ex-spy Sergei Skripal , according
to reports .
It is thought Met Police counter terror cops are investigating the likelihood that the assassins smuggled the components to the
nerve agent into the country then mixed it in a public toilet in Salisbury.
Forensic teams have discovered low-level contamination in toilets in the city's Queen Elizabeth Gardens."
But I'll turn it over to BBC news : 'BBC to dramatise Salisbury Novichok poisoning',
17 May 2019 , bbc.com/news
"The new drama is being written by Adam Patterson and Declan Lawn who said in a joint statement: "We feel extremely privileged
to be telling this story.
"Extensive, meticulous research is at the heart of how we like to work and we've been overwhelmed by the generosity of the people
of Salisbury who have opened up to us over the past few months and continue to do so."
Piers Wenger, controller of BBC Drama, added: "The poisonings in Salisbury shocked the nation and had a huge impact on an unsuspecting
community.
"This drama will capture the bravery, resilience and personal experience of the local people who faced a situation of unimaginable
horror, so close to home."
Casting for the drama is yet to be announced."
An historical bonus from the good Ambassador: ' Pure: Ten Points I Just Can't Believe About the Official Skripal Narrative', March
7, 2109, Craig Murray,
craigmurray .org; a few snippets:
"I still do not know what happened in the Skripal saga, which perhaps might more respectfully be termed the Sturgess saga. I cannot
believe the Russian account of Boshirov and Petrov, because if those were their real identities, those identities would have been
firmly established and displayed by now. But that does not mean they attempted to kill the Skripals, and there are many key elements
to the official British account which are also simply incredible.
Governments play dark games, and a dark game was played out in Salisbury which involved at least the British state, Russian agents
(possibly on behalf of the state), Orbis Intelligence and the BBC. Anybody who believes it is simple to identify the "good guys"
and the "bad guys" in this situation is a fool. When it comes to state actors and the intelligence services, frequently there are
no "good guys", as I personally witnessed from the inside over torture, extraordinary rendition and the illegal invasion of Iraq.
But in the face of a massive media campaign to validate the British government story about the Skripals, here are ten of the things
I do not believe in the official account:
3) Nursing Care
The very first person to discover the Skripals ill on a park bench in Salisbury
just happened to be the Chief Nurse of the British Army , who chanced to be walking past them on her way back from a birthday
party. How lucky was that? The odds are about the same as the chance of my vacuum cleaner breaking down just before James Dyson knocks
at my door to ask for directions. There are very few people indeed in the UK trained to give nursing care to victims of chemical
weapon attack, and of all the people who might have walked past, it just happened to be the most senior of them!
The government is always trying to get good publicity for its armed forces, and you would think that the heroic role of its off-duty
personnel in saving random poisoned Russian double agents they just happened to chance across, would have been proclaimed as a triumph
for the British military. Yet it was kept secret for ten months. We were not told about the involvement of Colonel Alison McCourt
until January of this year, when it came out by accident. Swollen with maternal pride, Col. McCourt nominated her daughter for an
award from the local radio station for her role in helping give first aid to the Skripals, and young Abigail revealed her mother's
identity on local radio – and the fact her mother was there "with her" administering first aid."
6) Mark Urban/Pablo Miller
The BBC's "Diplomatic Editor" is a regular conduit for the security services. He fronted much of the BBC's original coverage of
the Skripal story. Yet he concealed from the viewers the fact that he had been in regular contact with Sergei Skripal for months
before the alleged poisoning, and had held several meetings with Skripal.
This is extraordinary behaviour. It was the biggest news story in the world, and news organisations, including the BBC, were scrambling
to fill in the Skripals' back story. Yet the journalist who had the inside info on the world's biggest news story, and was actually
reporting on it, kept that knowledge to himself. Why? Urban was not only passing up a career defining opportunity, it was unethical
of him to continually report on the story without revealing to the viewers his extensive contacts with Skripal.
The British government had two immediate reactions to the Skripal incident. Within the first 48 hours, it blamed Russia, and it
slapped a D(SMA) notice banning all media mention of Skripal's MI6 handler, Pablo Miller. By yet another one of those extraordinary
coincidences, Miller and Urban know each other well, having both been
officers together in the Royal Tank Regiment,
of the same rank and joining the Regiment the same year."
Conclusion
I do not know what happened in Salisbury. Plainly spy games were being played between Russia and the UK, quite likely linked to
the Skripals and/or the NATO chemical weapons exercise
then taking place on Salisbury Plain yet another one of those astonishing coincidences."
Weird how literally every one of thes poisioning incidents keep happening less than 10 miles from the uk's largest and most
notorious deadly chemical weapons factory. The fascist uk regime should really stop murdering its own people with chemical weapons
https://t.co/zvIXrJ57eK
At first Novichok described as thee most deadilest chemical weapon in the world. It immediate kills anybody exposed to it and
any unprotected first responders.
It failed to immediately kill to anybody exposed to it.
Seems more like a bad flu instead.
Novichok degrades almost immediately.
Norvichock can stay around for months in a perfume bottle.
Only Russians can and did make it.
For a few bucks, university chem majors made a batch.
the nerve agent is a chimera in time, too! you can even pull it out of a hat, like a wabbit!
thanks for the great chuckle-worthy additions, Mr.Webster. ; )
p.s. it did kill dawn sturgess, as far as we've been told, but iirc, there were extenuating circumstances given her addiction
history. i love it that officer bailey ran a marathon recently, too.
and the saga continues....will it ever end?
At first Novichok described as thee most deadilest chemical weapon in the world. It immediate kills anybody exposed to it
and any unprotected first responders.
It failed to immediately kill to anybody exposed to it.
Seems more like a bad flu instead.
Novichok degrades almost immediately.
Norvichock can stay around for months in a perfume bottle.
Only Russians can and did make it.
For a few bucks, university chem majors made a batch.
xmas list, santa gator? looks like ya gotta either keep your eyes peeled for knock-offs, or head to the soviet union... light
bulb! maybe they left a few bottles hidden in the roof of that bog in the salisbury park!
are addin' up to a fistful of dollars and pound notes by now, aren't they? i'd call it humiliating, myownself.
i did dig out more from craig murray on pablo miller, orbus, et.al., cuz i'd needed a refresher: Where They Tell You Not to
Look , april 30, 2019
lots of tweets, plus this great aaron maté interview
w/ luke harding.
by the by, i finally heard from Rosette Sewali, Producer & Membership Relations Manager after i'd asked TRNN why is might be
that neither sharmini piries nor paul jay have been there since june 13; she wrote back:
'Thanks for your email. Paul and Sharmini have been on leave since early June. Updates will be available when we have more
information .'
??????
'At the very beginning of the of the Skripal incident, the security services blocked by D(SMA) notice any media mention
of Pablo Miller and told the media not to look at Orbis and the Steele dossier on Trump, acting immediately to get out their
message via trusties in the BBC and Guardian. Gordon Corera, "BBC Security Correspondent", did not name the source who told
him to say this, but helpfully illustrated his tweet with a nice picture of MI6 Headquarters.
'MI6's most important media conduit (after Frank Gardner) is Luke Harding of the Guardian.'
..................
'Given that the Steele dossier is demonstrably in large degree nonsense, it seems to me more probable the idea was to silence
Skripal to close the danger that he would reveal his part in the concoction of this fraud. Remember he had sold out Russian
agents to the British for cash and was a man of elastic loyalties. It is also worth noting that Luke Harding has a bestselling
book currently on sale, in large part predicated on the truth of the Steele Dossier.
Steele, MI6 and the elements of the CIA which are out to get Trump, all would have a powerful motive to have the Skripal
loose end tied.
Rule number one of real investigative journalism: look where they tell you not to look .'
"... The research reveals, for the first time, that around 4600 kilos of the chemical, zinc cadmium sulphide (now thought to be potentially carcinogenic, on account of its cadmium content) were dispersed from ships, aircraft and moving lorries between 1953 and 1964. ..."
"... Professor Schmidt's investigation – published on 9 July as a book, Secret Science – has revealed that commuters on the London underground were also used as guinea pigs on a substantially larger scale than previously thought. ..."
"... The new research reveals, for the first time, that in another British imperial possession, Nigeria, a location was found for chemical warfare field trials. In an area called Obanaghoro in southern Nigeria, four British Cold War scientific missions spent a total of around 15 months dispersing, and assessing the effects of, large quantities of experimental nerve gas weapons. The advantage of the location was that it permitted field trials to be carried out in a tropical environment – and, of course, that it was not in Britain or Australia. ..."
"... Ulf Schmidt's book, Secret Science, is published today on 9 July, by Oxford University Press. ..."
Substantial quantities were also dispersed across parts of the English Channel and the North Sea. It's not known the extent to
which coastal towns in England and France were affected.
The research reveals, for the first time, that around 4600 kilos of the chemical, zinc cadmium sulphide (now thought to be
potentially carcinogenic, on account of its cadmium content) were dispersed from ships, aircraft and moving lorries between 1953
and 1964.
Professor Schmidt's investigation – published on 9 July as a book, Secret Science – has revealed that commuters on
the London underground were also used as guinea pigs on a substantially larger scale than previously thought.
The new research has discovered that a hitherto unknown biological warfare field trial was carried out in the capital's tube system
in May 1964.
The secret operation – carried out by scientists from the government's chemical and biological warfare research centre at Porton
Down, Wiltshire - involved the release of large quantities of bacteria called Bacillus globigii. The scientists were keen to discover
whether 'long distance travel of aerosols' in the tube network 'was due to transportation within trains' or through the tube's air
ventilation systems.
At the time, the government thought that Bacillus globigii bacteria were harmless – but they are today regarded as a cause of
food poisoning, eye infections, and even septicaemia. It is not known whether the authorities attempted to properly test the bacterium
before releasing it into the tube system. An earlier series of tube field trials, in July 1963, has been known to historians for
many years.
However, the new research has now revealed that some of the British scientists involved had grave misgivings about the field trials
that had been carried out. Indeed some had long felt that it was not politically advisable to conduct large-scale trials in Britain
with live bacterial agents.
One particular test – involving live plague bacteria – was carried out off the west coast of Scotland in 1952. It's long been
known that a fishing vessel inadvertently passed through the cloud of bacteria and that the authorities were very worried that the
fishermen might contract the disease.
The plague bacteria field trials, though at sea, took place only a few miles from the Isle of Lewis which had a population of
several thousand.
The government scientists, carrying out the trials, banked on the fact that the prevailing wind normally blew away from the coast.
If, however, the wind had changed direction, thousands of Hebrideans would have been at risk from plague infection, says Professor
Schmidt.
Equipment for the isolation of patients in a germ free atmosphere, which was developed at Porton Down in collaboration with the
Institute of Child Health (Getty)
Following the fishing vessel incident, the scientists were eager to carry out any further potentially very hazardous field trials
outside the UK. Prime Minister Churchill therefore approved a plan to carry out tests in a British overseas territory, the Bahamas.
New research shows that the government scientists took the view that the Bahamas was the best place "on the surface of the globe"
to carry out tests "without restrictions".
In 1954, the British government sent Cold War biological warfare scientists to an area of sea near an uninhabited island in the
Bahamas to release clouds of dangerous Venezuelan Equine Encephalitis viruses. These organisms were capable of causing, in humans,
high fever, long term fatigue, headaches and occasionally death.
The new research reveals, for the first time, that in another British imperial possession, Nigeria, a location was found for
chemical warfare field trials. In an area called Obanaghoro in southern Nigeria, four British Cold War scientific missions spent
a total of around 15 months dispersing, and assessing the effects of, large quantities of experimental nerve gas weapons. The advantage
of the location was that it permitted field trials to be carried out in a tropical environment – and, of course, that it was not
in Britain or Australia.
The extent that local people (including locally employed field trial personnel) were affected by the nerve agents is not known.
Historians have so far been unable to find out who did the particularly hazardous work of 'hand-charging' the nerve agent artillery
shells, mortar bombs and aircraft cluster bombs. Likewise they have not been able to discover the extent to which local Nigerian
soils were contaminated or whether nearby villages and schools were affected by any of the toxic clouds that would have been blown
across the countryside.
"The government records I've been looking at are conspicuously silent on all this," said Ulf Schmidt.
"Officials had clearly good reasons as to why the kind of experiments undertaken in Nigeria were strictly prohibited on the British
mainland, which is why the files and photographic records surrounding Britain's post-war nerve agent testing in Africa were regarded
as particularly sensitive," he said.
Professor Schmidt's research has also revealed the vast scale of Cold War chemical warfare tests carried out on 'volunteer' British
service personnel here in the UK – involving numbers of people much greater than previously thought.
His investigation now suggests that up to 30,000 secret chemical warfare substance experiments were carried out, mainly at Porton
Down, on more than 14,000 British soldiers between 1945 and 1989. He believes that, in most cases, the servicemen were not given
sufficient information to allow them to give properly informed consent.
Ulf Schmidt's book, Secret Science, is published today on 9 July, by Oxford University Press.
Spreading diseases: 'Harmless' proxies
Aircraft, lorries and ships spread 4,600kg of cadmium sulphide in one decade
Zinc Cadmium Sulfide ultra-fine particles
. This inorganic compound was used by Cold War scientists in the UK and the US as a supposedly harmless proxy to simulate the behaviour,
in the lower atmosphere and on the ground, of biological warfare substances. However it is still not known whether particles of ZCS
that may have become embedded in people's lungs for decades could ultimately cause disease.
Bacillus globigii . This bacterium was used as a supposedly harmless proxy to simulate the behaviour, in terms of dispersal and
penetration, of biological warfare aerosols. Although not considered harmful when it was used in Cold War field trials, it is now
known to be capable of causing fevers, food poisoning (occasionally resulting in death), peritonitis and septicaemia .
Pasteurella pestis (now known as Yersina pestis) . Clouds of this highly infections bacterium were dispersed only over areas of
sea – but nevertheless very near to Lewis, a Scottish Island with thousands of inhabitants. In order not to infect the islands, it
appears that the scientists relied entirely on the wind not changing direction and speed. This bacterium is the one that has caused
plague epidemics worldwide in the past (including those of the medieval world's Black Death).
Venezuelan Equine Encephalitis. Clouds of this virus were dispersed over an area of sea close to an uninhabited island in the
Bahamas. The virus debilitates or kills horses and donkeys and can also cause severe fever and even death in humans. Mosquitos spread
the virus further by biting equines.
G-series nerve agents. Clouds of this chemical warfare weapon were dispersed during field trials in a small part of southern Nigeria,
some miles north of the town of Warri. G-series nerve agents were first developed by the Nazis before and during World War Two. The
group includes substances like sarin and attacks the human nervous system, causing loss of bodily function and normally death. Survivors
are likely to suffer long-term neurological damage and psychiatric disorders.
Francesca
Judicial hangings were/are designed to snap the neck bones, causing death to come quickly .That is why the victims body weight,
slackness of rope, height of drop are carefully calibrated .
Some judicial hangings don't end with a broken neck
Suicide hangings are one thing .if the suicide has the choice, they can leap or kick off from a height, and access a rope Even
this does not always end in neck snapping and pretty instant death, but asphyxiation .People generally don't have the physics at
their fingertips.
Jail suicides are another , and most often end in aspyxiation .There just isn't the height , or the ligature .
"Zhongxue Hua,
the Bergen County medical examiner in New Jersey, said a neck fracture was atypical in a suicide but warned not to jump to
conclusions.
"It's unusual to have a neck fracture," Hua said. "But the first question to address is when did it occur.
"If Epstein's neck fracture was fresh, Hua said, then "at a minimum, it's a very unusual suicide."
mark
It seems obvious that Epstein was murdered, but in reality this is just a side issue.
The MSM will happily carry on sending people down rabbit holes for ever, and ignoring the real questions.
They would like nothing more than to turn this into another JFK, where people speculate endlessly, generating more heat than
light.
Just what motivated Epstein?
Money? Vice? Paedo sex? Spying and blackmailing for Israel? All of the above?
Where did his loyalties lie?
Was he just a hired hand, an intelligence operative, another Christopher Steele? Or
was he more of a gun for hire, an Erik Prince, serving Mossad, the CIA, the Zionist Lobby, or whoever would pay him? Or was he
more of his own boss, running his own organisation in his own interests?
What about Ghislaine Maxwell?
Was she just Epstein's pimp and loyal lieutenant, carrying out his orders? Or was she
his Mossad handler, calling the shots, with Epstein as front man?
The best way to get at some semblance of the truth is to follow the money. Epstein seems to have appeared virtually out of
nowhere as a made man. Wexner appears to have gifted him a $56 million heavily bugged mansion. What does this tell us?
Surprisingly, Maxwell has not gone to ground as expected. She made an exhibition of herself in LA a few days ago,
ostentatiously eating a burger in public with a little dog in tow, reading a book about the CIA.
I think the stage is being set for an Oprah or Anderson Cooper style interview, presenting herself as the victim. Now that
Epstein is dead, it will be in the interests of a lot of people to load everything on to his deceased shoulders. "I loved
Jeffrey .but he was a monster ..he made me do terrible things ..I was frightened of him ..I'm a victim too."
This will probably be coordinated with a smear campaign against the victims, trying to dig up dirt about things like drugs,
any criminal or mental health history, and any other issues.
One interesting detail to emerge from the search of Epstein's property is that he had a painting of Bill Clinton in drag,
wearing a blue dress, like that of Monica Lewinsky, on his toilet wall. This is probably a case of gloating over the entrapment
of Clinton. This somewhat grubby little episode occurred around the time of the Oslo peace deal, when Peres, Barak and Co. were
under some pressure to negotiate seriously with the Palestinians, and facing criticism over settlements. Clinton was also under
pressure from Zionist interests to release the Jewish/ Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard, imprisoned for treason/ espionage. This is
reminiscent of the transvestite J. Edgar Hoover, who was being blackmailed by Meyer Lansky with photographs of him and Claude
Tolson wearing dresses.
Dershowitz is another highly dubious character whose involvement warrants serious scrutiny. He previously defended OJ Simson
and Spectre. He will probably spearhead a campaign to discredit the witnesses.
Fortunately, this can't be buried completely, even if Maxwell and others escape prosecution. There are a number of outstanding
civil claims which will generate even more publicity than would otherwise be the case.
Professors Antony C Sutton, Carol Quigley and Guido Preparata wrote some very insightful books demonstrating how so much of
what is accepted as official history is false. Quigley's book ( Tragedy and hope), outlines how the transnational financiers
and the elites hold the masses in utter contempt. Moreover, Sutton demonstrates the fabricated fight between left and right is
a mere distraction to enable them to progress with their plans for humanity. Furthermore, Preparata illustrates in his book,
Conjuring Hitler, the notion that masses opinions count for nothing with the elites and the puppet politicians in terms of
foreign policy.
As Sutton's research discovered, the transnational financiers financed both Communism, Fascism and Nazism and
came to some rather disturbing conclusions about their intentions.
Quigley summed it up " the powers of financial capitalism had a far- reaching aim nothing less than to create a world system
of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a
whole.
This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret
agreements and conferences.
The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and
controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations Each central bank sought to dominate its
government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic
activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."
Tragedy and Hope.
It attracts attention and will do so for many days to come. There are even some usually astute people suggesting that he may not
be dead but might have been secretly whisked off somewhere and replaced with a dead look-alike.
Now, who would profit from suggesting something as insane as this?
The speculation runs rampant and feeds the spectacle. Whether he was allowed to kill himself or was killed makes little difference.
It's akin to asking who pulled the trigger that killed President Kennedy. That's a debate that was intended to go nowhere, as
it has, after it became apparent that Lee Harvey Oswald surely did not kill JFK. John Kennedy's murder in broad daylight in public
view is the paradigmatic event of modern times. It is obvious to anyone that gives minimal study to the issue that it was organized
and carried out by elements within the national security state, notably the CIA.
Their message was meant to be unequivocal and clear: We can kill him and we can kill you; we are in full control; beware. Then
they went on to kill others, including RFK and MLK. It takes little intelligence to see this obvious fact, unless you wish not to
or are totally lost in the neighborhood of make-believe.
As it was with Jack Ruby killing Lee Harvey Oswald, so it is with Epstein. There will be no trial. Nothing is really hidden except
the essential truth. Guess, debate, wonder, watch, read to your sad heart's content. You will have gotten nowhere unless you step
outside the frame of the reigning narrative.
nottheonly1
Those of us who oppose these criminals – and there are growing numbers all over the world – must avoid being sucked into
the establishment narratives and the counter-narratives they spawn or create. We must refuse to get involved in pseudo-debates
that are meant to lead nowhere. We must reject the language created to confuse.
To arrive at this conclusion is an attest of the deepest truth a mind can grasp. If I could only talk to someone as astute
as You. This is not flattery, but the mere realization, that there is nobody in my surroundings that possesses Your ability to
make such a point.
That there are now so few people that can have this insight is the result of the absence of philosophy from our lives. It is
philosophy who opens the mind and therefore it had to be removed from society. People are well advised to look into it, to overcome
this barrage of fabricated narratives.
Tim Hall
We have little or no true understanding to the degree that propaganda has been scientifically applied (estimated number engaged
on this insidious activity 50,000 in 1991, under the all powerful Tavistock Institute) over 73 years to brainwashing and misdirecting
the populations perception of reality – your article reflects this fact. CIA, Deep State et al are simply agents of a far bigger
entity who's accumulated power and reach, built up assiduously over centuries, has now reached an unassailable level of control
over the world which it intends to effectively own.
I suggest all readers refer to the following link to appreciate the futility of humanity's current position in regard to it's
ability to resist the coming onslaught to its survival.
Edward, this sentiment is laudable, but they hold such a grip on mass psychological control that such sentiments represent
chaff on the wind.
If revolutionary change is to come, we must learn to tell a new story in language so beautiful, illuminating, and heart-rending
that no one will listen to the lying words of child molesters, mass murderers, and those who hate and persecute truth-tellers.
mark
In Britain, the post mortem, by a Home Office pathologist, would establish the physical cause of death.
Sometimes this is delayed in waiting for toxicology results.
Probably "Suspension" (Hanging.)
Any separate injuries or existing medical conditions would be noted in the post mortem report.
In the absence of any police criminal investigation, it would then be for a Coroner's Inquest, almost certainly sitting with
a jury, to give a verdict.
Suicide, accidental death, misadventure, unlawful killing, open verdict.
It is for the Coroner's Court to examine the evidence and arrive at a verdict.
If there is doubt or uncertainty, there is the option of an Open Verdict.
Hanging could lead to a verdict of accident or misadventure in certain circumstances.
There was a case where a group of youths saw that someone had left a noose hanging from a tree in a park. One of them, larking
around, put his head in the noose and accidentally hanged himself.
The US system seems to short circuit the decision making process of the Coroner's Court.
This appears to be no more than an opinion by the medical examiner, sometimes misleadingly referred to as the Coroner.
There seems to be no equivalent to the Coroner's Court.
William H Booby
He killed himself and the proof is the BBC said it, anyone who disagrees wears a tinfoil hat
I'm experiencing a virulent case of deja vu here, that usually leads to hopelessness. I,
like many readers, eagerly devoured the news of the Scripals – every contradiction,
reframing, new bit of evidence. It's fair to say I was obsessed. Where are they now? Who
knows? Who asks? I expect the same here. Another step on our downward path, to be preempted
by yet another.
The best one can say is that with every one of these "incidents" we all become a little
less sure of our old assumptions, more skeptical. Leading where?
"... Even more importantly, we should all be troubled by efforts to shut down content and discussions labeled "false and misleading" on major social media platforms . ..."
"... Conspiracies can be found out by many different ways e.g. documents uncovered, discrepancies, evidence that contradicts what has been claimed etc. ..."
"... "A two decade old CT, like 9/11, or worse, one six decades old (the JFK assassination), are false because they would have involved too many people–someone would have blown the whistle, if only on their deathbed." ..."
"... "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. ..."
"... The old adage 'two men can keep a secret, if one of them is dead' applies here. ..."
"... This co-ordinated and global media attack on the 'Conspiracy Theorist' is co-ordinated and Global for good reason. ..."
"... The determination of international deepstate to make illegal any question or recognition of it under guise of 'Conspiracy theorist=domestic terrorist/anti-semite/anti-Zionist/BDS/trump supporting white supremacist(etc)'- conflating those ULTRA memes with growing awareness of the Anglo/Yankee/zionist PSYOPS underway globally, mean we are entering a choke point in progression of reason, truth and beauty. ..."
"... The danger of the conspiracy theorist to the present world order, is that most of the BIG ones, the nasty ones, are true. And CIA operation Mockingbirds' job (Quote) 'is to Guard against the illicit Transformation of Probability into Certainty," that they are . ..."
"... Ultimately, the average conspiracy theorist has a better grasp of how the world works than the average liberal. ..."
"... The reality is that the ruling class and its public servants really do have a parasitic and predatory relationship to the vast majority of humanity ..."
"... I like Michael Moore's response when asked if he believed the conspiracy theories which were floating about at the time: "Just the ones that are true" ..."
"... A conspiracy theory, like any theory is as strong as the evidence put forward to support it. ..."
"... One of the ways they will do this is to plant "evidence" purporting to support the theory, but easily disproved by easily available information. Unfortunately,it is a sad fact that far too many "conspiracy theorists" readily accept and share along with genuine evidence, this planted "evidence" to the wider internet, thereby undermining the solid evidence of a conspiracy, by associating it with the easily disprovable nonsense. ..."
"... For example, after the attack on the WTC Kissinger was appointed to the head the 9/11 commission (before stepping down). ..."
"... 'Conspiracy theorists' would have thought – why are neocons appointing a mass-murdering neocon to investigate an event that might have involved neocons (raising obvious credibility issues) – whereas those who regard conspiracy theorists as dribbling fruitcakes would have welcomed the appointment of the nobel peace prize winner. ..."
Noam
Chomsky has pointed out , the more educated we are, the more we are a target for state-corporate propaganda. Even journalists
outside the mainstream may internalize establishment values and prejudices. Which brings us to Parramore's embrace of the term "conspiracy
theory." Once a neutral and little-used phrase, "conspiracy theory" was infamously weaponized in
1967 by a memo from the CIA to its station chiefs worldwide.
Troubled by growing mass disbelief in the "lone nut" theory of President Kennedy's assassination, and concerned that "[c]onspiracy
theories have frequently thrown suspicion on our organization," the agency directed its officers to "discuss the publicity problem
with friendly and elite contacts (especially politicians and editors)" and to "employ propaganda assets to answer and refute the
attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose."
In the 45 years before the CIA memo came out, the phrase 'conspiracy theory' appeared in the Washington Post and New
York Times only 50 times, or about once per year. In the 45 years after the CIA memo, the phrase appeared 2,630 times, or
about once per week."
While it turns out that Parramore knows something about this hugely successful propaganda drive, she chose in her NBC piece to deploy
the phrase as the government has come to define it, i.e., as "something that requires no consideration because it is obviously not
true." This embeds a fallacy in her argument which only spreads as she goes on. Likewise, the authors of the studies she cites, who
attempt to connect belief in "conspiracy theories" to "narcissistic personality traits," are not immune to efforts to manipulate
the wider culture. Studies are only as good as the assumptions from which they proceed; in this case, the assumption was provided
by an interested Federal agency. And what of their suggested diagnosis?
On the contrary, most of the people I know who hold these varied (and not always shared) views are deeply empathic, courageously
humble, and resigned to a life on the margins of official discourse, even as they doggedly seek to publicize what they have learned.
A number of them have arrived at their views through painful, direct experience, like the
loss of a friend or the illness of a child, but far from having a "negative view of humanity," as Parramore writes, most hold
a deep and abiding faith in the power of regular people to see injustice and peacefully oppose it. In that regard, they share a great
deal in common with writers like Parramore: ultimately, we all want what's best for our children, and none of us want a world ruled
by unaccountable political-economic interests. If we want to achieve that world, then we should work together to promote speech that
is free from personal attacks on all sides. Even more importantly, we should all be troubled by efforts to shut down content and
discussions labeled "false and misleading"
on major social media platforms.
Who will decide what is false and what is true? ... ... ...
President Kennedy said:
a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people."
Perhaps we should take a closer look at ideas that so frighten the powers-that-be. Far from inviting our ridicule, the people who
insist that we look in these forbidden places may one day deserve our thanks.
John Kirby is a documentary filmmaker. His latest project, Four Died Trying, examines what John Kennedy, Malcolm X, Martin Luther
King and Robert Kennedy were doing in the last years of their lives which may have led to their deaths.
George
I am responding to an earlier comment you made because, for some reason, I cannot reply to it in the proper place.
"The old adage 'two men can keep a secret, if one of them is dead' applies here."
Wrong: secrets can be uncovered even if both of them are dead.
"The conspiracies we know about are exposed because someone talks, or a computer gets hacked."
Conspiracies can be found out by many different ways e.g. documents uncovered, discrepancies, evidence that contradicts what
has been claimed etc.
"A two decade old CT, like 9/11, or worse, one six decades old (the JFK assassination), are false because they would have involved
too many people–someone would have blown the whistle, if only on their deathbed."
Always a bad sign when you start to repeat "would have". Lots of presumption here.
"No new facts have emerged because the only people who knew anything are long dead, taking the reasons to their graves .."
New facts can emerge all the time even regarding the most ancient of events.
" .or in the case of 9/11, because there was no great conspiracy, beyond the one reported."
So you now have godlike omniscience?
"A propensity for subscribing to conspiracy theories, is, sad to say, indicative of mental inadequacy "
There's no point in going much further here. You now devolve into psychobabble which, as always, is based on the dogmatic assertion
that you are right. (cf. the formerly mentioned godlike omniscience)
Ragnar
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only
for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie.
It thus
becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the
lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State." These words are attributed to Joseph Goebbels.
-So, George, it would hardly make a difference whether the State is Marxist or Capitalist. It's either power or
truth. They are inherently different and can not be reconciled. Ultimately, there is no bridge possible.
However, so-called "common" goals are of a lower order and cooperation here is possible, temporarily. These relationships are
unstable and prone to breaking up precisely because they're ultimately not common at all. The principle are different and the
personalities too. Ships Passing In The Night, like. -See?
George
We all have common goals. Basically the goals of life and health. And these are hardly goals "of a lower order". If that was true
then we must be living in a state of "postmodernist relativity" where anyone can decide arbitrarily what matters. And that would
certainly lead to your ships-passing-in-the-night scenario i.e. the ultimate divide-and-rule vision.
As for power, the late Marxist writer Ellen Meiksins Wood noted that, in modern times, we have an unprecedented degree of political
freedom. But the reason for that is that power no longer lies in politics. It lies in economics. What is the point of having formal
rights when your livelihood is gone?
The old adage 'two men can keep a secret, if one of them is dead' applies here.
The conspiracies we know about are exposed because someone talks, or a computer gets hacked. A two decade old CT, like 9/11,
or worse, one six decades old (the JFK assassination), are false because they would have involved too many people – someone would
have blown the whistle, if only on their deathbed. No new facts have emerged because the only people who knew anything are long
dead, taking the reasons to their graves, or in the case of 9/11, because there was no great conspiracy, beyond the one reported.
A propensity for subscribing to conspiracy theories, is, sad to say, indicative of mental inadequacy. Such people are unable
to deal with the complexities of the world as it is, and therefore seek to make it a world of black and white, good and evil,
heroes and villains. The internet, with its blurring of fantasy and fact enables them. This is why discussions like this get so
polarised.
TFS
1. 9/11 and JFK are false because WILLIAM HBonney has declared it so.
Boom, thanks for watching kids.
2. In other news, some Conspiracy Theorists Imagined 747-E4Bs above Washington at the time of 9/11 and 25+second delay introduced
into the Air Traffic Control System but the Official Conspiracy Account of 9/11 didn't discuss it because there was nothing to
see.
6. But it's ok kidz, because HWB wack jobs, like first responders, police, fire personnel architects, physicists, former military
personnel, pilots, Nobel Peace Prixe winners, medical experts, etc etc all collectively asertained that the Official Conspiracy
Theory of 9/11 is about as usefull as the Warren Commission Report.
7. HOWEVER, HWB THINKS YOU'RE A WACK JOB.
r. rebar
unless & until someone goes to jail -- there are no conspiracies & as silence is -- like any commodity -- only as good as the
price paid to maintain it -- those who know have a real vested interest in not talking (it's not a secret if you tell someone)
roger morris
Ms Parramore is doing nothing more than her profession and tenure demands. Witting or un-witting. This co-ordinated and global
media attack on the 'Conspiracy Theorist' is co-ordinated and Global for good reason.
It is the 'Great Wurlitzer' at full throat
coinciding with extraordinary reductions in internet freedoms of information flow. The determination of international deepstate
to make illegal any question or recognition of it under guise of 'Conspiracy theorist=domestic terrorist/anti-semite/anti-Zionist/BDS/trump
supporting white supremacist(etc)'- conflating those ULTRA memes with growing awareness of the Anglo/Yankee/zionist PSYOPS underway
globally, mean we are entering a choke point in progression of reason, truth and beauty.
A read of the Cass Sunstein/Cornelius Adrian Comstock Vermeule Paper describing 'Conspiracy theory' as a 'crippled Epistemology'
and determining 'COINTELPRO' type strategies to counter the danger of their truth becoming certainty, will enlighten those in
the dark of IIO methodology and expose Ms Parramore as a true MOCKINGBIRD.
The danger of the conspiracy theorist to the present world order, is that most of the BIG ones, the nasty ones, are true. And
CIA operation Mockingbirds' job (Quote) 'is to Guard against the illicit Transformation of Probability into Certainty," that they
are .
"Ultimately, the average conspiracy theorist has a better grasp of how the world works than the average liberal. Even the most
outlandish "conspiracy theory" in existence -- that people like George W. Bush and Queen Elizabeth are shape-shifting, extra-dimensional
reptilians -- is closer to the truth than what liberals believe.
The reality is that the ruling class and its public servants really do have a parasitic and predatory relationship to the
vast majority of humanity "
I've often felt there is a lot of (metaphorical!) truth in David Icke's ravings, although the reptile image is unfortunate
in that actual reptiles are amongst the most sedate and peaceful creatures.
Molloy
Eichmann and today's useful idiots; Hannah Arendt
(start Arendt quote)
Despite all the efforts of the prosecution, everybody could see that this man was not a "monster," but it was difficult indeed
not to suspect that he was a clown. And since this suspicion would have been fatal to the whole enterprise, and was also rather
hard to sustain, in view of the sufferings he and his like had caused so many millions of people, his worst clowneries were hardly
noticed. What could you do with a man who first declared, with great emphasis, that the one thing he had learned in an ill-spent
life was that one should never take an oath ("Today no man, no judge could ever persuade me to make a sworn statement. I refuse
it; I refuse it for moral reasons. Since my experience tells me that if one is loyal to his oath, one day he has to take the consequences,
I have made up my mind once and for all that no judge in the world or other authority will ever be capable of making me swear
an oath, to give sworn testimony.
I won't do it voluntarily and no one will be able to force me"), and then, after being told
explicitly that if he wished to testify in his own defense he might "do so under oath or without an oath," declared without further
ado that he would prefer to testify under oath? Or who, repeatedly and with a great show of feeling, assured the court, as he
had assured the police examiner, that the worst thing he could do would be to try to escape his true responsibilities, to fight
for his neck, to plead for mercy -- and then, upon instruction of his counsel, submitted a handwritten document that contained
a plea for mercy?
As far as Eichmann was concerned, these were questions of changing moods, not of inconsistencies, and as long
as he was capable of finding, either in his memory or on the spur of the moment, an elating stock phrase to go with them, he was
quite content. (end quote)
And why it is essential to understand what Eichmann was facilitating (and the madness that morphed into the same apartheid bigotry
in the 21st century).
I appreciate the article, but the sentence below is offered with no logical or rational support – it is simply an evidence free
assertion:
("But Parramore and many journalists like her are neither assets of an intelligence service nor unthinking tools of big media;
) – really?
It is quite clear that if someone "is" (an asset of an intelligence service) that they will certainly not be broadcasting this
fact to the world or to friends and family. And for someone to assert that "conspiracies" don't exist in the real world requires
a level of credulity that most intelligent and rational people the least bit familiar with the historical record would find rather
difficult to muster up. I dare say it would be much easier in fact to prove the assertion that our Western history is simply the
"history of conspiracies" given the oligarchic control of Western populations for millennia. This is hardly "rocket science" as
they say. We do have a rather well documented historical record to fall back on to show the endless scheming of Western oligarchy
behind the backs of Western populations.
wardropper
I like Michael Moore's response when asked if he believed the conspiracy theories which were floating about at the time:
"Just the ones that are true"
John Thatcher
A conspiracy theory, like any theory is as strong as the evidence put forward to support it. Often people offer as fact conspiracies
that only as yet exist as theories,with greater or lesser amounts of evidence to support.I have no doubt that interested parties
who are the accused in these theories, will mount efforts to discredit any theory mounted against them or those they represent.
One of the ways they will do this is to plant "evidence" purporting to support the theory, but easily disproved by easily
available information. Unfortunately,it is a sad fact that far too many "conspiracy theorists" readily accept and share along
with genuine evidence, this planted "evidence" to the wider internet, thereby undermining the solid evidence of a conspiracy,
by associating it with the easily disprovable nonsense.
Harry Stotle
Isn't it high time we had a term to describe those who always accept the official version of events after controversial political
incidents no matter how implausible this account might be?
For example, after the attack on the WTC Kissinger was appointed to the head the 9/11 commission (before stepping down).
'Conspiracy theorists' would have thought – why are neocons appointing a mass-murdering neocon to investigate an event that
might have involved neocons (raising obvious credibility issues) – whereas those who regard conspiracy theorists as dribbling
fruitcakes would have welcomed the appointment of the nobel peace prize winner.
Anyway, here's a clip of Henry – the believers in everything the government say would never have considered the objections
raised in the film – such questions are tantamount to mental illness according to these 'progressives'.
Easily one of the best, well researched online resources for 9/11 is http://www.bollyn.com
Christopher Bollyn's work is crucial as it is mainly focused on the who was behind the
attacks, rather than endless investigations into the physics of the event. Physics is an
important part of the 9/11 puzzle, but the players involved are of far more
importance.
Here is one of his presentations, condensing some of his work into a seminar:
Christopher Bollyn DC 9/11/2017 "The War on Terror among Truth Seekers"
"... Latest is the secretive Andy Pryce squandering millions of public money on the "Open Information Partnership" (OIP) which is the latest name-change for the Integrity Initiative and the Institute of Statecraft, just like al-Qaeda kept changing its name. ..."
"... In true Orwellian style, they splashed out on a conference for "defence of media freedom", when they are in the business of propaganda and closing alternative 'narratives' down. And the 'media' they would defend are, in fact, spies sent to foreign countries to foment trouble to further what they bizarrely perceive as 'British interests'. Just like the disgraceful White Helmets, also funded by the FO. ..."
"... "The Guardian is struggling for money" Surely, they would be enjoying some of the seemingly unlimited US defense and some of the mind control programmes budgets. ..."
OffGuardian already covered the Global Media Freedom Conference, our article
Hypocrisy Taints UK's
Media Freedom Conference , was meant to be all there was to say. A quick note on the obvious hypocrisy of this event. But, in
the writing, I started to see more than that. This event is actually creepy. Let's just look back at one of the four "main themes"
of this conference:
Building trust in media and countering disinformation
"Countering disinformation"? Well, that's just another word for censorship. This is proven by their refusal to allow Sputnik or RT
accreditation. They claim RT "spreads disinformation" and they "countered" that by barring them from attending. "Building trust"?
In the post-Blair world of PR newspeak, "building trust" is just another way of saying "making people believe us" (the word usage
is actually interesting, building trust not earning trust). The whole conference is shot through with this language
that just feels off. Here is CNN's
Christiane Amanpour :
Our job is to be truthful, not neutral we need to take a stand for the truth, and never to create a false moral or factual equivalence."
Being "truthful not neutral" is one of Amanpour's
personal sayings
, she obviously thinks it's clever. Of course, what it is is NewSpeak for "bias". Refusing to cover evidence of The White
Helmets staging rescues, Israel arming ISIS or other inconvenient facts will be defended using this phrase – they will literally
claim to only publish "the truth", to get around impartiality and then set about making up whatever "truth" is convenient. Oh, and
if you don't know what "creating a false moral quivalence is", here I'll demonstrate: MSM: Putin is bad for shutting down critical
media. OffG: But you're supporting RT being banned and Wikileaks being shut down. BBC: No. That's not the same. OffG: It seems the
same. BBC: It's not. You're creating a false moral equivalence . Understand now? You "create a false moral equivalence" by
pointing out mainstream media's double standards. Other ways you could mistakenly create a "false moral equivalence": Bringing up
Gaza when the media talk about racism. Mentioning Saudi Arabia when the media preach about gay rights. Referencing the US coup in
Venezuela when the media work themselves into a froth over Russia's "interference in our democracy" Talking about the invasion of
Iraq. Ever. OR Pointing out that the BBC is state funded, just like RT. These are all no-longer flagrant examples of the media's
double standards, and if you say they are , you're "creating a false moral equivalence" and the media won't have to allow
you (or anyone who agrees with you) air time or column inches to disagree. Because they don't have a duty to be neutral or show both
sides, they only have a duty to tell "the truth" as soon as the government has told them what that is. Prepare to see both those
phrases – or variations there of – littering editorials in the Guardian and the Huffington Post in the coming months. Along
with people bemoaning how "fake news outlets abuse the notion of impartiality" by "being even handed between liars the truth tellers".
(I've been doing this site so long now, I have a Guardian-English dictionary in my head).
Equally dodgy-sounding buzz-phrases litter topics on the agenda. "Eastern Europe and Central Asia: building an integrated support
system for journalists facing hostile environments" , this means pumping money into NGOs to fund media that will criticize our
"enemies" in areas of strategic importance. It means flooding money into the anti-government press in Hungary, or Iran or (of course),
Russia. That is ALL it means. I said in my earlier article I don't know what "media sustainability" even means, but I feel I can
take a guess. It means "save the government mouthpieces". The Guardian is struggling for money, all print media are, TV news
is getting lower viewing figures all the time. "Building media sustainability" is code for "pumping public money into traditional
media that props up the government" or maybe "getting people to like our propaganda". But the worst offender on the list is, without
a doubt "Navigating Disinformation"
"Navigating Disinformation" was a 1 hour panel from the second day of the conference. You can watch it embedded above if you really
feel the need. I already did, so you don't have to. The panel was chaired by Chrystia Freeland, the Canadian Foreign Minister. The
members included the Latvian Foreign Minister, a representative of the US NGO Committee to Protect Journalists, and the Ukrainian
Deputy Minister of Information
Have you guessed what "disinformation" they're going to be talking about? I'll give you a clue: It begins with R. Freeland, chairing
the panel, kicks it off by claiming that "disinformation isn't for any particular aim" . This is a very common thing for establishment
voices to repeat these days, which makes it all the more galling she seems to be pretending its is her original thought. The reason
they have to claim that "disinformation" doesn't have a "specific aim" is very simple: They don't know what they're going to call
"disinformation" yet. They can't afford to take a firm position, they need to keep their options open. They need to give themselves
the ability to describe any single piece of information or political opinion as "disinformation." Left or right. Foreign or domestic.
"Disinformation" is a weaponised term that is only as potent as it is vague. So, we're one minute in, and all "navigating disinformation"
has done is hand the State an excuse to ignore, or even criminalise, practically anything it wants to. Good start. Interestingly,
no one has actually said the word "Russia" at this point. They have talked about "malign actors" and "threats to democracy", but
not specifically Russia. It is SO ingrained in these people that "propaganda"= " Russian propaganda" that they don't need
to say it.
The idea that NATO as an entity, or the individual members thereof, could also use "disinformation" has not just been dismissed
it was literally never even contemplated. Next Freeland turns to Edgars Rinkēvičs, her Latvian colleague, and jokes about always
meeting at NATO functions. The Latvians know "more than most" about disinformation, she says. Rinkēvičs says disinformation is nothing
new, but that the methods of spreading it are changing then immediately calls for regulation of social media. Nobody disagrees. Then
he talks about the "illegal annexation of Crimea", and claims the West should outlaw "paid propaganda" like RT and Sputnik. Nobody
disagrees. Then he says that Latvia "protected" their elections from "interference" by "close cooperation between government agencies
and social media companies". Everyone nods along. If you don't find this terrifying, you're not paying attention. They don't say
it, they probably don't even realise they mean it, but when they talk about "close cooperation with social media networks", they
mean government censorship of social media. When they say "protecting" their elections they're talking about rigging them. It only
gets worse. The next step in the Latvian master plan is to bolster "traditional media".
The problems with traditional media, he says, are that journalists aren't paid enough, and don't keep up to date with all the
"new tricks". His solution is to "promote financing" for traditional media, and to open more schools like the "Baltic Centre of Media
Excellence", which is apparently a totally real thing .
It's a training centre which teaches young journalists about "media literacy" and "critical thinking". You can read their depressingly
predictable list of "donors" here . I truly wish I was joking. Next
up is Courtney Radsch from CPJ – a US-backed NGO, who notionally "protect journalists", but more accurately spread pro-US propaganda.
(Their token effort to "defend"
RT and Sputnik when they were barred from the conference was contemptible).
She talks for a long time without saying much at all. Her revolutionary idea is that disinformation could be countered if everyone
told the truth. Inspiring. Beata Balogova, Journalist and Editor from Slovakia, gets the ship back on course – immediately suggesting
politicians should not endorse "propaganda" platforms. She shares an anecdote about "a prominent Slovakian politician" who gave exclusive
interviews to a site that is "dubiously financed, we assume from Russia". They assume from Russia. Everyone nods.
It's like they don't even hear themselves.
Then she moves on to Hungary. Apparently, Orban has "created a propaganda machine" and produced "antisemitic George Soros posters".
No evidence is produced to back-up either of these claims. She thinks advertisers should be pressured into not giving money to "fake
news sites". She calls for "international pressure", but never explains exactly what that means. The stand-out maniac on this panel
is Emine Dzhaparova, the Ukrainian First Deputy Minister of Information Policy. (She works for the Ministry of Information – nicknamed
the Ministry of Truth, which was formed in 2014 to "counter lies about Ukraine". Even
The Guardian thought that sounded dodgy.)
She talks very fast and, without any sense of irony, spills out a story that shoots straight through "disinformation" and becomes
"incoherent rambling". She claims that Russian citizens are so brainwashed you'll never be able to talk to them, and that Russian
"cognitive influence" is "toxic like radiation." Is this paranoid, quasi-xenophobic nonsense countered? No. Her fellow panelists
nod and chuckle. On top of that, she just lies. She lies over and over and over again. She claims Russia is locking up Crimean Tartars
"just for being muslims", nobody questions her. She says the war in Ukraine has killed 13,000 people, but doesn't mention that her
side is responsible for over 80% of civilian deaths.
She says only 30% of Crimeans voted in the referendum, and that they were "forced". A fact not supported by
any polls done by either side in the last
four years, and any referenda held
on the peninsula any time in the last last 30 year. It's simply a lie. Nobody asks her about the journalists
killed in Ukraine since their
glorious Maidan Revolution . Nobody questions the fact that she works for something called the "Ministry of Information". Nobody
does anything but nod and smile as the "countering disinformation" panel becomes just a platform for spreading total lies.
When everyone on the panel has had their ten minutes on the soapbox, Freeland asks for recommendations for countering this "threat"
– here's the list:
Work to distinguish "free speech" from "propaganda", when you find propaganda there must be a "strong reaction".
Pressure advertisers to abandon platforms who spread misinformation.
Regulate social media.
Educate journalists at special schools.
Start up a "Ministry of Information" and have state run media that isn't controlled, like in Ukraine.
This is the Global Conference on Media Freedom and all these six people want to talk about is how to control what can be said,
and who can say it. They single only four countries out for criticism: Hungary, Nicaragua, Venezuela and Russia .and Russia takes
up easily 90% of that. They mention only two media outlets by name: RT and Sputnik. This wasn't a panel on disinformation, it was
a public attack forum – a month's worth of 2 minutes of hate. These aren't just shills on this stage, they are solid gold idiots,
brainwashed to the point of total delusion.
They are the dangerous glassy eyes of a Deep State that never questions itself, never examines itself, and will do anything it
wants, to anyone it wants whilst happily patting itself on the back for its superior morality. They don't know, they don't care.
They're true believers. Terrifyingly dead inside. Talking about state censorship and re-education camps under a big sign that says
"Freedom". And that's just one talk. Just one panel in a 2 day itinerary filled to the brim with similarly soul-dead servants of
authority. Truly, perfectly Orwellian.
Read and be appalled at what America is up to .keep for further reference. We are in danger.
Tim Jenkins
It would serve Ms. Amanpour well, to relax, rewind & review her own interview with Sergei Lavrov:-
Then she might see why Larry King could stomach the appalling corporate dictatorship, even to the core of False & Fake recording
of 'our' "History of the National Security State" , No More
Amanpour was forced to laugh uncontrollably, when confronted with Lavrov's humorous interpretations of various legal aspects
of decency & his Judgement of others' politicians and 'Pussy Riots' >>> if you haven't seen it, it is to be recommended, the whole
interview, if nothing else but to study the body language and micro-facial expressions, coz' a belly up laugh is not something
anybody can easily control or even feign that first spark of cognition in her mind, as she digests Lavrov's response :- hilarious
Einstein
A GE won't solve matters since we have a Government of Occupation behind a parliament of puppets.
Latest is the secretive Andy Pryce squandering millions of public money on the "Open Information Partnership" (OIP) which
is the latest name-change for the Integrity Initiative and the Institute of Statecraft, just like al-Qaeda kept changing its name.
In true Orwellian style, they splashed out on a conference for "defence of media freedom", when they are in the business
of propaganda and closing alternative 'narratives' down. And the 'media' they would defend are, in fact, spies sent to foreign
countries to foment trouble to further what they bizarrely perceive as 'British interests'. Just like the disgraceful White Helmets,
also funded by the FO.
Pryce's ventriloquist's dummy in parliament, the pompous Alan Duncan, announced another £10 million of public money for this
odious brainwashing programme.
Tim Jenkins
That panel should be nailed & plastered over, permanently:-
and as wall paper, 'Abstracts of New Law' should be pasted onto a collage of historic extracts from the Guardian, in
offices that issue journalistic licenses, comprised of 'Untouchables' :-
A professional habitat, to damp any further 'Freeland' amplification & resonance,
of negative energy from professional incompetence.
Francis Lee
Apropos of the redoubtable Ms Freeland, Canada's Foreign Secretary.
The records now being opened by the Polish government in Warsaw reveal that Freeland's maternal grandfather Michael (Mikhailo)
Chomiak was a Nazi collaborator from the beginning to the end of the war. He was given a powerful post, money, home and car by
the German Army in Cracow, then the capital of the German administration of the Galician region. His principal job was editor
in chief and publisher of a newspaper the Nazis created. His printing plant and other assets had been stolen from a Jewish newspaper
publisher, who was then sent to die in the Belzec concentration camp. During the German Army's winning phase of the war, Chomiak
celebrated in print the Wehrmacht's "success" at killing thousands of US Army troops. As the German Army was forced into retreat
by the Soviet counter-offensive, Chomiak was taken by the Germans to Vienna, where he continued to publish his Nazi propaganda,
at the same time informing for the Germans on other Ukrainians. They included fellow Galician Stepan Bandera, whose racism against
Russians Freeland has celebrated in print, and whom the current regime in Kiev has turned into a national hero.
Those Ukrainian 'Refugees' admitted to Canada in 1945 were almost certainly members of the 14th Waffen SS Division Galizia 1.
These Ukie collaboraters – not to be confused with the other Ukie Nazi outfit – Stepan Bandera's Ukrainian Insurgent Army -were
held responsible for the massacre of many Poles in the Lviv area the most infamous being carried out in the Polish village of
Huta Pienacka. In the massacre, the village was destroyed and between 500] and 1,000 of the inhabitants were killed. According
to Polish accounts, civilians were locked in barns that were set on fire while those attempting to flee were killed. That's about
par for the course.
Canada's response was as follows:
The Canadian Deschênes Commission was set up to investigate alleged war crimes committed by the collaborators
Memorial to SS-Galizien division in Chervone, Lviv Oblast, western Ukraine
The Canadian "Commission of Inquiry on War Crimes" of October 1986, by the Honourable Justice Jules Deschênesconcluded that in
relation to membership in the Galicia Division:
''The Galicia Division (14. Waffen grenadier division der SS [gal.1]) should not be indicted as a group. The members of Galicia
Division were individually screened for security purposes before admission to Canada. Charges of war crimes of Galicia Division
have never been substantiated, either in 1950 when they were first preferred, or in 1984 when they were renewed, or before this
Commission. Further, in the absence of evidence of participation or knowledge of specific war crimes, mere membership in the Galicia
Division is insufficient to justify prosecution.''
However, the Commission's conclusion failed to acknowledge or heed the International Military Tribunal's verdict at the Nuremberg
Trials, in which the entire Waffen-SSorganisation was declared a "criminal organization" guilty of war crimes. Also, the Deschênes
Commission in its conclusion only referenced the division as 14. Waffen-Grenadier-Division der SS (Galizische Nr.1), thus in legal
terms, only acknowledging the formation's activity after its name change in August 1944, while the massacre of Poles in Huta Pieniacka,
Pidkamin and Palikrowy occurred when the division was called SS Freiwilligen Division "Galizien". Nevertheless, a subsequent review
by Canada's Minister of Justice again confirmed that members of the Division were not implicated in war crimes.
Yes, the west looks after its Nazis and even makes them and their descendants political figureheads.
mark
Most of these people are so smugly and complacently convinced of their own moral superiority that they just can't see the hypocrisy
and doublethink involved in the event.
Meanwhile Owen Jones has taken to Twitter to rubbish allegations that a reign of terror exists at Guardian Towers – the socialist
firebrand is quoted as saying 'journalists are free to say whatever they like, so long as it doesn't stray too far from Guardian-groupthink'.
Good analysis Kit, of the cognitive dissonant ping pong being played out by Nazi sympathisers such as Hunt and Freeland.
The echo chamber of deceit is amplified again by the selective use of information and the ignoring of relevant facts, such
as the miss reporting yesterday by Reuters of the Italian Neo-Nazi haul of weapons by the police, having not Russian but Ukrainian
links.
Not a word in the WMSM about this devious miss-reporting as the creation of fake news in action. But what would you expect?
Living as I do in Russia I can assure anyone reading this that the media freedom here is on a par with the West and somewhat
better as there is no paranoia about a fictitious enemy – Russians understand that the West is going through an existential crisis
(Brexit in the UK, Trump and the Clinton war of sameness in the US and Macron and Merkel in the EU). A crisis of Liberalism as
the failed life-support of capitalism. But hey, why worry about the politics when there is bigger fish to fry. Such as who will
pay me to dance?
The answer is clear from what Kit has writ. The government will pay the piper. How sweet.
I'd like to thank Kit for sitting through such a turgid masquerade and as I'm rather long in the tooth I do remember the old
BBC schools of journalism in Yelsin's Russia. What I remember is that old devious Auntie Beeb was busy training would be hopefuls
in the art of discretion regarding how the news is formed, or formulated.
In other words your audience. And it ain't the public
The British government's "Online Harms" White Paper has a whole section devoted to "disinformation" (ie, any facts, opinions,
analyses, evaluations, critiques that are critical of the elite's actual disinformation). If these proposals become law, the government
will have effective control over the Internet and we will be allowed access to their disinformation, shop and watch cute cat videos.
Question This
The liberal news media & hypocrisy, who would have ever thought you'd see those words in the same sentence.
But what do you expect from professional liars, politicians & 'their' free press?
Can this shit show get any worse? Yes, The other day I wrote to my MP regards the SNP legislating against the truth, effectively
making it compulsory to lie! Mr Blackford as much as called me a transphobic & seemed to go to great length publishing his neo-liberal
ideological views in some scottish rag, on how right is wrong & fact is turned into fiction & asked only those that agreed with
him contact him.
Tim Jenkins
"The science or logical consistency of true premise, cannot take place or bear fruit, when all communication and information is
'marketised and weaponised' to a mindset of possession and control."
B.Steere
Mikalina
I saw, somewhere (but can't find it now) a law or a prospective law which goes under the guise of harassment of MPs to include
action against constituents who 'pester' them.
I only emailed him once! That's hardly harassment. Anyway I sent it with proton-mail via vpn & used a false postcode using only
my first name so unlikely my civil & sincere correspondence will see me locked up for insisting my inalienable rights of freedom
of speech & beliefs are protected. But there again the state we live in, i may well be incarcerated for life, for such an outrageous
expectation.
Where to?
"The Guardian is struggling for money"
Surely, they would be enjoying some of the seemingly unlimited US defense and some of the mind control programmes budgets.
Harry Stotle
Its the brazen nature of the conference that is especially galling, but what do you expect when crooks and liars no longer feel
they even have to pretend?
Nothing will change so long as politicians (or their shady backers) are never held to account for public assets diverted toward
a rapacious off-shore economic system, or the fact millions of lives have been shattered by the 'war on terror' and its evil twin,
'humanatarian regime change' (while disingenuous Labour MPs wail about the 'horrors' of antisemitism rather than the fact their
former leader is a key architect of the killings).
Kit remains a go-to voice when deconstructing claims made by political figures who clearly regard the MSM as a propaganda vehicle
for promoting western imperialism – the self-satisfied smugness of cunts like Jeremy Cunt stand in stark contrast to a real journalist
being tortured by the British authorities just a few short miles away.
It's a sligtly depressing thought but somebody has the unenviable task of monitoring just how far our politicians have drifted
from the everyday concerns of the 'just about managing' and as I say Mr Knightly does a fine job in informing readers what the
real of agenda of these media love-ins are actually about – it goes without saying a very lengthy barge pole is required when
the Saudis are invited but not Russia.
Where to?
This Media Freedom Conference is surely a creepy theatre of the absurd.
It is a test of what they can get away with.
Mikalina
Yep. Any soviet TV watcher would recognise this immediately. Message? THIS is the reality – and you are powerless.
mark
When are they going to give us the Ministry of Truth we so desperately need?
"... We know our disinformation program is complete when almost everything the American public believes is false.' ..."
"... Using groundbreaking camera and lighting techniques, Riefenstahl produced a documentary that mesmerized Germans; as Pilger noted, her Triumph of the Will 'cast Adolf Hitler's spell'. She told the veteran Aussie journalist the "messages" of her films were dependent not on "orders from above", but on the "submissive void" of the public. ..."
"... All in all, Riefenstahl produced arguably for the rest of the world the most compelling historical footage of mass hysteria, blind obedience, nationalistic fervour, and existential menace, all key ingredients in anyone's totalitarian nightmare. That it also impressed a lot of very powerful, high profile people in the West on both sides of the pond is also axiomatic: These included bankers, financiers, industrialists, and sundry business elites without whose support Hitler might've at best ended up a footnote in the historical record after the ill-fated beer-hall putsch. (See here , and here .) ..."
"... The purpose of this propaganda barrage, as Sharon Bader has noted, has been to convince as many people as possible that it is in their interests to relinquish their own power as workers, consumers, and citizens, and 'forego their democratic right to restrain and regulate business activity. As a result the political agenda is now confined to policies aimed at furthering business interests.' ..."
Here was, of course, another surreal spectacle, this time courtesy of one of the Deep State's most dangerous, reviled, and divisive
figures, a notable protagonist in the Russia-Gate conspiracy, and America's most senior diplomat no less.
Not only is it difficult to accept that the former CIA Director actually believes what he is saying, well might we ask, "Who can
believe Mike Pompeo?"
And here's also someone whose manifest cynicism, hypocrisy, and chutzpah would embarrass the much-derided
scribes and Pharisees of Biblical days.
We have Pompeo on record recently in a rare moment of
honesty admitting – whilst laughing his ample ass off, as if recalling some "Boy's Own Adventure" from his misspent youth with a
bunch of his mates down at the local pub – that under his watch as CIA Director:
We lied, cheated, we stole we had entire training courses.'
It may have been one of the few times in his wretched existence that Pompeo didn't speak with a forked tongue.
At all events, his candour aside, we can assume safely that this reactionary, monomaniacal, Christian Zionist 'end-timer' passed
all the Company's "training courses" with flying colours.
According to Matthew Rosenberg
of the New York Times, all this did not stop Pompeo however from name-checking Wikileaks when it served his own interests. Back
in 2016 at the height of the election campaign, he had ' no compunction about pointing people toward emails stolen* by Russian hackers
from the Democratic National Committee and then posted by WikiLeaks."
[NOTE: Rosenberg's omission of the word "allegedly" -- as in "emails allegedly stolen" -- is a dead giveaway of bias on his part
(a journalistic Freudian slip perhaps?), with his employer
being one of those MSM marques leading the charge with the "Russian Collusion" 'story'. For a more insightful view of the source
of these emails and the skullduggery and thuggery that attended Russia-Gate, readers are encouraged to
check this out.]
And this is of course The Company we're talking about, whose past and present relationship with the media might be summed up in
two words:
Operation Mockingbird (OpMock). Anyone vaguely familiar with the well-documented Grand Deception that was OpMock, arguably the
CIA's most enduring, insidious, and successful
psy-ops gambit, will know what
we're talking about. (See
here ,
here ,
here , and
here .) At its most basic, this operation was all about propaganda and censorship, usually operating in tandem to ensure all
the bases are covered.
After opining that the MSM is 'totally infiltrated' by the CIA and various other agencies, for his part former NSA whistleblower
William Binney recently added , ' When it
comes to national security, the media only talk about what the administration wants you to hear, and basically suppress any other
statements about what's going on that the administration does not want get public. The media is basically the lapdogs for the government.'
We know our disinformation program is complete when almost everything the American public believes is false.'
In order to provide a broader and deeper perspective, we should now consider the views of a few others on the subjects at hand,
along with some history. In a 2013 piece musing on the modern significance of the practice, my compatriot John Pilger
ecalled a time when he met
Leni Riefenstahl
back in 70s and asked her about her films that 'glorified the Nazis'.
Using groundbreaking camera and lighting techniques, Riefenstahl produced a documentary that mesmerized Germans; as Pilger
noted, her Triumph of the Will 'cast Adolf Hitler's
spell'. She told the veteran Aussie journalist the "messages" of her films were dependent not on "orders from above", but on the
"submissive void" of the public.
All in all, Riefenstahl produced arguably for the rest of the world the most compelling historical footage of mass hysteria,
blind obedience, nationalistic fervour, and existential menace, all key ingredients in anyone's totalitarian nightmare. That it also
impressed a lot of very powerful, high profile people in the West on both sides of the pond is also axiomatic: These included
bankers, financiers, industrialists,
and sundry business elites without whose support Hitler might've at best ended up a footnote in the historical record after the
ill-fated
beer-hall
putsch. (See
here , and here .)
" Triumph " apparently still resonates today. To the surprise of few one imagines, such was the impact of the film -- as casually
revealed in the excellent 2018 Alexis Bloom documentary Divide and
Conquer: The Story of Roger Ailes -- it elicited no small amount of admiration from arguably the single most influential propagandist
of recent times.
[Readers might wish to check out Russell Crowe's recent portrayal of Ailes in Stan's mini-series
The Loudest Voice , in my view one the best performances of the man's career.]
In a recent piece unambiguously titled "Propaganda Is The Root Of All Our Problems", my other compatriot Caitlin Johnstone also
had a few things to
say about the subject, echoing Orwell when she observed it was all about "controlling the narrative".
Though I'd suggest the greater "root" problem is our easy propensity to ignore this reality, pretend it doesn't or won't affect
us, or reject it as conspiratorial nonsense, in this, of course, she's correct. As she cogently observes,
I write about this stuff for a living, and even I don't have the time or energy to write about every single narrative control
tool that the US-centralised empire has been implementing into its arsenal. There are too damn many of them emerging too damn
fast, because they're just that damn crucial for maintaining existing power structures.'
Fittingly, in a discussion encompassing amongst other things history, language, power, and dissent, he opined, ' Determining how
individuals communicate is' an objective which represents for the power elites 'the best chance' [they] have to control what people
think. This translates as: The more control 'we' have over what the proles think, the more 'we' can reduce the inherent risk for
elites in democracy.
' Clumsy men', Saul went on to say, 'try to do this through power and fear. Heavy-handed men running heavy-handed systems attempt
the same thing through police-enforced censorship. The more sophisticated the elites, the more they concentrate on creating intellectual
systems which control expression through the communications structures. These systems require only the discreet use of censorship
and uniformed men.'
In other words, along with assuming it is their right to take it in the first place, ' those who take power will always try to
change the established language ', presumably to better facilitate their hold on it and/or legitimise their claim to it.
For Oliver Boyd-Barrett, democratic theory presupposes a public communications infrastructure that facilitates the free and open
exchange of ideas.' Yet for the author of the recently published
RussiaGate and Propaganda: Disinformation in the Age of Social Media , 'No such infrastructure exists.'
The mainstream media he says, is 'owned and controlled by a small number of large, multi-media and multi-industrial conglomerates'
that lie at the very heart of US oligopoly capitalism and much of whose advertising revenue and content is furnished from other conglomerates:
The inability of mainstream media to sustain an information environment that can encompass histories, perspectives and vocabularies
that are free of the shackles of US plutocratic self-regard is also well documented.'
Of course the word "inability" suggests the MSM view themselves as having some responsibility for maintaining such an egalitarian
news and information environment. They don't of course, and in truth, probably never really have! A better word would be "unwilling",
or even "refusal". The corporate media all but epitomise the " plutocratic self-regard" that is characteristic of "oligopoly capitalism".
Indeed, the MSM collectively functions as advertising, public relations/lobbying entities for Big Corp, in addition to acting
as its Praetorian bodyguard , protecting their secrets,
crimes, and lies from exposure. Like all other companies they are beholden to their shareholders (profits before truth and people),
most of whom it can safely be assumed are no strangers to "self-regard", and could care less about " histories, perspectives and
vocabularies" that run counter to their own interests.
It was Aussie social scientist Alex Carey who
pioneered the study of nationalism ,
corporatism , and moreso for our purposes herein, the
management (read: manipulation) of public opinion, though all three have important links (a story for another time). For Carey, the
following conclusion was inescapable: 'It is arguable that the success of business propaganda in persuading us, for so long, that
we are free from propaganda is one of the most significant propaganda achievements of the twentieth century.' This former farmer
from Western Australia became one of the world's acknowledged experts on propaganda and the manipulation of the truth.
Prior to embarking on his academic career, Carey was a successful sheep
grazier . By all accounts, he was a first-class judge of the
animal from which he made his early living, leaving one to ponder if this expertise gave him a unique insight into his main area
of research!
In any event, Carey in time sold the farm and travelled to the U.K. to study psychology, apparently a long-time ambition. From
the late fifties until his death in 1988, he was a senior lecturer in psychology and industrial relations at the Sydney-based University
of New South Wales, with his research being lauded by such luminaries as Noam Chomsky and John Pilger, both of whom have had a thing
or three to say over the years about The Big Shill. In fact such was his admiration, Pilger
described him as "a second Orwell", which in anyone's lingo
is a big call.
In fact, for anyone with an interest in how public opinion is moulded and our perceptions are managed and manipulated, in whose
interests they are done so and to what end, it is as essential reading as any of the work of other more famous names. This tome came
complete with a foreword by Chomsky, so enamoured was the latter of Carey's work.
For Carey, the three "most significant developments" in the political economy of the twentieth century were:
the growth of democracy the growth of corporate power; and the growth of propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against
democracy.
For Carey, it is an axiom of conventional wisdom that the use of propaganda as a means of social and ideological control is 'distinctive'
of totalitarian regimes. Yet as he stresses: the most minimal exercise of common sense would suggest a different view: that propaganda
is likely to play at least as important a part in democratic societies (where the existing distribution of power and privilege is
vulnerable to quite limited changes in popular opinion) as in authoritarian societies (where it is not).' In this context, 'conventional
wisdom" becomes conventional ignorance; as for "common sense", maybe not so much.
The purpose of this propaganda
barrage, as Sharon Bader has noted, has been to convince as many people as
possible that it is in their interests to relinquish their own power as workers, consumers, and citizens, and 'forego their democratic
right to restrain and regulate business activity. As a result the political agenda is now confined to policies aimed at furthering
business interests.'
An extreme example of this view playing itself right under our noses and over decades was the cruel fiction of the "
trickle down effect " (TDE) -- aka the 'rising tide that would lift all yachts' -- of
Reaganomics . One of several mantras that defined Reagan's
overarching political shtick, the TDE was by any measure, decidedly more a torrent than a trickle, and said "torrent" was going up
not down. This reality as we now know was not in Reagan's glossy economic brochure to be sure, and it may have been because the Gipper
confused his prepositions and verbs.
Yet as the GFC of 2008 amply demonstrated, it culminated in a free-for all, dog eat dog, anything goes, everyman for himself form
of cannibal (or anarcho) capitalism -- an updated, much
improved version of the no-holds-barred mercenary mercantilism much reminiscent of the
Gilded Age and the
Robber Barons who 'infested' it, only one
that doesn't just eat its young, it eats itself!
Making the World Safe for Plutocracy
In the increasingly dysfunctional, one-sided political economy we inhabit then, whether it's widgets or wars or anything in between,
few people realise the degree to which our opinions, perceptions, emotions, and views are shaped and manipulated by propaganda (and
its similarly 'evil twin' censorship ,) its most adept practitioners, and those elite, institutional, political, and corporate entities
that seek out their expertise.
It is now just over a hundred years since the practice of propaganda took a giant leap forward, then in the service of persuading
palpably reluctant Americans that the war raging in Europe at the time was their war as well.
This was at a time when Americans had just voted their then-president
Woodrow Wilson back into office for a second term, a victory
largely achieved on the back of the promise he'd
"keep us out of the War." Americans were
very much in what was one of their most
isolationist
phases , and so Wilson's promise resonated with them.
But over time they were convinced of the need to become involved by a distinctly different appeal to their political sensibilities.
This "appeal" also dampened the isolationist mood, one which it has to be said was not embraced by most of the political, banking,
and business elites of the time, most of whom stood to lose big-time if the Germans won, and/or who were already profiting or benefitting
from the business of war.
For a president who "kept us out of the war", this wasn't going to be an easy 'pitch'. In order to sell the war the president
established the Committee on Public Information
(aka the Creel Committee) for the purposes of publicising the rationale for the war and from there, garnering support for it
from the general public.
Either way, Bernays 'combined their perspectives and synthesised them into an applied science', which he then 'branded' "public
relations".
For its part the Creel committee struggled with its brief from the off; but Bernays worked with them to persuade Americans their
involvement in the war was justified -- indeed necessary -- and to that end he devised the brilliantly inane slogan,
"making the world safe for democracy"
.
Thus was born arguably the first
great propaganda catch-phrases of the modern era, and certainly one of the most portentous. The following sums up Bernays's unabashed
mindset:
The conscious, intelligent manipulation of the organised habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic
society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power
of our country.'
The rest is history (sort of), with Americans becoming more willing to not just support the war effort but encouraged to view
the Germans and their allies as evil brutes threatening democracy and freedom and the 'American way of life', however that might've
been viewed then. From a geopolitical and historical perspective, it was an asinine premise of course, but nonetheless an extraordinary
example of how a few well chosen words tapped into the collective psyche of a country that was decidedly opposed to any U.S involvement
in the war and turned that mindset completely on its head.
' [S]aving the world for democracy' (or some 'cover version' thereof) has since become America's positioning statement, 'patriotic'
rallying cry, and the "Get-out-of-Jail Free" card for its war and its white collar criminal clique.
At all events it was by any measure, a stroke of genius on Bernays's part; by appealing to people's basic fears and desires, he
could engineer consent on a mass scale. It goes without saying it changed the course of history in more ways than one. That the U.S.
is to this day still using a not dissimilar meme to justify its
"foreign entanglements" is testament to both its utility and durability.
The reality as we now know was markedly different of course. They have almost always been about power, empire, control, hegemony,
resources, wealth, opportunity, profit, dispossession, keeping existing capitalist structures intact and well-defended, and crushing
dissent and opposition.
The Bewildered Herd
It is instructive to note that the template for 'manufacturing consent' for war had already been forged by the British. And the
Europeans did not 'sleepwalk'
like some " bewildered herd ' into this conflagration.
For twenty years prior to the outbreak of the war in 1914, the then stewards of the British Empire had been diligently preparing
the ground for what they viewed as a preordained clash with their rivals for empire the Germans.
To begin with, contrary to the opinion of the general populace over one hundred years later, it was not the much touted German
aggression and militarism, nor their undoubted imperial ambitions, which precipitated its outbreak. The stewards of the British Empire
were not about to let the Teutonic upstarts chow down on their imperial lunch as it were, and set about unilaterally and preemptively
crushing Germany and with it any ambitions it had for creating its own imperial domain in competition with the Empire upon which
Ol' Sol never set.
The "Great War" is worth noting here for other reasons. As documented so by Jim Macgregor and Gerry Docherty in their two books
covering the period from 1890-1920, we learn much about propaganda, which attest to its extraordinary power, in particular its
power to distort
reality en masse in enduring and subversive ways.
In reality, the only thing "great" about World War One was the degree to which the masses fighting for Britain were conned via
propaganda and censorship into believing this war was necessary, and the way the official narrative of the war was sustained for
posterity via the very same means. "Great" maybe, but not in a good way!
The horrendous carnage and destruction that resulted from it was of course unprecedented, the global effects of which linger on
now well over one hundred years later.
Such was the
enduring power
of the propaganda that today most folks would have great difficulty in accepting the following; this is a short summary of historical
realities revealed by Macgregor and Docherty that are at complete odds with the official narrative, the political discourse, and
the school textbooks:
It was Great Britain (supported by France and Russia) and not Germany who was the principal aggressor in the events and actions that
let to the outbreak of war; The British had for twenty years prior to 1914 viewed Germany as its most dangerous economic and imperial
rival, and fully anticipated that a war was inevitable; In the U.K. and the U.S., various factions worked feverishly to ensure the
war went on for as long as possible, and scuttled peacemaking efforts from the off; key truths about this most consequential of geopolitical
conflicts have been concealed for well over one hundred years, with no sign the official record will change; very powerful forces
(incl. a future US president) amongst U.S. political, media, and economic elites conspired to eventually convince an otherwise unwilling
populace in America that U.S. entry onto the war was necessary; those same forces and many similar groups in the U.K. and Europe
engaged in everything from war profiteering, destruction/forging of war records, false-flag ops, treason, conspiracy to wage aggressive
war, and direct efforts to prolong the war by any means necessary, many of which will rock folks to their very core.
But peace was not on the agenda. When, by 1916, the military failures were so embarrassing and costly, some key players in the
British government were willing to talk about peace. This could not be tolerated. The potential peacemakers had to be thrown under
the bus. The unelected European leaders had one common bond: They would fight Germany until she was crushed.
Prolonging the Agony details how this secret cabal organised to this end the change of government without a single vote being
cast. David Lloyd George was promoted to prime minister
in Britain and Georges Clemenceau made prime minister
in France. A new government, an inner-elite war cabinet thrust the Secret Elite leader, Lord
Alfred Milner into power at the very inner-core of the
decision-makers in British politics.
Democracy? They had no truck with democracy. The voting public had no say. The men entrusted with the task would keep going till
the end and their place-men were backed by the media and the money-power, in Britain, France and America.
Propaganda Always Wins
But just as the pioneering adherents of propaganda back in the day might never have dreamt how sophisticated and all-encompassing
the practice would become, nor would the citizenry at large have anticipated the extent to which the industry has facilitated an
entrenched, rapacious plutocracy at the expense of our economic opportunity, our financial and material security, our physical, social
and cultural environment, our values and attitudes, and increasingly, our basic democratic rights and freedoms.
We now live in the Age of the Big Shill -- cocooned in a submissive void no less -- an era where nothing can be taken on face
value yet where time and attention constraints (to name just a few) force us to do so; [where] few people in public life can be taken
at their word; where unchallenged perceptions become accepted reality; where 'open-book' history is now incontrovertible not-negotiable,
upon pain of imprisonment fact; where education is about uniformity, function, form and conformity, all in the service of imposed
neo-liberal ideologies embracing then prioritising individual -- albeit dubious -- freedoms.
More broadly, it's the "Roger Ailes" of this world -- acting on behalf of the power elites who after all are their paymasters
-- who create the intellectual systems which control expression through the communications structures, whilst ensuring these systems
require only 'the discreet use of censorship and uniformed men.'
They are the shapers and moulders of the discourse that passes for the accepted lingua franca of the increasingly globalised,
interconnected, corporatised political economy of the planet. Throughout this process they 'will always try to change the established
language.'
And we can no longer rely on our elected representatives to honestly represent us and our interests. Whether this decision making
is taking place inside or outside the legislative process, these processes are well and truly in the grip of the banks and financial
institutions and transnational organisations. In whose interests are they going to be more concerned with?
We saw this all just after the
Global Financial Crisis
(GFC) when the very people who brought the system to the brink, made billions off the dodge for their banks and millions for
themselves, bankrupted hundreds of thousands of American families, were called upon by the U.S. government to fix up the mess, and
to all intents given a blank cheque to so do.
That the U.S. is at even greater risk now of economic
implosion is something few serious pundits would dispute, and a testament to the effectiveness of the snow-job perpetrated upon Americans
regarding the causes, the impact, and the implications of the 2008 meltdown going forward.
In most cases, one accepts almost by definition such disconnects (read: hidden agendas) are the rule rather than the exception,
hence the multi-billion foundation -- and global reach and impact -- of the propaganda business. This in itself is a key indicator
as to why organisations place so much importance on this aspect of managing their affairs.
At the very least, once corporations saw how the psychology of persuasion could be leveraged to manipulate consumers and politicians
saw the same with the citizenry and even its own workers, the growth of the industry was assured.
As Riefenstahl noted during her chinwag with Pilger after he asked if those embracing the "submissive void" included the liberal,
educated bourgeoisie? " Everyone ," she said.
By way of underscoring her point, she added enigmatically: 'Propaganda always wins if you allow it'.
Greg Maybury is a freelance writer based in Perth, Australia. His main areas of interest are American history and politics
in general, with a special focus on economic, national security, military, and geopolitical affairs. For 5 years he has regularly
contributed to a diverse range of news and opinion sites, including OpEd News, The Greanville Post, Consortium News, Dandelion Salad,
Global Research, Dissident Voice, OffGuardian, Contra Corner, International Policy Digest, the Hampton Institute, and others.
nottheonly1
This brilliant essay is proof of the reflective nature of the Universe. The worse the propaganda and oppression becomes, the greater
the likelihood such an essay will be written.
Such is the sophistication and ubiquity of the narrative control techniques used today -- afforded increasingly by 'computational
propaganda' via automated scripts, hacking, botnets, troll farms, and algorithms and the like, along with the barely veiled
censorship and information gatekeeping practised by Google and Facebook and other tech behemoths -- it's become one of the
most troubling aspects of the technological/social media revolution.
Very rarely can one experience such a degree of vindication. My moniker 'nottheonly1' has received more meaning with this precise
depiction of the long history of the manipulation of the masses. Recent events have destroyed but all of my confidence that there
might be a peaceful way out of this massive dilemma. Due to this sophistication in controlling the narrative, it has now become
apparent that we have arrived at a moment in time where total lawlessness reigns. 'Lawlessness' in this case means the loss of
common law and the use of code law to create ever new restrictions for free speech and liberty at large.
Over the last weeks, comments written on other discussion boards have unleashed a degree of character defamation and ridicule
for the most obvious crimes perpetrated on the masses through propaganda. In this unholy union of constant propaganda via main
stream 'media' with the character defamation by so called 'trolls' – which are actually virtual assassins of those who write the
truth – the ability of the population, or parts thereof to connect with, or search for like minded people is utterly destroyed.
This assault on the online community has devastating consequences. Those who have come into the cross hairs of the unintelligence
agencies will but turn away from the internet. Leaving behind an ocean of online propaganda and fake information. Few are now
the web sites on which it is possible to voice one's personal take on the status quo.
There is one word that describes these kind of activities precisely: traitor. Those who engage in the character defamation
of commenters, or authors per se, are traitors to humanity. They betray the collective consciousness with their poisonous attacks
of those who work for a sea change of the status quo. The owner class has all game pieces positioned. The fact that Julian Assange
is not only a free man, but still without a Nobel price for peace, while war criminals are recipients, shows just how much the
march into absolute totalitarianism has progressed. Bernays hated the masses and offered his 'services' to manipulate them often
for free.
Even though there are more solutions than problems, the time has come where meaningful participation in the search for such
solution has been made unbearable. It is therefore that a certain fatalism has developed – from resignation to the acceptance
of the status quo as being inevitable. Ancient wisdom has created a proverb that states 'This too, will pass'. While that is a
given, there are still enough Human Beings around that are determined to make a difference. To this group I count the author of
this marvelous, albeit depressing essay. Thank you more that words can express. And thank you, OffGuardian for being one of the
last remaining places where discourse is possible.
Really great post! Thanks. I'm part of the way through reading Alex Carey's book: "Taking the Risk Out of Democracy: Corporate
Propaganda Versus Freedom and Liberty," referenced in this article. I've learned more about the obviously verifiable history of
U.S. corporate propaganda in the first four chapters than I learned gaining a "minor" in history in 1974 (not surprisingly I can
now clearly see). I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in just how pervasive, entrenched and long-standing are the
propaganda systems shaping public perception, thought and behavior in America and the West.
Norcal
Wow Greg Maybury great essay, congratulations. This quote is brilliant, I've never see it before, "For Carey, the following conclusion
was inescapable: 'It is arguable that the success of business propaganda in persuading us, for so long, that we are free from
propaganda is one of the most significant propaganda achievements of the twentieth century.' "
Too, Rodger Ailes was the man credited with educating Nixon up as how to "use" the TV media, and Ailes never looked back as
he manipulated media at will. Thank you!
nondimenticare
That is also one of the basic theses of Harold Pinter's Nobel Prize speech.
vexarb
I read in 'Guns, Germs and Steel' about Homo Sapiens and his domesticated animals. Apparently we got on best in places where we
could find animals that are very like us: sheep, cattle, horses and other herd animals which instinctively follow their Leader.
I think our cousins the chimpanzee are much the same; both species must have inherited this common trait from some pre-chimpanzee
ancestor who had found great survival value in passing on the sheeple trait to their progeny. As have the sheep themselves.
By the way, has anybody observed sheeple behaviour in ants and bees? For instance, quietly following a Leader ant to their
doom, or noisily ganging up to mob a worker bee that the Queen does not like?
I'd say the elites are both for and against. Competing factions.
It's clear that many are interested in overturning democracy, whilst others want to exploit it.
The average grunt on the street is in the fire, regardless of the pan chosen by the elites.
The story goes like this: sometime during the height of the Cold War a group of American
journalists were hosting a visit to the U.S. of some of their Soviet counterparts.
After allowing their visitors some time to soak up the media zeitgeist stateside, most of
the Americans expected their guests to express unbridled envy at the professional liberties
they enjoyed in the Land of the Free Press.
One of the Russian scribes was indeed compelled to express his unabashed 'admiration' to his
hosts in particular, for the "far superior quality" of American "propaganda". Now it's
fair to say his hosts were taken aback by what was at best a backhanded compliment.
After some collegial 'piss-taking' about the stereotypes associated with Western "press
freedom" versus those of the controlled media in the Soviet system, one of the Americans called
on their Russian colleague to explain what he meant. In fractured English, he replied with the
following:
It's very simple. In Soviet Union, we don't believe our propaganda. In America, you
actually believe yours!"
Kit Knightly at OffGuardian has a great commentary on how the Guardian is shaping
its coverage of this Epstein situation, particularly in regard to all us conjecturing
types:
It attests inventiveness and vicious amorality of neoliberals, who now promote the idea that criticizing neoliberalism and removing
Democratic party in the USA and Labor Party in the UK from clutches of Clintonism//Brairism is inherently Anti-Semitic ;-)
Israel lobby wants to extent the anti-Semitism smear to any critique of Israel. which is of course standard dirty trick in witch
hunts like neo-McCarthyism.
Notable quotes:
"... This, of course, is compounded by the over-amplifying of anti-Semitism by the media and the alacrity with which it has been taken up by Corbyn opponents, including hypocrites who floated "rootless cosmopolitan" criticisms of Ed Miliband when it suited just a few years ago. ..."
"... The resolution of the anti-Semitism crisis then is not a matter of compromise -- for each side the issue will only go away with the complete crushing and driving out of the party of the other. ..."
"... A good analysis. But, it emphasizes the point I made in the previous post, which is that, the right are currently engaged in an all out push to remove Corbyn and crush the left with the same old bureaucratic means. Whatever else Williamson may or may not be guilty of, his point that the leadership have facilitated this situation by their continual appeasement of the right is absolutely valid. Its that he is being attacked for, not anti-Semitism. ..."
"... Coming on the day when the FT have a column seriously positing that criticizing capitalism is inherently anti-Semitic, it seems to me that dancing on the head of a pin ..."
"... As many of the comments on your blog on Williamson attest, the salient feature of this - well, call it witch-hunt for the sake of argument - is the double standards where we have to be whiter than white, whilst no account whatsoever is taken of the most egregious racism elsewhere. ..."
"... The other nonsense that has grown up is that it is only those that suffer any form of discrimination who can define what that discrimination is, i.e. only Jews can define anti-Semitism, only black people can define racism against them, only women can define discrimination against women. ..."
"... That then assumes that the members of each of these groups are themselves homogeneous, and agreed in such definitions. In reality, it means that dominant elements, i.e. those connected to the ruling class and ruling ideas get to make those determinations. ..."
"... If we look at anti-Semitism, for example, it is quite clear that there is no agreement amongst Jews on what constitutes anti-Semitism. The JVL, certainly have a different definition than the JLM. ..."
"... Secker wrote a piece in the Morning Star last year comparing claims of anti-Semitism within Labour to the story of the emperor's new clothes. ..."
"... Given that the actual data, even allowing for all of the spurious and mischievous accusations of anti-Semitism in the party, made by right-wing enemies of the the party, and particularly of Corbyn and his supporters, amounts to only 0.1% of the membership, and given that of these, 40% were straight away found to be accusations against people who were not even LP members, with a further 20%, being found to have absolutely no evidence to back them, its quite possible that individual members of the LP, have never seen any instance of it. ..."
"... Take out all those mischievous and malicious allegations made in order to whip up the hysteria, so as to to damage the party, by its enemies, and you arrive at a figure of only 400 potential cases, out of a membership of 600,000, which is 1 member in 1500. ..."
"... In fact, based upon the actual facts, as opposed to the fiction and factional hysteria that is being whipped up by right-wing opponents of Corbyn and the party, and by supporters of Zionism for their own narrow political reasons, the chances are about 14: that you will never see any even potential instance of anti-Semitism, even on the narrow definition that the party has now imposed upon itself, which comes pretty close if not entirely to identifying anti-Semitism with anti-Zionism, or even just criticism of the current Bonapartist regime of Netanyahu. ..."
"... In the US, Jewish groups that have long been ardent defenders of Israel have more recently come out to criticize the regime of Netanyahu, and the actions of the Israeli state. The main defenders of Zionism, besides the actual Zionists themselves, appear to be people like the AWL, who for whatever reason hitched their wagon to Zionist ideology some time ago, ..."
"... Just because the only case of stabbing I have witnessed was more than 50 years ago, does not, and should not lead me to think that knife crime was worse 50 years ago than it is today. The actual data would seem to suggest that cases of anti-Semitism were greater in the LP in previous times than they are currently, contrary to what the media and those with factional motives would have us believe. ..."
"... The apparent level of anti-semitism in Labour is a modern phenomenon turbo-charged and amplified by social media. People have their views reinforced within their bunkers where anti-Israeli memes become anti-Zionist and then become anti-Semitic. It is much easier to send an anonymous email than a letter. ..."
"... I wouldn't trust Lansman on this issue, any more than on many others. Lansman abolished democracy, to the extent it existed to begin with, by turning it into his personal fiefdom, reminiscent of the activities of Hyndman and the SDF. His position on anti-Semitism, and fighting the witch-hunt, and of appeasing the Blair-right's as they attacked Corbyn, has been appalling throughout. ..."
"... Having abolished any democracy in Momentum, which he now runs as its CEO, he also appears to want Corbyn to do the same thing with the Labour Party, abolishing its internal democratic procedures, and putting himself personally in charge of those disciplinary measures ..."
"... Its notable that, yesterday, when the Welsh Labour Grass Roots organisation came out to call for Williamson's suspension to be reversed, Kinnock and other Blair-rights immediately called for an investigation into them, ..."
"... This truly is reaching into the realms of McCarthyism, where you are found guilty not just of witchcraft, but of consorting with witches, or even having an opinion as to whether an individual charged with witchcraft is guilty, or even the extent to which the number of witches amongst might be exaggerated. ..."
"... It's not a factually accurate description of global political realities, because Israel does not control the US, if that is what the image is intended to imply. But, the message, is thereby anti-Israeli state, not anti-Semitic. It could only be considered anti-Semitic, if in fact you are a Zionist and claim that Israel and Jews are are interchangeable terms, which they are not. ..."
"... If we replace Zionism with Toryism, and Jew with British, the situation becomes fairly clear. If the we show the British state as being controlled by Tories, who implement their ideology of Toryism, in what way would criticism of the British state, under the control of such Tories, or criticism of Tories be the equivalent of British people as a whole? ..."
"... The hope of a Two-State Solution disappeared long ago, and was never credible. It simply allows Zionists to proclaim they are in favour of it, whilst doing everything to make it practically impossible, such as extending West Bank Settlements. The solution must flow from a struggle for democratic rights for Israeli Arabs, and for a right for all Arabs in occupied territories to be extended the same rights as any other Israeli, including the right to vote, and send representatives to the Knesset. As I argued thirty years ago, the longer-term solution is a Federal Republic of Israel and Palestine, guaranteeing democratic rights to all, as part of building a wider Federal Republic of MENA. ..."
"... Jim Denham: imperialist lackey and sycophant turned Witch hunter in chief ..."
"... Let us be very clear about what this witch hunt is about, it is about purging from public life any credible and effective opposition to Israel in particular and more generally opposition to the imperialist barbarians of the imperialist core. It is about driving from universities, social media and intellectual life any form of opposition to the interests of the imperialists. ..."
"... A UN report has concluded that Israel deliberately targeted and killed hundreds of protesting civilians, including children and disabled people and it shot 20,000+ people (yes 20,000+!). The UN says this likely a war crime. Why are the noble defenders of the Palestinian cause in the dock and not notorious Palestinian haters like Jim Denham? ..."
"... These attacks on Corbyn and his supporters, repeated in all of the most aggressive imperialist countries, are simply a proxy attack on the Palestinian people themselves. ..."
"... Jim Denham's comment here illustrates the problem entirely. The picture he has linked to shows an alien symbiote having attached itself to the face of the statue of liberty. The statue of liberty here represents the US. The symbiote has on its back the Israeli Flag, and likewise, thereby represents the state of Israel. The picture therefore, represents the well-worn, and clearly factually wrong meme that Israel controls the US. ..."
"... But, as a Zionist organisation, the AWL and its members cannot distinguish between the state of Israel and Jews, so they cannot distinguish between criticism of the state of Israel, and criticism if Jews. For them, as for the Zionist ideology of the state of Israel, which is most clearly manifest in the ideology of its current political leadership, in the form of the Bonapartist regime of Netanyahu, with the recent introduction of blatantly racist laws that discriminate even more openly against not Jewish Israeli citizens, and with his willingness to try to keep his corrupt regime in office by going into coalition with an avowedly Neo-Nazi party that until recent times was considered beyond the pale, even by most Zionists, the term Zionism is synonymous with the term Jew. So, any criticism of Zionism, or of Israel is for them immediately equated with anti-Semitism. ..."
"... Once again Jim Denham reefuses to engage in rational debate, and again resorts instead to his assumption that Israel = Jews, as well as his crude attempts at a typical Stalinist amalgam, to conflate the views of his opponents with some hate figure. ..."
"... Again Jim Denham makes the conflation of Israel and Jews explicit when he says, "This image also plays on the tired and disgraceful antisemitic 'conspiracy theory' trope of undue Israeli (Jewish) influence on world affairs." ..."
"... The way that the right are using anti-Zionism as the equivalent for anti-Semitism, and the appeasement of that attack has led them to widen the scope of that attack. As Labour List reports , right-wing Labour MP Siobhan McDonagh, is now claiming that to be anti-capitalist is also to be "anti-Semitic". The idea was put forward also by former Blair-right spin doctor, John McTernan, who wrote an article in the FT to that same effect ..."
"... As the right-wing extend their witch-hunt against socialists in the LP to claim that Marxists are necessarily misogynist, as well as anti-Semitic – and the same logic presented by McDonagh, McTernon, and Phillips would presumably mean that the Left must also be xenophobic, homophobic, anti- Green, and many other charges they want to throw into the mix – it will be interesting to see whether and to what extent the AWL, join them in that assault, in the same way they have done in their promotion of Zionism. ..."
The problem, however, is because this is overlaid by factional struggle ...
This, of course, is compounded by the over-amplifying of anti-Semitism by the media and the alacrity with which it has been taken
up by Corbyn opponents, including hypocrites who floated "rootless cosmopolitan" criticisms of Ed Miliband when it suited just a
few years ago.
Here's the thing. Just because your opponents take up an issue, some times cynically and in bad faith. and use it to inflict as
much damage as they can does not mean the problem is fictitious.
Precisely because they can point to Facebook groups full of useful fools, and Twitter accounts with Corbyn-supporting hashtags
acting as if the Israel lobby and "Zionists" are the only active force in British politics, this is the stuff that makes the attacks
effective and trashes the standing of the party in the eyes of many Jews and the community's allies and friends.
The institutional anti-Semitism in the Labour Party is, therefore, somewhat different to the kind you find in other institutions.
It is sustained by the battle for the party, a grim battlefront in a zero sum game of entrenched position vs entrenched position.
As such, whatever the leadership do, whatever new processes the General Secretary introduces for one side it will never be enough
because, as far as many of them concerned, the leadership are politically illegitimate; and for the other it's a sop and capitulation.
The resolution of the anti-Semitism crisis then is not a matter of compromise -- for each side the issue will only go away
with the complete crushing and driving out of the party of the other. A situation that can only poison the well further, and
guarantee anti-Semitism won't honestly and comprehensively be confronted.
A good analysis. But, it emphasizes the point I made in the previous post, which is that, the right are currently engaged
in an all out push to remove Corbyn and crush the left with the same old bureaucratic means. Whatever else Williamson may or may
not be guilty of, his point that the leadership have facilitated this situation by their continual appeasement of the right is
absolutely valid. Its that he is being attacked for, not anti-Semitism.
It is first necessary to close ranks, and defeat the assault of the Right. As Marr said to Blair this morning, had Prescott
announced he was forming a separate group, and was establishing his own witch-hunting bureaucratic apparatus in the party, Blair
would have sacked him immediately - actually not so easy as the Deputy is elected. But the thrust is valid. Unless Corbyn deals
with Watson, the Right will roll over the Left, despite the huge disparity in numbers.
Again it comes down to whether Corbyn is up for that task, or whether we need a leadership of the left with a bit more backbone
to see it through.
I'm afraid this IS due to the "intersectionality" cult, whereby certain groups are always privileged and wrong, and some are always
oppressed and right. Jews are, according to this "analysis", the uber-privileged and uber-white.
We've heard several times that according to "intersectionality" that it's impossible to be racist against white people because
racism requires both prejudice and power, and white people are by definition powerful. Therefore, anti-Semitism is dismissed because
it can't be a thing because Jews are all-powerful and even more oppressive than other whites.
Those who don't subscribe to all of these beliefs are nevertheless tinged with them, which is why people who aren't staunch
antisemites will nevertheless fail to take anti-Semitism seriously.
Coming on the day when the FT have a column seriously positing that criticizing capitalism is inherently anti-Semitic, it
seems to me that dancing on the head of a pin about whether the 'careless' anti-Semitism you've described means the party
is institutionally anti-Semitic is rather missing the point. (OK, the column is by John McTernan, but the FT gave him column inches
to argue that case, and I guess they didn't mean it as the satire it most certainly is.)
As many of the comments on your
blog on Williamson attest, the salient feature of this - well, call it witch-hunt for the sake of argument - is the double standards
where we have to be whiter than white, whilst no account whatsoever is taken of the most egregious racism elsewhere. We live
in society: we can never, ever be that whiter than white - especially when it comes to Israel/Palestine, which is so full of contradictions
and traps for the unwary (e.g. the position of the Israeli state claiming to speak for all Jewry around the world, in the way
that the Board of Deputies position themselves as speaking for all British Jews - neither close to being true, but small wonder
that opponents of what they do and stand for take that universality at face value.)
The fight we need to take up is to compare and contrast just how pro-active the current party is against anti-Semitism in its
constitution and machinery with the glaring absence of such elsewhere, and to present a positive picture of what we are doing,
rather than mumbling apologetically into our beards. We need to take the fight to the rigged system at the same time as being
unstinting in rooting out the troubling stuff.
The other nonsense that has grown up is that it is only those that suffer any form of discrimination who can define what that
discrimination is, i.e. only Jews can define anti-Semitism, only black people can define racism against them, only women can define
discrimination against women.
That then assumes that the members of each of these groups are themselves homogeneous, and agreed in such definitions.
In reality, it means that dominant elements, i.e. those connected to the ruling class and ruling ideas get to make those determinations.
If we look at anti-Semitism, for example, it is quite clear that there is no agreement amongst Jews on what constitutes
anti-Semitism. The JVL, certainly have a different definition than the JLM.
But, just rationally, the concept that only those discriminated against get to define the discrimination is bonkers. Suppose
you come from Somalia or some other country that practices FGM, you could argue that it is part of your cultural heritage, and
that anyone seeking to prevent you from undertaking this barbaric practice was thereby racist, on your self-definition of what
that discrimination against you amounts to. Or Saudis might argue that it is racist to argue against their practice of lopping
off women's heads, or stoning them to death for adultery, including having been raped, etc.
The JVL come pretty close to arguing that there is *no* anti-Semitism in the Labour party (Jenny Manson, for instance, says she's
never witnessed any)and Glyn Secker wrote a piece in the Morning Star last year comparing claims of anti-Semitism within Labour
to the story of the emperor's new clothes.
Given that the actual data, even allowing for all of the spurious and mischievous accusations of anti-Semitism in the party,
made by right-wing enemies of the the party, and particularly of Corbyn and his supporters, amounts to only 0.1% of the membership,
and given that of these, 40% were straight away found to be accusations against people who were not even LP members, with a further
20%, being found to have absolutely no evidence to back them, its quite possible that individual members of the LP, have never
seen any instance of it.
Take out all those mischievous and malicious allegations made in order to whip up the hysteria, so as to to damage the
party, by its enemies, and you arrive at a figure of only 400 potential cases, out of a membership of 600,000, which is 1 member
in 1500. If the average branch size if 100 active members, it means on average there is one potential case of anti-Semitism
in every 15 branches. So, if you are a member in any of the other 14 branches, you would never see that one potential case of
anti-Semitism.
In fact, based upon the actual facts, as opposed to the fiction and factional hysteria that is being whipped up by right-wing
opponents of Corbyn and the party, and by supporters of Zionism for their own narrow political reasons, the chances are about
14: that you will never see any even potential instance of anti-Semitism, even on the narrow definition that the party has now
imposed upon itself, which comes pretty close if not entirely to identifying anti-Semitism with anti-Zionism, or even just criticism
of the current Bonapartist regime of Netanyahu.
In the US, Jewish groups that have long been ardent defenders of Israel have more recently come out to criticize the regime
of Netanyahu, and the actions of the Israeli state. The main defenders of Zionism, besides the actual Zionists themselves, appear
to be people like the AWL, who for whatever reason hitched their wagon to Zionist ideology some time ago, probably in their
usual knee-jerk reaction of putting a plus sign wherever the SWP put a minus. Having done so, and as a result of the bureaucratic
centrist nature of the sect, they find themselves now having to follow through on the position they adopted on the basis of the
"practical politics" - opportunism - as it dictated itself to them at the time.
If, and probably more likely when, they change position, it will come as with all their previous changes of position with the
assertion that "nothing has changed", as when after claiming a few years ago that the LP was a stinking corpse - as they ridiculously
stood their own candidates in elections with the inevitable result - and the next minute proclaimed themselves as its most ardent
militants, as they sought to use their sharp elbows to gain positions on Momentum's leading bodies!
Incidentally, on the question of "observance", the only time I have seen someone get stabbed, is more than 50 years ago, when
I was at school. I've seen plenty of other violent stuff in the intervening period, for example, people getting glassed, people
having wrought iron tables smashed over their heads. My sister, who is several years older than me, and was out bopping during
the days of the Teddy Boys, saw more people getting slashed, in the 1950's, because the flick knife was the Ted's favoured weapon.
But, that doesn't mean that I disbelieve the media when it talks about the current spate of knife crimes. Its just that, however,
terrible such crimes are for those that suffer or witness them, and no matter how much the media that has to sensationalise every
story, for its own commercial purposes, talks about an epidemic or a knife crime crisis, the number of knife crimes per head of
population is extremely small.
The chances that 999 out of 1,000 of us will never be the victim of, or witness knife crime does not mean it doesn't exist.
But, those that then claim that the 999 out of 1,000 of us who say we have not seen it, must be somehow being dishonest, are not
dealing with the facts, and are simply fuelling a moral panic.
When some phenomena is statistically insignificant, which 1 in 1,500 cases, is, and when as with many such phenomena there
is no normal distribution of the occurrence of such cases - for example, knife crime will tend to be concentrated in particular
areas - trying to present any kind of rational analysis based upon personal observation is a mug's game.
Just because the only case of stabbing I have witnessed was more than 50 years ago, does not, and should not lead me to
think that knife crime was worse 50 years ago than it is today. The actual data would seem to suggest that cases of anti-Semitism
were greater in the LP in previous times than they are currently, contrary to what the media and those with factional motives
would have us believe. It is certainly thec ase that anti-Semitism is a bigger problem in the Tory party, and other right-wing
organisations than it is in the LP, again not that you would know that from the reporting of it, or from the attitude of certain
factional sects, such as the AWL.
Labour has 'much larger' group of antisemitic members which Corbyn has failed to deal with, Momentum founder warns
By Rob Merrick Deputy Political Editor The Independent, Monday 25 February 2019 16:10 |
Labour has "a much larger" group of antisemitic members than it recognises which Jeremy Corbyn has failed to "deal with", Momentum
founder Jon Lansman has warned.
The Labour leader's long-standing ally said "conspiracy theorists" had infiltrated the party – a consequence of its huge surge
in membership in recent years.
Mr Lansman stopped short of backing the call from Tom Watson, Labour's deputy leader, for Mr Corbyn to take personal charge
of the antisemitism complaints dogging Labour.
But he said: "I do think we have a major problem and it always seems to me that we underestimate the scale of it. I think it
is a widespread problem.
"I think it is now obvious that we have a much larger number of people with hardcore antisemitic opinions which, unfortunately,
is polluting the atmosphere in a lot of constituency parties and in particular online. We have to deal with these people."
The apparent level of anti-semitism in Labour is a modern phenomenon turbo-charged and amplified by social media. People
have their views reinforced within their bunkers where anti-Israeli memes become anti-Zionist and then become anti-Semitic. It
is much easier to send an anonymous email than a letter.
History is very much the tale of new technology transforming the potential of human behaviour and beliefs, and one of the oldest
beliefs ("the blood libel") is anti-Semitism.
This is how Labour has changed - ie, the rise of Corbyn has coincided with the ubiquity of this technology. In fact, arguably
the rise of Corbyn was aided by it.
Corbyn's nuanced position on Israel/Palestine gives permission to social media extremists.
The rest is history.
Incidentally, this is why you are less likely to confront anti-Semitism in real-life while the internet may be awash with it
- there are the real and virtual identities which only occasionally bleed into each other.
Which is true and which is not? We might wonder if technology has evolved ahead of human adaptation - the "real world" filters
that govern apparently "real" behaviour missing.
I'm sure even certain posters here are less bananas in "real life" than their online comments might suggest!
I wouldn't trust Lansman on this issue, any more than on many others. Lansman abolished democracy, to the extent it existed
to begin with, by turning it into his personal fiefdom, reminiscent of the activities of Hyndman and the SDF. His position on
anti-Semitism, and fighting the witch-hunt, and of appeasing the Blair-right's as they attacked Corbyn, has been appalling throughout.
Having abolished any democracy in Momentum, which he now runs as its CEO, he also appears to want Corbyn to do the same thing
with the Labour Party, abolishing its internal democratic procedures, and putting himself personally in charge of those disciplinary
measures. That truly would be the actions of a Bonapartist. That Tom Watson is prepared to do that, as he sets himself up in a
situation of dual power, to confront Corbyn is no surprise that anyone who even remotely considers themselves a part of the Left
should support should a move is a disgrace. Perhaps no surprise that the AWL supporters of Zionism, and the witch-hunt, appear
to be doing so, then.
Its notable that, yesterday, when the Welsh Labour Grass Roots organisation came out to call for Williamson's suspension to
be reversed, Kinnock and other Blair-rights immediately called for an investigation into them, and for its Secretary who sits
on Labour's NEC to also be suspended, for interfering in an ongoing investigation! So, why did those same Blair-rights not call
for the suspension of Watson, who immediately demanded Williamson's suspension, and withdrawal of the whip, before any investigation,
or indeed of Hodge and others who on a daily basis go to the media to sally forth about cases that are under investigation, or
waiting for investigation.
This truly is reaching into the realms of McCarthyism, where you are found guilty not just of witchcraft, but of consorting
with witches, or even having an opinion as to whether an individual charged with witchcraft is guilty, or even the extent to which
the number of witches amongst might be exaggerated.
Jim Denham's comment is a case in point. How much more "anti-Semitism" exists? What is the factual basis of the statement,
as opposed to click bait headline. Even if the actual extent is 100% more than the data so far presented, that would mean that
potentially 1 in 750 LP members might be guilty of some form of anti-Semitism. Its hardly an epidemic, or institutional anti-Semitism,
and far less than exists in the Tory Party, which is also infected by Islamaphobia, misogyny, homophobia and xenophobia.
In fact, its probably much less than you would find in the BBC, Sky or other establishment institutions. Anti-Semitism exists,
and is a problem, but that does not mean it is not being used by Labour's enemies or the proponents of Zionism for their own political
ends. The real conspiracy theorists are those that try to present anti-Semitism as a conspiracy based upon infiltration of the
LP, the same people who presented the support for Corbyn from 300,000 new members as really just being a case of far left entryism,
by Trots.
This is a meme, taken from Incog Man, a far-right site. It was posted with positive endorsement by a Labour member, Kayla Bibby,
a delegate to conference in fact:
Bibby subsequently received only a formal warning, with Thomas Gardiner of Labour's Governance and Legal Unit (what used to
be the Compliance Unit), saying it was only anti-Israel, and not anti-Semitic.
Not only could a Labour member post something obviously anti-Semitic, it was not deemed to be so by the Compliance Unit. I
bet we all know people who would agree.
It's not a factually accurate description of global political realities, because Israel does not control the US, if that is
what the image is intended to imply. But, the message, is thereby anti-Israeli state, not anti-Semitic. It could only be considered
anti-Semitic, if in fact you are a Zionist and claim that Israel and Jews are are interchangeable terms, which they are not.
In fact, there are probably not an inconsiderable number of Jews, who think that the state of Israel does exercise undue influence
over US policy, and certainly it seems to be the case that, in the US, more liberal Jewish groups, seem to think that one reason
that the Bonapartist regime of Netanyahu, in Israel, was so supportive of Trump, and we see the same support for Trump amongst
Zionists in Britain, is at least in part due to the fact that Obama had been distancing the US from its historical uncritical
support for Israel.
If we replace Zionism with Toryism, and Jew with British, the situation becomes fairly clear. If the we show the British
state as being controlled by Tories, who implement their ideology of Toryism, in what way would criticism of the British state,
under the control of such Tories, or criticism of Tories be the equivalent of British people as a whole?
Clearly it wouldn't, because there are a majority of British people who oppose Toryism, and thereby oppose the actions of the
British state under the control of the Tories. A nationalist, or racist might want to equate the nation state with the whole of
its people, but the people who are doing that here, by interpreting criticism of the Israeli state with anti-Semitism, are the
Zionists themselves, and their apologists, because they seek thereby to delegitimize any criticism of the state of Israel and
Zionism by equating it with anti-Semitism.
That in effect makes the Zionists themselves, and their apologists anti-Semites, because in adopting this equation of Jewishness
with being Zionist, and with Israel, they make all Jews thereby responsible for the actions of Zionism and of the state of Israel!
The problem for the AWL, and its members like Jim Denham, on this issue comes down to this. Until thirty years ago, the organisation,
under its previous names, was an ardent defender of the ideas and traditions of Jim Cannon. Cannon's "The Struggle for a Proletarian
Party" was required reading for all of its members. Then, in an about face, the organisation overnight collapsed into what Trotsky
called "the petit-bourgeois Third Camp", and so became ardent defenders of the enemies of Cannon, the petit-bourgeois Third Camp
of Burnham- Shachtman. That kind of wild zig-zag is typical of bureaucratic-centrist organisations, which is what the AWL is.
As part of this collapse into the petit-bourgeois Third Camp, and the moralistic politics it is based upon, the AWL also adopted
the ideas of Third Campists like Al Glotzer, in relation to Israel and Zionism, as opposed to the position of Mandel, which represented
a continuation of the ideas of Cannon and Trotsky. I set this out in a short blog post 12 years ago
Glotzer and the Jews as Special
, after the AWL had repeatedly censored it appearing on their website in response to an article setting out Glotzer's position.
Having committed themselves to the reactionary Zionist ideology that essentially underpins Glotzer's stance - the same thing
idea of having lost faith in the working-class, and so having to rely on the bourgeois state, or "progressive imperialism" to
accomplish the tasks of the working-class, is behind the AWL's support for NATo's war against Serbia, Iraq, Libya etc., but is
also behind the politics of other Third Campists such as the SWP, that instead look to other larger forces, such as reactionary
"anti-imperialist" states to carry forward its moral agenda - the AWL are left now trying to defend their position of support
for the creation of a racist, expansionist state in Israel, as the inevitable consequences of that venture unfold.
For a Marxist, it is not at all difficult to say that the establishment of the state of Israel is one that we should not have
supported at the time, because it would lead to the kind of consequences we see today, and yet, to say, 75 years on from the creation
of that state, it is an established fact, and trying to unwind history, by calling for the destruction of that state would have
even more calamitous consequences for the global working-class. It is quite easy for a Marx to say that the current nature of
the Israeli state, as a racist Zionist state, based, like almost no other state in the world on a confessional basis, i.e. of
being a Jewish state, a state for Jews in preference to every other ethnic/religious group flows from the ideology, and nature
of its creation. But, then to argue that the answer to that is not a destruction of the state of Israel, which could only be done
on the bones of millions of Israeli citizens, Jews and Arabs alike, but is to wage a working-class based struggle against that
racist foundation upon which the state has been founded, and that struggle is one that must unite Jews and Arabs alike. In fact,
the position of palestinians today is a mirror image of that of the Jews 75 years ago.
The hope of a Two-State Solution disappeared long ago, and was never credible. It simply allows Zionists to proclaim they are
in favour of it, whilst doing everything to make it practically impossible, such as extending West Bank Settlements. The solution
must flow from a struggle for democratic rights for Israeli Arabs, and for a right for all Arabs in occupied territories to be
extended the same rights as any other Israeli, including the right to vote, and send representatives to the Knesset. As I argued
thirty years ago, the longer-term solution is a Federal Republic of Israel and Palestine, guaranteeing democratic rights to all,
as part of building a wider Federal Republic of MENA.
Jim Denham: imperialist lackey and sycophant turned Witch hunter in chief
Let us be very clear about what this witch hunt is about, it is about purging from public life any credible and effective
opposition to Israel in particular and more generally opposition to the imperialist barbarians of the imperialist core. It is
about driving from universities, social media and intellectual life any form of opposition to the interests of the imperialists.
This is nothing but authoritarianism in action, censorship of political opponents and the closing down of any credible definition
of free speech.
In other words this is something any leftist worth half an atom would be fighting against with all their energies.
But what do we find, pathetic pro war pro imperialists leftists and post modern liberals joining the witch hunt.
Meanwhile in the real world:
A UN report has concluded that Israel deliberately targeted and killed hundreds of protesting civilians, including children
and disabled people and it shot 20,000+ people (yes 20,000+!). The UN says this likely a war crime. Why are the noble defenders
of the Palestinian cause in the dock and not notorious Palestinian haters like Jim Denham?
How can anyone on the left get away with supporting and providing ideological cover for Israel How can any leftist allow a
socialist movement to be sabotaged by the Israel state and its army of appalling immoral apologists?
These attacks on Corbyn and his supporters, repeated in all of the most aggressive imperialist countries, are simply a
proxy attack on the Palestinian people themselves.
Jim Denham's comment here illustrates the problem entirely. The picture he has linked to shows an alien symbiote having attached
itself to the face of the statue of liberty. The statue of liberty here represents the US. The symbiote has on its back the Israeli
Flag, and likewise, thereby represents the state of Israel. The picture therefore, represents the well-worn, and clearly factually
wrong meme that Israel controls the US.
But, as a Zionist organisation, the AWL and its members cannot distinguish between the state of Israel and Jews, so they
cannot distinguish between criticism of the state of Israel, and criticism if Jews. For them, as for the Zionist ideology of the
state of Israel, which is most clearly manifest in the ideology of its current political leadership, in the form of the Bonapartist
regime of Netanyahu, with the recent introduction of blatantly racist laws that discriminate even more openly against not Jewish
Israeli citizens, and with his willingness to try to keep his corrupt regime in office by going into coalition with an avowedly
Neo-Nazi party that until recent times was considered beyond the pale, even by most Zionists, the term Zionism is synonymous with
the term Jew. So, any criticism of Zionism, or of Israel is for them immediately equated with anti-Semitism.
It is what leads such Zionists to then also insist on their right to determine who is a Jew or not. The AWL do that with all
those Jews, such as the JVL, who refuse to accept the AWL's definition of anti-Zionism = Anti-Semitism. Its like the old saw that
the definition of a Scot is someone who wears a kilt, and when asked about Jock McTavish, from Arbroath, who does not wear a kilt,
the reply comes back, then he cannot really be a Scot!
The Zionists insists on defining anti-Zionism as anti-Semitism, and thereby closing down debate. Jim Denham does that most
clearly here, in his refusal to debate the actual substantive points. It is typical of the attitude of the AWL, in general which
long since gave up trying to defend its bourgeois liberal, opportunist politics by rational debate, and instead turned to bureaucratic
censorship, and ill-tempered invective.
Once again Jim Denham reefuses to engage in rational debate, and again resorts instead to his assumption that Israel = Jews,
as well as his crude attempts at a typical Stalinist amalgam, to conflate the views of his opponents with some hate figure.
Again Jim Denham makes the conflation of Israel and Jews explicit when he says, "This image also plays on the tired and
disgraceful antisemitic 'conspiracy theory' trope of undue Israeli (Jewish) influence on world affairs."
The conflation of equating Israel with the term Jew flows directly from the Zionist ideology that underpins the Israeli State,
but which also adopted by the AWL, and its members like Jim Denham. It thereby effectively denies statehood to non-Jewish Israeli
citizens, making them non-persons, erasing them from history, in the same way that Jim Denham has sought to do in diminishing
if not entirely denying the genocides against other ethnic groups such as Native North Americans, Australian and New Zealand aboriginals
etc., as a result of his Zionist privileging of the specific genocide against Jews in the Holocaust.
It is the same kind of racism, of course, that is applied by the BNP and other white nationalists, who seek to portray Britain
as being a nation for white Britons, and thereby deny other Britons the right to consider themselves really British. Every socialist,
can understand the racist nature of that ideology when it is applied to Britain, and elsewhere, but the AWL, and its members,
like Jim Denham, deny it when it is applied to Israel, which they want to treat as being different to every other state on the
planet, in defence of their Zionist ideology that privileges Israeli Jews over others, and by extension equates the term Jew with
the term Israel.
Its most extreme version comes with the fascists that Netanyahu has now gone into alliance with, whose ideology states that
God only put gentiels on the Earth to be slaves and serve the needs of Jews, as the chosen people! It means that they see the
place of non-Jewish Israelis in those terms, as being allowed to remain in Israel only on that subservient basis. This is the
ideology that the AWL is now logically tied to, in having adopted Zionism as the answer to the problems of Jewish workers rather
than socialism.
And, of course, the extension of that principle for other Zionists is illustrated in their support for fascists like Orban
in Hungary, who wants to adopt a similar nationalist ideology of keeping Hungary, and other "white" European nations exclusively
for "whites", in the same way that Zionists want to keep Israel exclusively for Jews.
It is a sorry state when socialists have degenerated to such an extent that not only do they fail to distinguish between nationalist
ideology and socialist ideology by adopting nationalist solutions to workers problems such as "nationalisation", by the capitalist
state, but where, in adopting such reactionary nationalist ideology, the logic of their position drives them to supporting the
idea that nation states should be exclusively for particular ethnic groups, such as Israel for the Jews, Hungary for white Christians
and so on.
The way that the right are using anti-Zionism as the equivalent for anti-Semitism, and the appeasement of that attack has
led them to widen the scope of that attack. As
Labour
List reports , right-wing Labour MP Siobhan McDonagh, is now claiming that to be anti-capitalist is also to be "anti-Semitic".
The idea was put forward also by former Blair-right spin doctor, John McTernan,
who wrote an article in the FT to that
same effect
Channelling Jim Denham, McTernan writes,
"As the historian Deborah Lipstadt points out, anti-Semitic tropes share three elements: money or finance is always in the
mix; an acknowledged cleverness that is also seen as conniving; and, power -- particularly a power to manipulate more powerful
entities.
All of these feature in the criticism of Israel and the so-called Israel lobby. They can be easily moulded into a critique
of capitalism, too."
The line of argument was illustrated to me some weeks ago, in a comment I received in relation to an article I wrote about
Marx's analysis of fictitious capital,
as part of my critique of Paul Mason's Postcapitalism . The commenter, argued that Marx's analysis of fictitious capital appeared
to be simply Marx blaming bankers and money lenders, for which read Jews, for the world's ills, and was thereby simply an expression
of the well-known fact that Marx was a self-hating Jew, much as the AWL, describe all those other Jews that do not share their
commitment to |Zionism. The commenter as evidence of this provided a link to a literary critique of Marx's
On The Jewish Question
, which is cited as proving that Marx was an anti-semite.
In fact, I pointed out that in nothing that Marx had written about fictitious capital, or what I had written describing Marx's
analysis of fictitious capital are bankers discussed, let alone Jewish bankers. The anonymous commenter, has, in fact, since deleted
their comments, meaning that my responses to them were also deleted.
But, this is the way this right-wing witch-hunt proceeds, by throwing a net to catch whatever they can trawl in, and at the very
least sowing the seeds of doubt as they require those being attacked to respond to their wild accusations. It means that any statement
can be framed to mean that there is some subtext beneath the actual words and pictures that is somehow anti-Semitic, if only you
know the relevant coda to unlock the true meaning, and anyone who doubts the meaning being placed upon it, is thereby a defender
of the anti-Semitic message. As with the attacks on Momentum, and the initial surge of membership supporting Corbyn, it is always
phrased in dark conspiratorial language, about unseen forces being behind what is seen on the surface. So, we were supposed to
believe that a few hundred Trots in Britain somehow morphed into 300,000 new LP members! But, Momentum now having shown that it
is a tame part of the establishment, is even able to recruit McTernan himself as a member.
The appeasement as with all witch-hunts only provokes the witch-hunters to widen the scope of their activities. The AWL, which
was at the forefront of helping the witch-hunters with their shameful support for the witch-hunting of Jackie Walker, was repaid
by having their own members expelled too, and having right-wing Labour MP's appear on TV, to characterise the AWL themselves as
"anti-Semites", despite their well-known Zionist politics. Yet, oddly, the AWL seem to consider that a price worth paying, as
their advocacy of Zionism seems to trump any other consideration for them in their politics.
It didn't take long for my comment of yesterday to be proved correct. Today we learn that Jess Phillips has claimed that Marxism
is necessarily misogynist, because it places class oppression above all else, and so now claims that as well as the Left in the
party being anti-Semitic, it is also misogynist. The attack of the Right, as I said yesterday will spread ever wider on this irrational
basis, using all of the usual conspiratorial language that such witch-hunts have always adopted. Rather like a Dan Brown novel,
it will imply that there are dark (Marxist) forces at work, of which Corbyn is the head of the coven (or even worse that some
unseen Dark Overlord is really standing behind Corbyn, who is only its representative on Earth (i.e. in the LP).
It will suggest that these dark forces do not speak openly, but only in codes and symbols that have to be unlocked by the forces
of Light, who like Jim Denham, can look into the minds of men and women, and see what is really going inside.
I actually found that despite the anonymous Zionist commenter to my article on Medium having deleted their comments, my replies
to them, were in fact still floating around
here
,
here , and
here .
As the right-wing extend their witch-hunt against socialists in the LP to claim that Marxists are necessarily misogynist,
as well as anti-Semitic – and the same logic presented by McDonagh, McTernon, and Phillips would presumably mean that the Left
must also be xenophobic, homophobic, anti- Green, and many other charges they want to throw into the mix – it will be interesting
to see whether and to what extent the AWL, join them in that assault, in the same way they have done in their promotion of Zionism.
Grandpa Putin Loses Another Bet
TrueStory Gazette, Aug. 2019
Several anonymous, unverified, and possibly non-existent sources announced today that they
know, might know, or could possibly have heard from unknown others, who they suspect might
know or could have reasonably speculated that Vladimir Putin lost a bet he made with his
2-year old grandson, Vladimir, Jr.
We caught up with the young Putin as he emerged from his daycare school in central Moscow.
"Yes, he said, it is true. Grandpa lost the bet we made last week. We wagered about how long
Western media could cling to even a microcosm of credibility. Grandpa said it would last
until the end of this year, but I bet him that it would be gone much sooner than that."
Two-year old Putin, who is an avid reader of Moon of Alabama, said that when he woke up
this morning he read the latest article. He said, "I just rubbed Grandpa's face into that
article. He shrieked. He was so embarrassed. He had to admit that western media's credibility
is already totally kaput, not even a shred of credibility left, zero."
"Now Grandpa is the laughing stock of my daycare center. One of my classmates, who is
four, said 'how could your Grandpa be so dumb. Even a two-year old could see that western
media's credibility is in the dumpster. Your Grandpa is such a loser!'"
The young Putin, who stands only up to our reporter's waist, said that he is studying
English but still struggles with difficult words like "history." But he is not shy. When
asked what was the prevailing political view at his childcare center, he looked our reporter
in the eye, raised both fists, and loudly proclaimed, "All of us kids agree that U.S. Empire
is a hysterectomy!"
We asked Vladimir, Jr. about the stakes of his bet, what did he win? He said, "Grandpa
said I could have a place called Camp Pendleton in California to make a playground for kids
but I will have to wait a little while until he acquires it. I'm going to make it a
playground for Russian and American kids and we also will invite all of the kids from Central
America and Mexico."
Asked if he knew that Camp Pendleton was a U.S. military base, he replied, "I don't know
what it is now, but it's going to be a great playground for kids." And he added, "Look Pal,
my Grandpa loses lots of times. He loses his keys and his wallet and every bet he ever made
with me. But one thing about Grandpa, he ALWAYS KEEPS HIS PROMISES!"
Much of that crap appears to be Projection.
Putin's Polices Destroying Russian Farmers will probably be next since as you'll learn
once you click that it's the exact opposite. It looks quite possible that the opening up of
ag lands in Russia's Far East will see China cease its imports of soybeans from the Western
Hemisphere as it's already done so in response to Trump's Trade War. As the article notes:
"Net farm income in America has plunged by nearly half over the last five years from
$123.4 billion in 2013 to $63 billion last year. It plummeted by 16 percent last year
alone."
And with China's market closed, the result this year will be even worse. And it's all
Putin's fault!
And to make matters worse, Putin has weaponized the Outlaw US Empire's budget deficit,
forcing it to spend "more than twice as fast as tax collections" and now stands at $867
Billion through "the first 10 months of the budget year." (No link, from Business section
of today's newspaper.) IMO, that will be headlined as: Putin Loses Control Over Russia's
Budget as Deficit Skyrockets!
It's this one most of us are hopeful of reading soon:
Yes, we're in rich psychological terrain. Aberrant terrain, to the extent such things
can be extrapolated to system behavior.
It's a psychological projection. The Full Spectrum Dominance crowd feels their quest
receding into permanent incompletion. So they wishfully project their sense of loss onto
the opponent. Wanting everything, dominance perceives alternate visions as being nothing
less than obstinate escapees. Who knew they were in a figmentary prison in the first place?
Competing visions, through no real fault of their own, become weapon pointed at this
totalizing vision. Heck, they're not even competing. They're just living.
Dominance's blind spot is that it never stops to ask if others want to be dominated.
This makes it structurally myopic and prone to self-deception.
The same psychology is found in the sanctioning impulse. "In order to preserve our sense
of omnipotence, we hereby subtract you from the game board." But pariah nations, while
perhaps vanishing psychologically to the offended party ('you're dead to me now') don't
vanish in any existential sense. They re-gather under different umbrellas: SCO, OBOR, AIIB,
etc.
Too many subtractions and the subtractees acquire a critical mass all their own.
Subtraction adds up. There is an opportunity here to exploit the Empire's irrational
denialism -via the rational accumulation of estranged and heretofore 'banished'
interests.
One day, the lesser critical mass will achieve parity, then dominance or perhaps simply
multipolarity. Before that day, a ruinous world war could happen first. This latter
decision has already been taken since pre-kinetic versions of WW3 are popping up everywhere
at once as though instigated by some spanning Hidden Hand.
Putin is the Emmanuel Goldstein of the Neoliberal World Order, every bad decision, every
mistake, every failure, especially the ones that were obviously flawed from the start, are
the results of that dastardly Putin. It's amazing how in the Empire of the Lies, a
competent political leader of a sovereign country is becoming a Lex Luthor like
supervillain mastermind.
It's almost romantic that these Western elites spend so much time high up in their ivory
towers surrounded by the wastelands of their own making, clutching their pearls, thinking
about Putin and wondering how he will get to them.
We should note that Obama was the first to announce Putin would fail in Syria when the
Russians came to help out the Assad government against the US backed Takfaris. The results
of Russian support were quite spectacular. Of course, the war is still going on but there
is no question that Russia saved the Syrian state. Can anyone mention a single military
victory that the US has achieved since what? Grenada under Reagan and Bush I against Panama
?? Other than those two "victories" the US has lost every war it has engaged in since the
end of WWII.
It gets confusing, but that is the point of all this.
We should be scared of our hero, tragic anti-hero, uber villain and rolemodel.
Not just Russians under the bed, but THE Russian under the bed.
Or so many a lady (or not, as the case may be) might wish or be fearful of or both...
(In other news: Epstein dead? Highly unlikely, ever so doubtful, I do side with Aangirfan
on this)
I especially like how Putin lost in Crimea. One of his best losses, in my opinion.
Also, Masha and the Bear , Russia's
ultimate weapon in the war for the minds of the Western youth, continues its march across
the globe: the "Маша
плюс каша" episode is at 4.08 billion
views ( 4th most-viewed video on
YouTube ) and growing fast, set to overtake Wiz Khalifa's "See You Again" (4.20
billion) and Ed Sheeran's "Shape of You" (4.35 billion) in the coming weeks.
@Bemildred #10: What a great piece by Patrick Armstrong. Very logical and rational. Perfect
for deprogramming people brainwashed by the Mockingbird Media.
How much more do the lobotomized American Sheeple (generally not represented in this forum)
need to realize that the mainstream "news" media are the propaganda arms of the western
(Anglo-Zionist) power structure?
"Let us be clear here. It is the United States who has broken its word and treaties
consistently. We said we wouldn't move NATO up to Russia's borders and then we did. We
unilaterally walked away from the ABM treaty, we unilaterally walked away from the Iran
nuclear deal, we unilaterally walked away from the INF treaty and we will almost certainly
walk away from the nuclear test ban treaty. We always allege violations from the other side
but never provide any proof of said violations. The United States has invaded Afghanistan,
Iraq, Libya, and Syria - so far without consequences. The United States has fomented coups
in Ukraine (twice), Georgia, probably in Brazil, Venezuela (twice) - again, without
consequences. And people wonder why I gag when I listen to Pompous pontificate that Iran
needs to start acting like a normal nation."
Posted by: Jeff | Aug 13 2019 17:03 utc | 43
Clear, concise, and right on target. Should be on a handbill, and passed out to the
general public. Thanks Jeff!!
Breaking News : Putin has a private army now. How devilish. CNN is definitely a bunch of
clowns, that makes you laugh everytime they talk. Enjoy this one:
Wow!! Those suckers at the BBC manage NOT to mention Maxwell or Prince Andrew (ok... they are
mentioned in some of the links they give, but come one!!) https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49306032
Look out for the bad reviews from The Fraudian's writers: Luke Harding can be relied on to
add his 2 cents' worth of conspiracy paranoid garbage, Shaun Walker will be parsing the book
for dill references and non-Russia experts like Marina Hyde and Natalie Nougat-head will want
a crack as well at reviewing the book.
Probably the only half-decent reviews will be from Mary Dejevski and Prof. Stephen Cohen
but theirs will be buried in a back page or inaccessible behind an Error 404 wall.
This mission is too important for me to allow you to jeopardise it
6 (UK) Division is the new organisational home for the Army's "asymmetric edge",
comprising all things "Intelligence, Counter-Intelligence, Information Operations, Electronic
Warfare, Cyber and Unconventional Warfare".
Launched this morning, 6 Div is a rebranding of the formation formerly known as Force
Troops Command, which covered a hotchpotch of Royal Signals, Intelligence Corps and other
units, including the infamous 77 Brigade
####
Don't forget to hit the comments for hilarity!
Also, the timing of the announcement says plenty, i.e. slipping it in to the news stream
when people have already gone on holiday and all the BREXIT and other bollocks. I've not seen
this reported on the tv in the UK – which is currently facing severe flooding etc.
Is it just me or is all the PPNN reporting that 'Putin's support has dropped to levels
not seen since 2011!'. Of course they don't actually give you any numbers and cherry pick
dodgy poll numbers but there really is this Pavlovian reaction anytime there is a
demonstration in Russia, like undertakers gathering at an allegedly dangerous road crossing
waiting for some cyclist to be dragged under a trash lorry so that they can tut tut and then
profit from the cyclist's misfortune. Nix that, the PPNN are just professional versions of
MacBeth's witches, something which they don't understand is a story .
Putin is in as much danger of being unceremoniously chucked out of office as he is of choking
to death on his grandmother's knitting. The west is ever hopeful, and dutifully rallies to
the glorification of every new dissident firebrand, but whether or not they know it, they are
just going through the motions. The only group, and I mean the only one, that would benefit
from Putin's overthrow would be the disaffected kreakliy and the poncy forgotten
semi-intellectuals. They would be feted by the west as political visionaries, and perhaps
given minor government positions to satisfy their vanity. But who else would make out like a
bandit? The military? Hardly – the west, after years of giggling about Russia's
decrepit military, lapsed into an uneasy silence on the subject just about the time that
long-distance Kalibr cruise-missile attack took place from the Caspian Sea into Syria, and a
west given meddling-room would want to disband the Russian military, if anything, down to a
token force of absolutely-trustworthy sycophants who would probably be issued with American
weapons. The oligarchs? Hardly – western business would be snapping up former state
assets while simultaneously carrying out an 'anti-corruption drive' under the new President's
imprimatur. Small businesses? Hardly – corporate interest would be in melding large
state interests into the Corporate Borg, and their method is to squeeze out small business in
order to expand market share. The people? Hardly – Russia would be a convenient place
to move all the refugee immigrants from that entire hemisphere, while the stubborn loyalty of
the population to Putin would not be forgotten.
It is no coincidence that it is always the same people who show up to bitch and carp about
how dreadful Putin is, and how Russia needs American-style freedom and democracy and non-stop
Pride parades and all the trappings of fresh admission to Club West. They are the only people
who would stand to benefit from driving Putin out. Nobody else is interested.
They're just trying to get some mileage out of Olga what's-her-name, and make it look like a
drop in Putin's poll numbers happened exactly at the moment this young political firebrand
emerged. Pretty sad, really, but you can't tell 'em, and it wouldn't make any difference.
They have to try, it's the same instinct that makes a dog lick its nose if you smear cheese
on it. The western media would rush to interview and endorse a talking Russian toad if it
said "I hate Putin".
"... it turned out that the very people who were up in arms about "fake news" were the ones propagating their own version of it. WikiLeaks did much to expose their game by publicizing the key role played by the Legacy Media in acting as an extension of the Clinton campaign. However, the real unmasking came after the November election, when the rage of the liberal elites became so manifest that "reporters" who would normally be loath to reveal their politics came out of the closet, so to speak, and started telling us that the old journalistic standard of objectivity no longer applied. The election of Trump, they averred, meant that the old standards must be abandoned and a new, and openly partisan bias must take its place. In honor of this new credo, the Washington Post has adopted a new slogan: " Democracy dies in darkness "! ..."
"... Rep. Gabbard's "crime" was to challenge the US-funded effort to overthrow the regime of Syrian strongman Bashar al-Assad as contrary to our interests and the prospects for peace in the region. For that she has been demonized in the media – and, not coincidentally, the very same media that is now an instrument in the hands of our "intelligence community." For ..."
"... And of course it's not just the Washington Post : the entire "mainstream" media is now colluding with the "intelligence community" in an effort to discredit and derail any efforts at a rapprochement with Russia. We haven't seen this kind of hysteria since the frigid winter of the cold war. ..."
"... My longtime readers will not be shocked by any of this: during the run up to the Iraq war, the media was chock full of fake news about Saddam Hussein's fabled weapons of mass destruction, which all the "experts" told us were certainly there and ready to rain death and destruction at any minute. Who can forget the series of articles by Judith Miller that adorned the front page of the New York Times – which were merely Bush administration talking points reiterated by Donald Rumsfeld & Co. on the Sunday talk shows? Miller has now become synonymous with the very concept of fake news – and yet how quickly we forget the lesson we should have learned from that shameful episode in the history of American journalism . ..."
"... Blinded by partisan bias, all too willing to be used as an instrument of the Deep State -- and determined to "control exactly what people think," which is, as Mika Brzezinski put it the other day, " our job " – the English-speaking media has become increasingly unreliable. This has become a big problem for us here at Antiwar.com: we now have to check and re-check everything that they report as fact. Not that we didn't do that anyway, but the difference is that, these days, we have to be more careful than ever before linking to it, or citing it as factual. ..."
"... The day of the "alternative media" has passed. We are simply part of the media, period: the increasingly tiny portion of it that doesn't fall for war propaganda, that doesn't have a partisan agenda, and that harkens back to the "old" journalistic standards of yesteryear – objective reporting of facts. That doesn't mean we don't have opinions, or an agenda – far from it! However, we base those opinions on what, to the best of our ability, we can discern as the facts. ..."
"... And we have a pretty good record in this regard. Back when everyone who was anyone was telling us that those "weapons of mass destruction" were lurking in the Iraqi shadows, we said it was nonsense – and we were right. As the "experts" said that war with Iraq would "solve" the problem of terrorism and bring enlightenment to the Middle East, we said the war would usher in the reign of chaos – and we were right. We warned that NATO expansion would trigger an unnecessary conflict with Russia, and we were proved right about that, too. The Kosovo war was hailed as a "humanitarian" act – and we rightly predicted it would come back to haunt us in the form of a gangster state riven by conflict. ..."
"... There's one way in which we are significantly different from the rest of the media – we depend on our readers for the financial support we need to keep going. The Washington Post has Jeff Bezos, one of the wealthiest men in the world – not to mention a multi-million dollar contract with the "intelligence community." The New York Times has Carlos Slim, another billionaire with seemingly bottomless pockets. We, on the other hand, just have you. ..."
We're not the alternative media – we're the best media you've got!
Posted on
August 06, 2019 August 4, 2019The more things change, the more they stay the same: the
sun comes up in the morning; another Hitler arises in the fantasies of the foreign-policy
establishment; and Josh Rogin writes
another column attacking Tusli Gabbard, the most pro-peace candidate in the Democratic
lineup. Justin blasted Rogin the first time he tried this, back in February of 2017, proving
that the whole story was "fake news". We think it's important to revisit Justin's analysis of
the media-enhanced demand for war. As Justin notes, the only real alternative to this, the only
real "alternative media," are sites like Antiwar. com and WikiLeaks.
If we look at the phrase itself, it seems to mean the media that presents itself as the
alternative to what we call the "corporate media," i.e. the New York Times , the
Washington Post , your local rag – in short, the Legacy Media that predominated in
those bygone days before the Internet. And yet this whole arrangement seems outdated, to say
the least. The Internet has long since been colonized by the corporate giants: BuzzFeed, for
example, is regularly fed huge dollops of cash from its corporate owners. And the Legacy Media
has adapted to the primacy of online media, however reluctantly and ineptly. So the alternative
media isn't defined by how they deliver the news, but rather by 1) what they judge to be news,
and 2) how they report it.
And that's the problem.
There's been much talk of "fake news," a concept first defined by the "mainstream" media
types as an insidious scheme by the Russians and/or supporters of Donald Trump to deny Hillary
Clinton her rightful place in the Oval Office. Or it was
Macedonian teenagers out to fool us into giving them clicks. Or something. Facebook and
Google announced a campaign to eliminate this Dire Threat, and the mandarins of the
"mainstream" reared up in righteous anger, lecturing us that journalistic standards were being
traduced.
Yet it turned out that the very people who were up in arms about "fake news" were the ones propagating
their own version of it.
WikiLeaks did much to expose their game by publicizing the
key role played by the Legacy Media in acting as an
extension of the Clinton campaign. However, the real unmasking came after the November
election, when the rage of the liberal elites became so manifest that "reporters" who would
normally be loath to reveal their politics came out of the closet, so to speak, and started
telling us that the old journalistic standard of objectivity no longer applied. The election of
Trump, they averred, meant that the old standards must be abandoned and a new, and openly
partisan bias
must take its place. In honor of this new credo, the Washington Post has adopted a new slogan:
"
Democracy dies in darkness "!
This from the newspaper that ran a front page story citing the anonymous trolls at
PropOrNot.com as credible sources for an account of alleged
"Russian agents of influence" in the media – a story that slimed Matt Drudge and
Antiwar.com, among others.
This from the newspaper that regularly publishes "news" accounts citing anonymous
"intelligence officials" claiming the Trump administration is rife with Russian "agents."
This from the newspaper that published
a piece by foreign affairs columnist Josh Rogin that falsely claimed Rep. Tulsi Gabbard's
trip to Syria was funded by a group that is "nonexistent" and strongly implied she was in the
pay of the Syrian government or some other foreign entity. Well after the smear circulated far
and wide, the paper posted the following correction:
" An earlier version of this op-ed misspelled the name of AACCESS Ohio and incorrectly
stated that the organization no longer exists. AACCESS Ohio is an independent non-profit
organization that is a member of the ACCESS National Network of Arab American Community
organizations but is currently on probation due to inactivity. The op-ed also incorrectly
stated that Bassam Khawam is Syrian American. He is Lebanese American. This version has been
corrected."
Rep. Gabbard's "crime" was to challenge the US-funded effort to overthrow the regime of
Syrian strongman Bashar al-Assad as contrary to our interests and the prospects for peace in
the region. For that she has been demonized in the media – and, not coincidentally, the
very same media that is now an instrument in the hands of our "intelligence community." For it
is these spooks who, for years, have been canoodling with the Saudis in an effort to rid the
region of the last secular obstacle to the Sunni-ization of the Middle East. That they have
Tulsi Gabbard in their sights is no surprise.
And of course it's not just the Washington Post : the entire "mainstream" media is
now colluding with the "intelligence community" in an effort to discredit and derail any
efforts at a rapprochement with Russia. We haven't seen this kind of hysteria since the frigid
winter of the cold war.
My longtime readers will not be shocked by any of this: during the run up to the Iraq war,
the media was chock full of fake news about Saddam Hussein's fabled weapons of mass
destruction, which all the "experts" told us were certainly there and ready to rain death and
destruction at any minute. Who can forget the series of articles by Judith Miller that adorned
the front page of the New York Times – which were merely Bush administration
talking points reiterated by Donald Rumsfeld & Co. on the Sunday talk shows? Miller has now
become synonymous with the very concept of fake news – and yet how quickly we forget the
lesson we should have learned from that shameful episode in the history of American
journalism.
So fake news is nothing new, nor is the concept of the "mainstream" media as a megaphone for
war propaganda. What's different today is that many are waking up to this fact – and
turning to the "alternative." I've been struck by this rising phenomenon over the past year or
so: Matt Drudge gave Antiwar.com a permanent link. Our audience has increased by many
thousands. And I've been getting a steady stream of interview requests. I was quite pleased to
read the following in
a recent piece in The Nation about the media's fit of Russophobia and the key role
played by the journalist I. F. Stone during the 1950s:
"To conclude where I began, think for a moment about I.F. Stone during his haunted 1950s.
While he was well-regarded by a lot of rank-and-file reporters, few would say so openly. He was
PNG [persona non grata] among people such as [ New York Times publisher Arthur]
Sulzberger – an outcast .
"Now think about now.
"A few reporters and commentators advise us that the name of the game these days is to
sink the single most constructive policy the Trump administration has announced. The rest is
subterfuge, rubbish. This isprima faciethe case, though you can read it nowhere
in theTimesor any of the other corporate media. A few have asserted that we may
now be witnessing a coup operation against the Trump White House. This is a possibility, in my
view. We cannot flick it off the table. With the utmost purpose, I post
here one of
these pieces. "A Win for the Deep State" came out just after Flynn was forced from office. It
is by a writer named Justin Raimondo and appeared in a wholly out-of-bounds web publication
called Antiwar.com. I know nothing about either, but it is a thought-provoking piece."
Well, we aren't quite "wholly out of bounds," except in certain circles, but all in all this
is a great compliment – and it's illustrative of author Patrick Lawrence's point, which
is that
"We, readers and viewers, must discriminate among all that is put before us so as to make
the best judgments we can and, not least, protect our minds. The other side of the coin, what
we customarily call 'alternative media,' assumes an important responsibility. They must get
done, as best they can, what better-endowed media now shirk. To put this simply and briefly,
they and we must learn that they are not 'alternative' to anything. In the end there is no such
thing as 'alternative media,' as I often argue. There are only media, and most of ours have
turned irretrievably bad."
We here at Antiwar.com take our responsibility to you, our readers and supporters, very
seriously. We're working day and night, 24/7, to separate fact from fiction, knee-jerk
"analysis" from intelligent critique, partisan bullshit from truth. And we've had to work much
harder lately because the profession of journalism has fallen on hard times.
Blinded by partisan bias, all too willing to be used as an instrument of the Deep State --
and determined to "control exactly what people think," which is, as Mika Brzezinski put it the
other day, " our job " – the
English-speaking media has become increasingly unreliable. This has become a big problem for us
here at Antiwar.com: we now have to check and re-check everything that they report as
fact. Not that we didn't do that anyway, but the difference is that, these days, we have to be
more careful than ever before linking to it, or citing it as factual.
The day of the "alternative media" has passed. We are simply part of the media, period: the
increasingly tiny portion of it that doesn't fall for war propaganda, that doesn't have a
partisan agenda, and that harkens back to the "old" journalistic standards of yesteryear
– objective reporting of facts. That doesn't mean we don't have opinions, or an agenda
– far from it! However, we base those opinions on what, to the best of our ability, we
can discern as the facts.
And we have a pretty good record in this regard. Back when everyone who was anyone was
telling us that those "weapons of mass destruction" were lurking in the Iraqi shadows, we said
it was nonsense – and we were right. As the "experts" said that war with Iraq would
"solve" the problem of terrorism and bring enlightenment to the Middle East, we said the war
would usher in the reign of chaos – and we were right. We warned that NATO expansion
would trigger an unnecessary conflict with Russia, and we were proved right about that, too.
The Kosovo war was hailed as a "humanitarian" act – and we rightly predicted it would
come back to haunt us in the form of a gangster state riven by conflict.
I could spend several paragraphs boasting about how right we were, but you get the idea. Our
record is a good one. And we intend to make it even better. But we can't do it – we
can't do our job – without your help.
There's one way in which we are significantly different from the rest of the media
– we depend on our readers for the financial support we need to keep going. The
Washington Post has Jeff Bezos, one of the wealthiest men in the world – not to
mention a multi-million
dollar contract with the "intelligence community." The New York Times has Carlos
Slim, another billionaire with seemingly bottomless pockets. We, on the other hand, just have
you.
Okay, I'll cut to the chase: we've come to a crucial point in our current fundraising
campaign, and now it's make it or break it time for Antiwar.com.
A group of our most generous supporters has pledged $40,000 in matching funds – but
that pledge is strictly conditional . What this means is that we must match that
amount in the short time left in our campaign in order to get the entire $40,000.
Barr now has goods to jail major conspirators for life. It is unlikely happened but we can hope.
Notable quotes:
"... "Turns out it was Britain that was the foreign country interfering in American affairs," former MP George Galloway told RT, speaking about the new revelations published by the Guardian about early British involvement in the 'Russiagate' investigation. ..."
"... The Guardian reported on texts between former deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe and Jeremy Fleming, his then counterpart at MI5, who now heads GCHQ. The two men met in 2016 to discuss "our strange situation" – an apparent reference to Russia's alleged interference in US domestic politics. ..."
"... British intelligence "appears to have played a key role in the early stages," the report said. ..."
"... Galloway said the revelation was not surprising because people "already knew" that British intelligence had played a part in the Russia-related investigations in the US. He recalled that it was former British spy Christopher Steele who drew up the now-infamous Steele dossier, which made multiple unverifiable and salacious claims about Trump and has since been largely discredited. Britain is "up to its neck in the whole Russiagate affair," he said. ..."
"... Asked what the UK stood to gain by trying to implicate Russia in a US election scandal at a time when then-foreign secretary Boris Johnson was dismissing baseless claims of Russian interference in the Brexit campaign, Galloway noted that Johnson's comments on Russia have appeared to strangely sway between friendly and antagonistic. ..."
"... In June 2016, the FBI opened a covert investigation codenamed 'Crossfire Hurricane' into Trump's now disproven collusion with Moscow, which was later taken over by special counsel Robert Mueller. ..."
While hysteria raged about possible Russian "interference" in the 2016 US election, British
intelligence officials were secretly playing a "key role" in helping instigate investigations
into Donald Trump, secret texts have shown. "Turns out it was Britain that was the foreign
country interfering in American affairs," former MP George Galloway told RT, speaking about
the new revelations published by the Guardian about early British involvement in the
'Russiagate' investigation.
The Guardian reported on texts between former deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe and Jeremy
Fleming, his then counterpart at MI5, who now heads GCHQ. The two men met in 2016 to discuss
"our strange situation" – an apparent reference to Russia's alleged interference
in US domestic politics.
British intelligence "appears to have played a key role in the early stages," the
report said.
Galloway said the revelation was not surprising because people "already knew" that
British intelligence had played a part in the Russia-related investigations in the US. He
recalled that it was former British spy Christopher Steele who drew up the now-infamous Steele
dossier, which made multiple unverifiable and salacious claims about Trump and has since been
largely discredited. Britain is "up to its neck in the whole Russiagate affair," he
said.
The texts also reveal that the Brexit vote was viewed by some in the FBI as something that
had been influenced by Russia.
Asked what the UK stood to gain by trying to implicate Russia in a US election scandal at a
time when then-foreign secretary Boris Johnson was dismissing baseless claims of Russian
interference in the Brexit campaign, Galloway noted that Johnson's comments on Russia have
appeared to strangely sway between friendly and antagonistic.
Johnson is like "a sofa that bears the impression of the last person to sit upon
him," the former MP quipped. What happens next will depend on who is leading the tango,
"the orange man in Washington or the blonde mop-head in London."
In June 2016, the FBI opened a covert investigation codenamed 'Crossfire Hurricane' into
Trump's now disproven collusion with Moscow, which was later taken over by special counsel
Robert Mueller.
Ultimately, the two-year-long probe that followed came up short, producing no evidence to prove a conspiracy or collusion
between Trump campaign officials and Russia
"... The ruling exposes the illegality of the conspiracy by the US government, backed by the governments of Britain, Ecuador, Australia and Sweden and the entire corporate media and political establishment, to extradite Assange to the US, where he faces 175 years in federal prison on charges including espionage. ..."
"... The dismissal of the civil suit exposes massive unreported conflicts of interest and prosecutorial misconduct and criminal abuse of process by those involved. The criminal prosecution of Assange has nothing to do with facts and is instead aimed at punishing him for telling the truth about the war crimes committed by US imperialism and its allies. ..."
"... The judge labeled WikiLeaks an "international news organization" and said Assange is a "publisher," exposing the liars in the corporate press who declare that Assange is not subject to free speech protections. Judge Koeltl continued: "In New York Times Co. v. United States ..."
"... New York Times Co. v. United States ..."
"... The DNC's baseless complaint cited the New York Times ..."
"... New York Times ..."
"... Everyone seems to forget one thing.. Assange knows who gave Assange the DNC data. At some point you have to entertain the idea that eventually he'll play that card. ..."
"... The DNC never allowed a REAL cyber-inspection of it's servers, did they? They also never said the information contained in the supposedly 'stolen' E-Mails was "WRONG" or "INACCURATE", have they? It says volumes.... Occam's Razor points to disgruntled DNC employee Seth Rich using a large capacity flash drive to download the E-Mails, etc which he then passed to someone who got it to Wikileaks. For which he was killed!! ..."
"... No. they never did. Also, if you examine Mueller's BS indictments, the domain they claim was used to phish for Podesta's password (and others) was registered on the same day or perhaps the day before they unsealed the indictment. It's a total fabrication, start to finish! ..."
"... That's just one example of many. The Malware they allegedly 'discovered' (by a Ukranian owned security company Crowdstrike) was not Russian, it was Ukrainian and been floating around the internet for years prior to this alleged non-existent 'hack'.. The whole thing has more holes than proverbial swiss ..."
"... For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations ..."
"... Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match ..."
"... It is beyond astonishing that Democrats and the media have successfully shifted 99% of the public's attention AWAY FROM the actual content of what information was stolen from top ranking Democrats, especially the Hillary for President Campaign. ..."
"... beaglebailey > michiganderforfreedom ..."
"... ironically surely an equally damning 'leak' came from the DNCs own ex-Chair Donna Brazille in her self-serving 'memoir' Hacks ... in it she revealed Obama left DNC $24m in debt and Hillary Clinton then bailed it out and effectively bought the entire apparatus as her personal plaything. When that is understood all the 'corruption' about rigging the primaries against Sanders wasn't rigging at all, after all he was standing on Clinton's private property at the time. Blair and Brown dutifully followed the same NSA playbook and left Labour broke, presumably so Blair's 'charity' could then step in to buy it... but Corbyn then balanced the books in 6 months of his taking over ..."
"... The corporate media, having already gone to great lengths to convict Assange of such in the court of public opinion, would like to see that "conviction" stand. ..."
"... "The DNC's published internal communications allowed the American electorate to look behind the curtain of one of the two major political parties in the United States during a presidential election." That's precisely the kind of "problem" the bourgeoisie will no longer tolerate. ..."
"... Reporting the truth “undermined and distorted the DNC's ability to communicate the party's values and visions to the American electorate.” ..."
"... They're sick and tired of basic democratic rights almost as much as they're sick and tired of the working class ..."
In a ruling published late Tuesday, Judge John Koeltl of the US District Court for the
Southern District of New York delivered a devastating blow to the US-led conspiracy against
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.
In his ruling, Judge Koeltl, a Bill Clinton nominee and former assistant special prosecutor
for the Watergate Special Prosecution Force, dismissed "with prejudice" a civil lawsuit filed
in April 2018 by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) alleging WikiLeaks was civilly liable
for conspiring with the Russian government to steal DNC emails and data and leak them to the
public.
Jennifer Robinson, a leading lawyer for Assange, and other WikiLeaks attorneys welcomed the
ruling as "an important win for free speech."
The decision exposes the Democratic Party in a conspiracy of its own to attack free speech
and cover up the crimes of US imperialism and the corrupt activities of the two parties of Wall
Street. Judge Koeltl stated:
If WikiLeaks could be held liable for publishing documents concerning the DNC's political
financial and voter-engagement strategies simply because the DNC labels them 'secret' and
trade secrets, then so could any newspaper or other media outlet. But that would
impermissibly elevate a purely private privacy interest to override the First Amendment
interest in the publication of matters of the highest public concern. The DNC's published
internal communications allowed the American electorate to look behind the curtain of one of
the two major political parties in the United States during a presidential election. This
type of information is plainly of the type entitled to the strongest protection that the
First Amendment offers.
The ruling exposes the illegality of the conspiracy by the US government, backed by the
governments of Britain, Ecuador, Australia and Sweden and the entire corporate media and
political establishment, to extradite Assange to the US, where he faces 175 years in federal
prison on charges including espionage.
The plaintiff in the civil case -- the Democratic Party -- has also served as Assange's
chief prosecutor within the state apparatus for over a decade. During the Obama administration,
Democratic Party Justice Department officials, as well as career Democratic holdovers under the
Trump administration, prepared the criminal case against him.
The dismissal of the civil suit exposes massive unreported conflicts of interest and
prosecutorial misconduct and criminal abuse of process by those involved. The criminal
prosecution of Assange has nothing to do with facts and is instead aimed at punishing him for
telling the truth about the war crimes committed by US imperialism and its allies.
The judge labeled WikiLeaks an "international news organization" and said Assange is a
"publisher," exposing the liars in the corporate press who declare that Assange is not subject
to free speech protections. Judge Koeltl continued: "In New York Times Co. v. United
States , the landmark 'Pentagon Papers' case, the Supreme Court upheld the press's right
to publish information of public concern obtained from documents stolen by a third
party."
As a legal matter, by granting WikiLeaks' motion to dismiss, the court ruled that the DNC
had not put forward a "factually plausible" claim. At the motion to dismiss stage, a judge is
required to accept all the facts alleged by the plaintiff as true. Here, the judge ruled that
even if all the facts alleged by the DNC were true, no fact-finder could "draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged."
Going a step further, the judge called the DNC's arguments "threadbare," adding: "At no
point does the DNC allege any facts" showing that Assange or WikiLeaks "participated in the
theft of the DNC's information."
Judge Koeltl said the DNC's argument that Assange and WikiLeaks "conspired with the Russian
Federation to steal and disseminate the DNC's materials" is "entirely divorced from the facts."
The judge further ruled that the court "is not required to accept conclusory allegations
asserted as facts."
The judge further dismantled the DNC's argument that WikiLeaks is guilty-by-association with
Russia, calling the alleged connection between Assange and the Russian government "irrelevant,"
because "a person is entitled to publish stolen documents that the publisher requested from a
source so long as the publisher did not participate in the theft."
Judge Koeltl also rejected the DNC's claim "that WikiLeaks can be held liable for the theft
as an after-the-fact coconspirator of the stolen documents." Calling this argument
"unpersuasive," the judge wrote that it would "eviscerate" constitutional protections: "Such a
rule would render any journalist who publishes an article based on stolen information a
coconspirator in the theft."
In its April 2018 complaint, the DNC put forward a series of claims that have now been
exposed as brazen lies, including that Assange, Trump and Russia "undermined and distorted the
DNC's ability to communicate the party's values and visions to the American electorate."
The complaint also alleged: "Russian intelligence services then disseminated the stolen,
confidential materials through GRU Operative #1, as well as WikiLeaks and Assange, who were
actively supported by the Trump Campaign and Trump Associates as they released and disclosed
the information to the American public at a time and in a manner that served their common
goals."
At the time the DNC filed its complaint, the New York Times wrote that the document
relies on "publicly-known facts" as well as "information that has been disclosed in news
reports and subsequent court proceedings." The lawsuit "comes amid a swirl of intensifying
scrutiny of Mr. Trump, his associates and their interactions with Russia," the Times
wrote.
It is deeply ironic that Judge Koeltl cited the Pentagon Papers case, New York Times Co.
v. United States , in his ruling.
The DNC's baseless complaint cited the New York Times eight times as "proof" of
Assange and WikiLeaks' ties to Russia, including articles by Times reporters Andrew
Kramer, Michael Gordon, Niraj Chokshi, Sharon LaFraniere, K.K. Rebecca Lai, Eric Lichtblau,
Noah Weiland, Alicia Parlapiano and Ashley Parker, as well as a July 26, 2016 article by
Charlie Savage titled "Assange, avowed foe of Clinton, timed email release for Democratic
Convention."
The first of these articles was published just weeks after the New York Times hired
James Bennet as its editorial page editor in March 2016. James Bennet's brother, Michael
Bennet, is a presidential candidate, a senator from Colorado and former chair of the DNC's
Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. In 2018, Bennet signed a letter to Vice President
Mike Pence noting he was "extremely concerned" that Ecuador had not canceled asylum for
Assange, who was then trapped in the Ecuadorian embassy in London.
"It is imperative," the letter read, "that you raise US concerns with [Ecuadorian] President
[Lenin] Moreno about Ecuador's continued support for Mr. Assange at a time when WikiLeaks
continues its efforts to undermine democratic processes globally."
In April 2019, after the Trump administration announced charges against Assange, the New
York Times editorial board, under James Bennet's direction, wrote: "The administration has
begun well by charging Mr. Assange with an indisputable crime." Two weeks later, Michael Bennet
announced his presidential run and has since enjoyed favorable coverage in the Times
editorial page.
Additionally, the father of James and Michael Bennet, Douglas Bennet, headed the CIA-linked
United States Agency for International Development in the late 1970s and early 1980s.
On Wednesday, the Times published a brief, six-paragraph article on page 25 under
the headline, "DNC lawsuit against election is dismissed." In its online edition, the
Times prominently featured a link to its special page for the Mueller Report, which is
based on the same DNC-instigated threadbare lies that Judge Koeltl kicked out of federal court
LC • 9 hours ago
Everyone seems to forget one thing.. Assange knows who gave Assange the DNC data. At some point you have to entertain
the idea that eventually he'll play that card.
Liberalism Has Failed • 2 days ago
The DNC never allowed a REAL cyber-inspection of it's servers, did they? They also never said the information
contained in the supposedly 'stolen' E-Mails was "WRONG" or "INACCURATE", have they? It says volumes.... Occam's Razor points
to disgruntled DNC employee Seth Rich using a large capacity flash drive to download the E-Mails, etc which he then passed to
someone who got it to Wikileaks. For which he was killed!!
LC > Liberalism Has Failed • 9 hours ago
No. they never did. Also, if you examine Mueller's BS indictments, the domain they claim was used to phish for
Podesta's password (and others) was registered on the same day or perhaps the day before they unsealed the indictment. It's a
total fabrication, start to finish!
That's just one example of many. The Malware they allegedly 'discovered' (by a Ukranian owned security company
Crowdstrike) was not Russian, it was Ukrainian and been floating around the internet for years prior to this alleged
non-existent 'hack'.. The whole thing has more holes than proverbial swiss
Tradairn > SFWhite • a day ago
Then why does the US keep interfering in other countries' political processes? You've become the schoolyard bully of the
world.
SFWhite > Tradairn • 18 hours ago
Quoting from JFK's speech archived in the JFK Library:
THE PRESIDENT AND THE PRESS: ADDRESS BEFORE THE AMERICAN NEWSPAPER PUBLISHERS ASSOCIATION, APRIL 27, 1961
https://www.jfklibrary.org/...
If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat conditions, then I can only say
that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of "clear and present danger," then I
can only say that the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent.
It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions--by the government, by the people, by every
businessman or labor leader, and by every newspaper.
***For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for
expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation
instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and
material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic,
intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.
Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not
praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a
war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.***
michiganderforfreedom • 2 days ago
It is beyond astonishing that Democrats and the media have successfully shifted 99% of the public's attention AWAY
FROM the actual content of what information was stolen from top ranking Democrats, especially the Hillary for President
Campaign.
Had the actual Content of what had been stolen was simply meeting schedules, work shift assignments, lawn sign purchase
orders and speech notes, NONE of this scandal would have happened!!
But, the CONTENT of what was stolen revealed the upper echelon of Democrat Party leadership to be nothing but lying,
conniving, cheating, law-breaking dirty politicians who are hell-bent on bringing down the American Federation at any cost.
If the actual Content had been cookie recipes and wedding plans, we would not have been put though this traumatic national
wringer!!
beaglebailey > michiganderforfreedom • 7 hours ago
This was the reason Hillary's campaign came up with the idea to blame it on Russia. This kept people from focusing on
their content and it worked. To this day Hillary's supporters think that her rigging the primary is a conspiracy theory. And
it's why they believe that Russia interfered with the election. How sad to see people who saw through the Saddam had WMDs
have fallen for the new WMDs scam.
Charlotte Ruse • 4 days ago
"The decision exposes the Democratic Party in a conspiracy of its own to attack free speech and cover up the crimes of US
imperialism and the corrupt activities of the two parties of Wall Street."
One should never forget that the corrupt political duopoly is controlled by the military/security/surveillance/corporate
state. Assange, published documents revealing to millions that the US committed war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan, murdered
innocent civilians, and slaughtered two Reuter Reporters.
Revealing atrocities is BAD MARKETING for the military industry which for decades has been robbing the US Treasury blind.
Assange's documents threatens the "official narrative" spread by the state-run mainstream news convincing the public to
passively accept the plundering of the US Treasury to enhance the wealth of a small cabal of war profiteer gangsters.
In other words, Assange is being attacked by the US Government because he revealed that a big CON GAME is being perpetuated
against the American public by the security state.
Dennis Stein > Charlotte Ruse • 3 days ago
“We’ll Know Our Disinformation Program Is Complete When Everything the American Public Believes Is False”
—CIA Director William Casey at an early February 1981 meeting of newly elected President Reagan.
Adrian • 4 days ago
Great news on Assange... but ironically surely an equally damning 'leak' came from the DNCs own ex-Chair Donna
Brazille in her self-serving 'memoir' Hacks ... in it she revealed Obama left DNC $24m in debt and Hillary Clinton then
bailed it out and effectively bought the entire apparatus as her personal plaything. When that is understood all the
'corruption' about rigging the primaries against Sanders wasn't rigging at all, after all he was standing on Clinton's
private property at the time. Blair and Brown dutifully followed the same NSA playbook and left Labour broke, presumably so
Blair's 'charity' could then step in to buy it... but Corbyn then balanced the books in 6 months of his taking over
Ed Bergonzi • 5 days ago
This is good news. But now the advantage is with Trump. What will the Democrats do if Trump presses for extradition
claiming "national security" concerns, i.e., Assange's exposure of US war crimes. I think their present silence regarding
Judge Koeltl's decision speaks volumes.
Greg • 5 days ago • edited
"Going a step further, the judge called the DNC’s arguments “threadbare,” adding: “At no point does the DNC allege any
facts” showing that Assange or WikiLeaks “participated in the theft of the DNC’s information.”
The corporate media, having already gone to great lengths to convict Assange of such in the court of public opinion,
would like to see that "conviction" stand.
"On Wednesday, the Times published a brief, six-paragraph article on page 25..."
Greg • 5 days ago • edited
"The DNC's published internal communications allowed the American electorate to look behind the curtain of one of
the two major political parties in the United States during a presidential election." That's precisely the kind of
"problem" the bourgeoisie will no longer tolerate.
Reporting the truth “undermined and distorted the DNC's ability to communicate the party's values and visions to the
American electorate.”
They're sick and tired of basic democratic rights almost as much as they're sick and tired of the working class.
They practically come out and say it: "There was no attempt by other reporters to pursue the matter, and Conway then began to
rant about Trump's reasons for targeting the four congresswomen, saying, “He's tired, a lot of us are sick and tired of this
country—of America coming last, to people who swore an oath of office.”
I used to think the Guardian couldn't sink any further into hypocrisy but
it has :
The internal emails, released after a freedom of information request by the Palestinian
Solidarity Campaign, revealed the council attempted to assess the Big Ride website
according to the rubric of the controversial IHRA definition .
A few months back the Guardian was pushing for various organisations, including
the British Labour Party, to adopt the IHRA definition to combat so-called anti-semitism.
I
don't remember it suggesting then that the IHRA definition was controversial then.
According to spokesman Hogan Gidley, the new sanctions are being imposed because of the
last round of sanctions. In the previous sanctions the US demanded Russia offer them
assurances that they'd stop poisoning people.
Russia never made any such assurances, since they denied poisoning Skripal in the first
place. But not admitting guilt and offering the US promises, the US felt the need to impose
another round of sanctions, which are probably going to set the stage for more future
sanctions for the same reason.
Officials claim Russia is "required" to offer the US assurances about poisonings under US
law, and the White House insists these new sanctions prove that President Trump is harder on
Russia than anyone else has ever been at any time.
While he was at Berkeley, David Brock contributed an op-ed to The Wall Street Journal
entitled "Combating Those Campus Marxists". It drew the attention of John Podhoretz, who at
the time was the editor of Insight, a weekly newsmagazine published by The Washington
Times.
Podhoretz flew Brock to Washington, D.C., for an interview and hired him as a writer of
the weekly conservative news magazine Insight on the News, a sister publication of The
Washington Times After working at Insight, Brock spent some time as a fellow at The
Heritage Foundation.
Brock was formerly the domestic partner of William Grey; Fox News reported that their
relationship ended in a bitter, three-year-long legal battle in which "Brock and Grey
traded angry accusations, replete with charges of blackmail, theft and financial
malfeasance"
Brock's claim that the Clintons have never committed any wrongdoing has received
criticisms from many who have cited instances of abuse
Does the New York Times Have an Editing Program that Automatically Puts "Free" Before
"Trade?"
By Dean Baker
Readers must be wondering because it happens so frequently in contexts where it is clearly
inappropriate. The latest example is in an article * about the state of the race for the
Democratic presidential nomination following the second round of debates.
The piece told readers:
"After a few candidates used the Detroit debate to demand that Mr. Biden account for Mr.
Obama's record on issues such as deportations and free trade, Mr. Biden was joined by some of
the former president's advisers, who chastised the critics for committing political
malpractice."
The word "free" in this context adds nothing and is in fact wrong. The Obama
administration did virtually nothing to promote free trade in highly paid professional
services, like physicians services, which would have reduced inequality. It only wanted to
reduce barriers that protected less educated workers, like barriers to trade in manufactured
goods.
And, it actively worked to increase patent and copyright protections, which are the
complete opposite of free trade. These protections also have the effect of increasing
inequality.
Given the reality of trade policy under President Obama it is difficult to understand why
the New York Times felt the need to modify "trade" with the adjective "free." Maybe it needs
to get this editing program fixed.
Who gives a monkeys? The real issue is that the selfish, disorientated and cowardly way the
Dems are conducting this race is handing Trump a winning platform for 2020.
After long hard thinking I have come to the sad conclusion that Trump is right and that he is
indeed a genius. He has achieved what he had set out to do. He has polarised the standard
bearer for democracy in the world. He has enriched himself and his family. He has broken
American society, possibly irreversibly. He has brought about change in the worlds economies.
He has also managed to set the debate and the stage to win in 2020. Now some may say he has
been an awful president, but looking at his strategy he has been highly successful. He may
not be what we want but he has certainly been better at feeling the pulse of America and
deciding which medicine to give. A truly evil genius indeed.
Sanders and Warren are the only two with some kind of personality. The others look like they
were created by lobbyists and corporate donors in a lab on a computer like Kelly Lebrock from
Weird Science.
The point about taxes going up is a red herring and a straw man argument. If you get
insurance through your employer, you pay anywhere from $300/month to $1200/month for yourself
and family. Through a Medicare for all plan, that payment would disappear. Yes, you'd pay
more in taxes to cover your health insurance, but it would likely be lower than private
insurance, a net gain, with better coverage, no deductible or co-pays. Even if it was the
same, it's still a wash. You're eliminating an expense for a tax. Plus, you're not paying for
some executive's perks and exorbitant salary.
Personally, I'd feel better paying $50,000-$75,000/year to a government administrator than
$10M-$20M/year + perks to a CEO.
Obama was simply being honest there. By any standard, Obama, both Clinton's, Gore (except for
climate change) and Biden are at best moderate Republicans. Each would qualify as being to
the right of Richard Nixon (leaving aside the issue of integrity).
In the case of Bill Clinton, Americans had not got woken to the fact that, while a little
less by Democrats, the middle class was nontheless being screwed by both parties. Obama's
rhetoric was enough cover to fool the public into thinking he would fight for real change.
Both Gore and especially Hillary showed what the public now thinks of "moderates". Bernie
Sanders and/or Elizabeth Warren are the only chances to beat Trump in 2020.
Reparations for slavery, the elimination of private insurance, free health care for anyone
who overstays a visa or walks over from Mexico, and a crystal lady.
We are in trouble. My nightmare of a Trump re-election is more and more likely.
Warren and Sanders clearly demonstrated that a party wanting to win should nominate one of
them.
They enthralled the audience, and showed they possess a vision for the future that every
other Democratic candidate claims to eventually want, when there's time, maybe, perhaps if
they get a majority someday.
Clearly Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren were the clear winners of the night! They shamed
the listless other candidates, none of whom exhibited a similar energy, excitement &
vision for the future of the country. Despite a definite veneer of displeasure by your
account, both the audience at the event, and those watching at home felt the excitement of
progressive proposals won the day.
When Sanders declared he's in favor of free healthcare and free education for illegal
immigrants there was -at best - muted criticism from the other candidates.
Most Americans are likely outraged by this suggestion and this will play in Trump's
favor.
It's obvious that John Delaney is simply a plant by Big Business (which has both the centrist
Democrats and all of Republicans in its pocket) to troll and derail the candidacy of
progressives Sanders and Warren. His sole function is to throw a monkey wrench in their path
and be a "nattering nabob of negativism" (to quote Agnew) regarding their policies. That's
all he does all day and all night, and the centrist-loving moderators and journalists love
giving him infinite time to do his damage
The answer is obvious: if you want your best shot at 86-ing the orange pestilence, then it
has to be Warren/Sanders or Sanders/Warren. You're not supposed to signal your vice-president
until after you've got the nomination, I know, but surely having Trump as president has
shredded all previous norms? Go now, right now, and say that it'll be you two. You can even
keep it open and say that you don't know who'll head the ticket but it will be Warren and
Sanders. That would crush all opposition and keep churning interesting as a guessing game.
Maybe Warren should head the ticket. I know that Sanders is very sharp and he plays
basketball but if he was president then he'd be asking for a second term and to get sworn in
when he's 83 and being in one's eighties might be too much of a psychological barrier. My
suggestion, though, would be it's Sanders/Warren but on the promise that Sanders will step
aside during his first term, after two years and one day (meaning that Warren could serve out
the rest of the term and still then run for two more terms under her own steam).
That would guarantee the first female president and so quieten down the phoney-baloney
identity politics drones; better, it would mean that the US would get an excellent leader in
Elizabeth Warren, no matter her bodily organs; it would pull together the Crooked H.
adherents and get them on side, if they truly care about getting female in there and if it
doesn't it will expose them as the phonies they are. And it would keep matters on policy,
when Trump is weak, rather than personalities, which is the territory on which Trump wants to
fight.
Delaney is not a moderate, he is a poorly paid actor for the ruling class. He had a miserable
debate performance, like his peers in the second tier set of candidates. That any of the
press is attempting to rehabilitate his performance is a sign of extreme bias, not an
accurate portrayal of the car crash that transpired last night for his campaign.
Post debate analysis is breathtaking in it's unanimity: everyone in the establishment press
is doing what they can to ignore the fact that Sanders and Warren knocked it out of the park.
Contrary to the mandatory company line, this was not a debate between moderates and
progressives; this was a debate between people who want to do something and those who have
been hired to stall progress, and it has never been so apparent as it was in this lively
debate.
I think the corporate media knows this, which is why they are desperately spinning this in
any other way but that Warren and Sanders were the most viable and competent candidates on
the stage.
Without question, their performance killed the candidacy of every other person on the
stage.
Thanks for a serious response (most of the others were just reactions founded on confirmation
bias)
You make a good point. Even the conservatives here are on that socialist spectrum in that
there is extensive state intervention (NHS, welfare, care, regulation etc). That intervention
is to stay irrespective of some of the scare stories for the simple reason no one will get
elected on a platform of doing away with it.
In basic terms terms the key difference between "right" and "left" is how to best pay for
that state intervention. Incentives and a degree of market freedom versus a state controlled
economy and more radical distribution.
So yes the term socialist is often used to scare people by the right - just as the left
use "tories" to scare people ["24 hours to save the NHS" anyone?].
There is a reason why centrism has largely prevailed in the west. Its evolved in a Darwin
like way as being the best balance for peoples views and expectations. I suspect radical
change - left or right - will end up as a major disappointment
Sanders and Warren harp on about medicare for all being "free health care".
Let me make one thing clear: Medicare is not healthcare. It is health insurance.
Medicare administrators never touch a patient, they push paperwork around and oversee
payment for services rendered by medical professionals. Throwing a third of a billion people
onto a system that currently administers care for a hundred million is a recipe for disaster,
especially if providers, unable to make a profit, decide to get out of the business. We
already have a shortage of doctors and nurses and care facilities in many parts of the
country, this is certain to make the problem worse.
What do the candidates propose to do about funding for advanced care if all people are
entitled to free organ transplants? There are new cancer therapies, taylor-made for each
patient, which show astonishing promise, but cost half a million dollars per patient. Medical
care already eats up a sixth of our economy, want to double that? Remember, we also have to
tackle climate change at the same time.
Much of Europe has socialized medicine and most European countries permit private
insurance, usually as a supplement to the public system. Private patients may receive better,
or at least more luxurious, care, but they also take a load off the public system. If the
democrats really wanted to make life better for those on the bottom of the income spectrum,
they might consider government financing of existing urgent care facilities which are popping
up all over the place (there are four in my town of 35,000). Imagine being able to walk in to
a "doc-in-a-box", pay $20 and get diagnosed for your flu, high blood pressure, sutures for a
cut, or an X-ray for that twisted/possibly broke ankle. Currently, many such patients go to
ERs where they receive treatment at many times the $90 walk-in cost of the average urgent
care shop.
Consider delivering minor care at schools. Why do I have to take my kids to a doctor to
get the immunizations required to attend school or sports physicals. The kids are at school,
give 'em their shots and exams there. That way there will be less weaseling out.
This wouldn't be the all encompassing solution that Sanders and Warren are dreaming of,
but it would represent a solid start and might intercept unwell patients before they become
acute or chronic cases.
By the way, Mr Sanders, stop waving your arms about. The WSJ has a photo of you on its
online edition that has you looking like an ape in a cage.
Health care in the US is the most bloated, wasteful and needlessly complex issue facing US
citizens today. As Bernie says it should be a human right for each citizen of the wealthiest
country on earth. Americans need to understand what a socialized health system is, indeed,
they need to understand what socialism is, they conflate it with communism, no one seems to
want to explain the difference which would go a long way to gaining wide spread acceptance.
Education is another monumental waste of resources. Far too many kids go to college who are
not suited to academic endeavor, many take more than four years to graduate an undergraduate
degree if they graduate at all, that is not to say they should not be provided a vocational
option if they wish. A healthy and educated workforce makes social, economic, and political
sense.
"Many Americans love the quality of healthcare they get."
They may love it for now but as drug prices climb, co pays climb and heaven help us ACA
gets repealed then what? At least the dems, particularly the "progressives" are pulling out
of the business as usual model.
Lots of folks decried FDR's New Deal, even hated it - until it put a paycheck in their
hand. They could yell all they wanted about government programs but their children
appreciated not starving.
Neither Warren or Sanders is advocating 'outlawing' private healthcare. That is a
disingenuous term. They are offering what is common to all western democracies, universal
healthcare. Obamacare is a gift to the insurance industry and not a platform for anything
other than increased profit by the insurance industry. It was taken from a plan by the
Heritage Foundation. It is not a legacy worth preserving, Medicare for all is the alternative
and a very good one. Rich people can keep their expensive plans and continue to
pay-out-the-ass, which they can easily afford.
All the blather by the conservative corporate Democrats posing as moderates is, of course,
self-serving and the nonsense about concerns for union healthcare plans is absurd. I was a
Union member, a chief steward, sat on the bargaining committee and was a representative to
the national: universal healthcare or Medicare for all is an excellent idea, as Mr. Sanders
asserts it would allow wage increases ans eliminate the biggest obstacle in contract
negotiations which is the cost of health insurance. The cost of which continually was
increasing by double digits, along with increases in co-pays. In fact, the increased costs
forced the abandonment of what was a superior insurance plan to one that was inferior.
Delaney, is the former CEO of CapitalSource, essentially a loan-sharking operation (a
testament by Forbes), involved in foreclosure scams. HealthCare Financial Partners is another
Delaney entity worth examining for its less than ethical practices, which in the business
world where Delaney dwells, is an unspoken word or determinant.
Delaney bundled together $800,000 for HRC, which bought him the endorsement of Bill Clinton
when Delaney ran for higher office. He is conservative and wedded to the profit motive and
could care less about ordinary citizens. The current businessman inhabiting the presidency is
more than a cautionary tale, which applies to Delaney. He is a conservative Clintonite and
embraces the rather malleable ethics of the Clintons, essentially amoral.
Honestly, only the very dimmest of dimwits would categorize ELIMINATING the $400/month
average middle class families pay for Health Insurance Premiums and replacing it with a
$250/Month Average payment to the government as 'raising taxes' on those people. If you doubt
that, ask yourself why the largest corporations AREN'T screaming about 'raised taxes' if we
go to Medicare for All.... it's because they can do the math, and they know that eliminating
the $750/month average that THEY pay in Premium contributions PER EMPLOYEE will benefit them
much more than the accompanying 'tax increase for M4A...
When the OVERALL COST of the system goes down around 15% (Private Insurance 'overhead'
increases costs 20%+, Medicare is just under 6%), EVERYONE saves in the long run....
You're wrong. A Neocon will bridge the divide between what we have now (Full on Crazy Town
Heading for WW3) and what a Biden/Klobuchar could lead to: Eg - a Warren or a Beto.
Gives people time to realize "hey. this cheaper health care and no student fees and
$15 dollar minimum wage aint so bad!!!" <face palm>
Biden's key advantage is his appeal to the affluent white middle class secret Trump
supporters who came out in droves.
A Biden/Klobuchar ticket could be the strongest "right wing" combination for the Dems.
As an overall observation and the way these debates are promoted and run, how depressing they
are as a commentary on America. It's turned into a sporting, showbiz event, each candidate
given one pesky minute to try and get something across.
Short doses for America's short attention span. Let's just be done with it and combine the
f****** election with an episode of The Bachelor or f****** Kardashians. It makes me sick.
Before a "Medicare for All" (M4A) bill got near a vote there would be massive negative
advertising against it. Don't you remember when we were working on getting the ACA passed how
the "Tea Party" was formed -- with plenty of $$ from those opposed to any changes in health
care provisioning & financing -- & they went into insane rages & attacks? We got
the T-Party Republicans out of it who still bedevil us today.
The NHS was born out of WWII when Britain had to provide hospitals & clinics all
around the country because so many people were pushed out of London & into the boonies.
More building occurred centrally to care for the military & vets so there were government
owned facilities everywhere.
Here in the US the veteran's Medical facilities are totally separate & jealously held
so & if Bernie wants to fold them into his scheme he'll have to go over or through the
bodies of all the Vets in America who feel they've earned their care.
A third of all the people in Medicare have *chosen to use a privatized version* which
while it limits choice of providers has some added goodies like health clubs. They will fight
change as will people with retirement programs that they "earned."
Your last statement actually is astute: "I genuinely believe that unless the slate is
completely wiped clean in the short to medium term you'll never have Medicare for all work,
last, or garner public support in the way of the NHS, say."
That's true. Truly you can't get there from here. Britain had no system provisioning
health care for people in general. They had an almost blank slate. They didn't have to take
away something of value from millions of people. That is what Obama knew. You can add on, you
can work on underlying problems, you can augment and improve coverage but you can't trash the
whole system that so many people rely on.
We need universal coverage for all that want it. There will always be some left out. (Can
you mention Trumps & other ultra rich taking part in any insurance for the peasantry).
Medicare which has been in existence for 50 years (with much tinkering along the way) covers
just 95% of seniors; 5% are completely left out. If you use that as an analogy we would find
5% of 330 million or about 16 million won't be covered AT BEST.
As much as I have stated how badly I want Trump impeached, I honestly think Biden would be
worse for America and the world, than Trump. Biden thinks we can win a war with Russia. That
is insane. No sane person wants nuclear holocaust. However Biden thinks these neoliberal
propensities can continue without consequence.
Tulsi understands that you can't keep poking Russia with a stick. If you recall, HRC
wanted to set up a no fly zone over Syria while Russia was flying combat missions in Syria.
That is the type of neoliberal bullshit that can lead to nuclear holocaust. If you have the
time watch this old
video
If you took the time to watch the video, you should be able to see how the CIA will resume
its effort under Biden and Biden's vision is clear from this article he wrote
just last year .
The Democrats are considered "Moderate republicans" and have been for a number of years. So
the moderate moderate democrats are effectively republicans. Just like the so-called
centre-left here, are establishment right-wing.
"And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than
for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." -Matthew 19:24
That either Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren might be considered left-wing is a mark of
how skewed American politics is. Where the hell's the center!? And who decided, anyway?
When asked where the phrase "from each according to his abilities, to each according to
his needs" came from by a 2002 survey conducted by Columbia Law School, over 66% of Americans
said the US Constitution.
CNN retained control of what issues were addressed and when rather than the candidates, so
the "clash" between the "moderate" and "progressive" wings of the party was largely
orchestrated by the network. Given the number of candidates involved and the structure of
what passes for debate during these spectacles they're largely a waste of time.
The inevitable question in any US election is can the candidates really change anything? for
all of the squealing about Trump he hasn't managed to do anything except give the rich a tax
cut.
The out of control military spending, the growing void between those born rich and those
born poor, the further consolidation of Corporate power...all seems to go unchecked
regardless of the rhetoric of any President
Watch an interview with Corruptus Maximus from the 1980s or early 90s. He was always a dick
and a narcissist, but he was articulate and able to speak in full sentences and follow a
conversation. He can't do any of that now. Little Donnie Dumbass is the poster boy for
cognitive decline.
They're trying to get rid of Harris and Biden. I'm not sure it's a bad thing. Harris was
always going to get drowned by her own record as California's AG. And Biden... meh.
One of them. Warren eviscerating Delaney was another. Or her saying that Democrats are not
the Republicans, wanting to take healthcare away... Then, there was Buttigieg saying that no
matter what they do, the Republicans would call them socialists anyway, so who cares.
...whether the Democrats will end up moving too far to the left to be able to defeat
Trump in 2020...
reflects a poorly conceived (false) dichotomy about what "the left" is. When he says "the
left" what does he even mean?
There's the socialist left , which seeks to provide good working conditions and
pay, and better wealth distributions among the populace. This could be a huge boon to any
group suffering under the current economic system - including groups which Trump appealed to
in the last election but has utterly failed to do anything for.
There's the identity politics left which Hillary and the Neo-liberals (and the
Republicans, actually) embrace as a form of marketing strategy and use to promote free-market
ideology.
There's the "Democrat Party" (DNC) left which really stands for little more than
party rhetoric any more and vehemently supports Neo-liberalism.
And there's the environmentalist left which sees Global Climate destabilization as
the #1 issue facing the planet (a position loathed by the Neo-liberals and
identitarians).
There are also combinations and permutations of all these "lefts".
So when Kabaservice says he fears the Democrats moving too far to the left, he's
conflating all sorts of things, murkily hiding his intents behind his ill-defined
terminology.
There are over 20 candidates. They need to tread carefully. Kamala Harris discovered that
roasting Establishment candidate Biden early on didn't help her in the end.
The weirdos/corporate-shrills in the media are all slamming Sanders for his grumpiness and
'shouting'. I mean, the man is angry that people are dying because the Govt isn't looking
after them. How's that a minus against Sanders's personality??? Everyone should be mad as
hell. I'm a big fan of Warren but no-one can dispute that Sanders is a good man.
Delaney - the multi millionaire - looked like he had been entrusted by CNN (and probably the
DNC) to be the first of many attack dogs against Sanders and Warren. He was probably meant to
appear the voice of reason, speaking rational politics to make make them seem like
extremists, but he came across as dumb and sounded like a spokesperson for the very vested
interests that will be threatened most by Sanders´ and Warren´s plans. And that
gormless face will surely be the subject of memes for years to come!
I think I read somewhere that 87% of US elections are won by the candidate with the most
money. And since most money comes from the millionaires and their lobbyists the DNC
establishment clearly would rather work for those with most, than for those in most need. A
bit like the Blairite nest within Corbyn´s Labour Party. And what John Delaney was
saying was exactly why ordinary people are so disillusioned with regular politicians -
especially those of the so-called ´left´- and why they become so easily taken-in
by populists like Trump.
When the right get in they always do stuff for their paymasters. Big stuff. They steal
public funds through tax cuts for the rich and the corporations. They repeal protections for
workers, and allow Big Oil to destroy the environment. They bloat the budget for the military
industrial complex and allow the US Military machine to be used as a private army for the
corporations´insatiable resource grab. And they let Wall Street do what it wants.
When the so called parties of the left get in - be they Democrats, Labour, SPD or whoever
-they usually do diddly squat. Because deals have usually been made not to shake anything up.
Not even to correct the injustices enacted by their predecessors. I saw a stat about US
government tax revenues that showed how 50 years ago 33% came from companies and only about
10% came from incomes; today those numbers are reversed. It´s no wonder millions are
becoming desperate for change.
I´m sure the DNC and its paymasters will no doubt try to learn something from the
debate, to better prep Joe Biden when he steps into the ring, probably against Sanders OR
Warren. I can´t see him going up against both of them. But also to better rig future
debates against Sanders and Warren, perhaps to try to divide them. Though, to be fair to CNN,
they did a pretty good job. But it clearly failed.
What will be interesting will be watching how the adult-in-room MSM switches from
incessant Trump bashing to doing everything it can to stop Sanders and Warren. I fear that it
will get dirty, and relentless, and both will be attacked, labelled and misrepresented. But
if a moderate candidate - like Honest Joe Biden - is jerrymandered into position up
against Trump in 2020 then I fear that we are all fucked.
"... The US elite jump up and down with moral indignation about an evidence-free allegation of foreign interference in its domestic politics, whilst ignoring actual evidenced foreign interference in its domestic affairs, and all the while constantly interfering in the domestic affairs of foreign countries and boasting about it. ..."
"... The Mueller Report is proof positive that the US is equally adept as Blair and Campbell in producing Dodgy Dossiers. ..."
"... It was a novel idea to outsource the investigation to Crowdstrike. There's a lot to be said for privatisation. Most commendable. Maybe the next time there's a high profile criminal investigation the FBI will outsource the murder investigation to Sam Spade, Ace Gumshoe. ..."
"... The fundamental flaw in the whole "Russiagate" thing is the failure to differentiate between Russia, the state and its government, and Russians, individuals who are Russian nationals. This failure is a direct result of an inability to recognize that the Cold War finished 30 years ago, a failure highlighted by the breathless Tom Clancy style of reporting and reinforced by a huge military/industrial complex that recognizes that in the absence of war or threats or war their business is a bust. ..."
At a May press conference capping his tenure as special counsel, Robert Mueller emphasized what he called "the
central allegation" of the two-year Russia probe. The Russian government, Mueller sternly declared, engaged in
"multiple, systematic efforts to interfere in our election, and that allegation deserves the attention of every
American." Mueller's comments echoed a January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) asserting with "high
confidence" that Russia conducted a sweeping 2016 election influence campaign. "I don't think we've ever encountered
a more aggressive or direct campaign to interfere in our election process," then-Director of National Intelligence
James Clapper told a Senate hearing.
While the
448-page
Mueller report
found no conspiracy between Donald Trump's campaign and Russia, it offered voluminous details to
support the sweeping conclusion that the Kremlin worked to secure Trump's victory. The report claims that the
interference operation occurred "principally" on two fronts: Russian military intelligence officers hacked and leaked
embarrassing Democratic Party documents, and a government-linked troll farm orchestrated a sophisticated and
far-reaching social media campaign that denigrated Hillary Clinton and promoted Trump.
But a close examination of the report shows that none of those headline assertions are supported by the report's
evidence or other publicly available sources. They are further undercut by investigative shortcomings and the
conflicts of interest of key players involved:
The report uses qualified and vague language to describe key events, indicating that Mueller and his
investigators do not actually know for certain whether Russian intelligence officers stole Democratic Party
emails, or how those emails were transferred to WikiLeaks.
The report's timeline of events appears to defy logic. According to its narrative, WikiLeaks founder Julian
Assange announced the publication of Democratic Party emails not only before he received the documents but before
he even communicated with the source that provided them.
There is strong reason to doubt Mueller's suggestion that an alleged Russian cutout called Guccifer 2.0
supplied the stolen emails to Assange.
Mueller's decision not to interview Assange – a central figure who claims Russia was not behind the hack –
suggests an unwillingness to explore avenues of evidence on fundamental questions.
U.S. intelligence officials cannot make definitive conclusions about the hacking of the Democratic National
Committee computer servers because they did not analyze those servers themselves. Instead, they relied on the
forensics of CrowdStrike, a private contractor for the DNC that was not a neutral party, much as "Russian dossier"
compiler Christopher Steele, also a DNC contractor, was not a neutral party. This puts two Democrat-hired
contractors squarely behind underlying allegations in the affair – a key circumstance that Mueller ignores.
Further, the government allowed CrowdStrike and the Democratic Party's legal counsel to submit redacted
records, meaning CrowdStrike and not the government decided what could be revealed or not regarding evidence of
hacking.
Mueller's report conspicuously does not allege that the Russian government carried out the social media
campaign. Instead it blames, as Mueller said in his closing remarks, "a private Russian entity" known as the
Internet Research Agency (IRA).
Mueller also falls far short of proving that the Russian social campaign was sophisticated, or even more than
minimally related to the 2016 election. As with the collusion and Russian hacking allegations, Democratic
officials had a central and overlooked hand in generating the alarm about Russian social media activity.
John Brennan, then director of the CIA, played a seminal and overlooked role in all facets of what became
Mueller's investigation: the suspicions that triggered the initial collusion probe; the allegations of Russian
interference; and the intelligence assessment that purported to validate the interference allegations that Brennan
himself helped generate. Yet Brennan has since revealed himself to be, like CrowdStrike and Steele, hardly a
neutral party -- in fact a partisan with a
deep animus
toward Trump.
None of this means that the Mueller report's core finding of "sweeping and systematic" Russian government election
interference is necessarily false. But his report does not present sufficient evidence to substantiate it. This
shortcoming has gone overlooked in the partisan battle over two more highly charged aspects of Mueller's report:
potential Trump-Russia collusion and Trump's potential obstruction of the resulting investigation. As Mueller
prepares to testify before House committees later this month, the questions surrounding his claims of a far-reaching
Russian influence campaign are no less important. They raise doubts about the genesis and perpetuation of Russiagate
and the performance of those tasked with investigating it.
Uncertainty Over Who Stole the Emails
The Mueller report's narrative of Russian hacking and leaking was initially laid out in a July 2018 indictment of
12 Russian intelligence officers and is detailed further in the report. According to Mueller, operatives at Russia's
main intelligence agency, the GRU, broke into Clinton campaign Chairman John Podesta's emails in March 2016. The
hackers infiltrated Podesta's account with a common tactic called spear-phishing, duping him with a phony security
alert that led him to enter his password. The GRU then used stolen Democratic Party credentials to hack into the DNC
and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) servers beginning in April 2016. Beginning in June 2016, the
report claims, the GRU created two online personas, "DCLeaks" and "Guccifer 2.0," to begin releasing the stolen
material. After making contact later that month, Guccifer 2.0 apparently transferred the DNC emails to the
whistleblowing, anti-secrecy publisher WikiLeaks, which released the first batch on July 22 ahead of the Democratic
National Convention.
The report presents this narrative with remarkable specificity: It describes in detail how GRU officers installed
malware, leased U.S.-based computers, and used cryptocurrencies to carry out their hacking operation. The
intelligence that caught the GRU hackers is portrayed as so invasive and precise that it even captured the keystrokes
of individual Russian officers, including their use of search engines.
In fact, the report contains crucial gaps in the evidence that might support that authoritative account. Here is
how it describes the core crime under investigation, the alleged GRU theft of DNC emails:
Between approximately May 25, 2016 and June 1, 2016, GRU officers accessed the DNC's mail server from a
GRU-controlled computer leased inside the United States. During these connections, Unit 26165 officers
appear
to have stolen thousands of emails and attachments, which were later released by WikiLeaks in July 2016. [
Italics
added for emphasis.]
The report's use of that one word, "appear," undercuts its suggestions that Mueller possesses convincing evidence
that GRU officers stole "thousands of emails and attachments" from DNC servers. It is a departure from the language
used in his
July
2018 indictment
, which contained no such qualifier:
"It's certainly curious as to why this discrepancy exists between the language of Mueller's indictment and the extra
wiggle room inserted into his report a year later," says former FBI Special Agent Coleen Rowley. "It may be an
example of this and other existing gaps that are inherent with the use of circumstantial information. With Mueller's
exercise of quite unprecedented (but politically expedient) extraterritorial jurisdiction to indict foreign
intelligence operatives who were never expected to contest his conclusing assertions in court, he didn't have to
worry about precision. I would guess, however, that even though NSA may be able to track some hacking operations, it
would be inherently difficult, if not impossible, to connect specific individuals to the computer transfer operations
in question."
The report also concedes that Mueller's team did not determine another critical component of the crime it alleges:
how the stolen Democratic material was transferred to WikiLeaks. The July 2018 indictment of GRU officers suggested –
without stating outright – that WikiLeaks published the Democratic Party emails after receiving them from Guccifer
2.0 in a file named "wk dnc linkI .txt.gpg" on or around July 14, 2016. But now the report acknowledges that Mueller
has not actually established how WikiLeaks acquired the stolen information: "The Office cannot rule out that stolen
documents were transferred to WikiLeaks through intermediaries who visited during the summer of 2016."
Another partially redacted passage also suggests that Mueller cannot trace exactly how WikiLeaks received the stolen
emails. Given how the sentence is formulated, the redacted portion could reflect Mueller's uncertainty:
Contrary to Mueller's sweeping conclusions, the report itself is, at best,
suggesting
that the GRU, via its
purported cutout Guccifer 2.0,
may have
transferred the stolen emails to WikiLeaks.
A Questionable Timeline
Mueller's uncertainty over the theft and transfer of Democratic Party emails isn't the only gap in his case.
Another is his timeline of events – a critical component of any criminal investigation. The report's timeline defies
logic: According to its account, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange announced the publication of the emails not only
before he received the documents, but before he even communicated with the source that provided them.
As the Mueller report confirms, on
June 12, 2016, Assange told an interviewer,
"We have upcoming leaks in relation to Hillary Clinton, which is
great." But Mueller reports that "WikiLeaks's First Contact With Guccifer 2.0 and DC Leaks" comes two days after that
announcement:
If Assange's "First Contact" with DC Leaks came on June 14, and with Guccifer 2.0 on June 22, then what was Assange
talking about on June 12? It is possible that Assange heard from another supposed Russian source before then; but if
so, Mueller doesn't know it. Instead the report offers the implausible scenario that their first contact came after
Assange's announcement.
There is another issue with the report's Guccifer 2.0-WikiLeaks timeline. Assange would have been announcing the
pending release of stolen emails not just
before he heard from the source
, but also
before he received
the stolen emails
. As noted earlier, Mueller suggested that WikiLeaks received the stolen material from Guccifer
2.0 "on or around" July 14 – a full month after Assange publicly announced that he had them.
In yet one more significant inconsistency, Mueller asserts that the two Russian outfits running the Kremlin-backed
operation -- Guccifer 2.0 and DC Leaks – communicated about their covert activities over Twitter. Mueller reports that
on Sept. 15, 2016:
The Twitter account@guccifer_2 sent @dcleaks_ a direct message, which is the first known contact between the
personas. During subsequent communications, the Guccifer 2.0 persona informed DCLeaks that WikiLeaks was trying to
contact DCLeaks and arrange for a way to speak through encrypted emails.
Why would Russian intelligence cutouts running a sophisticated interference campaign communicate over an easily
monitored social media platform? In one of many such instances throughout the report, Mueller shows no curiosity in
pursuing this obvious question.
For his part, Assange has repeatedly claimed that Russia was not his source and that the U.S. government does not
know who was. "The U.S. intelligence community is not aware of when WikiLeaks obtained its material or when the
sequencing of our material was done or how we obtained our material directly," Assange said in January 2017.
"WikiLeaks sources in relation to the Podesta emails and the DNC leak are not members of any government. They are not
state parties. They do not come from the Russian government."
Guccifer 2.0: A Sketchy Source
While Mueller admits he does not know for certain how the DNC emails were stolen or how they were transmitted to
WikiLeaks, the report creates the impression that Russian intelligence cutout Guccifer 2.0 supplied the stolen
material to Assange.
In fact, there are strong grounds for doubt. To begin with, Guccifer 2.0 – who was unknown until June 2016 –
burst onto the scene to demand credit as WikiLeaks' source. This publicity-seeking is not standard spycraft.
More important, as Raffi Khatchadourian
has reported
for The New Yorker,
the documents Guccifer 2.0 released directly were nowhere near the quality of the material published by WikiLeaks.
For example, on June 18, Guccifer 2.0 released documents that it claimed were from the DNC, "but which were almost
surely not," Khatchadourian notes. Neither was the material Guccifer 2.0 teased as a "dossier on Hillary Clinton from
DNC." The material Guccifer 2.0 initially promoted in June also contained easily discoverable Russian metadata. The
computer that created it was configured for the Russian language, and the username was "Felix Dzerzhinsky," the
Bolshevik-era founder of the first Soviet secret police.
WikiLeaks only made contact with Guccifer 2.0 after the latter publicly invited journalists "to send me their
questions via Twitter Direct Messages." And, more problematic given the central role the report assigned to Guccifer
2.0, there is no direct evidence that WikiLeaks actually released anything that Guccifer 2.0 provided. In a 2017
interview, Assange said he "didn't publish" any material from that source because much of it had been published
elsewhere and because "we didn't have the resources to independently verify."
Mueller Didn't Speak With Assange
Some of these issues might have been resolved had Mueller not declined to interview Assange, despite Assange's
multiple efforts.
According to a 2018 report by John Solomon in The Hill, Assange
told the Justice Department
the previous year that he "was willing to discuss technical evidence ruling out
certain parties" in the leaking of Democratic Party emails to WikiLeaks. Given Assange's previous denials of Russia's
involvement, that seems to indicate he was willing to provide evidence that Moscow was not his source. But he never
got the chance. According to Solomon, FBI Director James Comey personally intervened with an order that U.S.
officials "stand down," setting off a chain of events that scuttled the talks.
Assange also made public offers to testify before Congress. The Mueller report makes no mention of these
overtures, though it does cite and dismiss "media reports" that "Assange told a U.S. congressman that the DNC hack
was an 'inside job,' and purported to have 'physical proof' that Russians did not give materials to Assange."
Mueller does not explain why he included Assange's comments as reported by media outlets in his report but decided
not to speak with Assange directly, or ask to see his "physical proof," during a two-year investigation.
No Server Inspection, Reliance on CrowdStrike
Before he nixed U.S. government contacts with Assange, Comey was implicated in another key investigative lapse –
the FBI's failure to conduct its own investigation of the DNC's servers, which housed the record of alleged
intrusions and malware used to steal information. As Comey told Congress in March 2017, the FBI "never got direct
access to the machines themselves." Instead, he explained, the bureau relied on CrowdStrike, a cybersecurity firm
hired by the DNC, which "shared with us their forensics from their review of the system."
While acknowledging that the FBI would "always prefer to have access hands-on ourselves, if that's possible,"
Comey emphasized his confidence in the information provided by CrowdStrike, which he called "a highly respected
private company" and "a high-class entity."
CrowdStrike's accuracy is far from a given. Days after Comey's testimony, CrowdStrike was
forced to retract
its claim that Russian software was used to hack Ukrainian military hardware. CrowdStrike's error is especially
relevant because it had accused the GRU of using that same software in hacking the DNC.
There is also reason to question CrowdStrike's impartiality. Its co-founder, Dmitri Alperovitch, is a nonresident
senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, the preeminent Washington think tank that aggressively promotes a hawkish
posture towards Russia. CrowdStrike executive Shawn Henry, who led the forensics team that ultimately blamed Russia
for the DNC breach, previously served as assistant director at the FBI under Mueller.
And CrowdStrike was hired to perform the analysis of the DNC servers by Perkins Coie – the law firm that also was
responsible for contracting Fusion GPS, the Washington, D.C.-based opposition research firm that produced the now
discredited Steele dossier alleging salacious misconduct by Trump in Russia and his susceptibility to blackmail.
A CrowdStrike spokesperson declined a request for comment on its role in the Russia investigation.
The picture is further clouded by the conflicting accounts regarding the servers. A DNC spokesperson told BuzzFeed
in early January 2017 that "the FBI never requested access to the DNC's computer servers." But Comey told the Senate
Select Intelligence Committee days later that the FBI made "multiple requests at different levels," but for unknown
reasons, he explained, those requests were denied.
While failing to identify the "different levels" he consulted, Comey never explained why the FBI took no for an
answer. As part of a criminal investigation, the FBI could have seized the servers to ensure a proper chain of
evidentiary custody. In investigating a crime, alleged victims do not get to dictate to law enforcement how they can
inspect the crime scene.
The report fails to address any of this, suggesting a lack of interest in even fundamental questions if they might
reflect poorly on the FBI.
The Mueller report states that "as part of its investigation, the FBI later received images of DNC servers and
copies of relevant traffic logs." But it does not specify how much "later" it received those server images or who
provided them. Based on the statements of Comey and other U.S. officials, it is quite likely that they came from
CrowdStrike, though the company gets only passing mention in the redacted report.
Asked for comment, Special Counsel spokesman Peter Carr declined to answer whether the Mueller team relied on
CrowdStrike for its allegations against the GRU. Carr referred queries to the Justice Department's National Security
Division, which declined to comment, and to the U.S. Western District of Pennsylvania, which did not respond.
If CrowdStrike's role in the investigation raises a red flag, the potential exclusion of another entity raises an
equally glaring one. According to former NSA Technical Director Bill Binney, the NSA is the only U.S. agency that
could conclusively determine the source of the alleged DNC email hacks. "If this was really an internet hack, the NSA
could easily tell us when the information was taken and the route it took after being removed from the [DNC] server,"
Binney says. But given Mueller's qualified language and his repeated use of "in or around" rather than outlining
specific, down-to-the-second timestamps – which the NSA could provide -- Binney is skeptical that NSA intelligence was
included in the GRU indictment and the report.
There has been no public confirmation that intelligence acquired by the NSA was used in the Mueller probe. Asked
whether any of its information had been used in the allegations against the GRU, or had been declassified for public
release in Mueller's investigation, a spokesperson for the National Security Agency declined to comment.
Redacted CrowdStrike Reports
While the extent of the FBI's reliance on CrowdStrike remains unclear, critical details are beginning to emerge
via an unlikely source: the legal case of Roger Stone – the Trump adviser Mueller indicted for, among other things,
allegedly lying to Congress about his failed efforts to learn about WikiLeaks' plans regarding Clinton's emails.
Lawyers for Stone discovered that CrowdStrike submitted three forensic reports to the FBI that were redacted and
in draft form. When Stone asked to see CrowdStrike's un-redacted versions, prosecutors made the explosive admission
that the U.S. government does not have them. "The government does not possess the information the defendant seeks,"
prosecutor Jessie Liu wrote. This is because, Liu
explained
, CrowdStrike
itself
redacted the reports that it provided to the government:
At the direction of the DNC and DCCC's legal counsel, CrowdStrike prepared three draft reports. Copies of these
reports were subsequently produced voluntarily to the government by counsel for the DNC and DCCC. At the time of
the voluntary production, counsel for the DNC told the government that the redacted material concerned steps taken
to remediate the attack and to harden the DNC and DCCC systems against future attack. According to counsel, no
redacted information concerned the attribution of the attack to Russian actors.
In other words, the government allowed CrowdStrike and the Democratic Party's legal counsel to decide what it
could and could not see in reports on Russian hacking, thereby surrendering the ability to independently vet their
claims. The government also took CrowdStrike's word that "no redacted information concerned the attribution of the
attack to Russian actors."
According to an affidavit filed for Stone's defense by Binney, the speed transfer rate and the file formatting of
the DNC data indicate that they were moved on to a storage device, not hacked over the Internet. In a rebuttal,
Stone's prosecutors said that the file information flagged by Binney "would be equally consistent with Russia
intelligence officers using a thumb drive to transfer hacked materials among themselves after the hack took place."
In an interview with RealClearInvestigations, Binney could not rule out that possibility. But conversely, the
evidence laid out by Mueller is so incomplete and uncertain that Binney's theory cannot be ruled out either. The very
fact that DoJ prosecutors, in their response to Binney, do not rule out his theory that a thumb drive was used to
transfer the material is an acknowledgment in that direction.
The lack of clarity around Mueller's intelligence community sourcing might appear inconsequential given the level
of detail in his account of alleged Russian hacking. But in light of the presence of potentially biased and
politically conflicted sources like CrowdStrike, and the absence of certainty revealed in Mueller's lengthy account,
the fact that his sourcing remains an open question makes it difficult to accept that he has delivered definitive
answers. If Mueller had the invasive window into Russian intelligence that he claims to, it seems incongruous that he
would temper his purported descriptions of their actions with tentative, qualified language. Mueller's hedging
suggests a broader conclusion at odds with the report's own findings: that the U.S. government does not have ironclad
proof about who hacked the DNC.
Social Media Campaign
Mueller's other "central allegation" regards a "Russian 'Active Measures' Social Media Campaign" with the aim of
"sowing discord" and helping to elect Trump.
In fact, Mueller does not directly attribute that campaign to the Russian government, and makes only the barest
attempt to imply a Kremlin connection. According to Mueller, the social media "form of Russian election influence
came principally from the Internet Research Agency, LLC (IRA), a Russian organization funded by Yevgeniy Viktorovich
Prigozhin and companies he controlled."
After two years and $35 million, Mueller apparently failed to uncover any direct evidence linking the
Prigozhin-controlled IRA's activities to the Kremlin. His best evidence is that "[n]umerous media sources have
reported on Prigozhin's ties to Putin, and the two have appeared together in public photographs." The footnote for
this references a lone article in the New York Times. (Both the Times and the Washington Post are cited frequently
throughout the report. The two outlets received and published intelligence community leaks throughout the Russia
probe.)
Further, in a newly unsealed
July 1 ruling
, a federal judge rebuked Mueller and the Justice Department for having "improperly suggested a
link" between the IRA and the Russian government. U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich said Mueller's February 2018
indictment "does not link the [IRA] to the Russian government" and alleges "only private conduct by private actors."
The judge added the government's statements violate a prohibiting lawyers from making claims that would prejudice a
case.
Even putting aside the complete absence of a Kremlin role, the case that the Russian government sought to
influence the U.S. election via a social media campaign is hard to grasp given how minuscule it was. Mueller says the
IRA spent $100,000 between 2015 and 2017. Of that, just $46,000 was spent on Russian-linked Facebook ads before the
2016 election. That amounts to about 0.05% of the $81 million spent on Facebook ads by the Clinton and Trump
campaigns combined -- which is itself a tiny fraction of the estimated $2 billion spent by the candidates and their
supporting PACS.
Then there is the fact that so little of this supposed election interference campaign content actually concerned
the election. Mueller himself cites a review by Twitter of tweets from "accounts associated with the IRA" in the 10
weeks before the 2016 election, which found that "approximately 8.4% were election-related." This tracks with a
report commissioned by the U.S. Senate that found that "explicitly political content was a small percentage" of the
content attributed to the IRA. The IRA's posts "were minimally about the candidates," with "roughly 6% of tweets, 18%
of Instagram posts, and 7% of Facebook posts" having "mentioned Trump or Clinton by name."
Yet Mueller circumvents this with what sound like impressive figures:
IRA-controlled Twitter accounts separately had tens of thousands of followers, including multiple U.S.
political figures who retweeted IRA-created content. In November 2017, a Facebook representative testified that
Facebook had identified 470 IRA-controlled Facebook accounts that collectively made 80,000 posts between January
2015 and August 2017. Facebook estimated the IRA reached as many as 126 million persons through its Facebook
accounts. In January 2018, Twitter announced that it had identified 3,814 IRA-controlled Twitter accounts and
notified approximately 1.4 million people Twitter believed may have been in contact with an IRA-controlled
account.
Upon scrutiny, Mueller's figures are exaggerated, to say the least. Take Mueller's claim that Russian posts
reached "as many as 126 million" Facebook users. That figure is in fact a spin on Facebook's own guess, as
articulated by Facebook general counsel Colin Stretch's
congressional testimony
in October 2017. "Our best
estimate
," Stretch told lawmakers, "is that
approximately
126 million people
may
have been served content from a page
associated
with the
IRA
at some point
during the
two-year period
." And the "two-year period" extends far beyond the
2016 election, to August 2017. Overall, Stretch added, posts from suspected Russian accounts showing up in Facebook's
News Feed comprised "approximately 1 out of [every] 23,000 pieces of content."
Yet another reason to question the Russian operation's sophistication is the quality of its content. The IRA's
most shared pre-election Facebook post was a cartoon of a
gun-wielding
Yosemite Sam
. On Instagram, the best-received image
urged
users to give it a "Like" if they believe in Jesus. The top IRA post on Facebook before the election that mentioned
Hillary Clinton was a
conspiratorial
screed about voter fraud
. Another
ad
featured Jesus
consoling a dejected young man by telling him: "Struggling with the addiction to masturbation?
Reach out to me and we will beat it together."
Far from exposing a sophisticated propaganda campaign, the reports suggest that Russian troll farm workers engaged
in futile efforts to spark contentious rallies in a handful of states. When it comes to the ads, they may have been
engaging in clickbait capitalism: targeting unique demographics like African Americans or evangelicals in a bid to
attract large audiences for commercial purposes. Reporters who have profiled the IRA have commonly described it as "
a
social media marketing campaign
." Mueller's February 2018 indictment of the IRA disclosed that it sold
"promotions and advertisements" on its pages that generally sold in the $25-$50 range. "This strategy," a Senate
report from Oxford University's Computational Propaganda Project observes, "is not an invention for politics and
foreign intrigue, it is consistent with techniques used in digital marketing."
That, in fact, was Facebook's initial conclusion. As the
Washington Post first reported
, Facebook's initial review of Russian social media activity in late 2016 and early
2017 found that the troll farm's pages "had clear financial motives, which suggested that they weren't working for a
foreign government." That view only changed, the Post added, after "aides to Hillary Clinton and Obama" developed
"theories" to help them "explain what they saw as an unnatural turn of events" in their loss of the 2016 election.
Among these theories: "Russian operatives who were directed by the Kremlin to support Trump may have taken advantage
of Facebook and other social media platforms to direct their messages to American voters in key demographic areas."
Despite the fact that "these former advisers didn't have hard evidence," the Democratic aides found a receptive
audience in both congressional intelligence committees. Democrat Mark Warner, the Senate intel vice chairman,
personally flew out to Facebook headquarters in California to press the case. Not long after, in the summer of 2017,
Facebook went public with its new "findings" about Russian trolls. Mueller has followed their lead – just as the FBI
followed the leads of other Democratic sources in pursuing both the collusion (Fusion GPS) and Russian hacking
(CrowdStrike) allegations.
John Brennan and the ICA
As it falls short of proving its case for a "sweeping and systematic" Russian interference campaign, the Mueller
report also fails to support its claim regarding the motive behind such efforts. In the introduction to Volume I,
Mueller states that "the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a
Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome." But nowhere in the ensuing 440 pages does Mueller produce any
evidence to substantiate that central claim.
Instead Mueller appears to be relying on the intelligence community assessment (ICA) released in January 2017 –
four months before his appointment – that accused the Russian government of running an "influence campaign" that
aimed "to undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic process," and hurt Hillary Clinton's "electability and
potential presidency" as part of what it called Russia's "clear preference for President-elect Trump."
But the ICA itself produced no evidence for any of these assertions. Its equivocation is even more blunt than
Mueller's: The ICA report's conclusions, it states, are "not intended to imply that we have proof that shows
something to be a fact."
On the core conclusion that Russia aimed to help Trump, there is not even uniformity: While the FBI and CIA claim
to have "high confidence" in that judgment, the NSA makes a conspicuous deviation in expressing that it has only
"moderate confidence."
As it casts doubt on a core allegation of Russia's alleged motives, the NSA's dissent debunks the oft-repeated
claim that the ICA represented the consensus view of all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies.
Moreover, it would even be misleading to portray the ICA as the product of the three agencies that produced it –
the CIA, FBI, and NSA. Instead, there are multiple indications that the ICA is primarily the work of one person, who
would spend the next two years accusing Trump of treason: then-CIA Director John Brennan.
A March 2018 report from Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee says that Brennan personally oversaw the
entire ICA process from start to finish. In December 2016, the GOP report recounts, President Obama "directed
Brennan to conduct a review of all intelligence relating to Russian involvement in the 2016 elections." The resulting
ICA "was
drafted
by CIA analysts" and merely "
coordinated
with the NSA and the FBI." The GOP report
observes that Brennan's CIA analysts were "subjected to an
unusually constrained review and coordination process,
which deviated from established CIA practice
."[
Italics
added for emphasis.] A lengthy Democratic
rebuttal to the GOP members' report does not refute any of these findings.
Echoing the NSA's dissent, the House GOP questions the ICA's conclusion that Putin interfered to secure Trump's
victory. The committee, they write, "identified
significant intelligence tradecraft failings
that undermine
confidence in the ICA judgments regarding Russian President Vladimir Putin's strategic objectives for disrupting the
U.S. election." [
Italics
added for emphasis.]
The Brennan-run process may have also excluded dissenting views from other agencies. Jack Matlock, the former U.S.
Ambassador to Russia,
has claimed
that a "senior official" from the State Department's intelligence wing, the Bureau of Intelligence
and Research (INR), informed him that it had reached a different conclusion about alleged Russian meddling, "but was
not allowed to express it." An INR spokesperson declined a request for comment.
The ICA's production schedule also raises a red flag: The outgoing Obama administration tasked Brennan with
churning it out in seemingly unprecedented time. "Ordinarily, the kind of assessment that you're talking about, there
would be something that would take well over a year to do, certainly many months to do," former federal prosecutor
Andrew McCarthy told the House Intelligence Committee in June. " [S]eems to me, in this instance, there was a rush to
get that out within a matter of days."
But even if Brennan had been given all the time in the world, the very fact that he was placed in charge of the
intelligence assessment was a massive conflict of interest. Brennan was handed the opportunity to validate, without
independent scrutiny or oversight from unbiased sources, serious allegations that he himself helped generate.
Efforts to reach Brennan through MSNBC, where he is a commentator, were unsuccessful.
Months before he oversaw the intelligence assessment, Brennan played a critical role in the FBI's decision to open
the probe of Trump-Russia collusion. "I was aware of intelligence and information about contacts between Russian
officials and U.S. persons that raised concerns in my mind about whether or not those individuals were cooperating
with the Russians, either in a witting or unwitting fashion," Brennan told Congress in March 2017, "and it served as
the basis for the FBI investigation to determine whether such collusion-cooperation occurred."
On top of his self-described role in generating the investigation of possible Trump-Russia collusion, Brennan also
played a critical role in generating the claim that the Russian government was waging an influence campaign.
According to the book "The Apprentice" by the Washington Post's Greg Miller, the CIA unit known as "Russia House" was
"the point of origin" for the U.S. intelligence community's conclusion during the presidential campaign that "the
Kremlin was actively seeking to elect Trump." Brennan sequestered himself in his office to
pore over the CIA's material
,
"staying so late that the glow through his office windows remained visible deep into the night." Brennan "ordered
up," not just vetted, "'finished' assessments – analytic reports that had gone through layers of review and
revision," Miller adds, but also "what agency veterans call the 'raw stuff' – the unprocessed underlying material."
Anyone familiar with how cherry-picked, false intelligence made the case for the Iraq War will recognize "raw
material" as a red flag. Here's another: According to Miller, one piece of intelligence that was "a particular source
of alarm to Brennan," was the "bombshell" from "sourcing deep inside the Kremlin" that Putin himself had "authorized
a covert operation" in order to, "in his own words damage Clinton and help elect Trump" via "a cyber campaign to
disrupt and discredit the U.S. presidential race." A former CIA operative described that sourcing as "the espionage
equivalent of 'the Holy Grail.'"
Undoubtedly, a mole within Putin's inner circle – able to capture his exact orders – would indeed fit that
description. But that raises the obvious question: If such a crown jewel of espionage exists, why would anyone in
U.S. intelligence allow it to be revealed? And why hadn't that "Holy Grail" source been able to forewarn its American
intelligence handlers of any number of Putin's actions that have caught the U.S. off-guard, from the annexation of
Crimea to the Russian intervention in Syria?
Brennan was the first to alert President Obama of a Russian interference campaign, and subsequently oversaw the
U.S. intelligence response.
Since leaving office, Brennan has laid bare his personal animus towards Trump, going so far as to call him
"treasonous" – an unprecedented charge for a former top intelligence official to make about a sitting president. In
the weeks before Mueller issued his final report, Brennan was still predicting that members of Trump's inner circle,
including family members, would be indicted. Given Brennan's bias and consistent patterns of errors, Mueller's
unquestioning, apparent reliance on a Brennan-run process is suspect.
Although Mueller seemed to accept the ICA's explosive claims at face value, Brennan's work product is now facing
Justice Department scrutiny. The
New York Times
reported on June 12 that Attorney General William Barr is "interested in how the C.I.A. drew its
conclusions about Russia's election sabotage, particularly the judgment that Mr. Putin ordered that operatives help
Mr. Trump." In what is most likely a direct reference to Brennan, the Times adds that Barr "wants to know more about
the C.I.A. sources who helped inform its understanding of the details of the Russian interference campaign," as well
as about "the intelligence that flowed from the C.I.A. to the F.B.I. in the summer of 2016."
Until Barr completes his review of the Russia probe, the April 2018 report from GOP members of the House
Intelligence Committee remains the only publicly available assessment of the Brennan-controlled ICA's methodology.
One reason for this is the fact that President Obama personally quashed a proposed bipartisan commission of inquiry
into alleged Russian interference that would have inevitably subjected Brennan and other top intelligence officials
to scrutiny. According to the Washington Post, in the aftermath of the November election, Obama administration
officials discussed forming such a commission to conduct a sweeping probe of the alleged Russian interference effort
and the U.S. response. But after Obama's then chief-of-staff, Denis McDonough, introduced the proposal, he:
began criticizing it, arguing that it would be perceived as partisan and almost certainly blocked by Congress.
Obama then echoed McDonough's critique, effectively killing any chance that a Russia commission would be formed.
With Obama having killed "any chance that a Russia commission would be formed," there has been no thorough,
independent oversight of the intelligence process that alleged an interference campaign by Russia and triggered an
all-consuming investigation of the Trump campaign's potential complicity.
New Opportunities to Answer Unresolved Questions
Barr's ongoing review, and Mueller's pending appearance before Congress, offer fresh opportunities to re-examine
the affair's fundamental inconsistencies. Authorized by the president to declassify documents, Barr could shed light
on the role that CrowdStrike and other sources played in informing Mueller and the Brennan-directed ICA's claims of a
Russian interference campaign. When he appears before lawmakers, Mueller will likely face questions on other matters:
from Democrats, his decision to punt on obstruction; from Republicans, his decision to carry out a prolonged
investigation of Trump-Russia collusion despite likely knowing quite early on that there was no such case to make.
If the U.S. government does not have a solid case to make against Russia, then the origins of Russiagate, and its
subsequent predominance of U.S. political and media focus, are potentially even more suspect. Given that allegation's
importance, and Mueller's own uncertainty and inconsistencies, the special counsel and his aides deserve scrutiny for
making a "central allegation" that they have yet to substantiate.
Correction:
July 5, 2019, 7:40 PM Eastern
An earlier version of this article misstated the month of FBI Director James Comey's testimony in 2017 to Congress
about the bureau's handling of Democratic National Committee servers. It was in March, not January.
The US elite jump up and down with moral indignation about an evidence-free allegation of foreign
interference in its domestic politics, whilst ignoring actual evidenced foreign interference in its
domestic affairs, and all the while constantly interfering in the domestic affairs of foreign
countries and boasting about it.
Tim Jenkins
That's an excellent brief summary description of events ongoing, Steve & very telling.
I have the feeling that most of the moral indignation is from those with most to hide !
Roberto
The takeaway of 2 1/2 years of nonsense, succinct version:
The congressman asks:
"When you talk about the firm that produced the Steele reporting, the name of the firm that produced
that was Fusion GPS. Is that correct?"
"I am not familiar with – with that," Mueller replied.
"It was. It's not a trick question. It was Fusion GPS," Chabot retorted.
The Congressman then asked whether Mueller was familiar with the owner of Fusion GPS.
"That's outside my purview," Mueller replied."
Tim Jenkins
It seems likely, that Trump planned to discredit Robert Mueller's integrity, from the very beginning.
Think about it: Robert (d'Mule) Mueller and his history:-
1) Heavy involvement in Uranium One deal,
with the Russians.
2) Cover up of all investigations 9/11, as FBI Boss.
3) Clean up of Epstein's abhorrent dealings, last time around.
4) The Great Russia-Hoax, by Magic Mueller & Co.
For my mind, I can imagine BTO -"You ain't seen nothin', yet "
GRAFT
But the lunatics still believe millions upon millions of people believe it still
Cesca
This is just one of the events where the psychopathic scum show how divorced they are from humane
consciousness.
They are thick as sh.t when it comes to hiding what they do, have the power to make it hard to find
the truth tho.
Tim Jenkins
Coulter was calling for him to be in solitary in a 'SuperMax', as if that would protect him.
Meanwhile, Priti Patel wants to bring back the death sentence
(stoooopid woman, not interested in learning, better said, in others learning) 😉
Off with their heads: Final Solutions ? Judge Priti Patel ?
Personally, i'd love to see Epstein in a safe cell, in between Cardinal sinner George d'Pedo
Pell & Harvey Weinstein: all with webcams & wifi LIVE & pay per view:-
VIP Big Bro. Chokey & the Bandits,
(online Live 🙂 )
I would actually pay to view that, even if only briefly on the BBC, though I've never given a
penny to the BBC, since 1979 I swear m8 🙂
mark
The Mueller Report is proof positive that the US is equally adept as Blair and Campbell in
producing Dodgy Dossiers.
The poor chap is obviously suffering from advanced Alzheimer's. You'd think they
could come up with a better front man for their conspiracy theory.
It was a novel idea to outsource the investigation to Crowdstrike.
There's a lot to be said for privatisation.
Most commendable.
Maybe the next time there's a high profile criminal investigation the FBI will outsource the murder
investigation to Sam Spade, Ace Gumshoe.
Roberto
It wasn't [the dreaded, one-day] Alzheimer's.
It's a Modified Limited Hangout version of 'I don't recall', 'What page is that on?', 'What page?',
'Oh I see it now', 'Can you repeat the question?', and 'It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is'
(well, OK, everything except that – it's copyrighted).
Add dozens of 'That's not my purview' or some variation of it, and 5 hours magically shrinks.
Question This
Why not write an article why so much time, effort & money has been wasted on this subject.
Is it a
surprise to anyone that competing super powers (I use the term loosely) attempt to interfere in
election results? Frankly i take it as given that Russia, USA & US of Europe do so at any & all
possible opportunity.
And asking if politicians are corrupt is like asking what colors the sky, we all know the answer.
The lie accuses its own sin in the other – as intent at sustainability of power by deceit.
Unravelling to source is the nature of a true harvest.
Each unto its own.
UreKismet
Well IMO you'd be wrong. English elites have been saying "the evil russian other" for at
least 200 years. Even in the islands no one sees as a good earner, Aotearoa, has an
'anti russian fort"
It was built in the 1880's when some pommie pols beat up a "Russia is
trying to steal our empire" scare.
Tim Jenkins
Get Mifsud, Now !
****************
"Mueller does not explain why he included Assange's comments as reported by media
outlets in his report but decided not to speak with Assange directly, or ask to see his "physical
proof," during a two-year investigation." with an unlimited budget to investigate !
What more than that did you need to know ? Alles Klar and if you are still unsure, then just ask
yourself why Bill Binney & Kurt Weibe, ex NSA programmers of "Parallel Platforms", have NOT been
called to testify, either ! The technical end 'stuff' proves that Mueller has been lying all along on
his 'Witch Hunt' & Russia-Hoax and has NOT been addressing any one of the most important questions &
problems that lead to further investigations & indictments of many key figures: which include
potentially prosecuting the murderer of Seth Rich and why Mueller charged all others for lying to him
during his pathetic investigation, but
NOT Jo' MIFSUD !
Mueller
himself should be prosecuted for his omissions & failure to prosecute Mifsud & question Richard
Dearlove more intensively !
Get Mifsud under Oath immediately: he started all this who the hell is
MIFSUD?
Why is MIFSUD being protected? What the Fuck were Steele & Mifsud & Dearlove thinking to conspire &
concoct on behalf of Deep State Governors & Operatives, who transcend both the USUK Governments
combined ! ? !
This is an old article that helps you comprehend something of the background of the lies &
deceptions of Mueller's pathetic efforts, & yesterday's statements confirm that he never intended to
reveal anything at all, including yesterday, but why do we not have some brief qualification of
Mueller's Testimony just yesterday, as an addendum here @OffG ?
How does OffG expect the Brits. to keep up to speed ? Especially, what will happen next with Boris
Johnson and his dilemmas @home with GCHQ ?
Coz' GCHQ were wholly involved in this TREASON USA attempt & Russia-Hoax,
as were Italian Secret Services and the Ukrainian S.S. !
These matters can no longer be resolved behind closed doors, unless you wish to live continuously &
forever onwards, under a corporate Fascist Dictatorship of "Parallel Platforms" & Pedophile
Politicians ! it's that simple, so take 5 minutes and listen to Jim Jordan cross question Mueller,
just yesterday, and you'll begin to see that Mifsud is being protected and
we need to know WHY? HOW? & What from ? & by whom
Logic, the wholly zionist owned &
controlled mainstream media, surely! Coz' the ball is still rolling and it will not stop @Mifsud's
desk, nor the boss of GCHQ's desk heads are gonna' roll, when this ball gets finally kicked into the
annals of a very pissy secret service "History of the National Security State" and BoJo has some
serious thinking to do about how he deals with the nameless cnuts in the British not so civil service,
who used orphans kids in Ireland to entrap politicians and leverage any future political discussions
with British Pedophile Politicians fully
controlled !!!
E.G. GARY HOY !
It should be noted that yesterday, before Bill Barr stepped into his bullet proof vehicle, after
answering a few questions to journalists, he beamed the biggest smile I ever saw on his public face
and uttered the words "it goes with the territory". Bill Barr has clearly grown more comfortable with
where he stands, today and he has no intention of kicking this can of worms down the road, including
Jeffrey Epstein & Ghislaine Maxwell, charges will be brought, thankfully finally and Boris Johnson
will be forced to reveal much more than he would likely wish regarding "The History of the National
Security State" and it will help mask his inevitable blunders, down the road.
I have pasted three links deliberately so that Admin must read this 😉
DunGroanin
Superb post Tim and a great catch! I missed David Nunes bit yesterday. The PM of GB and Mifsud in
full colour! Lol
The Guardian live reporting missed every mention of Steele, Dearlove, a
'Russian' how very suspicious! Lol
I do believe the Russian State is capable of hacking – as is every such capable state in the
world. I surmise they did hack – that is the most likely source of the Integrity Initiative /
Institute of Statecraft material.
We will see how many independent news sites and bloggers actually exist by their journalism and
blogging on this revealed conspiracy.
Tim Jenkins
My pleasure, thanks DG & I honestly 'almost choked' early morning, when sifting through the
guardian script writers & their video editing efforts for today's 'damage limitation': (no
doubt, on command of GCHQ), just how much key info. was truly omitted, scandalous clearly,
'The Lobby' is working hard on distractions, for not just all the government politicians, but
also all journalists & editors: and therefore, Operation Charlemagne never gets mentioned, so
that the 'Mifsud confusion' prevails and a disconnect is established from GCHQ, Steele & Treason
USA & Epstein Island & Ghislaine Maxwell's historic sexual endeavours to control key political
figures' future decision making: which includes Judges, down the line, as well as key figures
working on "Parallel Platforms" of computing, within the National Security State throughout NATO
nations !
And this all presents a prime opportunity for OffGuardian. 🙂
It will be a tough ole' cookie for Kit to crack: maybe in bite sized pieces, step by step
It's a very real tangled web that transcends borders of governance and forces one to not shy
away from the words Corporate Fascist Dictatorship, with zero privacy & total control of all
flows of Knowledge,
Not just Scientific . . .
Mercer & Cambridge Analytica ? the tip of the iceberg,
as UreKismet rightly points out below, Carole d'Cad certainly has much to answer for, in the
biggest internet Psyop sting & string of distractions from the Key issues of programming our
futures, collectively.
UreKismet
AFAIK there is zero evidence that the russian state was involved in the pathetic beauty contest which
the US elites use to distract the more credulous citizens every 4 years. Why would they? They know
damn well this quadrennial farce is a crooked game from start to finish. A game that only allows the
same two contestants, the republican tweedledee and the democrat tweedledum to compete – both sides
cheat like f++k on a massive scale so whatever skullduggery the Russian state could insert into that
rigged crapshoot would have two chances of success,
Buckley's
and none.
But more important than even that is, even if the Russian State – oops sorry. . . "Putin" {said
quickly with all emphasis on vowels none on consonants so it sounds more like a hoick & spit than a
word} by some miracle did succeed so what? You cannot push a decent spliff skin between the dems &
rethugs on the stuff which really matters.
Disagree? Check out the Tufts alumni
diary entry for yesterday
. The article tells us how the Senate Foreign Relations committee, who
are the mob allegedly responsible for devising and implementing amerika's foreign policy, actually had
a falling out on monday, a disagreement between a dem senator and a rethug member of the old boys
steamroom and bar club.
This was the first public contretemps in decades. Wow I bet that was over something vital!
Nah, the dispute was over the murder of that Kashoggi creep, they reckon the dems wanted to slap
Saudi with a wet bus ticket, whereas the rethugs preferred a damp feather as the instrument of
corporal punishment.
Why on earth would anyone who hadn't bought a seat at the table e.g. the invaders of occupied
Palestine waste energy, let alone the $30,000 that crowdstrike claimed Russia had spent on a forlorn
hope of trying to get something up like sanctions relief, when everyone knows the correct way to do it
is to bribe both sides with tens of millions?
Now "tens of millions" may seem a lot until you understand you will get it all back plus a lot
extra for the hassle. Yep the amerikan pols become dependent on your 'donation' real quick. So from
then on out, they find a way to give you money for some nonsense program which you then give back to
'em all as donations – less about 95% for expenses natch – but everyone is cool with that, they know
there are considerable overheads in the lobbying biz.
That is why just about all of them plan on getting into lobbying themselves – just as soon as their
little black books are chocka with the foibles of all the other congress-creeps and senate-slugs.
I watched the netflix doco "The Great Hack" which tries a camera eye view of the Cambridge
Analytica investigation. IMO It reveals graun contractor Carole Cadwalladr to be the sort of deeply
dedicated journo not too proud to let the facts stand in the way of a good beat up/fit up.
Shockingly for the graun, the target of this character assassination is a 'sister', yep another
member of the victimised by patriarchy club.
A young woman by the name of Brittany Kaiser whose parents were financially destroyed by the cfc.
After the family home was seized in 2014 she had to quit being an unpaid worker for the dems in DC &
took an extremely well paid gig (VP) with CA. Apparently her conscience got the better of her so when
the stories about what they and facebook had been doing came out she whistle blew in the US inquiry
and the english parliament enquiry.
Too bad Cadwalladr decided she (Kaiser) would be useful in yet another graun attack on Julian
Assange.
Kaiser had sent Wikileaks a couple bit coins back in the noughties when she was an idealistic Obama
intern and bit coins weren't worth much. Years later she visited Julian at the Ecuador embassy on CA
business and she insists that neither Russia or H Clinton's email were discussed, but Cadwalladr ran
this article
claiming she did both, without a scintalla of watchamacallit – evidence, proof
whatsoever.
Of course in reality Kaiser may be nothing like the possum trapped in the headlights she presents
as; this is a TV show (all over the torrent and usenet sites if like me, people prefer not to pay for
the fibs they are told) in which both Cadwalladr & Kaiser get lots of time. For me Kaiser came across
as someone acting more like a human than, the bigger the front, the smaller the back, Cadwalladr did.
None of us can ever know for sure who did what to whom during prez 2016, so we are left with
considering the mountains of bulldust using our sense of humanity mixed with the few facts we can be
sure of. In that light IMO, it makes zero sense for the Russian state to try on something that is so
obviously doomed to fail, so they didn't.
Antonym
Good to see a factually well informed author here ATL void of ideology or theory. Mueller has bended
truth when ordered since decades while looking like Eliot Ness. A good fella.
Martin Usher
The fundamental flaw in the whole "Russiagate" thing is the failure to differentiate between Russia,
the state and its government, and Russians, individuals who are Russian nationals. This failure is a
direct result of an inability to recognize that the Cold War finished 30 years ago, a failure
highlighted by the breathless Tom Clancy style of reporting and reinforced by a huge
military/industrial complex that recognizes that in the absence of war or threats or war their
business is a bust.
I've always maintained that any connections Trump has with Russia are going to
be based on money. As in "there are people who have lots of money who need some kind of investment
vehicle to launder it" and "a tangled web of casinos and real estate holdings is a perfect laundromat
for money of dubious origins". This doesn't automatically suggest that Trump's a money launderer for
the Russian mob but rather there's no clear cut line between what's clearly criminal and what's
clearly totally legal and a lot of businesses operate in the gray between the two.
(Politically, though, the last word on Trump support was spoken to me by a Hungarian/American
colleague who intended to vote for him. He lived in Budapest and his interest wasn't in US domestic
politics so much as not being caught in WW3. He thought Hilary was going to start a war, Trump would
keep us out. I thought he was being a bit naive (and have been proven right) but you couldn't blame
him for exercising an abundance of caution.)
"... Reds under the bed has been replaced with antisemites under the bed; this with the full and open complicity of a mainstream media whose dread over the prospect of transformational political change is entwined in tight embrace with that of an Establishment -- political and security -- in ensuring nothing but nothing will ever change in this country apart from the colour of the curtains on the windows in Downing Street. ..."
"... There is nothing more grotesque than being lectured to about antisemitism, or any other form of racism, by apologists for a racist apartheid state. Yet this grotesquerie is precisely where we have arrived at in response to Corbyn's unlikely elevation to the leadership of the Labour Party. ..."
"... I think one has to appreciate, despite all the 'far-left' labels stuck on him, that Corbyn only appeared to be a 'raving looney leftie' in comparison with the rightwing Blairite majority of MPs who've controlled the Labour Party for so long and capitulated to and followed a Thatcherite political agenda, for decades. ..."
"... Anti-semitism oldest form of gas lighting that was ever created in the western world especially after the second world war. If one were to go to Palestine it is not uncommon to find some ebraic semite wearing a t shirt with on it printed an IDF soldier taking aim at a pregnant arab semite. Israel has to be exposed for what it is. It is an anglo-zionist colonial outpost.. Zionism was born in England it pre dates Herzl. ..."
"... The key to the anti-Semitism problem is the conflation of Judaism with Zionism. This didn't happen by accident, it is a deliberate and relatively modern policy. (An old (Jewish) friend described the indoctrination he got to me growing up. That was quite a long time ago, its probably so ingrained now that nobody notices this process any more.) ..."
"... The comparison to a witch hunt is perfectly accurate. The attack works by mere accusation. The facts, evidence, criteria of evaluation are all irrelevant. ..."
This article was first published on March 1st of this year, however, it is given fresh relevance in the wake of Labour's reinstatement,
and then re-suspension, of Derby MP Chris Williamson
PUTNAM: Now look you, sir. Let you strike out against the Devil, and the village will bless you for it! Come down, speak to
them -- pray with them. They're thirsting for your word, Mister! Surely you'll pray with them.
PARRIS: (swayed) I'll lead them in a psalm, but let you say nothing of witchcraft yet. I will not discuss it. The cause is
yet unknown. I have had enough contention since I came; I want no more.
Arthur Miller – The Crucible
In his magisterial autobiography, Timebends , describing his motivation behind his classic work The Crucible (extracted
above) -- the most compelling and enduring allegorical piece of drama to grace the American theatre -- Arthur Miller reveals the
following:
What I sought was a metaphor, an image that would spring out of the heart, all-inclusive, full of light, a sonorous instrument
whose reverberations would penetrate to the centre of this miasma. For if the current degeneration of discourse continued, as
I had every reason to believe it would, we could no longer be a democracy, a system that requires a certain basic trust in order
to exist."
The 'miasma' referred to by Miller in the above passage was the atmosphere of censorious paranoia whipped up by the anti-Communist
witchhunts of the 1940s and 1950s, starting under the auspices of the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), established
in 1938, joined thereafter by Senator Joseph McCarthy's Senate hearings into alleged Communist infiltration from the late 1940s.
The period concerned, commonly referred to as McCarthyism, illuminated the parameters of free speech and expression in a country
and culture which prides itself on both. It drilled home the profound truth that tyranny is less the by-product of totalitarian political
systems and more the product of totalitarian ideas and nostrums that sustain political orthodoxy in a given space and time. And,
too, whenever those ideas and nostrums come under challenge, said democracy is exposed as a cloak behind which mendacity resides,
ruthlessly seeking malcontents to expose and miscreants to punish.
In Britain in 2019 we need no longer turn to US history for an understanding of McCarthyism and its execrable fruits.
For in Britain in 2019 McCarthyism is with us and among us, corroding our public and political discourse, poisoning it with the
untruths, lies and mendacious smears of some of the most malignant political forces that ever existed in these islands.
Reds under the bed has been replaced with antisemites under the bed; this with the full and open complicity of a mainstream
media whose dread over the prospect of transformational political change is entwined in tight embrace with that of an Establishment
-- political and security -- in ensuring nothing but nothing will ever change in this country apart from the colour of the curtains
on the windows in Downing Street.
Jeremy Corbyn's leadership of the Labour Party has to intents been usurped by his deputy Tom Watson, a man for whom Shakespeare's
"Hell is empty, and all the devils are here!" line from The Tempest could have been written with in mind.
Labour Friends of Israel
Watson is the Labour Party's Matthew Hopkins, the infamous witch-hunter whose reign of terror in 17th century Britain finds its
metaphorical equivalent in the 21st century with the objective not of locating and hanging out to dry antisemites but instead anti-Zionists,
which means to say genuine anti-racists.
For what is Zionism if not racism, a species of white supremacy responsible for relegating the humanity of five million men, women
and children of the illegally occupied West Bank and besieged Gaza Strip to that of latter-day Helots?
Adding to the mountain of intellectual and moral ordure erected in service to this miasma of untruth and base hypocrisy, are the
findings of a UN investigation into the Palestinians killed and wounded by Israeli snipers during last year's Great Return March
in Gaza.
According to the UN's Santiago Canton:
Israeli soldiers committed violations of international human rights and humanitarian law. Some of those violations may constitute
war crimes or crimes against humanity."
In diplomatic-speak, Mr Canton is here referencing the manner in which Israeli soldiers shot down dozens of unarmed Palestinians
-- among them children, medics and journalists -- like deer in a forest, with some of those Israeli soldiers caught on tape laughing
and celebrating their 'kills'.
It is to this monstrosity of an apartheid state Tom Watson and his friends are giving succour and sanction; and it this supremacist
juggernaut of oppression we are expected to accept as compatible with left-wing progressive values.
There is nothing more grotesque than being lectured to about antisemitism, or any other form of racism, by apologists for
a racist apartheid state. Yet this grotesquerie is precisely where we have arrived at in response to Corbyn's unlikely elevation
to the leadership of the Labour Party.
His legacy as a staunch supporter of Palestinian human rights and self-determination has been weaponised against him and his supporters
by a pro-Israel lobby within and without the Labour Party, plumbing depths of indecency last witnessed during the era of McCarthyism
across the Atlantic.
For those who doubt how deeply entrenched the pro-Israel lobby now is within the UK body politic, Al Jazeera's blistering documentary
The Lobby is required viewing.
Given the context and the stakes involved in this ongoing witch hunt and smear campaign, the lack of meaningful resistance on
the part of Corbyn is unconscionable; his refusal to mobilise his base in the face of it inexplicable. The result has not been to
see it disappear but for it to prosper and grow in ferocity.
Be under no illusion either of the complicity of key figures in and around the Labour leadership in whipping up and/or acquiescing
in this baseless hysteria -- Lansman, McDonnell et al. -- to the point where Corbyn has been rendered well nigh unelectable as a
prospective prime minister.
That this is a smear campaign and witchhunt conducted, regardless of the fog of obfuscation deployed to the contrary, on behalf
of a foreign power -- and an apartheid power at that -- compounds the offence.
But this issue is now bigger than Corbyn. It is about where we stand on matters of intellectual and moral integrity; and most
of all on the rights we accrue to an oppressed people and those of their oppressor. Future generations are watching and waiting for
the stance that we take.
Arthur Miller understood this, which is why his light will shine forever bright as a beacon of moral courage in an age of deceit.
I'll not supply any facts. None whatsoever,saying only: Corbyn( I believe) is made of better material. Blairites must be expelled,
or otherwise, go away!
MichaelK
I think one has to appreciate, despite all the 'far-left' labels stuck on him, that Corbyn only appeared to be a 'raving looney
leftie' in comparison with the rightwing Blairite majority of MPs who've controlled the Labour Party for so long and capitulated
to and followed a Thatcherite political agenda, for decades.
Corbyn himself isn't really a 'revolutionary' or even a radical. He's what half a century ago would have been described as
a pretty normal, middle-of-the-road, Labour social democrat, barely on the left of the Party at all. But some of this is debatable,
depending on where one stands on the spectrum personally. It's a sign of how far 'left' politics and 'left' discourse has degenerated
in the UK, and political culture's moved so far to the right, that Corbyn, like a relic of a bygone era, is perceived as far more
leftwing than he actually is, in reality.
What he is though, is ineffective as a leader. He lacks authority, I think, because he fundamentally lacks a set of strong
ideas that show what he stands for and where he wants the country to move. There's no real narrative that mobilises support for
him, and this is the curse of Labour; the leadership's fear of mobilising the membership and their supporters and votes in the
country, too much and too far, which could easily lead to them raising their expectations way beyond what's 'realistic' and possible
within the boundaries of bourgeois liberal democracy. Labour fought for political power in parliament; but didn't believe in openly
challenging economic power in society in any meaningful way, because that strategy was simply not allowed because it was 'revolutionary'
and not reformist.
mark
Of course Corbyn is a "raving loony lefty."
He wants to re nationalise the railways (maybe.)
And build a few council houses (maybe.)
How raving loony is that?
Obviously he's a raving loony.
Oh, and he objects to the genocide of the Palestinians.
Obviously a raving anti semite as well.
Just ask the Board of Deputies and Margaret Hodge and the Daily Mail. They'll explain it all to you.
More to the point; he's a (Labour) Party man. The Party comes first, regardless. For almost 130 years the Labour Party has been
an integral part of British capitalism and imperialism and the British state. Thus Corbyn, a run-of-the-mill social democrat is
concerned only with the survival of the Party and he will do whatever is necessary in its defence including defenestrating his
election manifesto (compare his draft with the one finally circulated in 2017)!
Should he by some chance actually end up as PM, what are the odds of him actually reversing austerity when he's already sold
out over every key part of his original manifesto?
There are going to be a lot of very disappointed and once more disconnected Labour voters.
mathias alexand
What is this "leadership" and "authority" thing? As for his ideas he could have any number of them that you will never hear about
in the MSM.
Maggie
True Mathias, but you can see and hear about them on the Jimmy Dore Show whose shows truly are a breath of fresh air:
Bernie Sanders of Britain and why he is widely loved, and sadly rare. July 2016
Anti-semitism oldest form of gas lighting that was ever created in the western world especially after the second world war.
If one were to go to Palestine it is not uncommon to find some ebraic semite wearing a t shirt with on it printed an IDF soldier
taking aim at a pregnant arab semite. Israel has to be exposed for what it is. It is an anglo-zionist colonial outpost.. Zionism
was born in England it pre dates Herzl.
Hence until more exposure of the brutal nature of the Israeli zionist and their parents the anglo-zionist becomes exposed then
the diluted term of anti semite will continue to be used. I find that with the dying western paradigm so will this gaslighting
term become irrelevant .If any intellectual honesty were to be used the real anti semites are the zionist.
Post Scriptum : Israel has a shelf life and it is omploding with in hence so will zionism.
Having experience racism first hand growing up and still being exposed to it today for mhy ethnicity I am not fortunate enough
as the ashkanazi /zionist to deflect and gaslight my oppressors.
harry law
Former South African Minister Ronnie Kasrils himself Jewish on Thursday accused Israel of conducting a policy against the Palestinians
that was "worse" than apartheid.
Speaking on the sidelines of a UN meeting on the situation in the Palestinian territories, Kasrils said South Africa's townships
had never been attacked by helicopter gunships and tanks, in contrast to the military means employed by Israel.
Labour Friends of Israel, Conservative Friends of Israel, Liberal Democrat Friends of Israel – all different organisations?
No, of course they are not, even if the ordinary man in the street may think so.
They are all controlled by the Israeli state, to do the bidding of that state, to demonise any person who shows empathy with
the plight of the Palestinian people, any person who dares criticise the actions of the Israeli state.
On the other hand, you have Jewish Friends of Labour, seen by the Israeli state as "self hating Jews", the "wrong type of Jew".
What we are seeing at the moment is – Zio-McCarthyism.
Capricornia Man
'McCarthyism' is exactly what I have been calling the witch-hunt for some time. It's surprising that the term is taking so long
to come into general use when it is the appropriate term based on historical analogy, as shown by the article. The pile-on against
anyone who dares to support the political and national rights of the Palestinians induces physical illness in anyone remotely
interested in justice and truth.
The rancid 'liberal' media frames its "coverage" by treating accusations of 'antisemitism' not as the thing which has to be
proved, but as the proof itself. A classic McCarthyite process.
The vast majority of Britons must be fed up having their politics held up to ransom in this manner. Stand up for yourselves
and by-pass the fifth column and the coward element in the Labour Party.
vwbeetle
To read the Guardian, one would think that Williamson has no supporters in Labour whatsoever. As far as the Guardian is concerned,
Jewish Voice for Labour and its condemnation of the witch hunt and smear campaign against Corbyn and Williamson and anyone who
supports Palestinian rights, does not exist. Up until a couple of years ago I was a regular contributor on CIF discussion threads,
largely rebutting Zionists and their propaganda and outright lies. I was eventually blocked, probably because large numbers of
Zionists reported me, despite the fact that I largely restricted my posts to historical facts. Over the past two years it is almost
impossible to make comments on CIF about any article about Israel/Palestine, or the anti-semitism smear campaign. What has happened
at the Guardian? Does anyone know why the paper seems to have changed course?
MichaelK
The lurch to the political right at the Guardian is linked to the Snowden and Assange revelations that challenged the cosy ideological
relationship between the media and the state, to a degree that is simply not allowed, if one wants to be seen as loyal and responsible.
There are consequences is one, as an individual, group or institution, is perceived as being illoyal by the Establishment and
the state.
Assange and Snowden pulled the Guardian over an invisible line, into a grey area, at the time, which was perceived as being
tantamount to treason, and now the Guardian has been successfully reined in once more and now co-opperates with the state on matters
relating to 'national security.' The damage, has been undone and a proper and reasonable relationship established.
Haltonbrat
The Guardian has been pro-Zionist since the days of editor CP Scott who introduced the Zionist leader to Looyd George and supported
the Zionists in his writings in the Manchester Guardian.
Shardlake
It all changed, and not for the better, after Alan Rusbridger left. It's as much a mouthpiece now for this appalling government
as the Murdoch press and their like. There's been a continual shift in centre ground politics to the right since the days of Thatcher.
We are seeing what Edward Bernays described in 1928 as the conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organised habits and
opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society.
Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of
our country.
We are governed, our minds are moulded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested largely by men we have never heard of.
In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical
thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons who understand the mental processes and social patterns of
the masses.
It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.
Stephen Morrell
PS. The Labour Party never fails to disappoint
Stephen Morrell
It's time to stop calling Israel an 'apartheid state'. Snipers today, missiles and bombs tomorrow, with deliberate and active
ruination of amenity, infrastructure and the means to live -- by siege, every day.
Israel's atrocities are not simply 'crimes against humanity'. They're crimes directed against a particular ethnic/national/racial
segment of humanity. That's called genocide. Netanyahu and his gang are genocidal, and consequently the garrison state of Israel
is also a 'genocide state'. Time to start applying the g-word.
Haltonbrat
Yes, The actions of Israel meet the UN definition of genocide.
mark
The Times of Israel, a national newspaper, quite openly advocated genocide. It called for the Palestinian people to be exterminated
at concentration camps in the desert. The "Justice" Minister, a woman called Shaked, called for Palestinian mothers to be exterminated,
so that no Palestinian children could be born. Two rabbis in Israel published a book called "The King's Torah." It called for
all Palestinian children to be murdered.
Killing a goy, any goy, is a Mitzvah, a praiseworthy act.
If the Jews get the war with Iran they have been trying to incite and agitate for for so long, they will use this as cover
to carry out actual genocide on a massive scale.
People need to give up completely on Labour. It is infested wall to wall with 30 shekel whores.
maggie
Hi Mark, Do you have links to the information you have posted please.
If we give up on Labour, then who do we rely on? I think what we should be doing is focussing all our energies on removing
(de selecting) the 90 "friends of Israhell" who have been baying for Chris Williamson and Jeremy Corbyn to be removed permanently
from the Labour Party. Beginning with the evil with Hodge, and her cronies headed by Tom Watson.
mark
The Times of Israel, 1/8/14.
"When Genocide Is Permissible", by Yochanan Gordon.
Openly advocates, endorses and justifies the genocide of the Palestinians.
Ayelet Shaked, 14/7/14.
"Mothers of all Palestinians should be killed. They have to die and their houses should be demolished. They are all our enemies
and their blood should be on our hands."
A day before Palestinian teenager Muhammad Abu Khudair was kidnapped and burned alive by 6 Jew thugs, Shaked published a call
for the genocide of the Palestinians in Facebook.
"The entire Palestinian people is the enemy, including its elderly and its women, its cities and its villages, its property and
its infrastructure."
She called for the slaughter of Palestinian mothers. "to prevent them giving birth to little snakes."
The King's Torah, 230 page book published 2009 by Od Yosef Chai Yeshiva. Authors Rabbis Yitzhak Shapira and Yosef Elitzur.
Endorsed by many leading rabbis.
It openly incites and calls for the extermination of the Palestinians, and explains how this is morally justified.
It is a call for indiscriminate extermination.
The killing of children, en masse, responds to "the existence of an internal need for revenge."
"In the face of revenge, no one is innocent, be they old, young, children, men or women, and regardless of their health."
It rejects any notion of international law and the protection of civilians in time of war, or international humanitarian law on
the prevention of genocide. Israel is above international law, because Jews are superior to Gentiles and the lives of Gentiles
have no value.
Jews are indoctrinated from birth to hate all the goyim.
Israel is an openly genocidal, terrorist, racist state.
There is no doubt that in the event of a major war with Iran, it would use this as cover to commit genocide, which has been long
planned.
Stephen Morrell
I apologise for taking up so much space in replying to your very telling question about what alternative is there to Labour. First,
it should now be clear to everyone that Labour, whether led by Corbyn or any other 'left' social democrat, is no answer to the
dire situation we face. Right now there is no mass party on this planet that can provide the leadership necessary, let alone serve
as the instrument, for the revolutionary change so desperately needed to excise the malignancy of capitalism from the human social
organism. This is a crisis of revolutionary leadership.
The bourgeois Greens are not the answer either, and most of the traditional left and 'far' left are mired in one form or another
of opportunistic kow-towing to Corbyn and Labour or the Greens. This isn't to say that one should never vote Labour, the party
of the working class. It's to say that one should only give support to Labour, as 'a rope supports a hanging man' (Lenin), when
it furthers revolutionary and class consciousness in the working class. The working class, as politically backward as it might
be now in many ways, is the only class with the social power to overthrow the capitalists -- it can stop and start production
at will and, most importantly, if it had the political consciousness and leadership to do so, it could take over production and
overthrow capitalism. Such a consciousness is smothered and suppressed by Labour and the current leaders of the trade unions (such
as the latter currently exist).
Presently Labour deserves no vote because under Corbyn they've refused to support Brexit and are pushing for a second referendum.
Tony Benn, Corbyn's mentor, would have been railing against him over his betrayal of this fundamental class issue in Britain.
Corbyn is Blair lite. On the EU he's Blair quiet.
If in power, Corbyn would either be forced to bow to the diktats of capital and the ruling class or be pushed out, and pronto.
Already forces centred on MI6's The Guardian, the Zionist lobby, the aristocratic feudal relics, the military, 'the City' rentiers,
and of course the Blairites, have been undermining him because of his mild reformist and foreign policy stances. However, the
ruling class would rush to Corbyn and Labour, or another 'left' alternative, if their rule were seriously threatened by an awakened
working class. Before fascism, Corbyn would be their best and last hope.
What then of the left and far left? They're all still propaganda groups. We have the likes of the SP, SWP, Socialist Alternative
and so on, who've advocated a vote for Labour unconditionally at just about every election. And they've also supported the bourgeois
Greens. In doing so, they provide no alternative to Labour. Instead their strategy is to try to pressure Labour to the left. How's
that been working? Corbyn still supports the EU. How many times has he mentioned Julian Assange? Or the basic necessity to do
away with the monarchy and House of Lords and all the other 'traditions of the dead generations [that] weigh like a nightmare
upon the living' (Marx). At least in the US, the ISO (followers of the late Tony Cliff) have decided to sate their opportunistic
appetites and dissolve themselves to join the Democratic Socialists of America (ie, social democrats inside a bourgeois party,
the Democratic Party of Hiroshima and Nagasaki).
Then we have the Socialist Equity Party, ostensibly 'Trotskyist' and followers of David North, that declares trade unions in
principle to be an instrument for the subjugation of the working class. Imagine that: the prime defense organs of the working
class historically are written off in advance because their leaderships betray the rank and file (which they do, but not always,
not inevitably). Outfits like the SEP don't have a perspective to take these trade union leaderships on from within and fight
to replace them with a revolutionary leadership in the heat of struggle to turn the unions into real working class defense organs.
Consequently, a revolutionary consciousness cannot be developed from within the working class in struggle for it to act in
its own historic interests. The SEP have a slew of other programmatic issues that are awry as well, but their outlook boils down
to opportunism afraid of itself.
This isn't to say that the World Socialist Website is completely useless. It isn't, but its articles on workers and trade union
struggles in particular need to be taken with a large grain of salt.
In short, if there are only propaganda groups at the moment that pose an alternative to Labour, then it at least behoves those
looking for an alternative to Labour to not waste time or effort on any group that can't get even the basics of a program right,
let alone before they even dirty their hands in actual struggle.
What's left then? Right now, the first criteria to look out for is if an ostensibly revolutionary group advocates 'No vote
to Labour', and draws a class line for Brexit and against a new referendum; one that works consistently to destroy any illusions
in the bourgeois state and its parliament ever being 'reformed' to act in the interests of the working class -- which means also
exposing those who do. That's pretty fundamental, but it's a start.
Very shrewd assessment. But I'd say a re run of pre war Weimar is the most likely outcome. People are far more likely to turn
to far worse than Trump or Farage as things deteriorate. Expect to see more Zionist controlled opposition like the EDL.
maggie
Mmm.. Stephen, a very interesting reply.. and links, which I will read and try to digest, though I have to confess a lot of the
information contained therein, at 'first glance' I thought had been tried, tested and failed owing to the avarice of the capitalists
and their power to remove the ground from under our feet.
This may be the wrong interpretation? But I will read the links more thoroughly and try to get my head around the concepts.
What I think we could do immediately, is to have the one man one vote system, to elect the 'man/woman' we choose to represent
us and dispense with 'parties' altogether.
Surely, it can't be that difficult with today's technology, which would automatically dispense with the ballot box and the inherent
frauds that continually happen.
Or am I being too simplistic and naïve?
Then again.. isn't this just the Russian system, and was that of Libya?
Stephen Morrell
The organs of power that spring up during revolutions are what work at the time. They're not created a priori, but they go on
to serve the basis for the exercise of mass democracy. The Paris Commune had the The Committee of Public Safety, Russia had soviets
(Russian for workers' council) that first arose in 1905 and again in 1917. The basis for their power rests on a politically conscious
and armed constituency that has risen up which can recall elected representatives at any time (because they're armed).
Soviets elect representatives to higher soviet bodies (collegiate system), but their main purpose is to decide and vote on
what, not whom. On an economic plan for example.
In contrast, bourgeois democracy at most gives you the privilege of voting for which scumbag will oppress you for the next
4 or 5 years. This is not to denigrate democratic rights but it is the way capitalist rule is disguised and legitimated; and we're
made to feel responsible for outcomes because we participated in voting in elections. We help the executioner load his gun. One
should never confuse elections with democracy.
I can recommend the following reading list which might help:
EH Carr, "What is History" (a great, broad-brushed approach to understanding different stages in human history and development).
K Marx, F Engels, "The Communist Manifesto"
F Engels, "Socialism Utopian and Scientific"
VI Lenin, "What Is To Be Done" (On the need for a party of the Bolshevik type)
VI Lenin, "State and Revolution" (On why the existing state must be smashed replaced by a new one, and what happens to it after
a socialist revolution)
LD Trotsky, "Lessons of October" (On why the revolution occurred in backward Russia and not Germany)
LD Trotsky, "Results and Prospects" (On why backward countries in the epoch of imperialism not being able make a bourgeois
revolution whose tasks can only be accomplished by a proletarian revolution -- the theory of 'Permanent Revolution')
LD Trotsky, "The Revolution Betrayed" (Why Stalin arose and soviet democracy was smashed in the USSR)
Some of these are a little heavy going and polemical (eg, Lenin), and Marx is full of historical and literary references, but
patience will be rewarded. Except for EH Carr (available as a Penguin classic), these can all be accessed at:
https://www.marxists.org/
Too much ado about nothing It is very simple Socialism has NOTHING to do with religion Judaism, Christianism, Islamism or whatever.
They invite these kind problems because the bourgeois that control Labour, allowed every kind of minorities to infiltrate the
Party (and all other parties) to, eventually, destroy it through religious, racial and minority wars. What you see is what you
get when leftist minoritymongering has taken over politics. The solution is very simple, all religious groups should be thrown
out of the party, together with all the bourgeois. MP's first !!!
lundiel
I agree. We currently have MPs of all parties acting as agents for their countries of birth, or as agents of third countries (Ms
Smeeth). This worked when they (agents) had no real political power, they were limited to cultural exchange visits etc. The change
came with the growth in size and power of our security services .there's more than one way to skin a cat like Corbyn!
Maggie
Fear not Lundiel, the work is already begun . Jeremy will NEVER be allowed to lead.
Anonymous 'Civil Servants' (Deep State Operatives) have briefed the media regarding the allegedly frail condition of possible
PM-to-be Jeremy Corbyn on the basis of – no evidence whatever.
Understandably, Corbyn is very angry about this demanding an investigation into the leak.
Given the story is without foundation and knowing the threat the establishment sees in Corbyn, a leader whose policies include
the creation of a National Bank (aaaarghh the fiend the fiend) and the renationalisation of public utilities (including transport)
a leader whose knee-jerk reaction to Ashkenazi Jewish assaults against the Semitic population in Israel is to speak out loudly
and boldly in defence of Palestinians' rights
given all this, we know that the idea of Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister of Great Britain is absolutely unacceptable to our
ruling 'establishment'.
Let it be said then what Mr Corbyn and his inner circle must be thinking about the appearance of this non-story that the establishment
is 'creating the option to eliminate' Mr. Corbyn (by heart attack dart?) in the event of his winning or threatening to win a UK
general election.
Performing such a national service would be 'business as usual' for our "protectors" at MI5.
For example -Keith Mothersson: After he died in 2009, his obituary appeared in The Guardian.
The following facts are not included in the obituary of this heroic absolute gentleman:
"Keith created an organisation in 2008/9 called "ALL FAITHS FOR 9/11 TRUTH".
He, like most members of '9/11 Truth (UK & Ireland)', saw 9/11 truth as a spiritual (as much as a political) matter.
He went round the country meeting religious leaders and forming connections and bonds between the various groups he had organised.
There were C of E, Catholic, Muslim (the largest group based in a couple of the biggest mosques in the country), Buddhist, and
even a Jewish group.
I was involved with Keith, approaching 'Catholic' leaders (as an aside, the couple I tried to talk to [it was early days] were
hostile to the idea even engaging with the issue maybe, for someone who has taken vows of obedience, this is an issue for the
Pope alone)."
The thing is that Keith was the connection and bond between the groups he had started forming.
He lived in Perth, Scotland. On one evening during September 2009 Keith returned to his house in Perth. He arrived home in
a dishevelled state, exhausted and confused. He told his partner that he been accosted by a group of men on the walk home and
had "a terrible struggle in a van". He had been held down then released. He repeated "Why me?" to himself a few times before his
partner helped him to bed.
She told friends that when Keith woke up he didn't know who he was. He did not recognise her either. He was taken to hospital
where he lay silently in bed for two weeks before dying.
A multi-faith, well-organised, religious collective demanding answers re 9/11 represented a genuine threat to the "Deep State".
Keith had gone too far. He was "eliminated" and his nascent organisation along with him.
And there is no one to whom one can even report this terrible crime. Such is the nature of our society. https://wwwkevboyle.blogspot.com/2019/06/corbyns-health-and-keith-mothersson.html
Jeremy Corbyn is not a fool. He understands very well the 'options' for the Deep State such a story creates and what this leak
could possibly imply.. that is why I believe he may look as if he is indecisive?
Mucho
Very interesting Maggie, thanks
andyoldlabour
That is indeed correct. The various politicians who are involved in this disgraceful hounding of Corbyn and others, have pledged
alliegence to Israel and the interference of Israel in the politics of the UK.
Martin Usher
The key to the anti-Semitism problem is the conflation of Judaism with Zionism. This didn't happen by accident, it is a deliberate
and relatively modern policy. (An old (Jewish) friend described the indoctrination he got to me growing up. That was quite a long
time ago, its probably so ingrained now that nobody notices this process any more.)
I may have a very simplistic view of things but to me Judaism is an Abrahamic religion with deep roots going back thousands
of years. Zionism is a relatively modern European movement that dates from the latter half of the 19th century that has origins
and aims that are not unlike many other 'volk' movements from the same period. Most of these were relatively harmless, 'back to
the land' sorts of things but the racial undertones provided the underpinnings for, among others, the Nazis.
I know I'll probably get flamed for saying this but seriously there's a huge undercurrent of racism in some parts of Jewish
society. I was first made aware of this many years ago when and old (goy) friend made the mistake of marrying an Orthodox girl.
Up to that point I had only known secular/reform Jews so didn't think too much of it but the reaction from her family was quite
extreme, protracted and not at all nice. The culture's there if you look for it -- its actually not unlike radical Islam in mindset
so if it ever gets to a position of power (e.g. in modern Israel) then its going to be trouble for the untermensch!
Ramdan
"Israeli Zionism is the singular cancer that has been forcefully injected into the minds of world leaders across the globe; a
cancer that these similarly affected leaders would wantonly force upon what little remains of the moral, civilized and correct
conscience of man."
Zionism is a malevolent influence upon the body politic of the western world.
Francis Lee
The picture of Tom Watson and the other political 5th Columnists in the Labour party standing in front of a very large blue and
white star of David flag tells us all we need to know. A bit like a political group in the UK sporting a Hammer and Sickle flag
at Tory party conference. Labour Friends of Israel is of course a Zionist front in the LP. It's object is to further Israeli interests,
and therefore it necessarily means against British interests. What else would they be doing? Promoting socialism perhaps? LFI
has already been set in motion to get Corbyn and his co-thinkers to change their ways or else. In this sense also the British
elite are working hand-in-glove with LFI and the Israelis, and it wouldn't at all surprise me if the CIA were not also involved
at some level.
The trouble with Labour is that it doesn't want to be regarded as being 'extreme' or 'unrespectable'; oh dear no. We've even
done away with Clause 4. Now how much higher do you want us to jump? We want to be Her Majesty's loyal opposition. 'Pale pink
humbug' as Orwell called it. He called it right.
mathias alexand
Labour is hampered by a lack of internal democracy which goes back to its origins as an alliance of pre-existing groups like trade
unions, etc.
DunGroanin
The Obsessive Groaniads daily pile of AS mud slinging, Barbara Ellen froths
"maddening, mendacious, slippery, gormless, prevaricating'
she snarls NOT writing about the tory clowns.
"I've long been anti-Corbyn for reasons beyond Brexit (antisemitism, anybody?)"
She raves and slobbers not realising that she is projecting.
Another article there by a 'famous' author – ive never heard of – has his unnamed publicist getting lots of free advertising
for his 'great' writings for free because he thinks he has been subjected to AS!
Complete Utter Nonsensical Crappery by the shameless gormless Groaniad.
Ho hum – wait till the next government tasks the completion and implementation of Leveson 2.
DG . What do you expect from these presstitute stenographers. Full boycott of all mainstream media, including alleged 'progressive'
media. On a tangent, used to read Barbara Ellen many years ago (30?) when she wrote for the NME which was basically my 'bible'
back then. How sad the once great Babs Ellen has become a . Slug.
DunGroanin
Ah the NME – a bible for us back in the day – see how it was taken out and shot after it supported Corbyn in 2017.
A very accidental death it suffered.
Imagine what they would bave done to Russell Brand if he had had the same influence.
Yes i'm afraid most of the neolib con artiste creatures of the Obssezsive Groan are beyond saving. They will sizzle in the
light.
Thanks DG. I only know the NME is now online only, didn't know the reasons for its print demise. I wonder what the late Steven
Wells would have made of all this ludicrous crap? I just can't tolerate the cretinous craven presstitutes in the MSM anymore.
Gets me too fecked off knowing what they're loudly spouting is pro empire, pro imperialist bullshit in the service of the 0.01℅.
Good site for you to check is Neoliberalism Softpanorama. A vast treasure trove of info.
Francis Lee
What is difficult to forgive is the fact in times gone by, and occasionally today, the Jewish intelligentsia have made a huge
input into the development of western civilization. In terms of politics, Marx, Rosa Luxembourg, Greogy Lukacs, Eduard Bernstein,
Leon Trotsky, Leonard Woolf; in terms of social theory, Emile Durkheim, Sigmund Freud, Erich Fromm, Hannah Arendt; in terms of
literaure Franz Kafka, Saul Bellow. Contemporary intellectuals being Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein and possibly a less well-known
and very courageous Jewish oppositionist, Gideon Levy, who writes for Haaretz. These were the guys I cut my teeth on as a student
and whom I still revere to a great extent. It was the Jewish intelligentsia who led the opposition against the forces of reaction,
particularly in Europe.
Times have changed it seems, Israel and Zionism are now the forces of reaction.
John Calvert
Yes. But how many of those great names would have willingly and proudly posed in front of the national flag of the state of Israel?
Philip Toal
Facts would be appreciated in light of the truth that G. levy, Finkelstein, Pappe etc. are indeed alive and well. It's apparently
a case of informed opinions based on pure facts as opposed to ignorance as to who is alive or dead that is issue important.
Chris W
Antinationalism for goyim and nationalism for jews – because goyim have these genocidal tendencies Many, many Jews deep down believe
that Non-Jews want to kill them, so pre-emptive strikes is the way to go. Most of all strikes against the ethnic and religious
identity of non-Jewish people, because those identities make a people strong. So socialist Jews in Europe and zionist ones everywhere
fight the same pro-Jewish/anti-goyim fight
harry law
John McDonnell encapsulates for me the pathetic spinelessness of the Labour Party, in a long interview with the Jewish news the
interviewer asked him why Corbyn shared platforms with Anti-semites "So when we're talking about sharing a platform with anti-Semites,
we're not talking about people who are just supportive of the Palestinian cause, do you think it might be time for an apology"?
JmD: "You have to look at why he was sharing platforms, it was not to endorse them, it was to try and engage with them".
There you have it, his friend Corbyn spent the past 30 years of his life traversing the country addressing Palestinian and antiwar
groups and offering them his support, then in one sentence McDonnell throws his friend under the bus "it was not to endorse them".
With a friend like McDonnell who needs enemies.
My advice to McDonnell is get on your belly and crawl and then ask for forgiveness from the Board of Deputies, it still will not
be enough. They will only be happy when Corbyn is destroyed.
mark
However much you grovel and appease these people, it is never enough. Give $10 billion to Israel and you're anti semitic because
you haven't given it $50 billion. Fight 5 wars for Israel, and you're anti semitic because you haven't fought 10 wars for Israel.
Netanyahu explained it all quite well.
"If we get caught, they will just replace us with persons of the same cloth. So it does not matter what you do. America
is a golden calf, and we will suck it dry, chop it up and sell it off piece by piece till there is nothing left but the world's
biggest welfare state that we will create and control. Why? Because it is the Will of God and America is big enough to take
the hit. So we can do it again and again and again. This is what we do to countries that we hate. We destroy them very slowly
and make them suffer for refusing to be our slaves."
The comparison to a witch hunt is perfectly accurate. The attack works by mere accusation. The facts, evidence, criteria of
evaluation are all irrelevant. Accuse emotively, and construe any dissent or even scepticism as proof of guilt. This is the
modus operandi of the witch hunters, the arbiters of truth and the only acceptable version of reality. This becomes a loyalty
test. Anyone who refuses to support the witch hunters is either already a witch or in imminent danger of becoming one.
https://viewsandstories.blogspot.com/2018/09/on-dog-whistles-and-witch-finders.html
Harry Stotle
'The attack works by mere accusation. The facts, evidence, criteria of evaluation are all irrelevant. Accuse emotively, and construe
any dissent or even scepticism as proof of guilt. This is the modus operandi of the witch hunters' – hammer, welcome to head of
nail.
Maggie
Right out of Goebel's hand book
"This is the secret of propaganda: Those who are to be persuaded by it should be completely immersed in the ideas of the
propaganda, without ever noticing that they are being immersed in it."
"The truth is the greatest enemy of the State."
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained
only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie.
It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy
of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."
Former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney talks with PressTV about how the Israeli Lobby owns both the Congress and the Senate
and how AIPAC and the ADL took her out. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_VNOk7Wv5A
Bonanza media investigative team of independent journalists conduct exclusive interviews
with one of the suspects in the downing the MH17, the Malaysian prime minister, the colonel
that collected the black boxes and much more.
Eye-opening testimonies from witnesses and irrefutable evidence from experts. Exclusive
footage shot in Malaysia, the Netherlands and at the crash area in Ukraine.
Some people think the notion that Trump is a Kremlin spy is rather fanciful.
But if you look more closely, all the evidence is there.
He once got drunk on a bottle of vodka
before he became a teetotaller.
He often wears a red tie.
He was once seen attending a film performance of "War And Peace."
And (a dead giveaway) he has been seen talking to Putin and actually shaking his hand.
And if all that isn't conclusive evidence that he's a Kremlin spy, then I don't know what is.
"... "After watching seven hours of a spectacle that felt much more cruel than enlightening, I cannot avoid pondering a question which honestly gives me no joy to ponder: just how much damage has MSNBC in particular done to the left?" The Hill's Rising star began, before excoriating her former employer's "fevered speculations" about an "Infowars conspiracy theory" and the way it hosted people like Jonathan "maybe Trump has been a Russian asset since the 1980s" Chait and "conspiracy gadfly Louise Mensch" in search of ratings bumps. ..."
"... "This whole setup has done more damage to the Democrats' chances of winning back the White House than anything that Trump could ever have dreamed up," Ball argued. "Think about all the time and the journalistic resources that could have been dedicated to stories that, I don't know, that a broad swath of people might actually care about? Healthcare, wages, the teachers' movement, whether we're going to war with Iran? I'm just spitballing here. ..."
"... Ball argued that the fact that MSNBC is doing so much damage to the Democratic Party in the name of ratings proves that MSNBC isn't "on Team D in the same way that Fox News is on Team R", saying they're really just in it for the money. But this is where Ball gets it wrong. It is of course true that ratings are a factor, and that conspiracy theories can be used to sell advertising space, but MSNBC would have had a much easier time marketing conspiracy theories about Trump's loyalties to Israel and Saudi Arabia , both of which would have had vastly more factual evidence to back them up. The only difference is that the US-centralized empire doesn't have agendas that it wants to advance against those two countries. ..."
"... Ball is correct that MSNBC doesn't serve the Democratic party, but she's incorrect that it serves only money. MSNBC, which is now arguably a more aggressive war propaganda network than Fox News, serves first and foremost the US national security state. And so do all the other western mainstream news networks. ..."
"... From the Pentagon's point of view, US hegemony good, Russia-China alliance very, very bad. ..."
"... I t was determined with the help of influential neoconservative think tankers that the US must maintain this unipolar paradigm at all costs. As soon as that view became the establishment orthodoxy , any threat to US hegemony was now interpreted as a threat to national security. An "attack" on America was no longer limited to physical attacks on US soil, or even on US allies and assets: any attempt to escape unipolarity is now treated as a direct attack on the empire. ..."
"... This is why we've seen nations like Iraq, Libya and Syria spoken about by the propagandists as "enemies" as though they pose some kind of direct threat to the American people. There was never any actual threat to the physical United States, but those nations were not complying with the dictates of US hegemony, and that noncompliance was treated as a direct attack. ..."
"... This "if you're not obeying us you're attacking us" mentality is ridiculous on its face and no right-thinking citizen would ever consent to it, which is why the consent manufacturers need to promote imaginary nonsense like weapons of mass destruction, a Russian "attack" on American democracy, and a conspiracy theory about the Kremlin infiltrating the highest levels of the US government. It's got nothing to do with actual fears of those nations posing any threat to actual Americans. It's about continuing to rule the world. ..."
"After watching seven hours of a spectacle that felt much more cruel than enlightening, I cannot avoid pondering a question which
honestly gives me no joy to ponder: just how much damage has MSNBC in particular done to the left?" The Hill's Rising star began,
before excoriating her former employer's "fevered speculations" about an "Infowars conspiracy theory" and the way it hosted people
like Jonathan "maybe Trump has been a Russian asset since the 1980s" Chait and "conspiracy gadfly Louise Mensch" in search of ratings
bumps.
"This whole setup has done more damage to the Democrats' chances of winning back the White House than anything that Trump could
ever have dreamed up," Ball argued. "Think about all the time and the journalistic resources that could have been dedicated to stories
that, I don't know, that a broad swath of people might actually care about? Healthcare, wages, the teachers' movement, whether we're
going to war with Iran? I'm just spitballing here.
I actually heard some pundit on Chris Hayes last night opine that independent women in middle America were going to be swayed
by what Mueller said yesterday. Are you kidding me? This is almost as bonkers and lacking in factual basis as that time Mimi Rocah
said that Bernie Sanders is not pro-women because that was what her feelings told her. Rocah, by the way, a political prosecutor
with no political background, is only opining at MSNBC because of her role in leading viewers to believe that any day now SDNY is
going to bring down Trump and his entire family."
Ball argued that the fact that MSNBC is doing so much damage to the
Democratic Party in the name of ratings proves that MSNBC isn't "on Team D in the same way that Fox News is on Team R", saying they're
really just in it for the money. But this is where Ball gets it wrong. It is of course true that ratings are a factor, and that conspiracy
theories can be used to sell advertising space, but MSNBC would have had a much easier time marketing conspiracy theories about Trump's
loyalties to
Israel and
Saudi Arabia , both of which would have had
vastly more factual evidence to back them up. The only difference is that the US-centralized empire doesn't have agendas that
it wants to advance against those two countries.
Ball is correct that MSNBC doesn't serve the Democratic party, but she's incorrect that it serves only money. MSNBC, which is
now arguably a more aggressive war propaganda network than Fox News, serves first and foremost the US national security state.
And so do all the other western mainstream news networks.
Consider the way the Syrian province of Idlib is being reported on right now, to pick one of many possible examples.
Al-Qaeda-controlled
Idlib is the final stronghold of the extremist militant groups that
the US and
its allies flooded Syria with in a
premeditated campaign to effect regime change, and Syria and its allies are fighting to recapture the region. They are using
methods that are identical to those commonly used by the US and its allies, yet the bombing campaigns of the US-centralized empire
receive virtually no critical coverage while western mainstream outlets like
CNN and
the BBC
are churning out brazenly propagandistic pieces about the evils of the Assad coalition's airstrikes.
"Civilians are dying in Idlib, just as they died in their thousands in recent US UK air strikes in eg Raqqa and Mosul," political
analyst Charles Shoebridge
observed on Twitter today. "The difference is that when it's (often unverified) claims that Russia or Syria are doing the killing,
US UK media make it front page news."
There are many gaping plot holes in the Russiagate narrative that outlets like MSNBC have been bashing everyone over the head
with, but the most obvious and easily provable of them is the indisputable fact that Donald Trump
has escalated tensions against Russia more than any US president in decades. You never hear anyone talk about this self-evident
fact in all the endless yammering about Russia, though, because it doesn't advance the agendas of either of America's two mainstream
parties, and it doesn't advance the interests of US imperialism. Democrats don't like acknowledging the fact that Trump has been
consistently and aggressively working directly against the interests of Moscow , and Trump supporters don't like acknowledging
that their president is just as much of a neocon-coddling globalist as those they claim to oppose, so the war machine has gone conveniently
unchallenged in manufacturing new cold war escalations against a nation they've had marked for destruction since the fall of the
Soviet Union.
In a very interesting new Grayzone
interview packed full of ideas that you'll never hear voiced on western mass media, Russia's Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov
spoke openly about the various ways that Russia, China, and other nations who've resisted absorption into the blob of the US power
alliance have been working toward the creation of a multipolar world. Ryabkov said other nations have been watching the way the dominance
of the US dollar has been used to economically terrorize noncompliant nations into subservience by way of sanctions and other manipulations,
with Washington expecting that the dollar and the US financial system will remain "the cardiovascular system of the whole organism."
"That will not be the case," Ryabkov said. "People will bypass, in literal terms. And people will find ways how to defend themselves,
how to protect themselves, how to guarantee themselves against any emergencies if someone comes up at the White House or whatever,
at the Treasury, at the State, and says 'Hey guys, now we should stop what is going on in Country X, and let's squeeze them out.'
And this country sits on the dollar. So they will be done the moment those ideas will be pronounced. So China, Russia and others,
we create alternatives that we will most probably continue using not just national currencies, but baskets of currencies, currencies
of third countries, other modern barter schemes."
"We will use ways that will diminish the role of dollar and US banking system with all these risks of assets and transactions
being arrested, being stopped," Ryabkov concluded.
That, right there, is the real reason you're being sold Russia hysteria today.
And it isn't just on the matter of financial systems in which the unabsorbed powers are uniting against the imperial blob. Russia
and China
just carried out their first joint air patrol on Tuesday, drawing a hostile response from imperial vassals Japan and South Korea.
"Russian and Chinese bombers on 'first' joint patrol in the Asia-Pacific region. The China-Russia alliance has become a reality
and will last for long time,"
reads a post by one Russian Twitter commentator in response to the news.
The emergence of this alliance, which the Chinese government
has warned Washington is 'not vulnerable to interference', has been something the west has feared for a long time. A
Pentagon white paper published this past May titled "Russian Strategic Intentions" mentions the word "China" 108 times. Some
noteworthy excerpts:
The world system, and American influence in it, would be completely upended if Moscow and Beijing aligned more closely.
The allies' goal should be deterrence. At the same time, the US should bilaterally engage Russia to peel them away from China's
orbit.
He also encourages the development of the US's 'capability to effectively foster distrust and unease between the Russia Federation
and China.'
Along with Beijing, Moscow seeks a multipolar world in which US hegemony comes to an end. As Alexander Lukin recently pointed
out, the 'common ideal of a multipolar world [has] played a significant role in the rapprochement between Russia and China.'
Russia and China were explicitly mentioned in the 2018 National Defense Strategy as the great powers with which the US is
in competition. Both Russia and China have come a long way since the 1990s, and the 'friendship' that emerged in the immediate
post-Tiananmen period and continued to grow over the years now today appears to be one of the strongest bilateral alliances on
the planet.
Together, Russia's tentacles on its former Soviet neighbors and Moscow's strategic alliance with Beijing in pursuit of a multipolar
world (in which the US is no longer the global hegemon) form the two main pillars upon which Putin's grand strategy rests. All
other aspects of its foreign policy behavior can be traced back to this dual-pronged grand strategy.
I think you get the picture. From the Pentagon's point of view, US hegemony good, Russia-China alliance very, very bad.
Analysts like the white paper's authors, and even
The New York Times editorial board
, have urged the drivers of US foreign policy to attempt to lure Moscow away from Beijing, the latter rightly perceived as the greater
long-term threat to US dominance due to China's surging economic power. But diplomacy has clearly been ruled out toward this end,
with only a steadily escalating campaign to shove Russia off the world stage now deemed acceptable.
It
was determined with the help of
influential
neoconservative
think tankers that the US must maintain this unipolar paradigm at all costs. As soon as that view
became the establishment orthodoxy , any threat to US hegemony was now interpreted as a threat to national security. An "attack"
on America was no longer limited to physical attacks on US soil, or even on US allies and assets: any attempt to escape unipolarity
is now treated as a direct attack on the empire.
This is why we've seen nations like Iraq, Libya and Syria spoken about by the propagandists as "enemies" as though they pose
some kind of direct threat to the American people. There was never any actual threat to the physical United States, but those nations
were not complying with the dictates of US hegemony, and that noncompliance was treated as a direct attack.
This "if you're not obeying us you're attacking us" mentality is ridiculous on its face and no right-thinking citizen would
ever consent to it, which is why the consent manufacturers need to promote imaginary nonsense like weapons of mass destruction, a
Russian "attack" on American democracy, and a conspiracy theory about the Kremlin infiltrating the highest levels of the US government.
It's got nothing to do with actual fears of those nations posing any threat to actual Americans. It's about continuing to rule the
world.
I hate to say it, but corporate Democrats along with those who Maddow has totally
brainwashed are still true believers in the entire lie. You cannot get through to these
people, they will not come to terms with the fact that they've been hoodwinked and bamboozled
for the last three years. They read it in WaPo and the NYTimes and heard it on NPR so it's
gospel.
For the next 40 years these people will be writing essays, books and giving talks about
how the evil Russians interfered in our democracy [sic] to elect their preferred president.
It's maddening and perhaps beyond hope.
Rob , July 25, 2019 at 17:18
To your point, the NYT is warning that Russia will interfere AGAIN in the next election.
They take it as a given that they interfered in the last one, and so do many, if not most, of
their readers, notwithstanding the absence of evidence. This is a full-on, non-stop
propaganda effort. Facts will not get in the way.
anon4d2 , July 25, 2019 at 20:37
So we need evidence that Russia
1. Is interfering on both sides of every controversy;
2. Is representing the majority of the US better than the incumbents; or
3. Is plotting with Holland to take over the universe with UFOs and occult powers;
But perhaps it is better to concentrate on the influence of Israel, which is fact.
Drew Hunkins , July 26, 2019 at 10:24
“This is a full-on, non-stop propaganda effort. Facts will not get in the
way.”
In a recent interview with
CBS This Morning
host Gayle King, former First Lady
Michelle Obama contrasted her husband's presidency with that of his successor
by
claiming
that unlike Trump, the Obama family had had "no scandal".
"I had to sit in [Trump's inauguration] audience, one of a handful of people of color and
then listen to that speech, and all that I had sort of held onto for eight years, watching my
husband get raked over the coals, feeling like we had to do everything perfectly, you know, no
scandal," Obama said.
"Yeah," King responded.
"No nothing," Obama said
"No nothing!"
"Yes. No scandal," King said.
You hear this claim a lot from Democrats.
There was a
viral
tweet
with tens of thousands of shares shortly before the 2016 election which read, "8 years.
No scandals. No mistresses. No impeachment hearings. Just class and grace, personified." It's a
very common refrain which resurfaces in memes and tweets periodically, usually as criticisms of the
sitting president.
Of course, the only reason anyone can attempt to claim that Barack Obama had "no
scandals" is because in our bat shit crazy world, murdering, oppressing and exploiting large
numbers of people isn't considered scandalous.
In a sane, healthy world, a presidency like Obama's would be looked upon with abject
horror. Actually in a sane, healthy world a warmongering Wall Street crony like Obama would never
have been elected in the first place,
but if you were to show the members of a healthy,
harmonious society the way that president used his power to do what he did to Libya and Syria, to
continue and expand all of Bush's most evil policies, to divert the push for economic justice into
a neoliberal orgy for eight years, those people would recoil in absolute revulsion.
The only reason liberals think Obama had a low-key, drama-free presidency is because
that presidency was normalized for them by the establishment narrative managers of the
political/media class.
If that class had been shrieking about Obama's warmongering,
surveillance expansion, persecution of whistleblowers, crony capitalism etc in the way that it's
been shrieking about Trump's nonexistent Russia ties or his obnoxious tweets, these same people
would see Obama as a horrible monster. But the propagandists didn't do that, because it would
hinder the cause of bloodthirsty imperialism abroad and crushing austerity at home.
The plutocrat-owned media and the plutocrat-owned politicians have the ability to
control what people view as normal and what they view as weird,
just by not reacting with
alarm to occurrences they want normalized and reacting hysterically to occurrences they want
rejected.
Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard's fairly mild differences with US
foreign policy orthodoxy, for example, are treated as so freakishly bizarre that you routinely see
establishment pundits making fascinatingly absurd statements about her and getting away with it.
The
Hill
's Reid Wilson
posted
a tweet
that got thousands of likes and shares saying "Hot take/prediction: Tulsi Gabbard is
going to endorse Trump in the end." Center for American Progress President Neera Tanden
shared
Wilson's
tweet with the hysterical caption, "My prediction: Tulsi runs as third party Green candidate to
help Trump win. I will take bets on this." Again, thousands of likes and retweets.
Neither of these things are going to happen. Both Wilson and Tanden know they will never happen.
Gabbard is a fairly conventional center-left Democrat who just wants to scale back US warmongering
somewhat; she's so well within the establishment-authorized Overton window that she
just
voted in favor of a House anti-BDS bill
for Christ's sake. But because she opposes a few
aspects of the forever war and says it's a good idea to communicate with world leaders who the US
government doesn't like, establishment attack dogs are acting like Hawaii's second congressional
district is being represented by some kind of eldritch tentacle beast from the Andromeda Galaxy.
I'm highlighting some of the more glaring recent examples here, but this sort of thing
is happening all the time with varying degrees of subtlety.
The public's perceptions of
events are continually being distorted by an establishment narrative management machine which
controls what people view as normal and what they view as abnormal. You notice this very quickly
when you start
cultivating
your news sense
and paying attention to what news stories the mass media choose to give tons of
coverage to and what stories they all but ignore; you notice almost immediately that there's very
little connection between how important a story is and how much news coverage it receives. The
factor that determines the extent of coverage is the advancement of establishment interests and
advertising revenue, in that order. Actual newsworthiness barely registers.
The way to rob the narrative managers of their ability to manipulate our sense of
normalcy is to create an image of a sane and healthy world for ourselves to hold onto at all times,
and to make that image into our own personal sense of what normal is.
By having a
vivid picture of what a sane and healthy world would look like in your mind, the false normal that
the propagandists are trying to sell you will have no purchase.
Many people want to change the world, but hardly anyone ever sits down and creates a
clear, positive image for themselves of a world in which all positive changes have been
successfully put into full effect.
Most people tend to just look at the current hot topic
debates they're seeing in the news over healthcare, immigration policies, gun control, austerity
policies, abortion, LGBTQ issues, police brutality etc, and hope that those specific issues are
resolved in their preferred way. But what if you zoomed out to a much bigger picture and imagined a
healthy and harmonious world in which all our major problems have been resolved, and we've built
something beautiful together? What would that be like?
I can't envision such a world for you, because you and I will have different ideas about what a
perfectly healthy and harmonious world looks like. I'm not trying to give you a specific image, I'm
trying to get you to make a solid, lucid image of your own creation that can't be replaced by the
false normal the narrative managers are trying to implant in your mind day in and day out. Don't
hold back; go all the way and make the world as perfect as possible. All your ideas about what
changes you might make are "realistic" or "unrealistic" are corrupted by propaganda anyway, so just
create a perfect world.
This is worth setting aside an hour or two and investing some serious mental energy into. Once
you've got a positive image of a healthy and harmonious world, and once you have a really clear
image of what it would be like to live in that world, it's kind of like you become someone from
that imaginary world who stepped into this one and gets to see it for the first time.
You
get to see life through the eyes of someone for whom "normal" isn't endless violence, oppression,
exploitation and degradation, but for whom normal is the absence of those things.
This
makes all of the insanity in this world stand out like a black fly on a white sheet of paper, and
gives you the ability to clearly see and describe precisely what needs to change about our
situation here.
You've already had a taste of this if you've ever had the unfortunate experience of having to
explain what war is to a small child. Nothing about war makes sense to a creature who is looking at
this world with fresh eyes; the confusion and upset which immediately flashes over their face will
make you feel like an idiot even if you oppose war, just for being a part of a world where
grown-ups engage in such idiotic behavior. Someone who came into this world from a healthy and
harmonious parallel earth would see it very much the same way.
Imagine if war weren't normalized. Imagine if a US plane dropping a bomb on foreign soil and
ripping human bodies to shreds was treated as the horrific event that it actually is and given
weeks of extensive investigative coverage, instead of something that happens
many
times every single day
without any mention at all. A pundit on Fox or MSNBC will tell you that
you're a delusional imbecile if you think this should cease immediately. Anyone who's seeing our
world with unindoctrinated eyes knows you're a delusional imbecile if you don't.
All the injustices we're trained like dogs to see as normal are like this.
Corruption. Plutocracy. Wage slavery. The way the homeless are treated. The fact that there are
homeless at all. Police militarization. The drug war. Prisons for profit. Government surveillance.
Propaganda.
All of these things are inherently disgusting, but we lose our accurate
sense of disgust because we've been tricked into accepting them as normal. So remove the scales
from your eyes by creating a new normal for yourself.
"... Now, "we have a comatose world economy held together by debt and central bank money," Keating has said, "Liberal economics has run into a dead end and has had no answer to the contemporary malaise." What does the disavowal mean? In terms of his Labor heir Bill Shorten's growing appetite for redistributive taxation and close relationship to the union movement, it means "if Bill Shorten becomes PM, the rule of engagement between labour and capital will be rewritten," according to The Australian this week. Can't wait! ..."
"... Might be true. But frightening that people should naively still think that democracy is to be found in the 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat' ..."
"... most "isms" kill off their rivals and the unbelievers when they usurp powe ..."
"... Vested interests and the dollar seem to have all the power. Lies and deception are so common the truth is seen as the enemy. The voting public are merely fools for manipulation. Nah, neo-liberalism is not government, it is something far nastier, and clearly not what the public vote for, presuming a vote actually counts for anything anymore. ..."
For 40 years, the ideology popularly known as "neoliberalism" has dominated political decision-making in the English-speaking
west.
People hate
it . Neoliberalism's sale of state assets, offshored jobs, stripped services, poorly-invested infrastructure and armies of the
forcibly unemployed have delivered, not promised "efficiency" and "flexibility" to communities, but discomfort and misery. The wealth
of a few has now swelled to a level of conspicuousness that must politely be considered
vulgar
yet the philosophy's entrenched itself so deeply in how governments make decisions and allocate resources that one of its megaphones
once declared its triumph "the end of history".
... ... ...
Paul Keating's rejection
It was a year ago that a third sign first appeared, when the dark horse of Australian prime ministers, Paul Keating, made public
an on-balance rejection of neoliberal economics. Although Liberal PM Malcolm Fraser instigated Australia's first neoliberal policies,
it was Keating's architecture of privatisation and deregulation as a Labor treasurer and prime minister that's most well remembered.
Now, "we have a comatose world economy held together by debt and central bank money," Keating has said, "Liberal economics has run
into a dead end and has had no answer to the contemporary malaise." What does the disavowal mean? In terms of his Labor heir Bill Shorten's growing appetite for redistributive taxation and close relationship to the union movement, it means "if Bill Shorten becomes
PM, the rule of engagement between labour and capital will be rewritten," according to The Australian this week. Can't wait!
Tony
Abbott becomes a fan of nationalising assets
Or maybe's Sukkar's right about the socialists termiting his beloved Liberal party. How else to explain the earthquake-like paradigm
shift represented by the sixth sign? Since when do neoliberal conservatives argue for the renationalisation of infrastructure, as
is the push of Tony Abbott's gang to nationalise the coal-fired Liddell power station? It may be a cynical stunt to take an unscientific
stand against climate action, but seizing the means of production remains seizing the means of production, um, comrade. "You know,
nationalising assets is what the Liberal party was founded to stop governments doing," said Turnbull, even as he hid in the dens
and in the rocks of the mountains to weather – strange coincidence –
yet another Newspoll
loss.
"new introduction to a re-released Marx and Engels' Communist Manifesto.
Collective, democratic political action is our only chance for freedom and enjoyment."
Might be true. But frightening that people should naively still think that democracy is to be found in the 'Dictatorship of
the Proletariat' [ ie those who know what's good for you even if you don't like it ] of the Communist Manifesto after the revelations
of what that leads to in the Gulag Archipelago , Mao's China , Pol Pot , Kim John - un .
How quickly the world forgets. - you
might just as well advocate Mein Kampf it's the same thing in the end !
That's what you claim and it might be so but I'm not interested in keeping a score on the matter. The point you failed to get
is that the people you mentioned where totalitarian thugs. They used the banner of communism to achieve their ends. They would
have used what ever ideology that was in fashion to achieve the same results.
Does present day neo-liberalism actually qualify as a political movement?
Vested interests and the dollar seem to have all the power. Lies and deception are so common the truth is seen as the enemy.
The voting public are merely fools for manipulation. Nah, neo-liberalism is not government, it is something far nastier, and clearly
not what the public vote for, presuming a vote actually counts for anything anymore.
After having read all of the comments, I like to ask a question.
Neither in the story, nor in the comment section, I found any remark about the Skripal
affair.
Have you all forgotten how BOJO leaned himself out of the window, outdoing himself and his
degenerate former boss by accusing Russia of poisoning the Skripals and whoever else with
'Novi-shock'?
And this pathetic liar and accuser of Russia with as much as ZERO evidence is now at the
helm of HMS Titanic?
No wonder people can't figure out what's really going on in the world. Considering his
rabid "The Russians did it" tripe as FM, he should have been barred from public office for
the rest of his life.
Unless, of course, it's all nothing but low grade ham theater, with everybody playing
their role - including the Russians. But I do remember the kind of actions this guy wanted to
take against Russia, for 'highly likely' having been behind this fairy tale of a double agent
and his daughter.
So, please humor me about how much you remember of the stellar performance of this utter
joke calling for sanctions and worse against Russia.
Tech platforms circumvented the MSM and allowed different voices to be heard. Policing these
platforms are still currently beyond the capabilities of tech companies. Content censorship
is a main focus of AI right now. You can expect an impersonal, Stalinist PC police in every
platform very soon.
We need to be looking at the current situation. History (almost entirely an extremely
unpleasant horror show) is only relevant in that we have to deal with its mostly negative
relics.
Your way of looking at things assumes that everybody has convergent interests. The populists
argument is that those smart guys in power are only looking after their own interests and not
everybody else's.
Fighting ignorance with ignorance? Not a cool move, Comrade.
"[Marx] had few qualms about colonialism as many leftists in the 19th century."
1] Read Marx's stuff on India and Ireland and American Slavery.
2] "Marx didn't say much about culture."
Intro to the Grundrisse? Feuerbach Theses? German Ideology? All of what's been dismissed as
the "Humanist" Marx, meaning almost everything written before Capital?
3] " it is actually right-wingers who have used Gramsci's concept of Cultural Hegemony
with both hands." Read up.
Here's for starters:
Which brings me to the gist:
"Cultural Marxism," also known as Western Marxism, non-Leninist Marxism, etc. etc. Stuff they
can't accuse of being in collusion with Marxist-Leninism, Stalinism, etc. Ranging from late
Engels to Adorno to Benjamin to Sartre and beyond.
""Bannon, Kristol and many other have read him extensively."
About as much as you have, pal.
This is a paradox that clever progressives ought to be able to exploit, if only by
asking non-American rightwing populists to explain their great love for an industry that
even Steve Bannon considers to be "evil".
It doesn't seem to have occurred to the author that the American populist right,
not the European populist right, has the weaker argument, when it comes to Silicon Valley.
I think Big Tech ought to pay higher taxes (and I vehemently oppose the scandalous
subsidies and tax breaks they receive), but I think that's the case with all vastly
wealthy corporate interests, including such sectors as finance, property, bio-pharma, and
energy.
I'm not much of a fan of Facebook, but in general my life's loads more convenient and
affordable because of the likes of Google, Netflix, Amazon, Uber and Airbnb. Plus, you know,
they seem to piss off Trump and Bannon. So that's a plus.
As a Marxist, I would like someone to explain to me the meaning of the expression "cultural
Marxism".
It's cool to be an intellectual onanist or an outright bell-end (like Bolsonaro's minister
who said that global warming was a Marxist plot), but words have meanings and it would be
nice to use words carefully.
The bloody irony of "cultural Marxism" is that even though Marx didn't say much about
culture, LGBTQ(put another letter here) or minorities (he had few qualms about colonialism as
many leftists in the 19th century), it is actually right-wingers who have used Gramsci's
concept of Cultural Hegemony with both hands.
Bannon, Kristol and many other have read him extensively and have the cheek to criticise
others for promoting "cultural Marxism", which is a figment of their imagination.
Cultural Marxism is the Godwin point of intellectual discourse.
The American wing of the movement sees big tech as an attractive target of
attack....
One of those statements that indicates how deep you are wandering in the woods. There is
an onslaught of EU countries and EU councils that have sued big tech in the US. The
investigations don't stop and the threats don't stop.
In 2018, the EU hit Google with a fine of $5 billion in an antitrust verdict with respect
to the Android operating system. In 2017, the EU hit Google with a $2.7 billion judgement
with respect to displaying advertisements.
That is just the recent material with respect to Google.
The biggest pressure faced by Facebook (again) comes from the left. The pressures over
data, the race to take-down opposing viewpoints and the fines for non-compliance. Facebook
has been forced by the left to hire so many "fact-checkers" that it has affected its
profitability. (Recent discoveries reveal that Mark Zuckerberg lied to Congress -- a felony
offense.)
... as bashing it helps to delegitimize the legacy of Obama and Clinton, seen as its
primary enablers.
The Clinton's have amassed a remarkable trail of felony violations in many areas.
Continued pressure against the swamp is slowly removing their layers of protection. Documents
and evidence are also appearing that implicates Obama and some advisers in various illegal
activities in 2016 with respect to the FBI and DOJ.
That process continues to move forward, irregardless of the House.
The Right Wing Christian parties have found the Immigrant hot button with which to field
their arguments. Loosely knitted with finance to hide their real purpose, they are finding
success. I say, unmask them for their actual fears propelled by underlying bigotry and fear.
"Big tech monsters like Google and Facebook have become nothing less than incubators for
far-left liberal ideologies and are doing everything they can to eradicate conservative
ideas and their proponents from the internet."
If only it were true.
No fan of Mussolini, but he did oversee the eradication of malaria in Italy.
And I love free speech, but it's hard to justify the proposition that "conservative ideas"
really constitute a set of ideas, a coherent perspective. They're more accurately
understood as a set of noises, devoid of coherent meaning, made while harming oneself and
others.... They're just more verbose versions of, say, the inarticulate noises made by a
headmaster while whipping a young child for some fabricated misdemeanour. Noises the child
will learn to make while punishing others......
But there's one issue on which there's no agreement between American rightwing populists
and their peers in the rest of the world: what to make of Silicon Valley. On the one hand,
its services and platforms have been a boon to the populists everywhere...
Followed by more strawmen and generalized incoherence. In a recent speech, Macron started
by reminding his audience of Marie-Antoinette and King Louis XVI. The later was decapitated
because of a poor economic performance and wide-spread discontent.
And in 1517, the theologian Martin Luther nailed Thesis 86 to a church door and started
the Protestant Reformation.
In Morozov's scope of history, humanity has never experienced a social eruption,
revolution, or change of direction until Silicon Valley. That is not surprising since the
progressive left's extent of history begins around 1932.
Also, the author's knowledge of Silicon Valley's history is heavily flawed with biases and
fraudulent presentations.
Tech isn't new anymore. Silicon Valley is almost 40 years old in terms of its social impact.
That's equivalent to the 1960s for the US car industry, which is about the time that the
social and political negatives of car ownership began to manifest in public debate. The
novelty of big tech has begun wearing off as its early benefits fade, and the costs to
society linger. It's the rest of the world that is lagging behind the USA in terms of
disillusionment
The far left and the far right have a point about tech. Silicon Valley has always had
lamentable political tendencies: a love of both neoliberalism, a penchance for "Singaporean"
authoritarianism, and an ungainly mix of personal hubris and pseudomessianic claptrap. In the
US big tech is guilty of overselling itself to the public while just proving to be little
better at corporate citizenship than oil companies.
The ambition and business method of all social media is to create a condition of extreme
excitability, reactiveness and strong engagement by users so as to maximize participation and
thereby to drive revenue streams, whether these are advertising or product sales or data
acquisition for future commercial exploitation.
Accordingly, Big Tech relies on the hyper provocation and ultra engagement of the "2
minutes hate" as it is described by some.
It's like throwing out morsels of raw meat to a group of crocodiles or alligators and
watching the feeding frenzy.
The commercial model of Big Tech demands the strong drivers of intense hate, fear, envy
and even hostility.
Negative emotions, acting on the more primitive parts of the brain, subvert our critical
faculties and drive our impulsive and destructive behaviours for the advantage of Big
Tech.
Politically correct and worthy speech will ertainly not optimize the revenues. You need
the fulminating hate merchants, the graders, the nasties and the trolls. That gets other
users highly exercised and strongly engaged.
I know of few social media based outlets which cynically and manipulatively use a few
social provocateurs to throw out incendiary and provocative hate speech so as to get the
punters enraged and engaged.
Alt-right and hard right sells. Hate speech stimulates.
The commercial objective is to get the online dogs salivating out of a Pavlovian reaction
to the trigger bells of hate, discrimination, fear of migrants, provocation over identity
issues, fear of being swamped, loss if he familiar and the rise tinted but deceptive lens of
nostalgia for a wholly fictitious imagined past.
Gd point. The ambition of all social media is to create a condition of extreme excitability,
reactive ness and engagement so as to maximize participation and thereby to drive revenue
streams.
Excellent and apposite reference to Orwell in this context.
Big Tech relies on the hyper privication and engagement of the "2 minutes hate" as you
aptly describe it.
It's like throwing out morsels ofvraw meet to a group of crocodiles or alligators and
watching the feeding frenzy.
The commercial model of Big Tech demands the drivers of hate, fear, envy and even
hostility. Negative emotions, acting on the more primitive parts of the brain, subvert our
critical faculties and drive our impulsive and destructive behaviors.
Politically correct and worthy speech will not optimize the revenues.
I know of few social media based outlets which cynically and manipulatively use a few
social provocateurs to throw out incendiary and provocative hate speech so as to get the
punters engaged.
Alt-right and hard right sells. Hate speech stimulates.
Get the online dogs salivating out of a Pavlovian reaction to the trigger bells.
And as we have seen with Facebook's monthly scandals they are not going to behave better
unless they are forced to. It would be good to have governments that might help: right now
that's the EU alone, China being a special case.
Left wing is not really to do with labour politics anymore
Of course it is though that was simply a vehicle to uplift the whole of society making it
egalitarian. Silicon Valley can only be implicated as left wing as communism for the rich. In
no respect are they looking for equality quite the reverse their celebrated ideal is the
emancipation of the individual to be great wealth creators, if they have a social conscience
their beneficence will be to become philanthropists creating another legacy from their
wealth.
You can see why European fascist like them they were always happy to work with capitalists
in the past. It seems their US counterparts are behind the curve on that.
Big Tech preserves the surface veneer of democracy whilst controlling the prejudices and
direction of the electorates.
Big Tech assimilates us into a hive mind. It is not yet absolute but we are well on the
way to being controlled by those who use Big Tech to direct us.
Only the far right libertarian billionaires can afford to use Big Tech to impose their
wishes.
Democracy is being replaced by a toxic mix of plutocracy, technocracy and a mobbing mass
directed like a murmurstion of starlings.
Read Shoshana Zuboff's book, "Surveillance Capitalism" for an insight.
I consume social media and technology; therefore I am.
"The rhetoric of hatred and divisiveness only has one logical conclusion, which is ultimately
to pit every individual against every other individual. The order in which they do so is not
some kind of universal, it's a complex product of cultural fears and how they can be
exploited."
But ironically the obsession with "identity politics" the erasure of wider communities in
favour of further and further fragmentation- seen as "progressive", is helping to deliver the
same agenda. is it not? It concentrates on what makes us different, not what makes us
similar.
No, they've provided a platform for almost anyone to encourage and amplify their
message, including far-left, far-right, people looking for missing cats etc.
I made this point in my original post.
You seem to be agreeing with me for the sake of disagreement, as a mechanism to get your
point across, in the process omitting and skewing the points I made.
You subtly edited one of my statements to omit the term capital. My full sentence was as
below:
We're in a desperate situation where capital and tech giants have utilised social media
to encourage, amplify and legitimise the very worst human impulses.
The point here is that capital has a tremedous advantage over smaller and grass roots
movements because it can employ companies such as Cambridge Analytica and Aggregate IQ to
mobilise opinion.*
In this arena, as in every arena, money helps people seize and bolster power. The
assertion that left and right can exert the same influence in this domain is a false
equivalence.
Social media isn't a channel through which all views can flow equally. Your claim to this
effect is either disingenuous or naive.
* They're the same company, but that's another discussion.
Here's a sound analysis of the global economy for you, Zhenya: capitalism is an unrecoverable
failure. Wreck it, scrap it, replace it by egalitarian cybernetically centrally-planned
low-competition, moderated-consumption leisure-oriented socialism with a private sector
limited to 30% of GDP or less.
One thing that appears to be missing from this is the recent trend in rightwing populists
being kicked off online payment processes services & fund raising tools, not to mention
twitter and similar social media platforms. It's easy enough to understand the
Alex Jones/Infowars being banned from paypal being one such example, another interesting
one is, again,
paypal and them banning the Proud Boys , the amusing part is they banned Antifa groups as
well for violating the same terms of service.
Throw in social media sites
"Purging political discussions" and it's easy to see how there's going to be hate from
populists. Social media has become a vital tool of political discussion, but it's not... yet
stable, the platform providers are reactionary and inconsistent in their approach to sorting
problems.
I think this can be explained by the American propensity to conflate "conservatism" with
"market liberalism". It's a sleight of hand that really confuses some people.
Left wing is not really to do with labour politics anymore, if it ever was. Arguably it was
only ever a useful grievance to be harnessed that has long been superseded. Harnessed to the
goal of remaking mankind to the favoured plan of upper middle class utopians. I think that at
bottom that is what leftism is in its essence.
The idea that these most ludicrously successful and world-bestriding capitalist enterprises
are founded and staffed by Marxists, or folks who are pretty much indistinguishable from
Marxists, would, one might think, be something that would engender a long and thoughtful
period of reflectio
Big tech are a classic example of those who are "socially liberal but fiscally conservative".
In other words, are happy to have compassion and a conscience...as long as it doesn't cost
them anything.
The assumption among academics was that, should new media democratise our politics it
would, naturally, advantage the left. The people would throw off their shackles and reclaim
authority from capital. The wave would be egalitarian rather than divisive.
Capital has successfully devised an ersatz, designedly harmless (to them) "left" and used
its class/cultural power to squash and demonise the real thing.
How do we begin to fight back? Can we fight back?
Sure. The bourgeoisie's exploitation of our common decency has pretty much exhausted
itself. It's essential that new left currents are exclusively proletarian however.
I don't think either 'side' is necessarily wrong here. The social media giants are
generally made up of left-leaning people; not necessarily surprising given that they're
based in California and are made up of relatively young college graduates.
This is fundamentally untrue.
At best these people have appropriated socially liberal attitudes because it suits their
capitalist instincts.
There's a market for social liberalism. Tech giants and their owners have branded aspects
of their companies accordingly.
If the money flows in the other direction, these same companies and owners will profit
from this stream without compunction. Increasingly that's where the money streams from.
These people are capital. Their ethics stretch no further than their bottom
line.
Zuckerberg et al. sell notions of "hacking the system" only to service a profit
imperative. Indeed, they've "hacked" publishing laws to dodge accountability.
Bannon, while condemning Silicon Valley, is one of the main proponents of the use of its
platforms in propaganda. Indeed, it was central to the 2016 election of Trump and the
campaigns he has overseen in Europe.
What he describes as "evil" are the utopian tech barons, as they are an easy target for
popular hate. This is, of course, rank hypocrisy - as he and his "pro-business" allies are
neither calling for them to be taxed nor brought down to size, and they are quite happy to
use their services.
Therefore, I don't think there is a divide between the US far right or their offshoots
around the world. The paradox at the centre of all these movements is that they are both for
and against powerful elites, when it suits them.
The arab spring was initially viewed by many as an anti US uprising using the freedom of the
internet.
When it didnt deliver honey and unicorns, by many it was retrospectively recast as a US coup
using a US corporation controlled by zionists.
Its not the medium it is the ownership and the bias behind it. TV media today is left wing
biased not just in UK but US and other western countries too. Similarly, we have to look at
the ownership of the big internet companies and their bias today also.
The tech giants don't care about 'left' or 'right', 'conservative' or 'progressive'. They
care about money and they care about enriching their senior executives and shareholders.
It wasn't that long ago that progressives bubbled over with excitement at the role played by
Twitter and Facebook in the Arab Spring. And of course no profession has embraced Twitter
more enthusiastically than journalists. If that was removed half our newspapers would be
blank pages. Ambivalence about the big social media platforms is not unique to populists. If
your ideas get traction on it you like it. If your opponents ideas get traction you don't.
Not entirely unlike traditional media in this respect.
The advent of social media produced an upswell of academic papers and arguments.
As the internet became a growing cultural and political tool, the framing question for
much academic debate was as follows:
Will "new media" democratise our culture and politics, or be co-opted by established
actors to bolster their hegemonic status.
The assumption among academics was that, should new media democratise our politics it
would, naturally, advantage the left. The people would throw off their shackles and reclaim
authority from capital. The wave would be egalitarian rather than divisive.
Post-Brexit and Trump, this assumption has been exposed as deeply flawed.
While Western politics has become increasingly polarised, the beneficiaries have been the
increasingly hard to far right.
We're in a desperate situation where capital and tech giants have utilised social media to
encourage, amplify and legitimise the very worst human impulses.
Isnt this just the modern equivalent of 1950s republicans complaining that new fangled TV
makes JFK seem better looking and more likely to win elections? You cant uninvent TV or the
internet.
Barack Obama was the pioneer of using social media to help win elections but there was zero
outcry about it.
Automation will likely eliminate all jobs eventually. The idea that it's a tool of the
liberal centre to displace the "provincial periphery" is nonsense.
2008 was the pivotal year that trust was lost in the banks, the political class and the
media; all three have been fighting a rearguard action ever since.
The crash saw politicians use public money to bail out the banks while the media were
complicit in subverting this reality, blaming certain groups for causing the melt down (such
as the poor, the feckless, migrants, etc).
In the meantime things have become much worse guaranteeing that the next crash (which is
just round the corner) will be far worse than 2008 because borrowing has reached such
stratospheric proportions, while none of the root causes of 2008 have been addressed - the
likes of the Yellow Vests in France are probably a taste of what is to come.
Most of the arguments around the digital media are driven by a desire to surpress the
nature of previous and coming economic catastrophes in my opinion typified by some of the
groups who are trying to exploit the lack of honesty about why living conditions are under
threat in places like Spain, Greece and the North of England.
So outside of the US, populist see social media as a way out of some sort dictatorship by
people smarter than themselves? That's just perverse. I want the damned country to be run by
people who are smarter than I am. I hope this will actually happen one day.
I tend to think that the Atlanticists are right here - Big Tech represents the liberal centre
who would happily replace the provincial periphery with robots for cultural as well as
economic reasons.
In Continental Europe, the new populism is nascent and so as we saw with the leader-less
Gilets jaunes, folk are still excited about the self-organisation potential of the Net.
I don't think either 'side' is necessarily wrong here. The social media giants are generally
made up of left-leaning people; not necessarily surprising given that they're based in
California and are made up of relatively young college graduates. And yes, they are getting
filthy rich off the backs of some questionable policies and, in some instances, questionable
approaches to taxation.
For all the faults of the left and right populists, and there are many, I think they are
right in thinking that the big tech companies are no angels.
The US justice department is opening a broad antitrust review into major technology firms,
as criticism over the companies' growing reach and power heats up.
The investigation will focus on growing complaints that the companies are unlawfully
stifling competition.
"The Department's review will consider the widespread concerns that consumers, businesses
and entrepreneurs have expressed about search, social media, and some retail services online,"
the Department of Justice said in a statement.
ss="rich-link"> A new antitrust frontier – the issue closing partisan divides in
the name of policing big tech Read more
"Without the discipline of meaningful market-based competition, digital platforms may act in
ways that are not responsive to consumer demands," added the assistant attorney general Makan
Delrahim, of the antitrust division.
The review will investigate practices of online platforms including Facebook , Alphabet's Google, Amazon and
Apple.
The investigation comes amid calls from lawmakers, including Democratic presidential
candidates such as Elizabeth Warren, that the companies should face more scrutiny.
Lat week, Facebook, Google, and Amazon
faced a grilling before the House subcommittee on antitrust, commercial and administrative
law over their hold on markets including digital advertising, e-commerce and cloud
computing.
Lawmakers questioned Amazon over the fees it levies against
third-party sellers on the platform and whether this creates a monopoly of power. They also
questioned Facebook executives over practices of targeting startups for acquisition and copying
features of companies that decline to be acquired.
Lawmakers also grilled Facebook this month over its plans to launch a global cryptocurrency,
called Libra. In the hearing, Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio said Facebook showed "breathtaking
arrogance" in attempting to launch a digital financial service after a number of major privacy
scandals.
In July, the Federal Trade Commission approved a $5bn fine against Facebook for its handling
of user data surrounding the Cambridge
Analytica scandal in 2018.
"Facebook is dangerous," Brown said, likening the company to a toddler playing with matches.
"It has burned the house down repeatedly and called every attempt a learning experience. Do you
really think people should trust you with their bank accounts and their money?"
The Department of Justice investigation is already under way, the Wall Street Journal
reported on Tuesday. The department hosted a private presentation from critics of big
technology companies, who walked legislators through concerns and arguments for breaking up the
firms.
Facebook, Alphabet , Amazon and Apple did not
immediately respond to requests for comment.
"... Imagine you are a horny 15 year old boy and you have been promised sex with an incredible Hollywood talent. Driven by surging hormones your anticipation and excitement are off the scale. You are taken to the place where the tryst will happen. And you open the door. Waiting of you is Barney Fife. ..."
Imagine you are a horny 15 year old boy and you have been promised sex with an incredible Hollywood talent. Driven by surging
hormones your anticipation and excitement are off the scale. You are taken to the place where the tryst will happen. And you open
the door. Waiting of you is Barney Fife.
That sort of sums up what is likely to happen tomorrow when Robert Mueller testifies before the House Judiciary and the House
Intelligence committees. I have shut off almost all cable news. I cannot stomach the relentless hype about tomorrow's supposed "big
day."
Hmmm, given how the legacy media has managed to completely misinterpret what Mueller's Report actually says, imagine what a field
day they will have interpreting "nothing" to mean something. Now, I wonder what that something might be...?
"... Two women questioned about Prince Andrew in 2010, operating businesses from New York property years after appearing to have left Epstein's entourage ..."
"... Sarah Kellen and Nada Marcinkova, questioned by lawyers about whether Prince Andrew had any involvement in Epstein's abuse, have reinvented themselves as Sarah Kensington and Nadia Marcinko. Photograph: the guardian Two of Jeffrey Epstein's alleged accomplices are running businesses from a Manhattan property linked to the wealthy sex offender under new identities, years after appearing to have left his scandal-plagued entourage. ..."
"... Virginia Roberts, who has long claimed that she was Epstein's "sex slave", alleged in a US court filing last week that she was forced to have sexual relations with Andrew. The prince vehemently denies the allegation against him and is under intense pressure to fully account for his friendship with Epstein. ..."
"... Kellen was accused by lawyers in legal filings of "bringing girls to Epstein's mansion to be abused". According to police files, a series alleged victims of Epstein told investigators that they were led to a massage room in Epstein's mansion in Palm Beach, Florida, by a woman named Sarah. ..."
"... One alleged victim claimed to police that she was told Marcinkova had been bought from her parents in eastern Europe by Epstein when she was 15, according to detectives. One alleged that she was made to have sex with Marcinkova and to watch her have sex with Epstein. ..."
"... Sarah Kellen, now Kensington, with boyfriend Brian Vickers. Kellen was accused by lawyers in legal filings of 'bringing girls to Epstein's mansion to be abused'. ..."
"... Attorneys for Epstein did not respond to an email asking whether Epstein had assisted his former associates in any way in securing their new identities, establishing their businesses or in maintaining the property. ..."
"... Marcinkova and Kellen did not respond on Tuesday to telephone calls, voicemails, emails and text messages seeking comment. Attorneys who represented them when they were questioned in 2010 did not respond to queries about whether they still spoke for the women. ..."
Sarah Kellen and Nada Marcinkova, questioned by lawyers about whether
Prince Andrew had any involvement in Epstein's abuse, have reinvented themselves as Sarah Kensington and Nadia Marcinko. Photograph:
the guardian Two of Jeffrey Epstein's alleged accomplices are running businesses from a Manhattan property linked to the wealthy
sex offender under new identities, years after appearing to have left his scandal-plagued entourage.
Nada Marcinkova and Sarah Kellen, who were questioned by lawyers about whether Prince Andrew had any involvement in Epstein's
abuse of underage girls, have since reinvented themselves as Nadia Marcinko and Sarah Kensington.
Marcinkova, 29, is now a pilot and the chief executive of Aviloop, a website selling discounted flying lessons and other deals
related to aviation. Kellen, 34, states that she is the owner of SLK Designs, a renovations firm.
However according to public records, both businesses have operated from addresses in a building on East 66th Street in Manhattan
majority-owned by Epstein's brother Mark, a wealthy property magnate. Two condominiums in the building sold last year for $2.5m and
$1.85m.
Nada Marcinkova, left and Sarah Kellen, second from right. Via
newyorksocialdiary.com
Photograph: newyorksocialdiary.com
Marcinkova's company is officially registered with New
York authorities at the building. Import records show that Kellen's company takes deliveries there.
Jeffrey Epstein , a friend of Andrew's who was
jailed in 2008 for soliciting prostitution from a minor, was accused in 2011 court documents of using the building to house young
women. Several rented condominiums in the building have been lived in by Epstein associates, according to public records.
Mark Epstein said in a brief telephone interview on Tuesday: "I own the majority of the units in the building, but I've never
heard of those companies," referring to the firms run by Marcinkova and Kellen.
Virginia Roberts, who has long claimed that she was Epstein's "sex slave", alleged in a US court filing last week that she was
forced to have sexual relations with Andrew. The
prince vehemently
denies the allegation against him and is under intense pressure to fully account for his friendship with Epstein.
Marcinkova and Kellen were among four named Epstein associates identified by US government prosecutors as "potential co-conspirators"
who would avoid charges under the controversial plea deal Epstein struck in 2007, which saw him serve just over year in jail for
his offences.
The two women both cited their right under the US constitution to avoid incriminating themselves when they were asked a series
of questions by lawyers for alleged victims of Epstein under oath in 2010 – including whether underaged girls were forced to have
sex with Andrew.
Kellen was accused by lawyers in legal filings of "bringing girls to Epstein's mansion to be abused". According to police files,
a series alleged victims of Epstein told investigators that they were led to a massage room in Epstein's mansion in Palm Beach, Florida,
by a woman named Sarah.
One alleged victim claimed to police that she was told Marcinkova had been bought from her parents in eastern Europe by Epstein
when she was 15, according to detectives. One alleged that she was made to have sex with Marcinkova and to watch her have sex with
Epstein.
Marcinkova's biography on the Aviloop website now states: "Over the years, she has proven herself to be a distinguished entrepreneur".
In addition to carrying out international design work, Kellen is in a relationship with a successful Nascar driver, stating on her
website that "most of my fans know that I am Brian Vickers' girlfriend".
Sarah Kellen, now Kensington, with boyfriend Brian Vickers. Kellen was accused by lawyers in legal filings of 'bringing girls to
Epstein's mansion to be abused'.
The domains for both websites are registered through the same Arizona-based service that allows the identities and contact details
of the website owner to be shielded from public view.
Attorneys for Epstein did not respond to an email asking whether Epstein had assisted his former associates in any way in securing
their new identities, establishing their businesses or in maintaining the property.
Marcinkova and Kellen did not respond on Tuesday to telephone calls, voicemails, emails and text messages seeking comment. Attorneys
who represented them when they were questioned in 2010 did not respond to queries about whether they still spoke for the women.
Mark Epstein said that his brother did not own any of the units in the building. Asked how it came to be that associates of his
brother lived in the building, Mark Epstein said: "They're rentals. The ones I own, I rent all of them out." Asked whether he owned
the units where associates of his brother lived or registered businesses, Mark Epstein said: "I don't know, and even if I knew, that's
not information I'm giving you."
"I don't keep track, I've owned them for 20-something-odd years and I don't know," Mark Epstein said, when asked if he owned a
unit that according to public records Kellen once used. "There's only a few people I know who live there, such as friends," he said.
"The press of the United States? It is a parasitic growth that battens on the capitalist
class. Its function is to serve the established by moulding public opinion, and right well it
serves it.
I know nothing that I may say can influence you. You have no souls to be influenced. You are
spineless, flaccid things. You pompously call yourselves Republicans and Democrats. There is no
Republican Party. There is no Democratic Party.
There are no Republicans nor Democrats in this House. You are lick-spittlers and panderers,
the creatures of the Plutocracy.
You talk verbosely in antiquated terminology of your love of liberty, and all the while you
wear the scarlet livery of the Iron Heel."
....Russians believe that the Skripal affair has been much more damaging to HMG than it
has to Russia, and have no interest in removing the mystery surrounding it - the more people
delve, the more it stinks. Montreal @ 135 on Skripal thread.
I have heard similar, along the lines 'storm in a tea cup makes the Brits ridiculous',..
Putin knows what went down (or at least what didn't and the rough scenario.)
Remember when VP said in public that he encouraged the two Russians identified as
'culprits' (tourists in Salisbury..) to come forward - they promtly did so, correctly
figuring that this was a protection guarantee for them. They hated, were afraid, to do it,
and set stupid conditions with the Head of RT, trying to limit personal image damage. She
couldn't refuse because of VP's advice.
Putin could publicly wonder why Britain is keeping them incommunicado. What are the
Brits hiding? Even a devoted Empire supporter would have to agree that it is most peculiar.
Yet Putin claims to have no knowledge on the subject, which is almost certainly untrue.
Rob 136 that thread.
The Russians have made, and make, regular requests to have access to the Skripals via the
usual channels, int'l etc. (+ by Red Cross if need be.) They are turned down everytime, but
the situation is complex, as GB has various 'excuses' to hand: -> for protection of
Skripals -> Yulia has stated she does not want -> Sergei is a swapped spy and etc. etc.
(briefly and not 'legal' terms.) Conventional moves from the Russian side.
Putin has strenuously stated that traitors are the vilest scum, in harmony imho with his
general principles as presented to the public, so why should he do SFA to help, or stand by,
Sergei, who sold his country's 'secrets' for paltry sums and privileges .. (and Yulia, who is
most likely? involved somehow? - maybe not .. -) On the other hand, Sergei did his time, has
been pardoned, can do as he likes, where is the problem, the rule of law is such .. (alaff at
137 that thread makes that point forcibly..)
> The Russians sneer at this crazed hyped-up scenario of Novichok poisoning, re. some
minor incident, rightly so, imho. Which does NOT mean the Skripals weren't targeted with some
'substance', hospitalized, etc. nor that Dawn Sturgess didn't die, and Charlie survived but
has lost his agency and sense, nor that Porton Down was involved somehow.
The Skripals are kept incommunicado because they can't be allowed to speak out about what
happened. Clue: nothing to do with Novichok or anything of world importance.
These local minor stories, situations, which may even be fabricated or 'engineered', are
cynically upgraded to world-wide-media horrors by pols and the media, to manipulate the plebs
with movie-script scenarios they can understand and relate to and take sides on and
also at the same time 'be divided' endlessly discussing BS about this that the other and what
more etc. etc.
"... Putin now confirms that Skripal was indeed willing to come back to Russia. Oliver Stone thinks Skripal wanted to present something to the press. If Skripal had publicly said that he made up and wrote the Steele dossier, the anti-Trump/anti-Russia campaign by the Clinton 'resistance' would have been over. The whole Mueller investigation nonsense would never have happened. ..."
"... The reality probably is thus: The Brits cold-bloodedly poisoned him and his daughter to tar the Russians. Then a straight British fabrication story that holds no water anywhere along the way. They did it, and he had no value to them, so why not? His daughter? She's Russian. Of no use to them. ..."
"... In the scheme of things, it was a trivial act of poisoning with a huge payoff, which they achieved. ..."
"... The Skripals were doped with BZ nerve agent. It is likely that Sergei has been maintained in a near vegetative state with psychotropic drugs since then as a means to keep him in storage. There was no novichok other than the fresh batch made at Porton Down and used to amateurishly spike the sample sent to the OPCW for analysis. ..."
"... The scenario b describes is the most probable of all that I've heard. Spook agencies such as the MI6 and CIA like to think of themselves as thrifty with their assets and thus accomplish multiple objectives with a single operation. They believe themselves to be clever that way. For this reason they would have been unlikely to have doped the Skripals for the sole purpose of implicating Russia. There are any number of other ways that they could have arranged an incident that makes Russia look bad. The operation would have had to serve other purposes as well, and silencing Sergei and preventing his embarrassing return to Russia would be suitable additional purposes. There were likely other objectives within the operation as well such as smoking out leakers. ..."
"... It would be well to remember that in early March last year, about the same time that the Skripals were found collapsed on the park bench in The Maltings shopping centre by Alison McCourt and her award-winning heroic teenage daughter, that the Syrian Arab Army liberated Douma / East Ghouta (or most of that area anyway) near Damascus and captured 300 terrorists. Among the captured fighters were found British and French "military advisors". The British government (and probably likely the French government: do people remember that Moscow also thumped Paris over its role in the Skripal poisoning saga?) needed a diversion from that sorry tale that would have exposed Britain and France's sordid roles in the failed US-led invasion of Syria and the overthrow of Syria's government. ..."
"... It is possible that Skripal, living alone in his house and his pets, and facing a lonely future in Britain after his daughter, the other surviving member of his family, started making wedding arrangements that would have meant fewer visits to Britain to see her father, had contemplated returning to Russia and had made known his wish to a few people he thought he could trust. ..."
"... It might very well be that - unfortunately for the Skripals - Skripal's handler and British government spook agencies were and are as much taken with conspiracy thinking and the conspiracy mind-set as Oliver Stone was (in his interview with Vladimir Putin) and those agencies feared that Skripal was going to spill the beans about his (possible) involvement in the Steele dossier and implicate them. ..."
"... Thanks b, a timely post. I sometimes suspect that the outing of Integrity Initiative and Institute for Statecraft was a Russian payback for the defaming antics perpetrated by the MI6 morons. I have no proof as it was meticulously anonymous. Its a comforting thought here in the gaslit studio of humanity. ..."
"... Putin states now openly it helped "to cause a scandal" supposedly for various geopolitical reasons. ..."
"... As I understood it, Sergei Skripal was more mercenary than spook, in the business of selling info because he could profit from it. In other words, more Aldrich Ames or Hanssen than Philby. ..."
"... He may have overplayed his hand - obviously, his plans leaked out - and UK intelligence (perhaps with the US involved) decided to stage the incident. Or perhaps - as is possible with someone who'll play both sides - Sergei was the leaker in an attempt to gain more currency with Moscow. ..."
"... The British police knew of the perfume bottle early on. The first theory of the poisoning presented to the public was that Yulia had brought the novichok from Russian in her luggage. There was even speculation that it was in a perfume bottle that Yulia had suddenly decided to open on the bench. (This did not sound plausible at the time as it would not explain how the novichok hit Sergei.) ..."
"... We know the police were all over looking for the missing perfume bottle. They could not find it, because Sergei had already dumped it in the charity bin. Maybe Sergei even told them where he put it, but Charlie had found it before MI6 could recover it. ..."
"... There is no Russian state component in it. Not even a Roque element. The claim is total BS. Short analysis shows, that management of this "case" is entirely in the realm of the UK. ..."
"... A lot of elements of this operation had to be prepared upfront and controlled while the operation is unfolding. It remains open, whether or not the skripals where in on the plot, probably not. But anyone asserting the "Russia did it/novichok" story does lack the sanity to be trusted with state matters. ..."
"... Both from interview transcripts and RT article it's clear that the part P. says he does not believe is that S. has been poisoned by the British services (in response to Stone's question floating such a possibility). ..."
"... if Skripal suspected that the bottle contained something dodgy, wouldn't you think the last place he'd dispose of it would be a charity bin, if he were an intelligent ex-spook? ..."
"... That remark by Putin was actually in response only to the question of whether UK spooks poisoned Skripal to stop him returning to Russia, not about whether Skripal wanted to return: ..."
"... However, since the "agent" found by Swiss was Agent BZ, it might be more interesting to hear what poster 101 has to say about synthesizing BZ... ..."
"... From what I have heard, the Russians believe that the Skripal affair has been much more damaging to HMG than it has to Russia, and have no interest in removing the mystery surrounding it - the more people delve, the more it stinks. ..."
"... As an inhabitant of the UK, I can say that a lot of us were very shocked when the Government was trying to stuff these obvious lies down our throats, and it is what got a few of us onto alternative media - sick to death as we already were of the Brexit poison in the MSM. So a belated thank you to b, and your colleagues, what would we do without you. ..."
"... Btw, just to remind - Boris Berezovsky also was going to come back from UK to Russia, he wrote a letter to Putin. But "suddenly" it happened so that Berezovsky committed a "suicide". We can only guess what he could tell if he returned to Russia. Someone really did not want this information to become known... ..."
"... The presence of HMG nurse on site, and the subsequent Monty Pythom-esque cover up, seems proof enough that the UK had foreknowledge and without question, worked to keep the Russophobia stoked high not only after the incident, but the later killed a UK citizen to continue the incident. Mr. P is being diplomatic. ..."
Putin Confirms: Sergei Skripal Wanted To Go Back To Russia
Filmmaker Oliver Stone recently interviewed the President of the Russian Federation,
Vladimir Putin. The transcript was published yesterday
evening. Most of the interview is about Ukraine. A separate piece will cover that country.
There is also a passage about the U.S. election.
But the most interesting bits from Putin are about the Skripal affair.
The British and Russian double agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter Julia were impaired by
some chemical substance in early March 2018 in Salisbury. Britain blamed the incident on
Russia. CIA Director Gina Haspel, a former CIA station chief in London, used
fake pictures of the incident to deceive Trump and to push him to kick out 60 Russian
diplomats. (The NYT later
ran cover for Haspel.)
We have speculated since the very beginning of the Skirpal case that the 'former' spy wanted
to go back to Russia. Putin now confirms , to my knowledge for the first
time, that this was the case (underline added):
Oliver Stone: What has happened to Skripal? Where is he?
Vladimir Putin: I have no idea. He is a spy, after all. He is always in hiding.
Oliver Stone: They say he was going to come back to Russia. He had some information.
Vladimir Putin: Yes, I have been told that he wants to make a written request to come
back.
Oliver Stone: He knew still and he wanted to come back. He had information that he could
give to the world press here in Russia.
Vladimir Putin: I doubt it. He has broken the ranks already. What kind of information can
he possess?
The information Sergei Skripal possessed might have been related to the U.S. election and
the Steele dossier which alleged that Russia had dirt on Trump. On March 8 2018, only a few
days after the Sergei and Julia Skripal were allegedly poisoned, we discussed the connection in
our first
post on the Skripal affair :
[Christopher] Steele was an MI6 undercover agent in Moscow around the time when Skripal
was recruited and handed Russian secrets over to the MI6. He [later] ran the MI6 Russia desk
so anything about Skripal will have passed through him. It is very likely that they
personally knew each other. Pablo Miller, who worked for Steele's private company [Orbis],
lived in the same town as Skripal and they seems to have been friends since Miller had
recruited him. Miller or someone else attempted to cover up the connection to Steele by
editing his LinkedIn entry.
Here are some question:
Did Skripal help Steele to make up the "dossier" about Trump?
Were Skripal's old connections used to contact other people in Russia to ask about
Trump dirt?
Did Skripal threaten to talk about this?
If there is a connection between the dossier and Skripal, which seems very likely to me,
then there are a number of people and organizations with potential motives to kill him. Lots
of shady folks and officials on both sides of the Atlantic were involved in creating and
running the anti-Trump/anti-Russia campaign. There are several investigations and some very
dirty laundry might one day come to light. Removing Skripal while putting the blame on Russia
looks like a convenient way to get rid of a potential witness.
The British government issued a D-Notice which prohibited the British press from further
mentioning Pablo Miller.
We also speculated that Skripal wanted to go back to Russia:
The most curious point in the affair though is the visit of the daughter. She had just
come from Moscow to visit her lonely father when both were poisoned in a rather sensational
way. There must be some reason why she was involved in this.
Did she have a bad message for him?
Did they both decide that suicide was the only way out?
Was locally bought Fentanyl involved as the local press had reported?
or
Was the lonely old man Sergej Skripal preparing to go back to his homeland Russia?
Did he offer a some kind of "gift" as apology to the Russian government that his
trusted daughter would take to Moscow?
Did someone find out and stop the transfer?
The above questions are all highly speculative. But the connection between Steele and
Skripal is way too deep to be irrelevant here. It certainly deserves more digging.
Putin now confirms that Skripal was indeed willing to come back to Russia. Oliver Stone
thinks Skripal wanted to present something to the press. If Skripal had publicly said that he
made up and wrote the Steele dossier, the anti-Trump/anti-Russia campaign by the Clinton
'resistance' would have been over. The whole Mueller investigation nonsense would never have
happened.
Pablo Miller, the British spy, also
appeared in the papers of the shady Integrity Initiative :
There is additional
suspicion that the Integrity Initiative, whose primary function is to stoke
Russophobia, was one of the brains behind the Skripal incident.
The Initiative was also involved in the Steele dossier and the russophobic
anti-Trump campaign. Andrew Wood, a former British ambassador to Moscow, is employed by the
Institute for Statecraft , the shadowy parent organization of the Integrity
Initiative funded by the Ministry of Defense and Foreign Office. It was Andrew Wood who
helped
to disseminate the Steele dossier to U.S. Senator John McCain. McCain then gave the
dossier to FBI Director James Comey. The FBI used the dossier first to get FISA warrants to
spy on the Trump campaign, and, after Comey was fired, to
launch a counter-intelligence investigation (section 3) against Trump himself.
Here is a theory how all this may come together. Back in 2015 the Institute of
Statecraft and its russophobic director Colonel Donnelly
discussed how to increase sanctions on Russia. In 2016 the Steele dossier was created in
an attempt to connect Trump to Russia. Steele's colleague Pablo Miller and his spy Sergei
Skripal were quite likely involved in creating the dossier. The dossier was disseminated with
the help of Donnelly's Institute of Statecraft .
For some reason the Skripals had to be taken out. Sergei Skripal probably threatened to
spill the beans about the dossier after it became public. The highly scripted 'Novichok'
incident in Salisbury was staged to remove Skripal and to smear Russia with an alleged murder
attempt. Colonel McCourt, the trusted army nurse, was asked to help on the scene. After the
Skripal incident, and with no evidence shown, Russia was blamed and massive sanctions
followed. The Integrity Initiative , the propaganda arm of the Institute of
Statecraft , analyzes the media results of the Skripal affair and continues to stoke the
anti-Russia campaign.
It might be possible that Steele's 'dirty dossier', the Skripal case and the Integrity
Initiative operation are unrelated. But that chance for that now tends towards zero.
The weak part of that theory was always that we did not know for sure if Sergei Skripal
really wanted to go back to Russia. We now know that this was the case. Oliver Stone seems to
know that Skripal wanted to go public about something. That makes the theory fit even
better.
Putin does not
believe that the Skripals were poisoned to kill them:
Oliver Stone: Who poisoned him? They say English secret services did not want Sergei
Skripal to come back to Russia?
Vladimir Putin: To be honest, I do not quite believe this. I do not believe this is the
case.
Oliver Stone: Makes sense. You do not agree with me?
Vladimir Putin: If they had wanted to poison him, they would have done so.
Oliver Stone: Ok, that makes sense. I don't know. Who did then?
Vladimir Putin: After all, this is not a hard thing to do in today's world. In fact, a
fraction of a milligram would have been enough to do the job. And if they had him in their
hands, there was nothing complicated about it. No, this does not make sense. Maybe they just
wanted to provoke a scandal.
Oliver Stone: I think it is more complicated. You know, you think I am much too much of a
conspiracy guy.
Vladimir Putin: I do not believe this.
Oliver Stone: I have seen things. I do.
Vladimir Putin: You should not.
When and where will the Oliver Stone documentary about the Skripal affair have its
premiere?
--- Previous Moon of Alabama posts on the Skripal case:
Doubt that, Skripal's enemies is in Russia, Putin have earlier stated
Skripal was a traitor and should be treated as such. Why Skripal would go Russia after he
deliberately moved out of Russia after an assault most likely carried out by someone in
Russia, that makes no sense.
Doubt that, Skripal's enemies is in Russia, Putin have earlier stated Skripal
was a traitor and should be treated as such. Why Skripal would go Russia after he
deliberately moved out of Russia after an assault most likely carried out by someone in
Russia, that makes no sense.
Skripal was caught in Russia when he spied for the Brits. He went to jail for five or so
years. Then the Brits wanted to exchange him for a Russian agent they (or the U.S.) had
caught. Skripal was released from jail for having served most his time and exchanged. Russia
has no more interest in persecuting him. Skripal did not 'deliberately move out of Russia'.
There was no assault by Russia on him.
Zanon you statement it typical misinformation, you took only a part of Putin statement!Yes,
he said that, but he also said, that he already served his time for that so he is of no
interest to the authorities!
It's been a full year now since Yulia's last (controlled) appearance to the public. The
notion that the Skripals are in some kind of "witness protection program" has been suggested
but never confirmed. There's no indication as to what they may have been witness to, let
alone any statement of fact from them at all regarding the Salsbury events. This is highly
unusual since the UK government made such a high-profile international incident of it all. Is
Putin asked of the apparent forced disappearance of a Russian citizen (Yulia Skripal)?
This adds some weight to the theory that the two Russian "tourists" were delivering something
(paperwork? fake passports? ) that Skripal wanted, not trying to kill him. Or, perhaps, they
picked up something FROM Skripal?
The sentence where Putin confirms Stone's idea that Skripal wanted to go back to Russia is
oddly stated:
"Yes, I have been told that he wants to make a written request to come back."
1. Putin used present tense: Skripal "wants", rather than "wanted". Doesn't that imply
some communication since the "incident"?
2. The bit about the "written request" part is way more specific than I would have expected.
It sounds like Skripal wasn't just vaguely dreaming about going back to Mother Russia, but
was taking steps to do so. Were the "tourists" delivering the proper bureaucratic Form that
Skripal would need to fill out?
I may be reading way to much into this - it could just be idiosyncratic aspects of Putin
speaking in English, or bad translation.
Who would not poison him and his daughter? The Russians.
If he wanted to return, he would have to possess information that was worth taking him
back and letting him live out his life in peace.
Would the crap Trump wanted to know be that infrmation?
He was being handled by Mi6 and knew he had no way to communicate with the Russians.
He needed his daughter to cut a deal.
The Brits could have easily pierced Skirpal's communication with his daughter (even if it
was a whisper in her ear).
Would he risk his life and his daughter's life for such a long-shot 'deal'?
And the foundation question in all this is "Did Skirpal work on the Steele Dossier, and
what did he contribute to that document?"
It's all a MacGuffin.
The reality probably is thus: The Brits cold-bloodedly poisoned him and his daughter to tar the Russians. Then a
straight British fabrication story that holds no water anywhere along the way. They did it,
and he had no value to them, so why not? His daughter? She's Russian. Of no use to them.
In the scheme of things, it was a trivial act of poisoning with a huge payoff, which they
achieved.
Highly Likely it was a dirty trick by the Russophobic Brits. Nothing more. Sloppy Mi6
poisoning.
He speaks in the present, not in the past. And says 'he is a spy' meaning the guy kept
working for the Brits in the recent years. The Skripal affair was possibly used by May when
she was cornered during the Brexit negotiation. No doubt it had other effects as well, such
as forbidding any EU deal with the Russians over Syria.
Mina: Good catch.. IMHO all our speculations are futile anyway at this point. BOTH sides DO
NOT want to know us the whole truth. Only time will tell, when those people directly involve
actually talk and present hard evidence.
Addition: I would asume the Interview will be worth a watch anyway. The "Putin Interviews"
makes for an interesting watch.Though stone seems sometimes more taken away by his own world view and narrative. But he has
his hearth in the right place i assume, and provides some insights to western mass media
watchers that they would otherwise never get.
There was no poisoning ... nobody died of Novichok ... Skripal and his daughter are alive and
well ... the incident was staged ... it was a kabuki piece of anti - Russia malarkey poorly
executed
If Skripal had publicly said that he made up and wrote the Steele dossier, the
anti-Trump/anti-Russia campaign by the Clinton 'resistance' would have been over. The whole
Mueller investigation nonsense would never have happened.
I doubt that. The Russiagate-mongers have always been totally proof against any and all
evidence of reality, from day one to today. In this case they would've just said he was
lying, either to suck up to Putin and/or because Putin threatened him.
Why has Skripal never given a public interview? Because he's dead? Nah, the idiots in the
Conservative government would have milked that dry. My best guess is that the British
government know that he'll say something very damaging to the Conservative government and
that can't be allowed to happen. What that something could be can only be guessed at, but it
could be that the Steele Report was authorised and approved by the Conservative government.
This is one event I get nowhere with. In fact the only piece of information that gives me any
info that I feel credible is how convinced a UK ambassador I am familiar with was about
Russia being behind it, not by details given in person to me but just how they went about in
reaction. There are ambassadors and ambassadors, and this one being a nicer person, quite
meticulous, and not one to purposefully lie. That proves nothing though :( .
"Filmmaker and conspiracy theorist Oliver Stone has made no secret of his admiration for
Russian President Vladimir Putin, but now he has taken it to a whole new level by trying to
make him his 22-year-old daughter's godfather. "
So, the question remains: Where in the world are the Skripals at this very moment? I do not
believe that Putin does not know the answer, but for reasons of his own, he is keeping it to
himself. Possibly, he wants the whole affair to disappear quietly down the memory hole. Of
course, the story may return to the public eye someday. Sort of like a cold-case murder that
finally gets solved.
@35 rob.... the skripals are being frozen out by the same means at the uk's D-notice... do
the math.. it is very clear.. it has nothing to do with putin, in fact they need to keep
skripals out of the picture forever, or until that is way past it's by use date - 30 years??
I don't think the Putin statement makes any difference. It confirms the Theory that the
Russians did it equally as well as it confirms that the Brits or Americans did it.
MRD applies.
And it won't convince anyone either.
And of course the "believe 10 incredible things before breakfast" claims in the straits of
Hormuz this month. We are getting close to the point where May or Trump is going to flat out call their own
intelligence services liars and creators of false flags.
The Skripals were doped with BZ nerve agent. It is likely that Sergei has been maintained in
a near vegetative state with psychotropic drugs since then as a means to keep him in storage. There was no novichok other than the fresh batch made at Porton Down and used to
amateurishly spike the sample sent to the OPCW for analysis.
Putin refers to Sergei being a spy in the present tense since Putin knows that once
someone is a spook they are always a spook. It is not a career one can retire from.
The scenario b describes is the most probable of all that I've heard. Spook agencies such
as the MI6 and CIA like to think of themselves as thrifty with their assets and thus
accomplish multiple objectives with a single operation. They believe themselves to be clever
that way. For this reason they would have been unlikely to have doped the Skripals for the
sole purpose of implicating Russia. There are any number of other ways that they could have
arranged an incident that makes Russia look bad. The operation would have had to serve other
purposes as well, and silencing Sergei and preventing his embarrassing return to Russia would
be suitable additional purposes. There were likely other objectives within the operation as
well such as smoking out leakers.
Do feel pity for the Atlantic Council trolls who are tasked with trying to subtly
reinforce the nonsense novichok narrative. Theirs is not an easy job.
The former Russian intelligence officer, who came to Britain in 2010 as part of a spy swap,
regretted being a double agent and wanted to visit his family, his friend Vladimir
Timoshkov told the BBC.
So HMG was embarrassed they could not protect their spy?
As for Putin's responses to Stone being more ambiguous than you would like, please consider
Putin's position. He is trying to be diplomatic and is unlikely to come out and make blunt
accusations even if he is certain about them beyond any shadow of doubt. He needs to leave
his "partners" in Britain and the US the wiggle room to climb down from their nonsense
if they come to their senses. Furthermore, if he gives signals that Russia is willing to
repatriate the Skripals then that could sign the Skripals' death warrant. Best for the
Skripals if the British and Americans feel confident that the Skripals are securely pinned
down.
You have to be careful what you say when dealing with psychopaths that you don't trigger
them into violence with a misplaced word.
It would be well to remember that in early March last year, about the same time that the
Skripals were found collapsed on the park bench in The Maltings shopping centre by Alison
McCourt and her award-winning heroic teenage daughter, that the Syrian Arab Army liberated
Douma / East Ghouta (or most of that area anyway) near Damascus and captured 300 terrorists.
Among the captured fighters were found British and French "military advisors". The British
government (and probably likely the French government: do people remember that Moscow also
thumped Paris over its role in the Skripal poisoning saga?) needed a diversion from that
sorry tale that would have exposed Britain and France's sordid roles in the failed US-led
invasion of Syria and the overthrow of Syria's government.
At the same time a military exercise in which troops apparently rehearsed a poisoning
incident had just been completed in the Salisbury / Porton Down area. McCourt had taken part
in that exercise.
It is possible that Skripal, living alone in his house and his pets, and facing a lonely
future in Britain after his daughter, the other surviving member of his family, started
making wedding arrangements that would have meant fewer visits to Britain to see her father,
had contemplated returning to Russia and had made known his wish to a few people he thought
he could trust. But whether he had information about his role (or no role) in cooking up the
stories in the Steele dossier that Oliver Stone suggested he had, that he was planning to
tell the Kremlin, is another thing. It might very well be that - unfortunately for the
Skripals - Skripal's handler and British government spook agencies were and are as much taken
with conspiracy thinking and the conspiracy mind-set as Oliver Stone was (in his interview
with Vladimir Putin) and those agencies feared that Skripal was going to spill the beans
about his (possible) involvement in the Steele dossier and implicate them.
These people are spies after all, and once a spook, always a spook. And spooks also look
for a scheme that can hit two (and more) birds with the one stone; any consequences that
arise, such as what to tell the public, can be dealt with later. Hence, the poisoning
incident, that can be blamed on Russia and justify further sanctioning and arms build-up and
expenditures (benefiting then PM Theresa May's husband financially), that deflects attention
away from what just happened in Syria, and which removes someone from (possibly) telling the
truth about supposed Russian involvement in the 2016 US Presidential elections, was a
concoction too good to pass up.
Thanks b, a timely post. I sometimes suspect that the outing of Integrity Initiative and
Institute for Statecraft was a Russian payback for the defaming antics perpetrated by the MI6
morons. I have no proof as it was meticulously anonymous. Its a comforting thought here in
the gaslit studio of humanity.
I had a good laugh at one poster who had it on good authority from a trustworthy
ambassador that the Skripals are in USA. The ambassadors of the world are usually well versed
in gaslighting. More on that subject at Corbet Report or Thomas Sheridan.
The big problem with Skripals etc was that they would reveal the complicity of the UK in
developing the Steele dirty dossier to get Hillary the vulgar elected. They backed the wrong
team and got caught playing dirty.
Finding ambiguity or evasiveness in President Putin's answers to Skripal-related questions is
not surprising - after all he knows that anything he says will automatically be discredited
by the MSM echo chambers. By keeping his answers open-ended he challenges the western public
to ask questions and find their own answers. Sadly, few will read or view with the open minds
often found here at MoA.
Russian and English transcripts are not identical. In the Russian version, they both speak in
the past sense, literally:
-It WAS said, that he would return to Russia, that he has some information
-Yes, I WAS told, he wants to write a paper, ask to return
-It WAS said that he intendED to return here and to provide some information to the press
From grammar, that was all said in the past, and was accurate as of that past moment (:
the present tense is used after "that")
The source was not explained by either of them (...and indeed FWIW it reminds of
Berezovsky...)
but it makes sense because they would be recognised everywhere in UK.
I don't get the insinuation from you Uncle T, I mean that is not what I said if it was me
you meant. Same goes for WG insinuating there are trolls on board, it puts an air of
uncertainty amongst commentators like they have to check what they say not to be called
troll, and that is trolling. Why not just criticise a commentator directly and allow the
discussion to continue from that instead if you are serious, of setting the whole board on
edge ?
When I linked to the Putin-Stone transcript yesterday on the open thread, I purposely omitted
the Skripal discussion and posted the bit about American culture. I did so because of its
convoluted nature, as many have noted. I read it 3-4 times and I still couldn't make sense of
it via my usual methods of discourse analysis. In fact, the entire transcript is a series of
convolutions. It would be better to see the filmed original and go from there. Of course, the
Kremlin seemed okay with the transcript's form otherwise it wouldn't have been published.
As for the kidnapping of the Skripals by the UK government, IMO that's now the real
scandal, but there seems no interest in it as BigLie Media has dumped the affair down its
memory hole. And the truth of the matter is yet another reason why the UK's Deep State cannot
allow Corbyn to gain power. Somehow, the UK citizenry must oust the Tories and Blairites,
install Corbyn, and regain control over their destiny. Until that happens, the Skripals's
fate and so much more will remain unanswered.
As for the UK-sponsored Lie Machines, Kit Klarenberg continues his
excellent work uncovering their schemes and continues to get his reporting published by
Sputnik , as with the item linked within the above tweet:
"A reminder of when Integrity Initiative's bff @haynesdeborah, who'd been writing about
#Skripal on an almost daily basis for over a year, believed an NYT story that totally
contradicted the official Salisbury narrative and her own reporting on the subject."
Kit's just one of a small army of excellent online investigators worthy of following on
Twitter and their publishing outlets.
"For some reason the Skripals had to be taken out".
Is in this case perhaps not the simplest provided reason not also the best candidate?
Skripal f#@&ed his old KGB buddies and he got payed back while of course, for dual use
purposes, Putin states now openly it helped "to cause a scandal" supposedly for various
geopolitical reasons. Russia already see itself at war, it's not "hoping".
Putin 2010" "Traitors will kick the bucket, believe me. Those other folks betrayed their
friends, their brother in arms" and "Whatever they got in exchange for it, those 30 pieces of
silver they were given, they will choke on them."
Putin 2019 (FT interview)" "Treason is the gravest crime possible and traitors must be
punished. I am not saying that the Salisbury incident is the way to do it. Not at all. But
traitors must be punished."
Now do we *really* need a complex theory when Putin calls it openly "the gravest crime
possible"? Of course, some parties could have used this tension but sometimes we should not
look for complexity when simpler solutions are there: motive, some evidence, perpetrator and
murder weapon. Just not very *refined* but efficiency in terms of killing was perhaps not
even the point being made. What is being demonstrated is willingness and means.
Oliver Stone. Well, at least he tries. His most brilliant film, in my opinion, was Natural
Born killers which was Kubrikesque as a sort of new take on A Clockwork Orange. But being a
great film director does not make you a great researcher and analyst.
Putin most definitely has a sense of humour and I think that's what keeps him going.
Just to throw it into the bubbling pot, there was that single report in May that Sergei
Skripal, like ET, had finally phoned home. IIRC, earlier (c. March or April) there was a
story with an audio clip about a telephone call between Yulia and her cousin in Russia.
I'm providing this link to a Telegraph article about the Sergei call just as a starting
point for anyone who may be curious. I certainly can't vouch for the Telegraph's veracity,
and of course have no rational way to assess the account's authenticity and significance.
True or not, like every other "development" in this riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside
an enigma of l'affaire Skripal, it raises far more questions than it answers.
FWIW, I think Putin's intellect and statesmanship is impressive. But he's undoubtedly a
bit of a Cheshire Cat.
As I understood it, Sergei Skripal was more mercenary than spook, in the business of selling
info because he could profit from it. In other words, more Aldrich Ames or Hanssen than
Philby.
He was selling info to MI6 in exchange for cash and a holiday home in Spain. He got
caught, spent some time in jail and Russia swapped him because there was no further damage he
could do.
It was probably that same mercenary spirit that made him want to go back and he would have
known he'd have to make his wares really appealing to Moscow to let him back in. I'd think
the Steele dossier and Russiagate seemed like a perfect opportunity for him to state - or
perhaps -- overstate the importance of his information.
He may have overplayed his hand - obviously, his plans leaked out - and UK intelligence
(perhaps with the US involved) decided to stage the incident. Or perhaps - as is possible
with someone who'll play both sides - Sergei was the leaker in an attempt to gain more
currency with Moscow.
I'd think that Putin knows exactly what went on and this would also explain why Russia
hasn't been making a stink about one of their citizens - Yulia - being held prisoner/hostage
in the UK for well over a year.
Let's take the famous Nina Ricci perfume bottle, laced with novichok, which was found in
a rubbish bin or charity bin by a homeless man and given weeks later to his woman friend,
who tragically died after spraying it on her wrist. The police/MI6 narrative is that this
perfume bottle was used to transport the novichok from Russia in the baggage of one of the
alleged GRU men caught on CCTV in Salisbury. The novichok was then sprayed on the door
handle of the Skripals' house. The assassins then callously threw away the bottle (which
they knew contained enough novichok to kill more people) in a dustbin or charity bin,
demonstrating their indifference to loss of life as well as their indifference to leaving
clues all over the place. There are problems with this narrative.
The homeless man claimed he had found the perfume bottle still in its box sealed in
cellophane, proof it was not reopened after it had been laced with novichok and
professionally repackaged. The bottle could not therefore have been used (as claimed) to
spray the novichok on the doorknob, or the cellophane seal would have been broken.
Assassins far from home don't usually carry around cellophane-wrapping machines to
repackage opened perfume bottles, especially when they are just going to chuck them in the
bin. Nor would they take the risk, having fitted the separate spray nozzle onto the bottle
and sprayed the doorknob, of disassembling it again to put it back in the box, knowing that
a drop on their skin would kill them. And where would they perform this delicate operation?
On the street? This poisoned perfume bottle was therefore never reopened, never used and it
affected nobody until it ended up in the hands of the homeless man. So who or what was it
intended for?
Ladies' perfume bottles are normally intended for women. How many women are there in
this story? Only one. The only possible explanation for the existence of this unopened,
unused bottle of perfume laced with novichok is that it was a poisoned gift meant for Yulia
Skripal. Why didn't she open it? Because she had a spy father who took one look at it and
said: "Don't touch it!"
So here is the alternative narrative. MI6 had the bright idea of putting novichok in a
Nina Ricci perfume bottle and sending it as a birthday present to Yulia Skripal at her
father's house. Her birthday was on 17th March, but the present was probably delivered on
the 3rd, the day she arrived, so as to nip their escape plan in the bud. It was meant to
seem like a present from her family or boyfriend. No doubt the parcel had Russian stamps on
it, designed to frame the Russian state when the Skripals were found dead in their house
with an open perfume bottle in Yulia's hands. Unfortunately for MI6, Sergei took one look
at this Nina Ricci perfume bottle and his spy instincts smelled danger. He refused to open
it, but instead went for a long walk with it and put it in a rubbish bin or charity bin
half-way across town. There it was found by the homeless man and given to his woman friend,
a victim of MI6's murderous callousness. Even after MI6 knew it had gone missing, they did
not warn the public to beware of picking up a Nina Ricci perfume bottle because they didn't
want to give themselves away as the assassins.
The British police knew of the perfume bottle early on. The
first theory of the poisoning presented to the public was that Yulia had brought the
novichok from Russian in her luggage. There was even speculation that it was in a perfume
bottle that Yulia had suddenly decided to open on the bench. (This did not sound plausible at
the time as it would not explain how the novichok hit Sergei.)
The nerve agent that poisoned the Russian spy Sergei Skripal was planted in his
daughter's suitcase before she left Moscow, intelligence agencies now believe.
Senior sources have told the Telegraph they are convinced the Novichok nerve agent was
hidden in the luggage of Yulia Skripal, the double agent's 33-year-old daughter.
They are working on the theory that the toxin was impregnated in an item of clothing or
cosmetics or else in a gift that was opened in his house in Salisbury,
meaning Miss Skripal was deliberately targeted to get at her father.
We know the police were all over looking for the missing perfume bottle. They could not
find it, because Sergei had already dumped it in the charity bin. Maybe Sergei even told them
where he put it, but Charlie had found it before MI6 could recover it.
Zanon: "Doubt that, Skripal's enemies is in Russia, Putin have earlier stated Skripal was
a traitor and should be treated as such."
He *was* a traitor, and he *was* treated as such: arrest, trial, conviction,
imprisonment.
But business is business. Once the Russians had let him rot away in prison for years then
there was still some residual value to be squeezed from him i.e. a spy-swap.
The rules of that game are very well-defined: you agree on the people, you do the
swap-over, and then you walk away.
The dude you hand over goes into anonymous retirement, and both sides are content that
they have done the right thing by their own.
Zanon: "Why Skripal would go Russia after he deliberately moved out of Russia after an
assault most likely carried out by someone in Russia"
Oh, pllllllllllease. That sentence makes no chronological sense.
This is the sequence of events that makes the most sense:
1) Skripal is recruited by Pablo Miller
2) Skripal spies on behalf of the British
3) Skripal is caught and imprisoned by the Russians
4) Skripal is swapped for some Russian spies
5) Skripal "retires" to Salisbury
6) Skripal and Miller concoct the entire "dossier" in a pub, laughing uproariously
7) Skripal sees The Shit Hit The Fan in the USA over that "dossier"
8) Skripal thinks "Oh, crap, this could end badly" and puts out some feelers
9) Skripal's daughter brings a message: Two men are coming in a few days to talk to you, you
can trust them, the deal they will propose is that you will be welcome back to Russia if you
agree dump on the "dossier" in a press conference.
The two dudes turn up, but no meeting took place because someone else "novichoked" Skripal
before he could get to that meeting.
Zanon: ", that makes no sense."
Pig's arse it doesn't. It. Makes. Perfect. Sense.
Skripal was swapped because as far as the Russians were concerned that was all the value
he had left to him.
Once he got involved in the "dossier" then his value to the Russians skyrocket i.e. he
could blow the lid off "Russiagate", but only if the Russians can get him back to Moscow.
They tried, and they failed. Someone else got to him first.
@49 Zanon "I am not here to post syncopath comments as you do, "
Zanon, baby, you are here for one purpose only: to suggest - time after tedious time -
that Vladimir Putin is to blame for everything that happens in this world.
A poisoning in Salisbury? Putin ordered the hit.
Israel bombs Syria? That was Putin's idea.
Iran is in Syria? Putin has already agreed to get rid of them. Blaming the Russians is your one and only trick.
Skripal was arrested and spent 5 years in a Russian prison. If "his old KGB buddies" had
wanted him dead then that's when he would have been killed.
Why on Earth would they swap him, watch him go into "retirement" in Salisbury, and only
then slap their foreheads and shout "Oh, shit, we gosh-darned forgot to kill him. Better send
some guys over there and bump him off".
Yesterday you posted an interesting heads up about state dept and Atlantic council
trolls working here. The context being crowing about the Panamanian deflagging of the Iranian
vessel.
They fear this blog that much to commit resources in order to change minds? I an
disappointed that Kissinger has not shown up yet. It makes me feel lowly and unimportant.
Even if Putin is perceived to be our enemy having a conversation would make some sense.
The West fears that they could not stand in a room with him openly and beat him in a debate.
His intellect would outclass them on every level. Minds would be changed and they fear that
hence the fear of even having a conversation about him.
This garbage works on many but I have noticed that people do eventually begin to think
differently if you softly point things out when the conversation turns that direction. They
fear open conversations like this unless they can tightly control and edit.
"The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is warning that Russian agents could seek
to further divide Americans by exploiting U.S. passions over whether pineapple belongs on
pizza.
It's a cheesy, playful warning -- but it's trying to deliver a serious message. Posted
online Wednesday by the department's Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, the
tongue-in-cheek warning aims to help Americans identify and protect against propaganda
campaigns from Russia and other foreign adversaries.
After all,
the DHS warning says, Russian agents are capable of simultaneously insisting online that
"Being anti-pineapple is un-American!" while also pushing out posts saying "Millennials are
ruining pizza!""
"
A recent survey of 3,000 kids found that being a YouTube star was a more sought-after
profession than being an astronaut among kids in the US and the United Kingdom.
Children ages 8 to 12 in the US, the UK, and China were recently polled in honor of the
50th anniversary of the Apollo 11 mission, which resulted in the first person to walk on the
moon.
Kids in the US and the UK were three times as likely to want to be YouTubers or vloggers
as astronauts, while kids in China were more likely to want to be astronauts."
Here's a simple hypothesis: Sergey Skripal was involved with the fabrication of the Steele
dossier (we know this). Therefore, he was a risk to the UK government and security services,
as well as the US "democrats". Quite possibly Skripal signalled that he wanted to return to
Russia, but if he didn't he was still a risk because of what he knew. So TPTB made up the
story that the "russians had poisoned the Skripals with Novichok". As always in these cases,
it serves more than one purpose. In this case they got rid of the Skripal risk and they could
blame Russia again.
Could it be that PD already made the stuf but did not want to take credit, just in case it
ever proved useful in blaming some Douma-style incident to Russia? But before that happened,
everyone and his cat must know what Novichok is and that only Russia can make it. It had to
be introduced to the public somehow. And then the wrong President got elected.
I understand Russian and I speak a language with a similar grammar, and I have no idea
how to say "he said that he wants" in a way that implies something different than a wish made
at the time of speaking ("he wants") or a wish that existed before he spoke ("he wanted").
Implication about wishing after the time of speaking would require some elaboration, you
cannot make it by selecting tenses.
In Russian, as I have written above, one reports the tense as used by the person whose
action one is reporting. Thus:
"I want to go back to Russia" [Я хочу
вернуться в
Россию] is reported in Russian literally as:
Он сказал, что
хочет
вернуться в
Россию [He said that he wants to go back to Russia],
whereas in English, one should say: He said that he wanted to go back to Russia.
However, in Russian, one can add, for example, the term
якобы in order to express one's doubts about the
veracity of that action which one is reporting:
Он сказал, что
хочет, якобы,
вернуться в
Россию [literally: He said that he, allegedly, wants to
go back to Russia].
I asserted that any credible organic chemist could make novichok nerve agents. Here is my
final exam in my 1st year graduate organic synthesis course. Only one kid of 15 lost any
points. Uniquely Russian technology my ass....
Stone asked the Russian leader if he believes in the theory that Sergei Skripal wanted to return to Russia and divulge some
secrets but was stopped by the British government.
"Honestly, I don't really believe it. I don't believe it," Putin replied.
Files from the Porton Down military laboratory were found in a trash can in Northern London.
It's the laboratory where, according to the British authorities, nobody could walk out with
the poison on the eve of the Skripal poisoning. Classified documents are a terrorist's dream,
according to British intelligence agencies. So, they managed to walk out with them but failed
to walk out with the poison?
The Trump administration has not imposed a second round of sanctions on Russia over the
poisoning of an ex-Russian spy in Britain more than eight months after telling Congress that
Moscow had triggered them.
State Department officials have repeatedly insisted the United States intends to impose
new sanctions, which are required under a law passed by Congress in 1991 on eliminating
chemical and biological weapons.
But several months have passed without news, and members of Congress say they have heard
little from the administration on the topic.
A former government official familiar with the matter told The Hill that the State and
Treasury departments finalized a proposed sanctions package by March at the latest, but top
officials have yet to sign off.
"Options have been ready to go for several months at this point and senior folks in the
administration haven't made the decision or given the green light to roll them out," the
former official said.
Bloomberg reported at the end of March that the White House had received the sanctions
package and that State and Treasury were waiting for the White House to sign off before they
issued the new punishment for the poisoning of Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia in
Salisbury.
The reason for the lack of action is shrouded in mystery. The White House did not offer a
comment for this story.
C'mon guys, the handling of the case shortly after the event rules out any Russian induced
poisoning, circumstantial evidence does not fit a nerve agent. Its an utmost hilarious
propaganda narrative. The Russian state orders an attack with an internationally banned
weapon of mass destruction on the territory of a Nato member? For late revenge, hurt
feelings? Doesn't anybody realize how stupid that sounds? The scenario brought forward, with
the perfume bottle, could (thinking opsec) have easily involve thousands of innocent victims.
Imagine the opening of the bottle in a mall. There is no Russian state component in it. Not
even a Roque element. The claim is total BS. Short analysis shows, that management of this
"case" is entirely in the realm of the UK.
The opcw sampling, the coincidental first responder military nurse, Pablo Miller...
A lot of elements of this operation had to be prepared upfront and controlled while the
operation is unfolding. It remains open, whether or not the skripals where in on the plot,
probably not. But anyone asserting the "Russia did it/novichok" story does lack the sanity to
be trusted with state matters.
Reporters Without Borders (RSF) condemns recent threats made by the London Metropolitan
Police to treat the publication of leaked information as a "criminal matter" - marking the
latest move to restrict press freedom in the UK in favour of national security.
Following a series of media reports containing details from leaked diplomatic cables
preceding the resignation of Sir Kim Darroch from his post as UK Ambassador to the US, the
London Metropolitan Police threatened to treat the publication of leaked documents as
criminal.
[...] On 12 July, Metropolitan Police Assistant Commissioner Neil Basu
stated that "The publication of leaked communications, knowing the damage they have
caused or are likely to cause, may also be a criminal matter...I would advise all owners,
editors and publishers of social and mainstream media not to publish leaked government
documents that may already be in their possession, or which may be offered to them, and to
turn them over to the police or give them back to their rightful owner, Her Majesty's
Government."
The following day, 13 July, Basu appeared to partially back down, stating
that the Met "respects the rights of the media and has no intention of seeking to prevent
editors from publishing stories in the public interest in a liberal democracy. The media hold
an important role in scrutinising the actions of the state." However, Basu maintained that
publication "could also constitute a criminal offence, and one that carries no public
interest defence".
They are most likely in a black site lock up in Swest of England. Life sentence for
sure. There are plenty of suitable estates that are probable black sites. Every nation has
them I guess for their special prisoners. Julia and Sergei are prisoners of conscience, no
habeas corpus in UK.
Both from interview transcripts and RT article it's clear that the part P. says he does
not believe is that S. has been poisoned by the British services (in response to Stone's
question floating such a possibility).
On 24 March 2018 BBC posted a piecemeal-videoed interview with S. classmate named Vladimir
Timoshkov, who said that sometime in 2012 S. called him from London for about 30 minutes,
argued that he did not commit treason since his allegiance had been to the USSR, and "wrote
to Putin" (timing not provided) asking for full pardon to be able to return to Russia on
family grounds. Writing to Putin was denied by Kremlin to BBC, and by Peskov in Russian media
the next day.
Exact meaning is unclear. Timoshkov recollection is not very confident, he is not entirely
sure about the year when this conversation took place, or the exact wording. It's not
impossible that S. only planned to write such letter, not actually wrote it, and that such a
possibility is tentatively confirmed by P. (However Stone version is coming back with some
'information', not coming on family grounds).
It is also possible that S. wrote such letter few years earlier, around the time of the
spy swap in 2010. He had to write to Pres. Medvedev asking for pardon, at least formally, and
it is not impossible that he was retelling some bits from that earlier letter. (Pardon was
granted after it was requested).
The problem with Michael Antony's explanation is that the charity bin has to remain
untouched and unopened or emptied from about 5 March to about 5 July or the first week of
July at least. That would be roughly four months from the time Sergei Skripal pops the bottle
into the bin to the time Charlie Rowley finds the package and gives it to Dawn Sturgess who
then opens the package, applies the perfume to her wrists and promptly keels over.
Plus if Skripal suspected that the bottle contained something dodgy, wouldn't you think
the last place he'd dispose of it would be a charity bin, if he were an intelligent
ex-spook?
@somebody # 102 ,
RT is mixing two different questions in one sentence:
"Stone asked the Russian leader if he believes in the theory that Sergei Skripal wanted to
return to Russia and divulge some secrets but was stopped by the British government. "Honestly, I don't really believe it. I don't believe it," Putin replied."
That remark by Putin was actually in response only to the question of whether UK spooks
poisoned Skripal to stop him returning to Russia, not about whether Skripal wanted to
return:
Oliver Stone: Who poisoned him? They say English secret services did not want Sergei
Skripal to come back to Russia?
Vladimir Putin: To be honest, I do not quite believe this. I do not believe this is the
case.
b:"Filmmaker Oliver Stone recently interviewed the President of the Russian
Federation, Vladimir Putin. The transcript was published yesterday evening. Most of the
interview is about Ukraine. A separate piece will cover that country. There is also a passage
about the U.S. election."
The "passage" about Ukraine is no less interesting. For example,
Oliver Stone: I remember you were telling me about the Obama phone call, Obama and
you had an agreement that there would be no firing on the last day. And he gave you a promise
that he would
Vladimir Putin: You know, while Obama is no longer President, there are certain
things we do not discuss in public. At any rate, I can say that the US did not follow
through on the agreements that we reached during this phone call [ my emphasis ].
I will stop there without going into detail.
b:"Filmmaker Oliver Stone recently interviewed the President of the Russian
Federation, Vladimir Putin. The transcript was published yesterday evening. Most of the
interview is about Ukraine. A separate piece will cover that country. There is also a passage
about the U.S. election."
The "passage" about Ukraine is no less interesting. For example,
Oliver Stone: I remember you were telling me about the Obama phone call, Obama and
you had an agreement that there would be no firing on the last day. And he gave you a promise
that he would
Vladimir Putin: You know, while Obama is no longer President, there are certain
things we do not discuss in public. At any rate, I can say that the US did not follow
through on the agreements that we reached during this phone call [ my emphasis ].
I will stop there without going into detail.
@109 Insane scenario "C'mon guys, the handling of the case shortly after the event rules out
any Russian induced poisoning, circumstantial evidence does not fit a nerve agent."
I was always puzzled by how inept the British government's pronouncements were following
the poisoning of the Skripals.
But once Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov were fingered then the penny dropped.
Here are my two hypotheses:
a) Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov were Russian intelligence officers sent to make
contact with Sergei Skripal to parlay a deal.
b) British intelligence knew all about their upcoming visit (perhaps Yulia had been
instructed to vouch for them, and was sloppy)
Easy-peasy: poison the Skripals at that park bench, then do some detective work to
"discover" that those two weaselly-looking Russians were in Salisbury at the exact some time
that Ol' Sergei was keeling over.
Open and shut case, m'lord.
Only the two Russians had left Salisbury (1:50pm) before the Skripals had even entered the
Mill Pub (2:20pm). Therefore they could not possibly have attacked Sergei and Yulia at that park bench
(4:15pm).
Shit, meet Fan.
Q: What do the Brits do once they find out that they had no fall-guy?
A: Scramble. Improvise. Wave their arms around like demented pigeons.
For starters, keep very quiet about Petrov and Boshirov until it is possible to come up
with some way to squeeze them into the narrative.
And, for goodness sake, squash any suggestion that the Skripals had been attacked at that
park bench. No, perish the thought, even if it is the obvious conclusion.
Errrr, how about the car! No, that's stupid. The poison was in Zizzi's? No, that doesn't
actually help. The ducks... no, get a grip man, that's dumber than the car... ummm.. umm..
umm..
Flunky: What about the doorknob?
Flustered: What?
Flunky: We can claim they smeared the poison on the doorknob.
Flustered: Oh, what the heck. OK, we'll go with that.
Flunky: And Petrov and Boshirov?
Flustered: Yes, yes [waves hand] release their pictures.
These are facts:
a) Petrov and Boshirov were on a train back to London by 2pm
b) Sergei and Yulia were found on that park bench around 4pm
c) The Brits therefore had to come up with a timeline that has the Skripals poisoned well
*before* 2pm but only collapsing *after* 4pm.
What we see now is the result of that need i.e. it is an insult to the intelligence, but
the only way for the Brits to pin the attack on their pre-planned fall-guys.
@ in re organic chem prof and novowhatever... The Prof is obviously correct, dd simple. There
are guys in jails, busted for dope, who could make novowhatever...
However, since the "agent" found by Swiss was Agent BZ, it might be more interesting to
hear what poster 101 has to say about synthesizing BZ...
"I asserted that any credible organic chemist could make novichok nerve agents. Here is my
final exam in my 1st year graduate organic synthesis course. Only one kid of 15 lost any
points. Uniquely Russian technology my ass...."
So, Professor Collum, speak, please, to matter of BZ, as this seems far more interesting
and congruent with observations.
Nothing wrong with paid work being tiring. It lets the employee know they have earned their
shekels, or benjamins as the case may be. It helps keep the "impostor syndrome" at bay.
I wonder if Sergei got impostor syndrome when he was writing up his part of the Steele
Dossier or if he was just enjoying an opportunity to be creative?
The weak part of that theory was always that we did not know for sure if Sergei Skripal
really wanted to go back to Russia.
b top post.
Iirc, Sergei's desire to do so was reported from various sources, Viktoria Skripal (niece)
in first place, Yulia perhaps as well. It was just a part of the story for those who were
gripped by it, incl. me. Getting the quotes together would take hours, in any case they might
be contested, be merely some 'option', etc.
Makes sense: his wife and son had died, his (one guesses beloved) daughter was established
in Russia, he never adapted except superficially, was never successful, in GB. (i can't speak
to steele dossier etc.)
Guardian, by Luke Harding, published an article stating that Sergei did not at first
believe that Russia 'poisoned him' - parts ring very true, and are counter to the MSM
narrative.
Theresa May should be installed in the Tower of London until she habeas the Scripal's corpses
or provides verifiable information as to their estate. Should said Theresa May expire in said
Tower of London, she can do so in knowledge and consolation that so many much better than
herself have done so already.
The Tower of London stands as the best monument to the liquidation of the British Monarchy
and their Royal Family as well as the Aristocracy that supports that enterprise. May it soon
be so dedicated. Maybe the lies will then stop.
"I tend to think they are deceased, or they would have been trotted out for more coerced
interviews."
I disagree with those. As it is, it seems literally no one in Britain cares about this
case. (I'm not there, but I'm assuming if there were a civil liberties group trying to make a
public issue of their disappearance, loudly demanding of the government, "Where are the
Skripals? Are you illegally imprisoning them?", that I would've read about it here at some
point.) So why remind the people of their bizarrely disappeared existence?
As for killing them, though, if the government were smart in this case (I know they're
stupid in general, yes), they'd still keep them alive just in case there somehow were public
pressure to produce them. Look at the mistake Richard III made.
Arioch @122 pointed out: "...maybe for Putin there is really nothing of importance
that Skrypal could know and tell."
This is an significant distinction. Does it really matter to Putin or Russian geostrategic
interests if Sergei Skripal wanted to announce that he was one of the authors of the Steele
Dossier, and that he just did it for fun and profit? To the British and the Americans this
would be a huge embarrassment, but aside from some sweet schadenfreude what would Russia gain
from it?
From Stone's perspective this issue would be very important, but from Putin's, not so
much. When assigning an issue importance, one must always consider to whom the issue
is important as importance is rarely universal.
russ @127: I said deceased, not killed by UK, that was some other posters.
The UK government has not showed a shred of intelligence for several decades now. They
take orders from us, and we are not really their friends, we intend to rule, not ally. you
can't get more naive than that. But I don't really care, like with Kashoggi, I want to know
where there are now, before I starting putting emotional weight behind any stories I'm being
told about how they got there.
(Not trying to get in your face, just like accurate representation of what I said.)
Actually, he would have quite a number of ways to "write to P", if he really wanted.
E.g. he could (a) send an electronic message directly using electronic letter submission
option on the official website, or (b) he could ask Yulia to do so for him, and she had a
social media account (that's how his classmate established a contact with him), + almost
surely a email address,+ able to visit (c) or similarly via Victoria (d) or that classmate
(e) or come to any Rus. consulate anywhere and ask for it to be done --and one of his UK
acquaintances was telling he visited the embassy 'often' (f) or do it in lots of other ways
he could easily come up with, given his background in intelligence, + contacts and
experience, even if his communications were monitored
From what I have heard, the Russians believe that the Skripal affair has been much more
damaging to HMG than it has to Russia, and have no interest in removing the mystery
surrounding it - the more people delve, the more it stinks.
As an inhabitant of the UK, I can say that a lot of us were very shocked when the
Government was trying to stuff these obvious lies down our throats, and it is what got a few
of us onto alternative media - sick to death as we already were of the Brexit poison in the
MSM. So a belated thank you to b, and your colleagues, what would we do without you.
@james (38) Not sure what your point is re Putin's silence on the Skripal's whereabouts.
Putin could publicly wonder why Britain is keeping them incommunicado. What are the Brits
hiding? Even a devoted Empire supporter would have to agree that it is most peculiar. Yet
Putin claims to have no knowledge on the subject, which is almost certainly untrue. His
reason for this is unclear, but Putin is nothing if not shrewd. In time, the story will come
out one way or another.
Doubt that, Skripal's enemies is in Russia, Putin have earlier stated Skripal was a traitor
and should be treated as such. Why Skripal would go Russia after he deliberately moved out
of Russia after an assault most likely carried out by someone in Russia, that makes no
sense.
It seems you just watch/read MSM too much.
"would go Russia", "moved out of Russia", "by someone in Russia" etc.
Russia, Russia, Russia...
The thing is that Russia has nothing to do with all this stuff (mean, "Skripal case").
Yes, Putin called Skripal a traitor. Why? Because Skripal is a traitor.
If you didn't know, Putin is used to calling a spade a spade, without prevarication or double
meanings.
"Why Skripal would go Russia"
You reason in categories that you understand, although in reality people may have dozens
of reasons to do what you do not understand.
Why Skripal would go Russia? Well, don't you think the answer may be that Skripal simply love
Russia? Because Russia is his Motherland, his home, his country. Because he has his
mother here, relatives, friends etc.
He can love Russia, his country, even in spite of the harm that has caused her by his
betrayal.
He may experience shame, remorse, and other feelings. Don't you think about it?
And you don't understand the main thing. Because of Western MSM propaganda it may seems to
people that something is "wrong" with living in Russia.
This is pure nonsense. Just to remind - Skripal was arrested, and he served his time in
Russian jail, according to law.
Then he was officially pardoned and was released free. Since that moment he was free to do
whatever he wanted.
The right to come back to Russia was/is his right.
There's no law in Russia that if you served prison term and was released, you can't come back
from another country.
So, i repeat, Skripal can do whatever he wants.
The fact that Putin called him a traitor does not matter. Traitors can come back, bastards
can come back, liars can come back etc.
If you have no problems with the law, the Russian state will have no complaints about
you.
Since 2011, when Skripal was pardoned, he is clean under Russian law, so can do whatever he
wants.
Btw, just to remind - Boris Berezovsky also was going to come back from UK to Russia, he
wrote a letter to Putin.
But "suddenly" it happened so that Berezovsky committed a "suicide".
We can only guess what he could tell if he returned to Russia.
Someone really did not want this information to become known...
The presence of HMG nurse on site, and the subsequent Monty Pythom-esque cover up, seems
proof enough that the UK had foreknowledge and without question, worked to keep the
Russophobia stoked high not only after the incident, but the later killed a UK citizen to
continue the incident.
Mr. P is being diplomatic.
The guy who said that Skripal has been visiting the embassy "monthly" is Valery Morozov, who
has a refugee status in the UK. He made the claim in interviews to Western and Russian
opposition media, saying that he did not like that and stopped his contacts with S.
PS. For the official website submission, one does not need to "authorize" it, one needs to
provide the full name, email, and phone number on electronic form, that's all. It may be not
the best way but the office is required to confirm receipt and to answer. Of course it may
not be the kind of answer which he sought...
Very easy, Skripal have not moved to Russia, nor has his daughter. he is not friend of Russian state, after the swap he
kept working with intelligence services in the whole of the west, giving them information on Russia. You don't go back to live
freely in the nation you repeatedly committed high treason against, then, you are just foolish, begging to be killed.
Whenever the Tories get into trouble, the BBC helps them outJuly 18,
2019While the BBC ratchets up its campaign against the Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn,
the timing of its Panorama programme couldn't have been more perfect. by Readers of The National Part 2
I HAVE never seen such a one-sided, biased documentary as the BBC Panorama programme on
antisemitism in the Labour party. This was backed up by biased coverage on news programmes on
TV and radio. Those of us in Scotland have become used to BBC bias in the coverage of
independence, which is why the BBC in Scotland has the highest number on people refusing to pay
the licence fee.
Now people in England are experiencing this level of bias I predict the number of non-payers
will rise significantly too. Of course we can protest, but the evidence is from Scotland that
the BBC ignore the protests.
For the record, as a former Labour party member for many years and a councillor and an MEP I
never encountered anti-semitism in the Labour party, indeed Jewish members were active in every
section of the party without encountering any prejudice. The so-called problem has only begun
when Jeremy Corbyn became Labour leader – not because he is anti-semitic.
I've known Jeremy Corbyn for more than 40 years and he is a committed anti-racist. He has
been targeted because he is a supporter of Palestinian rights, and the people attacking him
inside and outside the Labour party have close connections to the Israeli Government. Indeed
Al Jazeera have a very good documentary of people from the Israeli embassy boasting they
have a fund of a million pounds a year to bring down their enemies.
Of course if I was a member of the Labour party I could be expelled for stating the above, but
fortunately in Scotland our First Minister is on record as supporting Palestinian rights. No
doubt we can expect accusations of anti-semitism soon. It is not anti-semitic to criticise the
state of Israel for its dreadful treatment of Palestinians and I hope we in Scotland can
continue to uphold that right despite the BBC's dreadful bias! Hugh Kerr (former Labour MEP)/Edinburgh
"... A couple of weeks ago, The Times of London published an article about senior civil servants fearing U.K. opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn was "too frail" to be prime minister. Reportedly they also thought he "lacks both a firm grasp of foreign affairs and the domestic agenda. ..."
"... This is the same civil service that is supposed to maintain complete neutrality and according to its code "must not act in a way that unjustifiably favours or discriminates against particular individuals or interests." ..."
"... Corbyn fought back, arguing that it was unacceptable that civil servants were briefing newspapers on an elected politician. He demanded an independent inquiry into who was spreading such fabrications in the press and "compromising the integrity of the civil service." ..."
"... Miller, who runs the Bristol-based Organisation for Propaganda Studies, said the scheme was found to be spreading its own disinformation and openly criticizing opposition leader Corbyn and his party. ..."
"... Miller said this was clear from the very beginning of the Integrity Initiative when it was regularly engaged in tweeting or retweeting attacks on Corbyn and his closest advisors. ..."
"... Miller calls the use of taxpayers' money to interfere in domestic politics an affront to democracy. ..."
"... Chris Williamson, a Labour MP and Corbyn supporter who was trying to investigate the Integrity Initiative, found himself suspended from the party after he was targeted with allegations of anti-Semitism. ..."
"... Corbyn's call for an independent investigation into the civil service leak to the press has also, as expected, been rejected by the government. ..."
"... If you enjoyed this original article, please consider making a donation to Consortium News so we can bring you more stories like this one. ..."
"... Jews in Europe and the US have gone from being heavily discriminated against to having much more influence on government than their numbers warrant. I'm going to tell the Netanyahu joke to make my point. Don't know who to credit. Kudos anyway. "It is not anti-Semitic to disagree with Benjamin Netanyahu as he is as white as the Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan." ..."
"... If the Integrity Initiative really is shut down, the little Simon Bracey-Lane will be free to cross the pond and campaign for Bernie just like he did in 2015 / 2016. Nah, just kiddin', his cover is blown. But seriously, campaign managers for Tulsi Gabbard best be on guard against inflation from these snakes. ..."
"... This is a joke right. You say communist and you reference China, but in the last century it was ok to ship nearly the entire industrial base of Western Democracies to China so that a bunch of fat cat tycoons, investment bankers, hedge funders et al could become so rich they finally had enough money to purchase the U.S. Government, and it looks like the government of Britain too. ..."
"... This incessant accusation of antisemitism against anyone who supports justice for Palestinians does seem to be effective. A decade ago when I first noticed this smear tactic I assumed it would be self defeating on the part of the Zionists and their backers. It sort of seemed obvious that such a tactic would be self limiting with the broader world beginning to reject such slander. However, it seems the smear is more effective today than it was ten years ago. So depressing. Watching Corbyn's supporters ripping apart his own base in the Labour Party in an effort to appease the Israelis is appalling -- it seems the more that is conceded the more aggressive the Zionist become. Ten years ago it was proper to describe the West Bank as "occupied territory", soon it will be considered antisemitic to even go that far. ..."
"... in 2015, an unnamed, serving British general was quoted saying that if a Corbyn government implemented his well-established anti-imperial and anti-nuke agenda, "there would be mass resignations at all levels [of the military] and you would face the very real prospect of an event which would effectively be a mutiny." https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/british-army-could-stage-mutiny-under-corbyn-says-senior-serving-general-10509742.html ..."
"... As Mayhew noted, 'the turning point' was the speech of George Marshall the US Secretary of State in June 1947. From 'the middle of 1947 onwards, decisions were taken towards uniting the free world, at the expense of widening the gap with the Communist world our immediate objective changed, from "one world" to "one free world"'. ..."
"... . That is what all of this is about: this is all a campaign by capitalists, plutocrats, oligarchs, monarchs, aristocrats, to keep expandable, pitiful average plebs from ever voting for something better than corporate serfdom and debt slavery. ..."
The 'Unconstitutional Animus' Against UK Labour Leader July 16, 2019 •
39 Comments
Johanna Ross spoke with David Miller, a propaganda researcher, after the recent publicity of
U.K. civil service murmurings about Jeremy Corbyn's "fitness."
By Johanna
Ross
in Edinburgh, Scotland Special to Consortium News
A couple of weeks ago, The Times of London published an
article about senior civil servants fearing U.K. opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn was "too
frail" to be prime minister. Reportedly they also thought he "lacks both a firm grasp of
foreign affairs and the domestic agenda."
This is the same civil service that is supposed to maintain complete neutrality and
according to its code "must not act in a way that
unjustifiably favours or discriminates against particular individuals or interests."
Corbyn fought back, arguing that it was unacceptable that civil servants were briefing
newspapers on an elected politician. He demanded an independent inquiry into who was spreading
such fabrications in the press and "compromising the integrity of the civil service."
Controversial BBC graphic seeking to link Corbyn to Russia.
For David Miller, a professor of political sociology at the University of Bristol, who
investigates concentrations
of power and ways to hold them accountable, the idea that the British civil service may not be
impartial in its operations is hardly surprising.
Far from ever being objective, he told Consortium News that the civil service now
clearly has "an unconstitutional animus against a potential Corbyn government and has been
briefing against it one way or another through various agencies for some time now."
Catalog of Smears
Indeed, the anti-Corbyn bias within the establishment has been obvious in the catalog of
smears on Corbyn and his team since he came to the Labour leadership; from allegations of being
a "Soviet sleeper" to being "anti-Semitic" and now to questions about his overall fitness.
David Miller: Faction fight against Corbyn. (University of Bristol)
Miller said most of the allegations were created by a number of organisations and
individuals who are "involved in a faction fight with the Corbyn leadership."
Noam Chomsky, a leading U.S. social critic, is among those who have spoken out against what
he termed a "witch hunt" against the Labour leader and his supporters.
Whether or not anti-Semitism exists in the party, Miller said the accusations are out of
hand. "Almost everyone who says anything which is either critical of Israel or critical of the
party's response to the anti-Semitism crisis is denounced as an anti-Semite," Miller said. "The
question is how long will it be before everyone sees that the people who are involved in this
have overreached themselves."
Attempts to undermine potential socialist governments are of course, not new.
Miller gives the example of the Zinoviev case – when a fake letter was published in
the Daily Mail in 1924 just prior to the general election, suggesting Communists in
Britain were taking orders from Moscow. The goal was clearly to undermine the British Labour
movement.
Miller also points to the case of former Prime Minister Harold Wilson. "Despite what may now
be said by some elements of the security state," Miller said that British agencies were engaged
in an active plot to
undermine Wilson's elected government.
As another example, Miller offered the "Information Research Department," first proposed in
1947 and sold to the cabinet as a bipartisan, anti-Communist and anti-American propaganda
operation. In fact, Miller described it as a "secret, covert, anti-Communist propaganda
operation which in the 70s was engaged in undermining the Wilson government."
Today, Miller said, similar agencies in the U.K. government are doing the same thing.
Harold Wilson in 1986. (Allan Warren, CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons)
Integrity Initiative
As an example, Miller cites the Integrity Initiative; organized by the government's
Institute for Statecraft, which has a stated mission of countering "Russian disinformation and
malign influence by harnessing existing expertise and establishing a network of experts,
opinion formers and policy makers to educate national audiences in the threat and to help build
national capacities to counter it." Its website is incidentally now empty pending an
investigation into the "theft of its data" – after a hack exposed detail of the extent to
which the government-funded program was itself engaged in disinformation.
Miller, who runs the Bristol-based Organisation for Propaganda Studies, said the scheme was
found to be spreading its own disinformation and openly criticizing opposition leader Corbyn
and his party.
"Corbyn has recently said in relation to the most recent criticism from the civil service
that there are people in the establishment that are trying to undermine Corbyn, his office, his
advisors and supporters of him," Miller said. "And that's what the Integrity Initiative was
doing."
Cartoon published by Punch after the Zinoviev letter was released, depicting a Bolshevik
campaigning for Ramsay MacDonald, head of the short-lived Labour government of 1924. (Wikimedia
Commons)
Miller said this was clear from the very beginning of the Integrity Initiative when it was
regularly engaged in tweeting or retweeting attacks on Corbyn and his closest advisors.
Miller calls the use of taxpayers' money to interfere in domestic politics an affront to
democracy.
"A government-funded project was engaged in attacking the leader of the opposition," Miller
said, "which is unconstitutional and something the U.K. civil service should not be involved in
they crossed the line when they started attacking Corbyn. And when we look back on this period,
the Integrity Initiative, its funding by the Foreign Office and its base in British military
intelligence will be one of the strands of the activities which will be seen to have been a
secret state campaign against the elected leader of the Labour party."
Miller would like to see an investigation into the attacks on Corbyn and whether they had
been effectively funded by the Foreign Office, but doesn't hold out much hope of that
happening.
Six months ago, Shadow Home Secretary Emily Thornberry demanded answers to how this could
have happened, with no result.
And Chris Williamson, a Labour MP and Corbyn supporter who was trying to investigate the Integrity
Initiative, found himself suspended from the party after he was targeted with allegations of
anti-Semitism.
Corbyn's call for an independent investigation into the civil service leak to the press has
also, as expected, been rejected by the government.
Johanna Ross is a freelance journalist based in the United Kingdom.
If you enjoyed this original article, please consider
making a donation to Consortium News so we can bring you more stories like this
one.
Michael McNulty , July 18, 2019 at 05:52
After he won the second round to remain Labour Party leader Corbyn should have left the
party to form a new socialist party, taking his large following and their subscriptions with
him. He would have had three years behind him with a new movement, one which would not have
had the back-stabbers and poisoners he's having to deal with daily. It would have been quite
established now and a real political force. I think the Labour Party is so polluted that the
left must break away; it's the only way we can overturn the excesses and failures of
neo-liberalism which for most people is a truly dreadful system.
Maz Palmer , July 17, 2019 at 15:02
They are all much worse than bozos (or Bezos); they are all plutocrats, oligarchs,
neo-liberal neo-fascist capitalists. That is what all of this is about: this is all a
campaign by capitalists, plutocrats, oligarchs, monarchs, aristocrats, to keep expandable,
pitiful average plebs from ever voting for something better than corporate serfdom and debt
slavery.
Hopelb , July 17, 2019 at 21:52
Upvote!
Piotr Berman , July 17, 2019 at 14:55
"lacks both a firm grasp of foreign affairs and the domestic agenda."
It makes me wonder how Teresa May and her Cabinet, including the next PM, fares in such
assessment. Nincompoops, loud mouths, poodles, and worshipers of woodoo economics.
I get it. Corbyn is Pro-Palestinian, anti-war and Pro-Worker so they are trying to get rid
of him.
All I see are articles attacking him. Are there people/forces behind him supporting him?
Is his support significant among other Labour MP's and the Public at large?
Piotr Berman , July 17, 2019 at 16:11
The problem is that UK public opinion is quite chaotic at this point and "everything is
possible". At some point, four parties had roughly the same poll numbers: Tories, Brexit,
Labour and LibDems. However, in the last two weeks Labour and Tories gained with Labour
ahead. In a system with single seat districts, "anything can happen", and a recent
by-election suggested that Labour may have an advantage in "foot soldiers", volunteers who
walk around a district chatting up voters. The internal fights in Labour attracted many new
members, and from the point of view of "sensible folks in the Establishment", this is the
worst type of rubble. No respect for monarchy, the Trident, necessity of low taxes on
business and the rich and so on. And anti-Semitic to boot.
So the meaning of "Corbyn is frail" is that while he himself seems mild mannered, his
victory will unleashed the unwashed hordes wrecking everything which is good and he hold
dear, like the monarchy, the Trident and so on.
Piotr Berman , July 17, 2019 at 16:45
The problem is that UK public opinion is quite chaotic lately and "everything is
possible". At some point, four parties had roughly the same poll numbers: Tories, Brexit,
Labour and LibDems. However, in the last two weeks Labour and Tories gained with Labour
ahead. In a system with single seat districts, "anything can happen", and a recent
by-election suggested that Labour may have an advantage in "foot soldiers", volunteers who
walk around a district chatting up voters. The internal fights in Labour attracted many new
members, and from the point of view of "sensible folks in the Establishment", this is the
worst type of rabble. No respect for the monarchy, the Trident, the necessity of low taxes on
business and the rich and so on. And anti-Semitic to boot.
So the meaning of "Corbyn is frail" is that while he himself seems mild mannered, his
victory would unleashed unwashed hordes wrecking everything which is good and that we hold
dear, like the monarchy, the Trident and so on.
Jeff Ewener , July 17, 2019 at 13:26
Gob-smacking. To call a man with the intelligence, experience, sensitivity & integrity
of Jeremy Corbyn "unfit" to be the British Prime Minister, while a monstrosity like Boris
Johnson is standing on the doorstep of Number 10 – just takes the breath away.
rosemerry , July 17, 2019 at 15:45
Not to mention the former "New Labour" leaders whose policies fell far away from the
traditional policies Corbyn has held to and which caused so many Britons to support him as
leader.
Hayman Fan , July 18, 2019 at 11:49
Integrity? Are you joking? Corbyn has been anti-EU for 40 years. In fact, he is the only
main party leader who voted leave in the last people's vote (aka the referendum). But he has
tried to hid that fact. He has been sitting on the fence and playing politics with the issue.
Many fools in Britain believe Corbyn is a remainer. A man of integrity would have explained
to the British people his long held position on the EU and Brexit. But he didn't do that
because he isn't a man of integrity. He wants to con his way into power and if he gets there
(looking unlikely right now), he and his Stalinist henchpeople will wield that power
ruthlessly.
Fascinating article. May we repost it on jvl.org.uk?
Eddie , July 17, 2019 at 12:36
Comment that I posted on the Malware article do not post.
Zenobia van Dongen , July 17, 2019 at 11:39
In English-speaking countries anti-Semitic is just a code word for pro-Islamic. Miller
himself is deeply involved in efforts to make extremist Islam respectable and justifying
terrorist indoctrination.
Okay, I'll take your comment as made in good faith but you will need to back it up with
good evidence. Where is it?
Qui? , July 18, 2019 at 03:22
Palestinians are semites, as the rest of the Arabs. So who is the real antisemite now?
Truth first , July 17, 2019 at 11:37
A "communist" who is against war, nukes and massive inequality is OK by me.
Hayman Fan , July 18, 2019 at 07:28
Is it indeed. Then your are a fool. Pol Pot was a communist who was against war and nukes
and massive inequality. But implementing totalitarism by force didn't turn out well for the
Cambodian people. And it wouldn't turn out well for the British people either. Except for
Corbyn and his henchpeople of course.
dean 1000 , July 17, 2019 at 10:42
Jews in Europe and the US have gone from being heavily discriminated against to having
much more influence on government than their numbers warrant. I'm going to tell the Netanyahu joke to make my point. Don't know who to credit. Kudos
anyway. "It is not anti-Semitic to disagree with Benjamin Netanyahu as he is as white as the Grand
Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan."
Given the influence of US and European Jews it is well past time for them to stop
screaming anti-semitism when someone has a divergent opinion. They should stop using Semitic
people as human shields.
The left also likes to hurl anti-Semitism at political opponents when they don't have a
relevant answer.
Unfounded criticism of Jews is anti-Jewish rather than anti-Semitic. Call it what it
is.
As Albert Einstein says Capitalism is an Evil supported by those who are terrified of
Jeremy Corbyn because like Jesus he is a true Socialist
Que Nelle , July 17, 2019 at 05:52
To be accused of antisemitism by zionists that champion the racist entity israel, is a
badge of honor.
Vivian O'Blivion , July 17, 2019 at 03:30
If the Integrity Initiative really is shut down, the little Simon Bracey-Lane will be free
to cross the pond and campaign for Bernie just like he did in 2015 / 2016. Nah, just kiddin',
his cover is blown. But seriously, campaign managers for Tulsi Gabbard best be on guard
against inflation from these snakes.
Hayman Fan , July 17, 2019 at 02:51
Guys be careful with this. Corbyn is a communist. He is surrounded by Stalinists. Their
modus operandi is entryism + free stuff + perpetual attacks on cultural norms. They used to
laud the USSR. Then Venezuala. Now China. If they ever manage to grab power, they will stamp
on individual liberty. Just like China does. The Muslim vote is very important to them and
whilst they despise conventional religions, they will happily 'buy' Muslim votes with anti
Israeli and anti Semitic rhetoric. The loudest voices speaking up against Corbyn and his
henchpeople are on the left. Be a little bit circumspect.
Truth first , July 17, 2019 at 11:36
A "communist" who is against war, nukes and massive inequality is OK by me.
Errr what ? Israel does enough on its own to show how anti-Arab and undemocratic it is
without the need for Jeremy Corbyn to add anything. I'm a socialist. I support what Mr Corbyn
is doing to promote socialism in the UK. There's not the slightest evidence he's an
anti-Semite, and the tiny amount of anti-Semitism in the Labour party is dwarfed by what's
emanating from the right against Jews and Muslims.
Just say no , July 17, 2019 at 13:58
This is a joke right. You say communist and you reference China, but in the last century
it was ok to ship nearly the entire industrial base of Western Democracies to China so that a
bunch of fat cat tycoons, investment bankers, hedge funders et al could become so rich they
finally had enough money to purchase the U.S. Government, and it looks like the government of
Britain too. That's where we are today.
There may be "communists" lurking somewhere mostly in
the imagination who are trotted out whenever a left person obtains a plurality. What has
happened to Jeremy Corbyn is horrifying and we have our own issues in the U.S. with the
endless smears and lies regarding the candidacy of Bernie Sanders. We live in a world of
fabrication, sanctions enough to go around for everyone. Even the little state of RI is
sanctioned by Moody's for having the effrontery to pass a bill which "gives too much away to
labor" but Moody's and the other ratings agencies gave triple AAA ratings to junk during the
"great recession" plain and simple, and no one cared. We need a Nuremburg trial for
Capitalism and all its practioners.
You are wrong is several ways. First, "There may be "communists" lurking somewhere mostly
in the imagination who are trotted out whenever a left person obtains a plurality." Corbyn
was observed to be a threat the moment he was elected Labour leader, something that stumped
large segments of "informed public". Due to the surprise element, the anti-Semitic angle was
not exploited properly, with possible exception of some Zionist whack jobs who harranged him.
Instead, two points were raised that really jolted my attention.
First, Corbyn was sooo
extreme that he advocated discontinuation of Trident program and even, horror!, the entirety
of British nuclear arms program. You could as well raise huge signs ?????? ?y???? ???????! on
English shores.
Second, his bicycling habits were compared to China during the orthodox
Communist year, when riding on non-descript bikes was heavily supported by pre-Capitalist
leadership.
Mind you, a person of note may ride a bike without shame, but not the cheap and
aged specimen favored by Corbyn. Finally, compromising photos were found showing Corbyn
relaxing and revealing his red socks.
Sounds like you just couldn't stand not posting a troll comment on an article about your
own activities, yes?
ToivoS , July 16, 2019 at 22:54
This incessant accusation of antisemitism against anyone who supports justice for
Palestinians does seem to be effective. A decade ago when I first noticed this smear tactic I
assumed it would be self defeating on the part of the Zionists and their backers. It sort of
seemed obvious that such a tactic would be self limiting with the broader world beginning to
reject such slander. However, it seems the smear is more effective today than it was ten
years ago. So depressing. Watching Corbyn's supporters ripping apart his own base in the
Labour Party in an effort to appease the Israelis is appalling -- it seems the more that is
conceded the more aggressive the Zionist become. Ten years ago it was proper to describe the
West Bank as "occupied territory", soon it will be considered antisemitic to even go that
far.
" the 'Information Research Department,' first proposed in 1947 and sold to the cabinet as
a bipartisan, anti-Communist and anti-American propaganda operation."
"Anti-American" is a slip, right? I assume it was pro-American (or pro-USAian).
My apologies, I was paraphrasing the work of Lyn Smith in her article on IRD in Millennium
in 1980. It should really be 'anti capitalist'. According Smith the founder of IRD (Christopher
Mayhew) put forward a plan to set up a cold war propaganda agency:
'Mayhew put forward his ideas: the campaign should be as positive as possible laying
stress on the merits of Social Democracy but, he pointed out "we shouldn't appear as
defenders of the status quo but should attack Capitalism and Imperialism along with Russian
Communism" In fact at this early stage, the idea was more of a "third force" propaganda
attacking Capitalism as well as communism (this, however, was not to last for, as later
documents reveal, anti Communism soon cam to the fore).'(Covert British Propaganda: The
Information Research Department: 1947-77, Millennium, 9(1), p68-9)
In fact the idea that it would be anti capitalist was a ruse used by Mayhew to deceive the
left members of the British cabinet. As my colleague and I Will Dinan summarised in our book
A Century of Spin (Pluto Press, 2008, p130-1):
IRD was not created with the knowing support of the Labour Cabinet. The author of the
paper which went to the cabinet –
Christoper Mayhew – was a Labour right winger and cold warrior. He dissembled to the
cabinet about the purpose and function of the IRD by claiming that it was to be a 'Third
Force' campaign, understood as policy intended by the left to be independent of both the US
and the USSR. According to Mayhew himself:
I thought it was necessary to present the whole campaign in a positive way, in a way which
Dick Crossman and Michael Foot would fi nd it hard to oppose. And they were calling for a
Third Force so I recommended in the original paper I put to Bevin that we call it a Third
Force propaganda campaign.
As Mayhew noted, 'the turning point' was the speech of George Marshall the US Secretary of
State in June 1947. From 'the middle of
1947 onwards, decisions were taken towards uniting the free world, at the expense of widening
the gap with the Communist world our immediate objective changed, from "one world" to "one
free world"'.
It is interesting, in this light, to reflect what might/will happen once a Corbyn
government is elected with – how should we put this – a minority of leftists in
the cabinet.
David G , July 17, 2019 at 15:27
Very interesting! I guess the propagandists back then had a little more finesse than the
idiotic bludgeoning the US/UK establishment is laying on us these days. Thanks for the clarification, David Miller!
Jeff Harrison , July 16, 2019 at 21:05
The British Political Class has the same problem as the American Political Class –
No integrity, No Honesty, No ethics. Just the sort of bozos we need running countries.
Maz Palmer , July 17, 2019 at 14:59
They are all much worse than bozos (or Bezos); they are all plutocrats, oligarchs, neo-liberal neo-fascist capitalists.
That is what all of this is about: this is all a campaign by capitalists, plutocrats, oligarchs, monarchs, aristocrats, to
keep expandable, pitiful average plebs from ever voting for something better than corporate serfdom and debt slavery.
Q: Who and what drove this cultural and political direction within the corporation?
A: There are a number of drivers behind this biased BBC culture. The most important is the fact that a small number of hardline
Zionists occupy key positions at the top and middle levels of the corporation, as well as at the shop-floor level, by which I mean
the people who select what to publish or broadcast on a daily basis and who provide editorial steer to journalists. This has been
widely publicised and has been in the public domain for some time -- see, for example, this
http://tinyurl.com/ydhjzeek , these (a)
http://tinyurl.com/y7mjtkc6 , (b)
http://tinyurl.com/y7k39vsh , and (c)
http://tinyurl.com/y3x9nktl . Also see this
http://tinyurl.com/y6ne4apn and this
http://tinyurl.com/y7l88zwl .
Q: What about political impartiality, supposedly a core BBC value?
A: Unfortunately, there are many examples of such pro- Israel hype, some blatant and others who slant the news by use of emphasis
and/or omission. For instance, there was
Sarah Montague's
interview with Israel's defence minister, Moshe Ya'alon , in March 2015, Head of Statistics' Anthony Reuben's reflection on fatalities
in Gaza ( http://tinyurl.com/ycc9p8d4 ), and the utilization of Gil Hoffman,
an Israeli army reservist and chief political correspondent for the Jerusalem Post to write for the BBC News website (
http://tinyurl.com/yanppk93 ) to mention but a few.
Q: Does the broadcaster have the means or inclination to fix itself ?
A: In my opinion, the chances of the BBC fixing itself is about zero. Apart from what I have said above, it is a cowardly, spineless
organisation. Not only does it always pursue the path of least resistance by selecting to broadcast what is least likely to upset
the Zionist lobby, but it is also deadly afraid of what the Daily Mail might say about its output. Very often, and by that
I mean almost on a daily basis, one would hear senior managers ask at the morning agenda-setting editorial meetings, "What would
the Daily Mail say about that?" Invariably, they would choose what is least likely to be picked up and criticised by the
Daily Mail. Please remember, this is a public broadcaster that is funded by taxpayers (yes, the License Fee is a tax) and
is supposed to "Educate, Inform and Entertain", not propagandise on behalf of Israel.
Q: Some of the so-called Labour 'Whistleblowers' were exposed by
Al Jazeera
as Israeli Lobby assets . Is it possible that the BBC was so bold as to interview these characters hoping that no one would notice
or was it simply a matter of a clumsy decision making? Can the BBC match the journalistic dedication of organisations such as RT
or Al Jazeera?
A: There is no chance whatsoever that the BBC would do anything approximating Al Jazeera TV's programme on Israeli infiltration
of the Labour Party ( http://tinyurl.com/yad6fslm ). The BBC is institutionally
pro-Zionist and institutionally spineless.
Q: You worked in the corporation for 35 years, did you notice a deterioration in the quality of people hired? Was there a change
in employees' attitudes and their willingness to express themselves freely and critically?
A: I worked for the BBC's English-language outlets as an editor and senior editor for 35 years. Since the early 1990s there has
been growing intolerance of criticism of editorial management decisions, even in internal forums which internal BBC propaganda claims
are meant for staff to speak freely. This applies across the board on all matters. But certainly with regard to Israel and Zionism,
any questioning of BBC impartiality would attract accusations of anti-Semitism and would certainly spell the end of one's career,
no matter how privately and confidentially such criticism is conveyed.
It wasn't always this way. See the 2002 BBC documentary Dead in the Water , documenting Israel's 1967 attack on the
USS Liberty .
It demonstrates conclusively that the attack was deliberate and even goes so far as to speculate that it was a black-flag operation
intended to justify a joint US-Israeli invasion of Egypt proper.
Personally, I'm skeptical of that -- although it's possible. I think Israel just wanted to ensure she wasn't forced to withdraw
from Sinai as she had been in 1956. After all, in the upshot, we didn't force Israel to withdraw this time -- but she may not
have been sure of that outcome. Making it appear the Egyptians had sunk the Liberty would have helped to assure we would
be in no mood to demand any such thing of Israel.
Of course, Israel muffed it. She wasn't able to sink the Liberty , and wasn't able to prevent her from sending out a
distress signal. Machine-gunning the lifeboats was of no use if the attack had to be aborted before the Liberty could be
finished off and the surviving crew members never needed to get into those lifeboats.
There's nothing special about Israel. The BBC has a policy on every contentious subject, domestic or international. A conspicuous
current example is Brexit.
@dearieme'There's nothing special about Israel. The BBC has a policy on every contentious subject, domestic or international.
A conspicuous current example is Brexit.'
Lol. This piece notwithstanding, the BBC used to give Israel a pretty hard time.
Then, at some point about fifteen years ago, it was very noticeably brought to heel and has since toed the Zionist line as
closely as it can without visible displays of submissive piddling.
The same applies to the Guardian , by the way. Many of its staff who used to report accurately on the Middle East can
now be found on Middle East Eye.
In a way, I find the Zionism of these organs a lot more nauseating than that of, say, the Wall Street Journal or Fox
News. At least with the latter, there's a kind of ideological consistency to their Zionism. With the BBC and the Guardian
, it's the rankest, most craven hypocrisy imaginable.
It demonstrates conclusively that the attack was deliberate and even goes so far as to speculate that it was a black-flag
operation intended to justify a joint US-Israeli invasion of Egypt proper.
The USS Liberty was an ELINT ship. The Israeli's attacked it to prevent the US listening in to Israeli military radio traffic,
and keep the US in the dark re Israel's operations.
This study shows us that the pro-Israel narrative has become so firmly entrenched in the American mainstream media that it
is almost impossible for news consumers to discern the truth about the situation in Israel and Palestine. This has greatly benefitted
Washington which has made it abundantly clear that it sides with Israel in this fifty year-old conflict.
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) is also under the editorial control of pro-Zionists.
Since the takeover, they have a limited number of revolving topics: holocaust, anti-semitism, slavery, South African Apartheid,
Jewish diaspora feel-good stories, Black lives matter, aboriginal suffering, colonialism, Islamophobia/ why-can't-we-accept-women-in-hijabs,
the KKK, white racism, reparations for Jewish victims of history, refugees, the need to crush white identity .
You cannot go a week of even a day without a mention of one of the above. News critical of Jews or Israel is not allowed.
The BBC claims that these neo-Nazis were supporters of the Russian-speakers who do not wish to be controlled by the ZioNazis
of Kiev.
In reality, the Italian police said the precise opposite. This weaponry was destined to help the ZioNazis of Ukraine. They
were to be used against the beleaguered defenders of the Donbass region.
The lies of the BBC are constant. This is an ongoing phenomenon – MH17, Syrian Chemicals, Skripals, Iran's nuclear weapons,
Hong Kong's peaceful protesters, concentration camps for Uighurs, Global Warming, Building 7 collapsed 20 minutes after broadcast
that it had fallen etc.
my forgotten!! point was that this period of MSM upheaval and enormously rising salaries, noticeably from the 1990s onward,
coincided with ever increasing pro-Israel coverage and ever decreasing pro-Palestinian coverage. Today it has become virtually
an 'anti-semitic' 'racist' 'hate' crime to be sympathetic to Palestinians .accompanied by tearful Zionist bleatings about fearing
for their lives, lurid word pictures of nazis walking the streets and claims of massive population flight to Israel – although
the numbers of UK jews does not seem to decrease. The perception – which could be wrong but given their total dominance
of the media – is quite the opposite!
@(((They))) Live The Hungarian Foreign Minister should have asked the interviewer "Why does the US do the foot soldier work
to protect against the same invasion of muslims into Israel?" While Israel the only country allowed to shoot and kill those even
coming close to their border has the right!
@Parfois1 You raise an interesting point. I remember the outcry over the Beeb reporting on the Falklands that the Beeb was
left wing and treasonous. The BBC was giving massive air time to Labour MPs and talking heads saying that the Falklands should
be abandoned, handed to the Argentinians.
My left wing father (ex-WW2 RN submarine officer) surprised me by pointing out that whatever the rights or wrongs of UK 'owning'
the Falklands the fact was that they did and therefore in the circumstance of armed invasion the UK was obliged to defend it on
the principle of national sovereignty. Not to mention discouraging other such invasions.
I bring this up because exactly these issues have re-appeared today.
That is, the old left-wingism of BBC reportage has morphed into the new left-wingism of today: i.e. LGBT+, racism, anti-semitism,
indoctrinating homosexuality & trans issues into infants in state schools etc. Pro-EU, pro-open borders, pro-migrant, pro-Israel,
pro-war. Anti-Brexit, anti-sovereignty, anti-patriotism, anti-nationalism, anti-religion, anti traditional family all of which
the Beeb loudly deems 'fascist' [deplorable] across all its channels.
"... People hate it . Neoliberalism's sale of state assets, offshored jobs, stripped services, poorly-invested infrastructure and armies of the forcibly unemployed have delivered, not promised "efficiency" and "flexibility" to communities, but discomfort and misery. The wealth of a few has now swelled to a level of conspicuousness that must politely be considered vulgar yet the philosophy's entrenched itself so deeply in how governments make decisions and allocate resources that one of its megaphones once declared its triumph "the end of history". ..."
For 40 years, the ideology popularly known as "neoliberalism" has dominated political
decision-making in the English-speaking west.
People
hate it . Neoliberalism's sale of state assets, offshored jobs, stripped services,
poorly-invested infrastructure and armies of the forcibly unemployed have delivered, not
promised "efficiency" and "flexibility" to communities, but discomfort and misery. The wealth
of a few has now swelled to a level of conspicuousness that must politely be considered
vulgar
yet the philosophy's entrenched itself so deeply in how governments make decisions and allocate
resources that one of its megaphones once declared its triumph "the end of history".
It wasn't, as
even he admitted later . And given some of the events of the contemporary political moment,
it's possible to conclude from auguries like smoke rising from a garbage fire and patterns of
political blood upon the floor that history may be hastening neoliberalism towards an end that
its advocates did not forecast.
Three years ago,
I remarked that comedian Russell Brand may have stumbled onto a stirring spirit of the
times when his "capitalism sucks" contemplations drew stadium-sized crowds. Beyond Brand
– politically and materially – the crowds have only been growing.
Is the political zeitgeist an old
spectre up for some new haunting? Or are the times more like a strong angel proclaiming
with a loud voice, "the combination of inequality and low wage growth is fuelling discontent.
Time to sing a new song."
In days gone past, they used to slice open an animal's belly and study the shape of its
spilled entrails to find out. But we could just keep an eye on the news.
Here are my seven signs of the neoliberal apocalypse:
... ... ...
5. The reds are back under the beds
... ... ...
6. Tony Abbott becomes a fan of nationalising assets
... How else
to explain the earthquake-like paradigm shift represented by the sixth sign? Since when do
neoliberal conservatives argue for the renationalisation of infrastructure, as is the push of
Tony Abbott's gang to nationalise the coal-fired Liddell power station?
It may be a cynical stunt to take an unscientific stand against climate action, but seizing
the means of production remains seizing the means of production, um, comrade.
"You know, nationalising assets is what the Liberal party was founded to stop governments
doing," said Turnbull, even as he hid in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains to weather
– strange coincidence – yet
another Newspoll loss.
"... The biggest economic problem is "corporate welfare" find out how much subsidy the UK government 'gives' to profitable corporations, the ordinary taxpayers loss. ..."
Marx, Engels and Gramsci all died before the second world war began. I doubt they had much to
say about what caused it.
Regarding the posited failure of "neoliberalism", if you want to know what real failure of
a political and economic system looks like, have a look at the consequences of Marxism for
every country where it held sway in the 20th century.
A recession followed by a few years of sluggish growth is hardly catastrophic
Democratic socialism must take the place of this capitalist system where 50% of the global
economy is owned by just 1% of the population, patently unfair for billions of people. To
have 1% having more than they could possibly spend in a lifetime is ludicrous while we have
others starving and millions of "people" living below the poverty line.
The capitalist (USA) system diverts huge amounts of money via corporations 50% of
the global economy to just 1% of the global population, which is patently unfair. The 1%
ownership grows every day because these 1% people have a mental illness called insatiable
greed, where enough is never enough. Yes 'fair trade' would help, but what must be broken is
the compliance of conservative governments around the world who fail to tax these
corporations a 'fair share' of taxation to help "the people" to raise their living standards.
We must adopt democratic socialism with million of USA citizens voted for with Bernie
Sanders, and as is practiced in the Nordic countries, who tax corporations fairly and obtain
a good standard of living for "their people."
What comes next? Hopefully some kind of neo-nationalistic Westernism in which the societies
that, up until the turmoil of the 60s and 70s shaped the course of global affairs, rediscover
their roots and identifies.
If "neoliberalism" seems to be in retreat, perhaps the simplest explanation is that the
cultures that gave rise to it - western, Christian, often English-speaking cultures - most
certainly ARE in retreat.
How can we answer questions like "what is happening to us?" or "How should we react?" When
we can't even identify the "us" or the "we"?
We need government that will restrain capitalism and use the system for the benefit of "the
people" not the corporations. Which in practice means "don't vote conservative."
Yes, the point is that unrestrained capitalism does wreck lives, but continues to
feed the 1% with mare more than they could ever spend. This is precisely why we need a system
of democratic socialism as practiced on the Nordic countries, where "the people" come first
and the corporations run a distant second.
However if the UK continues to elect conservative
governments the reverse will always be the case, with "the people" running a distant second.
Globalization, capitalist society in the 70s quickly became ownership of 50% (and continuing
to grow) of the global economy by just 1% of the population. We need to change to democratic
socialism as practiced by the Nordic countries.
The biggest economic problem is "corporate welfare" find out how much subsidy the UK
government 'gives' to profitable corporations, the ordinary taxpayers loss.
How we got here was via the capitalist system whereby 50% of the global economy is now owned
bt just 1% of the global population. A collection of individuals who are filthy rich but who
also have the mental illness of insatiable greed, and who won't be satisfied until they own
60% and so on. They avoid paying tax, and conservative governments help them by providing
loop holes in taxation legislation so their corporations can avoid paying tax or pay up to 5%
of their huge incomes in a token gesture. In Australia out of 1,500 corporations surveyed 579
have not paid a cent since at least 2013. The Australian people should be marching in the
streets for a 'fair go' but the apathy prevents that. They probably won't get angry until
such time as they realize that the 1% own 70% of the global economy and they are being
squeezed even harder into 14 hour days without a break, only then will they crack, if at all.
Quantitative easing first upped the stock market and therefore the retirement portfolios of
the US middle class as well as the portfolios of the wealthy, and now the US economy is
finally producing middle class jobs (recent report, NY Times) and not just the upper middle
class.
------------------
Rubbish!
QE is just the creation of trillions more in debt. Artificially raising asset prices is not a
free market. A free market depends on people being able to pay the prices. But today in the
UK, people require three loans to buy a house the price of which has been artificially raised
by QE. That enriches the homeowner, the bank, and estate agent. but in equal measure, it
impoverishes the house buyer.
the blowing up of asset prices will have to go on forever (still, not one penny of QE has
been repaid), or the system will collapse. But that is impossible. It will destroy the value
of money. See what happens to stock prices each time the US "threatens" to raise interest
rates and stop QE programmes. And just check out personal debt levels in the UK and US. It is
unsustainable.
The basic problem of neoliberalism is that it demands low pay as a competitive measure.
But that means people have less money to spend in the consumer economy. So neoliberalism
requires deregulated banking, pushing up asset prices, so people feel wealthy and take on
more debt with which to compensate their low pay, and so they can shop. But that in turn
leads to higher debts until the debts are not likely to be repaid. Banks collapse.
The bailouts and money printing has raised asset prices as you say. So now they are at
record highs. And if the system demands they go higher while keeping down pay. Who the Fuck
is going to pay?
The system is designed to collapse. It only exists today thanks to the creation of money
that does not really exist. We may as well adopt grass as money as keep this system
going.
The flipside of artificial growth in asset prices is the falling value of earnings.
in 1996, UK average pay equalled 30-35% of a typical house. Today, it is only 10% of a
house, and in London, 7%. And for the system to function, that percentage must fall.
No, quite a lot of people have been writing about it. Marx, Engels and Gramski all discussed
the tendency of free market economics to lead to conflict. More recently you could look at
the work of Galbraith, Sachs and Frank Stilwell, just off the top of my head.
You failed to understand the article. It says the post war period (1945-70s) was the longest
and most successful economic run, especially for working classes, in history.
It is "neoliberalism" since the late 70s that led to the trebling of personal debts on
stagnant wages, and finally the collapse of the banks. And ever since the whole economic show
has only been kept alive with life-saving drugs (QE which is basically pretending there is a
cash flow rather than reality of a solvency crisis, govt set zero interest rates, bailouts).
But we have merely got stagnation.
And your last point is a straw man. Hardly anyone wants to replace this failing system
with Stalinism.
We have had two contrasting economic systems in the West since the War. The one had far
more regulation, and stronger wage growth for workers, the latter since 1979 has been
neoliberalism.
The first collapsed in the stagnation of the 70s. The latter died in 2008, and has been
kept going through state support and printing trillions more in debt. But the bailouts are
failing. They are failing because it was never a cash flow crisis. It was a solvency crisis.
Now the debts are even greater.
Selective description posing as analysis and allowing the emotional triggers of a couple of
key phrases to justify the selectiveness. It sounds magisterial but it ain't and, as others
have pointed out, it gives us little on where do we go from here. This is precisely because
he has really not told us what he thinks here is, how we got here, and why we got here.
The last thing a capitalist corporation wants is to compete (i.e. having actual competition).
What they want is monopoly. That's why they "rig" the markets - among others by merging with
and acquiring their competitors until they reach near monopoly in their industry (or
industries).
That's the essence of the statement that "there never have been free markets, only rigged
markets". And there never will be. "Free markets" are transient phenomena that exist only for
relatively short time periods during which the leading players do the rigging. The only
factor that could keep free markets "free" is government - and that's why it is hated so much
by corporations and is rendered practically toothless in the US. It limits their ability to
rig and to loot.
The only form the phrase "free markets" exist for prolonged periods of time is when it is
used as a propaganda slogan by neoliberal ideologues (even though it is the exact opposite of
what really happens).
And why has it taken so long for such an article to be published? Many of the points in this
article should have been apparent to intelligent commentators right after the 2008 crisis.
Why has it taken so long for political fallout?
The major reason is cited: Parties such as New Labour, supposedly of the Left that
continued to support this failing system. Gordon Brown bailed out the banks, claimed to save
the world, and then let it all go on as before. A Disgrace of a leader that history will
condemn as a fool. And how many commentators of the time lauded him for it? Far too many. And
many of them still in the jobs. Jesus Wept!
What the writer understands and too many are in denial about is this. New Labour is dead.
It died in 2007-8 with the collapse of the banks.
Then the amazing coincidence that the third party (the Lib Dems) was taken over by the
neoliberals just before the Financial Crisis brought the neoliberal age to an end, and which
went onto support the True Neoliberal party (the Tories). In the US, a man who ran on a
candidacy of Change only for the world to find out it was bluster and rhetoric! Obama will
not go down as a Great President at all. He tried to bail out a failing system. He will be a
footnote in history.
Then those bloody bailouts. They not only bailed out the bankers and the rich. They bailed
out millions of largely older voters, artificially pumping up house prices. The old vote. And
they voted to back this grand theft against Reason, and the younger generations. The result
of the bailouts will be a far greater Financial Crisis than 2008. The disconnect between
people's debts and wages is worse today than in 2006. That can mean only one thing. Collapse
is coming. And now the debts are even bigger. Bailouts are wrong, have failed, and will not
be politically acceptable again.
Conservative parties will be repositories for those afraid of change, and those happy to
be bailed out until the crisis explodes again. On the change side, if we do not have Left
Populism, we will get nationalism.
In terms of stronger border controls there is no doubt this is happening. The US, Europe and
here in Australia the governments grip on border entries has only got tighter. As for
international labour migration, Trump, Brexit and the European refugee crisis will see
increasing pressure on lowering the numbers of migrant workers.
Increasing labour migration has been a ploy by government to try and make globalisation work,
as globalisation requires the free flow of labour across international borders. The political
pressure to reduce migrant numbers will be too much to resist, and greater controls will be
put in place.
This is not a choice between A or B. Stop fighting yesterday's battles. Its over, just as the
article declares. What is developing as we speak will steer tomorrow's civilization and it
will be neither of the old paradigms. We have to come to a consensus about where we want to
go. What principles do we have faith in to inform our assessments of what we keep or alter?
What roles will we play? What will our purpose(s) be? That is the business we need to be
about to arrive at an orderly, deliberate future, prepared for a long journey to a better
world. Or we push and pull in all different directions and go round and round the same old
ground making the same old mistakes until the world moves on and leaves us behind. We will
need to work together or fail each alone. Are you ready?
Both the article and discussion is more then two year old, but sounds like were writfen
yestarday. Nothing changed... Trump betraed his voters and neoliberalism continue its march in
bloodthirsty zombie state it acquired after 2008 financial crisis.
Notable quotes:
"... People have lost their sense of security, status and even identity. This result is the scream of an America desperate for radical change. ..."
"... Here is what we need to understand: a hell of a lot of people are in pain. Under neoliberal policies of deregulation, privatisation, austerity and corporate trade, their living standards have declined precipitously. They have lost jobs. They have lost pensions. They have lost much of the safety net that used to make these losses less frightening. They see a future for their kids even worse than their precarious present. ..."
"... Never has there been a transfer of wealth from so many to so few and it isn't just happening in the USA. People have rightly had enough - but you are right, voting for Trump is hardly the way to fix it. ..."
"... The problem with centre left parties throughout the western world is that they sold out to corporate capitalism, which forced people who rejected neoliberalism to go to the extremes to protest. The question is, once someone's loyalty has been broken, it is that much more difficult to win loyalty back, if it is possible at all. ..."
"... And you're right - the neoliberal capture of centre-left legacy parties from the Democrats to the German SPD and French Socialist Party has created an exceptionally unpromising landscape and public mood. Trust has been broken. Responsibilities betrayed. Intellectual traditions traduced, distorted, or simply cast aside. ..."
"... Everybody's an expert after the event, aren't they? OK, noble sentiments but "let's set aside whatever is keeping us apart"? ..."
"... The idea of the 'American dream' seems to have morphed into a nasty belief that if you're poor it's your own fault. You didn't 'want it enough'. You must be secretly lazy and undeserving, even if you're actually working three jobs to survive, or even if there are no jobs. ..."
"... It always seems very odd to me that so many people who think like that profess to be Christian. 'Poverty equals moral failure' is the complete opposite of what Jesus Christ got into so much trouble for saying. ..."
People have lost their sense of security, status and even identity. This result is the
scream of an America desperate for radical change.
'Elite neoliberalism unleashed the Davos class. People such as Hillary and Bill Clinton are
the toast of the Davos party. In truth, they threw the party.
They will blame ->
James Comey and the FBI. They will blame ->
voter suppression and racism. They will blame ->
Bernie or bust and misogyny. They will blame third parties and independent candidates. They
will blame the corporate media for giving him the platform, social media for being a bullhorn,
and WikiLeaks for airing the laundry.
But this leaves out the force most responsible for creating the nightmare in which we now
find ourselves wide awake: neoliberalism. That worldview – fully embodied by ->
Hillary
Clinton and her machine – is no match for Trump-style extremism. The decision to run
one against the other is what sealed our fate. If we learn nothing else, can we please learn
from that mistake?
Here is what we need to understand: a hell of a lot of people are in pain. Under
neoliberal policies of deregulation, privatisation, austerity and corporate trade, their living
standards have declined precipitously. They have lost jobs. They have lost pensions. They have
lost much of the safety net that used to make these losses less frightening. They see a future
for their kids even worse than their precarious present.
At the same time, they have witnessed the rise of the Davos class, a hyper-connected network
of banking and tech billionaires, elected leaders who are awfully cosy with those interests,
and Hollywood celebrities who make the whole thing seem unbearably glamorous. Success is a
party to which they were not invited, and they know in their hearts that this rising wealth and
power is somehow directly connected to their growing debts and powerlessness.
For the people who saw security and status as their birthright – and that means white
men most of all – these losses are unbearable.
-> Donald
Trump speaks directly to that pain. The Brexit campaign spoke to that pain. So do all of
the rising far-right parties in Europe. They answer it with nostalgic nationalism and anger at
remote economic bureaucracies – whether Washington, the North American free trade
agreement the World Trade Organisation or the EU. And of course, they answer it by bashing
immigrants and people of colour, vilifying Muslims, and degrading women. Elite neoliberalism
has nothing to offer that pain, because neoliberalism unleashed the Davos class. People such as
Hillary and Bill Clinton are the toast of the Davos party. In truth, they threw the party.
Trump's message was: "All is hell." Clinton answered: "All is well." But it's not well
– far from it.
Neo-fascist responses to rampant insecurity and inequality are not going to go away. But
what we know from the 1930s is that what it takes to do battle with fascism is a real left. A
good chunk of Trump's support could be peeled away if there were a genuine redistributive
agenda on the table. An agenda to take on the billionaire class with more than rhetoric, and
use the money for a green new deal. Such a plan could create a tidal wave of well-paying
unionised jobs, bring badly needed resources and opportunities to communities of colour, and
insist that polluters should pay for workers to be retrained and fully included in this
future.
It could fashion policies that fight institutionalised racism, economic inequality and
climate change at the same time. It could take on bad trade deals and police violence, and
honour indigenous people as the original protectors of the land, water and air.
People have a right to be angry, and a powerful, intersectional left agenda can direct that
anger where it belongs, while fighting for holistic solutions that will bring a frayed society
together.
Such a coalition is possible. In Canada, we have begun to cobble it together under the
banner of a people's agenda called The Leap Manifesto , endorsed by more
than 220 organisations from Greenpeace Canada to Black Lives Matter Toronto, and some of our
largest trade unions.
Bernie Sanders' amazing campaign went a long way towards building this sort of coalition,
and demonstrated that the appetite for democratic socialism is out there.
So, the very people harmed by neoliberalism have elected someone already a member of the
Davos class, whose rise will harm them even more. Another own goal for democracy.
Never has there been a transfer of wealth from so many to so few and it isn't just
happening in the USA.
People have rightly had enough - but you are right, voting for Trump is hardly the way to fix
it.
The problem with centre left parties throughout the western world is that they sold out to
corporate capitalism, which forced people who rejected neoliberalism to go to the extremes to
protest. The question is, once someone's loyalty has been broken, it is that much more
difficult to win loyalty back, if it is possible at all.
And you're right - the neoliberal capture of centre-left legacy parties from the Democrats
to the German SPD and French Socialist Party has created an exceptionally unpromising
landscape and public mood. Trust has been broken. Responsibilities betrayed. Intellectual
traditions traduced, distorted, or simply cast aside.
In moments of humiliation or defeat - and make no mistake, this was both - there needs to
be reflection and a willingness to return to first principles as well as evolving new
strategies and insights appropriate to the present.
Economic realities shape cultural and social relations. The left should always listen to
the experiences of people and build a consensus based on solidarity between groups and not
the alienated support of different self-interested demographics. Exploitation is the
corner-stone of capitalism when it is left to run unchecked. Without regulation, capitalism
tends towards monopolies that end up subverting democracy itself.
These are the issues Bernie Sanders raised and the enthusiasm with which it was greeted is
testimony to the fact that there are white working class voters hungry for a politics of
positive, radical social change. Intoning with robotic piety that the people have never had
it so good despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary is a form of deceit; when it comes
from the mouths of corporate Democrats, it is political obscenity.
In moments of humiliation or defeat - and make no mistake, this was both - there needs
to be reflection and a willingness to return to first principles
I think what I've realised from the Brexit and Trump results is how desperate
people are for something to believe in. What used to be called 'the vision thing'.
For decades we've had to choose between different forms of managerialism and variations on
a theme of 'there is no alternative to rule by the market'. We just had to put up and shut
up, there was nothing to get excited about. Nobody's ever jumped up and down shouting "What
do want? Trickle-down economics! When do we want it? Now!"
The thing about demagogues is they offer that emotional release. What we need is
principled political movements that also enable it.
Absolutely right. One of the by-products of There Is No Alternative, though, is that
managerialism and wonkiness have been fetishised. Hillary Clinton's devastatingly uninspiring
offer to the American people was hailed by some as a mark of her "maturity", "experience",
and "competence". Bernie Sanders, by contrast, was attacked for firing people up, for
inspiring them to believe change was possible - by implication, of course, such attacks rest
on the belief that change is in fact not possible at all. It is a bleak nihilism that states
the best that can be hoped or organised for is a slightly better management of existing
structures.
There is a hypocrisy, too, when someone like Clinton derides Trump's economic plans as
"Trumped-up trickle-down". In reality, they were arguing simply over who would offer the
*bigger* tax cuts. The notion that there were alternative visions on the economy, on climate
change, on racial equality or healthcare and education, not to mention foreign policies, was
almost completely absent.
This is why I wrote that in some ways Hillary Clinton was the greater evil in this
election. It is one thing to hark backwards to a mythical past, as Donald Trump did. It is
quite another to put such tight constraints on the entire notion of what is possible in the
future. Trump offered nostalgia. Clinton offered the tyranny of low expectations -
forever.
But that is all in the past now - for the future, I agree with you that there needs to be
a willingness to offer radical, inspirational and visionary alternatives to a system that has
simply not worked for the majority of people who through no fault of their own find their
quality of life, possibilities and security in decline while wealth flows ceaselessly upwards
and into the pockets of those already insulated from the harm their favoured politicians
unleash.
Bernie showed what can be done - he also showed that people are willing to finance such
campaigns and thus liberate the political process from the death-grip of corporate donations.
Personally, I am sceptical of whether the Democratic Party is an appropriate vehicle for such
politics (I know that Bernie doesn't agree with me!) Regardless, his campaign should provide
somewhat of a model for what can be done - and likewise his statement from today. Amidst the
headlong rush - in this paper as well - to denigrate and smear voters for failing to advance
bourgeois liberal interests, it is imperative that deprived, working class voters of all
races are listened to properly and not labelled racists and bigots. A few no doubt are. But
these are, in many instances, the same people that helped elect Barack Obama in 2008 and
2012. They are crying out for something to organise around. Hillary Clinton failed because
she was not and never has been a person capable of, even interested in, offering that.
You write: "there was a failure in the campaign to connect with older black and Latino
voters who are the demographic most abused by our current economic model."
A major reason the Sanders campaign didn't connect in time was the DNC's suppression of
the debate schedule. A corrupt but wildly successful tactic that saw Clinton sweep the
southern states.
Naomi, has omitted one very important detail: automation, i.e. the use of AI to
replace jobs.
This absolutely requires us to restructure society to provide security and purpose to each
every one of us who is not part of the super rich owners.
For example we will see driving jobs rapidly disappearing within the next five to ten
years.
I also notice that where the worst effects of rampant capitalism are ameliorated there
appear to be fewer issues. I'm thinking of many Western European nations where the issues do
not yet seem to have the over fifty percent traction that they have in the US and the UK. If
Australia were suffering a similar economic slow down it may well join the US and UK. But
what's happening in Canada and New Zealand?
I don't think it is. It is the same old hate hate hate blame the white man stuff.
If you want to know why you lost and will keep losing look in the mirror -as a tribe the
left - despises anything different to your view of the world - ironic
I also notice that where the worst effects of rampant capitalism are ameliorated there
appear to be fewer issues. I'm thinking of many Western European nations where the issues
do not yet seem to have the over fifty percent traction that they have in the US and the
UK.
Over the last few months I've been writing in here about the main difference
between (some of?) those Western European nations and the UK and US. One big difference is we
(I'm from the UK but applies also to US) use the First Past The Post voting system. This
enforces a two party system (Duverger's Law) which tends to crowd out minority voices - can
you imagine a conservative/green alliance in government in UK/US as happened not too long ago
in Germany.
Much of what ails the UK and the US is not evident in the North Western Eu nations: less
inequality, greater wealth (in the UK, not US - GDP per capita: from worldbank data), better
healthcare outcomes, better education outcomes, greater worker productivity. The move to
neoliberalism under Thatcher/Reagan and the resultant move to market economics and reduction
in nationalised industries (Larry Elliot recently wrote an article on here describing the
issue
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/nov/06/the-legacy-of-leaving-old-industrial-britain-to-rot-is-becoming-clear
) and the Left didn't have a reply: workers lost their jobs and their traditional political
parties couldn't help. A move to the centre and the rise of third way politics of
Clinton/Blair was the only way that the Democrats and (New) Labour could get into power: did
they do anything to help the left-behind? The Global Financial Crisis and resultant
austerity, coupled with rising rates of immigration and the inability of those people to have
their voices heard with FPTP led to Trump/Brexit and the rise of popular
nationalism/socialism.
This is a useful and pertinent plea. However the article failed to include the automation
of work as a massive driver of joblessness.
We humans get excited by success, but if large swathes of Society cannot embrace change
and adaptation as a determinant of ambition, then technology advance and neoliberal economics
will ruin them.
Iterative workplace skills are perhaps the biggest investment a Society should make. The
alternative is governments paying chunks of Society in place of work. Society will generate
new jobs, but unless those replace by Technology at work adapt, great pain will come. For
sure you cant easily blame Technology, its easier to blame migrants...
Manufacturing has moved to China and Mexico. Jobs have been off-shored to India and the
Philippines.
What is left behind? Take a look at Detroit.
Automation hasn't had that much impact - it's cheaper to (under)pay a bunch of people in
developing countries than automate solutions.
Yes, there are some real insights here and the beginnings of a response, which has been
pretty much absent elsewhere.
A pity that, although comments have finally been opened, the piece is somewhat buried well
down the page, and that Hadley Freeman's vastly inferior piece which bangs on about misogyny
(as at least 3 pieces did yesterday) is being promoted.
Trump is snarling bully with what look like very unattractive attitudes towards women. But
as, Klein also pointed out on R4 this morning, the most important thing about this election
is not that Clinton failed to break the glass ceiling.
Freeman is also right, most of Trump's voters don't match the description of them as down
on their luck working class people, most are just upper middle class people with backward
views and a decent paycheck.
Really? You respond to the crushing defeat of Liberal pseudo intellectualism with even
more Liberal pseudo intellectualism?
And you can't understand why it's all going wrong for you?
Everybody's an expert after the event, aren't they? OK, noble sentiments but "let's set
aside whatever is keeping us apart"?
What is keeping people apart is that the elitism of the political classes and their hangers
on, certainly in the UK. They are absolutists; they have no concern over what ordinary people
think. If anyone at all thinks differently from them then they are wrong, end of.
They don't see any need to back their opinion up, to debate the point. Anyone who thinks
differently from them is just plain wrong. This is usually backed up with sneers and insults.
Racist, xenophobe, stupid, misogynist.
These people can't change. their sense of infallibilty and superiority is
unchallengeable.
What is keeping them apart is themselves; to change would be to surrender their sense of
superiority and entitlement. They can't do it.
I should have made it plain that absolutism isn't confined to the political classes. It's
amazing how many people collapse into incoherent rage when they are disagreed with; and a
lack of toleration of the views of others tends to make the "others" themselves be less
tolerant. It's a vice that spreads.
Of all the articles in the Guardian, this is the only one that gets close to defining the
cause of Trump's win. What we have is effectively the educated rebelling against the educated
and who can blame them. Our financial system is rigged towards the better educated who are
disproportionately contributed for their efforts at a cost to the less well educated. Is it
any wonder that they vote for change? I don't think Trump is the answer any more than Brexit
is in this country. But blaming Trump's win on wholesale misogyny and racism is sneering
prejudice that could be every bit as damaging as Trump's racism and sexism
Our educated politicians need to work out how to make capitalism work for the middle,
support the bottom and not over reward the top. It is doing the opposite currently
Everyone who voted Trump is neo-fascist? ... still think the left is missing the point.
All around the world people are being lifted out of poverty by globalised industry; jobs and
hence wealth are being redistributed more evenly around the world. I thought the left were in
favour of wealth redistribution.
The elephant in the room was hardly mentioned if at all. The Israelis love him, the
American Jews were split but, guess what, he was endorsed by KKK and David Duke! What the
hell is going on?....
The problem with a coalition of progressives, is that "the left" in general don't believe
in limits on growth or even climate change.
Look at the Richmond by-election, where labour MPs want to turn the spotlight from the
issue of airport expansion, to Zac Goldsmith's support for Brexit.
Look at union support for continued use of coal, feeding into the labour party's own
ambivalence. Or the frankly bizarre support for building trident submarines, to keep the
jobs, but not actually using them.
If you want a coalition that does something about climate change - and all the other
ecological ills of the earth - you will have to reach out to small c- and even large C-
conservatives - the likes of Boris's father Stanley Johnson and Zac Goldsmith (mayoral
campaign notwithstanding) - and dare I say it, cut out some of the social progressives, whose
ecological credentials are not so progressive. That really would change everything.
The first thing to do is to stop vilifying the white man, most are hard working and keep
economies going, stop calling them names and blaming for everything bad that has happened
since the Roman Empire and before.
Amen to that. Its just racism/sexism of another kind. As a good husband and father,
hard-working professional, law abiding citizen, good neighbour etc I am made to feel guilty
for being a white man. Shouldn't all individuals be judged on their merits???
What is puzzling is that based on your premise these vast swathes of disenfranchised
voters surely sided with the enemy as represented by an elitist, sneering billionaire. What
he has now created though is a massive crisis of expectation. The anti Trump protests seen in
the last 24 hours may in time be replaced by those whose aspirations he has ignited but
remain unfulfilled. Clinton winning the popular vote may be a moral victory of some kind but
here in the UK we are used to having to accept a government often voted for by barely a third
of the electorate. Other commentators have said things like 'it's the end of democracy as we
know it'. How so, when electing Trump is the clearest demonstration of democracy in action
there is, whether you like the result or not. The parallels with Brexit are startling. France
next?
No, what really really pisses people off is when the winners of the election (and numpties
in the media) talk of a "clear mandate" and "the people voted for this". In the US as in the
UK it's nothing of the kind (Democrats won more votes for christ sake, and you call it "clear
democracy") and this reality-corrupting idea of "clear mandate" causes real trouble.
I'm sick of seeing the word elite used by angry people in these forums. Used to describe
the powerful, mostly faceless people who they believe oppress them. They read newspapers
owned by tax dodging aristocrats and pornographers and then they go out and vote for multi
millionaire who inherited every cent and a chinless public school prick with an EU
pension.
True. Perhaps the word should be replaced by "plutocracy", but the media don't like to use
that word as it pinpoints the causes of most our problems far more accurately than
"elite".
A bit simplistic. The Davos class is a very small number of people. Their votes couldn't
elect a pope in a vatican on their own.
No, the real turning point is that those losing out and seeing no chance of that changing
now outnumber those who are dragged along by the elites, on an upward if gentle trajectory,
with belief that they can 'make it'. Much more subtle.
And the Elephant is the unwillingness to accept that long term there is no fundamental
reason for a historically rich nation to maintain relative prosperity compared to
historically poorer ones. Parity is inevitable in the long term - one man is as valuable as
any other.
The idea of the 'American dream' seems to have morphed into a nasty belief that if you're
poor it's your own fault. You didn't 'want it enough'. You must be secretly lazy and
undeserving, even if you're actually working three jobs to survive, or even if there are no
jobs.
This view has taken hold in the UK too, where the tabloids peddle the view that anyone who
claims state benefits must be a fraud. But at least, people here and in mainland Europe have
the direct experience of war within living memory and we understand that you can lose
everything through no fault of your own. In the US, even when there's a natural disaster like
Katrina it seems to be the poor people's fault for not having their own transport and money
to go and stay somewhere else.
It always seems very odd to me that so many people who think like that profess to be
Christian. 'Poverty equals moral failure' is the complete opposite of what Jesus Christ got
into so much trouble for saying.
Superb article. A voice of reason in the sea of hysteria from the other Guardian
commentators who don't seem to be learning anything from this.
What I think the left needs on a political level is to dispense with identity politics
(which only divides people who should be on the same level in terms of economic status and
relative need) and have a coming together moment, wherein we effectively set out that woman,
man, black, white, homosexual, heterosexual, etc who are living at the bottom end of society
all come together behind a unified political purpose - one that doesn't seek to demonise
others within its ranks. Because let's be honest - the racism that brought Trump to power is
at least partially a response to the intolerant, bigoted views of 'progressives' on the
'left'. Look at Hadley Freeman's article today as an example. These people divide us, and
make the job harder.
The left needs to embrace rational egalitarianism, not agenda driven crusades. They aren't
working, they're complicit in delivering hell.
What I think the left needs on a political level is to dispense with identity politics
(which only divides people who should be on the same level in terms of economic status and
relative need) and have a coming together moment, wherein we effectively set out that
woman, man, black, white, homosexual, heterosexual, etc who are living at the bottom end of
society all come together behind a unified political purpose - one that doesn't seek to
demonise others within its ranks.
But we know as a sociological fact that if you are, say, an African-American you
experience forms of oppression based on the fact that you are African-American. Explicitly
naming that oppression, however, is seen to be divisive, and few people will stand with them
behind a unified political purpose. Where does that leave us?
Naming the oppression isn't divisive, in my view. The way in which the naming is done, and
at whom the blame is directed, can be - and often is. I believe most people can rationally
assess what is and is not oppression if done in a calm and measured way - all except the
racists anyway (and they'd probably still be able to see it rationally, they just wouldn't
care). But if you start screeching at people, they're just going to switch off - and
screeching is generally what we see.
In the wider context of the improvement of people's lives at the bottom end of the scale,
I believe you would get buy in from other, non-affected groups. In fact, we see this all the
time - BLM and LGBT groups frequently work with each other on combatting things that harm one
or both of them. Where this falls flat is when you get the demonising of the white working
class (especially the male, cis-gendered working class), who should be allies for other low
income people.
Why do people assume that working and lower middle class white men, who are being squeezed
and seeing their incomes and quality of life fall in the same way as everyone else, are the
problem - the enemy to be railed against, while we have super rich white men (and women, and
even an increasing number of super rich non-white men, believe it or not), who are literally
stacking the whole system in such a way that all lower income groups suffer? I suspect
because actually fixing the issue and compromising and working together isn't as important as
being a victim for a lot of the people who lead the identity politics drive. They'd rather
scream at racists - who in turn scream back.
The only reason I think the 'progressives' can't see this is because they have too big a
stake in the status quo.
But people aren't interested in the World, this is the mistake the globalisers make.
They care about their family, their town and their country. Since 1979 things have stood
still. My Plumber Father bought his first house at 22, on a single wage. He could leave a job
on Friday and have another one on Monday.
It takes 2 professional salaries to buy a house now and I can't walk to China to pick up
that new job over the weekend.
"... I am an angry white male, and I am not a misogynist, as this paper would have it. I am fully aware of the appalling nature of Donald Trump. ..."
"... On the other hand, I fully understand the bureaucratic nature of the Democrat Party, the embedded interests of Wall Street and the military-industrial complex in that bureaucracy, the dirty tricks that that bureaucratic machinery got up to in order to extinguish Bernie Sander's campaign ..."
"... And I am aware of how Hillary was so keen to service this reality and American image of itself. And to go beyond that, and bomb Libya for 6 months, killing thousands of civilians (Middle eastern unpeople) and, may I suggest, doing nothing whatsoever for the women of Libya. Quite the opposite! ..."
"... Michael Moore, in a talk in which he predicted the victory of Trump before the election, notes how Trump went into an American car factory and told the executives of that company that if they relocated to Mexico, he would put a huge tax on their cars coming into America. Not all was misogyny in the vote for Trump. Whether he delivers on his threat or not, unlike the democrat bureaucratic machinery, he showed he was actually listening to working class Americans and that he was ;prepared to face up to company executives. ..."
"... However, the right wing have very skilfully redirected the anger that SHOULD be directed at what Naomi cleverly calls the "Davos class" onto a very small "immigration" issue that we have in the UK today. ..."
"... It is not going to happen. The holier than thou, supremacist arrogance of the illiberal class, means they can never admit they were wrong. ..."
"... It's all about jobs, really, isn't it? There is a natural fear of 'the other', but if times are good and jobs (proper jobs, not ZHC) are plentiful, it feels less important. On the face of it, it seems odd that the most fear of immigration is in places where there isn't much immigration, but they're often places where there isn't much work either. ..."
"... Rights are important, but identity politics contain too much whimsy and focus on the self. ..."
"... Yes, but they're politically and economically cheap, don't require much thought, and you get to hang out with pop-stars. ..."
That ship has sailed. Bernie was the opportunity and it wasn't grasped. The moment for a 'left' alternative has been lost
for a long time. The whole globalised liberal paradigm - allied to the metropolitan elite's obsession with identity politics
at the expense of bottom-line issues - has been broken up by people who now realise centre-left politicians (Clinton/Obama)
have presided over whole communities being gutted in the name of 'free' trade (for 'free' trade read labour arbitrage). I felt
it in my bones that Trump would be elected - 55% of US households are worse off than they were in 2000, how on earth could anyone
possibly think that that would result or a vote for the status quo.
I am an angry white male, and I am not a misogynist, as this paper would have it.
I am fully aware of the appalling nature of Donald Trump.
On the other hand, I fully understand the bureaucratic nature of the Democrat Party, the embedded interests of Wall Street
and the military-industrial complex in that bureaucracy, the dirty tricks that that bureaucratic machinery got up to in order
to extinguish Bernie Sander's campaign.
I am aware of how that machinery has been ramping up a situation of global conflict, shamelessly recreating an aggressive
Cold war Mk II situation with Russia and China, which is simply cover for the US racist colonial assumption that the world and
its resources belongs to it in its sense of itself as an exceptional entity fulfilling its manifest destiny upon a global stage
that belongs to its exceptional, wealthy and powerful elites.
And I am aware of how Hillary was so keen to service this reality and American image of itself. And to go beyond that, and
bomb Libya for 6 months, killing thousands of civilians (Middle eastern unpeople) and, may I suggest, doing nothing whatsoever
for the women of Libya. Quite the opposite!
Michael Moore, in a talk in which he predicted the victory of Trump before the election, notes how Trump went into an American
car factory and told the executives of that company that if they relocated to Mexico, he would put a huge tax on their cars
coming into America. Not all was misogyny in the vote for Trump. Whether he delivers on his threat or not, unlike the democrat
bureaucratic machinery, he showed he was actually listening to working class Americans and that he was ;prepared to face up
to company executives.
What has this paper got to say about Hillary and the Democrat Party's class bigotry – its demonstrable contempt for 10s of
millions of Americans whose lives are worse now than in 1973, while productivity and wealth overall has skyrocketed over those
43 years.
What has this paper got to say about the lives of African American women, which have been devastated by Republican/Democrat
bipartisan policy over the last 43 years?
What has Hadley Freeman got to say about Hillary's comment that President Mubarek of Egypt was "one of the family? A president
whose security forces used physical and sexualised abuse of female demonstrators in the Arab Spring?
A feminist would need more than a peg on their nose to vote for Hillary – a feminist would need all the scented oils of Arabia.
Perhaps Wahhabi funded Hillary can buy them up.
Great article. I think there needs to be a lot of soul searching in certain sections of the media and amongst the left wing
political parties too. They don't have the correct approach to a rapidly changing ground swell of opinion. They are fast becoming
out of touch - leaving a huge void for more conservative rhetoric (euphemism) to take over.
The failure to tackle immigration
concerns across the west is the greatest example of comfy left wing elites being so far away from general consensus imo. The
assumption that if you are concerned about immigration then you are a racist, xenophobic half wit appears rife amongst elites
and the highly educated.
I agree that this is a great article. And I agree that there is a coming migration crisis that we need to be very worried
about, as the refugees from the Middle East try desperately for a better life away from conflict zones and poverty. However,
the right wing have very skilfully redirected the anger that SHOULD be directed at what Naomi cleverly calls the "Davos class"
onto a very small "immigration" issue that we have in the UK today.
The evidence for this is that in the EU referendum, the
areas that were most strongly Leave were generally speaking those with few or no immigrants. I campaigned for Remain here in
Stockport where there are very few immigrants and I also campaign regularly against privatisation in the NHS and over and over
again, I am told that immigrants are the problem in an area which has virtually none. I don't think that people are concerned
about immigration are half wits, but I think they've been manipulated.
"Fear the stranger" is an evolutionary response buried
deep in our brains that we need to control with rationality and it's such an easy button for the right wing to push. I grew
up in Northern Ireland so I saw this at first hand. My grandfather was a highly intelligent technocrat, but he was also an Orangeman.
He did not seem able to understand that the Catholics he knew and were his friends were the same "them" that he demonised. All
progressive people need now to find a way, as Naomi's article says, to repoint this anger to where it belongs. Sorry if this
makes me a comfy left wing elite!
It is not going to happen. The holier than thou, supremacist arrogance of the illiberal class, means they can never admit
they were wrong. Look at the past year here ATL and then BTL. Witness the absolute, unchanging and frankly extreme editorial
line, in the face of massive discourse and well argued opposition BTL. Even now there are no alarm bells ringing in the back
of their minds, they are right and everyone else is wrong. No attempt to understand, such is their unwavering belief in the
echo chamber. You will only find an attempted programme of re-education in these pages. They will be still be doing it as Europe
falls into the hands of the far-right.
I campaigned for Remain here in Stockport where there are very few immigrants and I also campaign regularly against privatisation
in the NHS and over and over again, I am told that immigrants are the problem in an area which has virtually none. I don't
think that people are concerned about immigration are half wits, but I think they've been manipulated. "Fear the stranger"
is an evolutionary response buried deep in our brains that we need to control with rationality and it's such an easy button
for the right wing to push.
It's all about jobs, really, isn't it? There is a natural fear of 'the other', but if times are good and jobs (proper jobs,
not ZHC) are plentiful, it feels less important. On the face of it, it seems odd that the most fear of immigration is in places
where there isn't much immigration, but they're often places where there isn't much work either.
Here is what we need to understand: a hell of a lot of people are in pain. Under neoliberal policies of deregulation,
privatisation, austerity and corporate trade, their living standards have declined precipitously. They have lost jobs. They
have lost pensions. They have lost much of the safety net that used to make these losses less frightening. They see a future
for their kids even worse than their precarious present.
Yes. But, in the meantime, the system has become so right-wing that it only permits a right-wing outburst - a Social-Democratic
one is instantly discredited by the totalitarian media outlets.
There is no way to articulate an effective response to this attack within the system.
This article is spot on except that both Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren jumped on the Clinton neoliberal train for reasons
of political expediency. From now on, anything either of them say should be critically examined before being supported.
"... government for the centre ground has been about management- the days when the US New Deal funded by taxing the rich and which built the wealth Americans now miss, and the Labour post war government that built the NHS [and taxed the rich] is part of history. Instead we have no new innovation but a little bit of tweaking with banks and global business. ..."
"... In return the gutted communities become less smart and given bread and circuses but their privilege and lack of mobility means they don't travel to pick fruit elsewhere- yet they still demand food on the table and the only ones prepared to travel and work hard are the even greater poor. ..."
It wasn't just free trade that the white working class voters of the rust belt states were
angry about, it was also high immigration. Naomi doesn't mention this, probably because fluid
borders is one policy which the Davos class and left-liberals like herself agree on.
Such a[n intersection left] coalition is possible. In Canada, we have begun to cobble it
together under the banner of a people's agenda called The Leap Manifesto, endorsed by more
than 220 organisations from Greenpeace Canada to Black Lives Matter Toronto, and some of
our largest trade unions.
And if such a coalition of the usual suspects got off the ground in the USA it would just
about seal a second term for Donald.
government for the centre ground has been about management- the days when the US New Deal
funded by taxing the rich and which built the wealth Americans now miss, and the Labour post
war government that built the NHS [and taxed the rich] is part of history. Instead we have no
new innovation but a little bit of tweaking with banks and global business.
No government wants to upset the powers that run the economy- so a multinational can move
its workforce to a country with lower pay, lower environmental regulation- it can use the
inequality to move not only manufacturing but people.
In return the gutted communities become less smart and given bread and circuses but their
privilege and lack of mobility means they don't travel to pick fruit elsewhere- yet they
still demand food on the table and the only ones prepared to travel and work hard are the
even greater poor.
And the right simply blames the immigrants, the others and you believe them.
don't stop at 2011, the precedent started in 1934 in Nuremberg Germany. Trump used the
same how to manual written by Goebbels, he got the idea from the Romans.
"... Great post. Inequality has been visibly widening in the US (and the UK) for years, principally as a result of globalisation. ..."
"... some people see that you put in the same republican representatives that are just the opposite side of the same coin. Actually the repubs are worse . No to unions, higher min wage, tax cuts to the very wealthy etc. Dems talk about these issue but can never get it together to actually implement them. ..."
"... I think Naomi has given the answer by mistake. The liberal elite is totally disconnected from the rest of the country. It wasn't just trump it was a red wave of republican victory ..."
This is an excellent response. However already you can hear the liberal elite dismiss the
Trump voters as idiots - it's always funny when you hear people complain that Trump
threatening to put his opponent in jail, or Brexiters threatening the partiality of the
judiciary are threats to the democratic system... these same people then start making the
argument the electorate is too stupid to make a decision. The liberal elite need to
acknowledge the tangible suffering and injustice being faced by working-class people across
Europe and the United States, and act to address it.
There was a telling point early on in the election coverage when the democrat
representative on the BBC panel was arrogantly smiling once the exit polls showed Clinton on
for a comfortable victory. Andrew Neil put him straight back in his place when he asked 'is
it not concerning for the Democrat Party that they are no longer the party of the blue-collar
American?' The representative highlighted the arrogance and complacency of the liberal elite,
that seconds after the election result looked to be in, he seemed to go back to not caring
about working-class people and re-enter the elite bubble.
Great post. Inequality has been visibly widening in the US (and the UK) for years,
principally as a result of globalisation. A large proportion of the people are "mad as hell"
and have decided to try to do something about it. Trump is unlikely to be the answer, but
there will be more support for anti-politicians (such as Grillo & the 5 Star movement in
Italy) while the conventional politicians continue to bleat nonsense.
some people see that you put in the same republican representatives that are just the
opposite side of the same coin. Actually the repubs are worse . No to unions, higher min
wage, tax cuts to the very wealthy etc. Dems talk about these issue but can never get it
together to actually implement them.
I think Naomi has given the answer by mistake. The liberal elite is totally disconnected
from the rest of the country. It wasn't just trump it was a red wave of republican victory --
her article demonstrates how little she understands.
The liberal elite includes the media, who can't wait to run stories of "thousands" of
people protesting about Trump in the US. Yes, thousands, in a country with a population of
318 million.
"... you cannot fight the establishment with the establishment and Trump -who is a billionaire FFS- is another one who represents that. If he didn't he would not have been allowed to run. ..."
"... It is strange and telling that the discourse within the American public over the last 40 years or so allowed themselves to discuss and tackle to various levels of success issues like sexism, racism, institutional racism, misogyny, xenophobia, even sexuality and yes, even gun laws but one thing that is an absolute no-no in discourse is the economical and subsequentially political system. ..."
"... As long as people believe the American Dream is within reach to them, just like they believe it was for individuals like Trump, the economic system will remain its status quo and that is: riches for a few, struggles for many. ..."
"... You correctly state that you cannot fight the establishment with Trump. But I suggest he is the best choice. You assume a choice has been made to get that single person to help them. I suggest a choice has been made to plant a suicide bomber in the establishment. ..."
"... With Trump in that position, the entire credibility of the establishment has been destroyed. Trump is a clown. An idiot. Every time he spouting something misogynistic or racist he became a better weapon for the public to use to against the establishments structures. No better place for him than to have him as the Icon of the establishment. The (now) unacceptable face. ..."
"... As you say, the power is with the people. But they first must be angry and disgusted at the establishment. Clinton was not distasteful enough to rally the lefts anger. Trump is perfect. ..."
"... Trump will not stop the wars. All anyone had to do was look at the voting records of the republicans in office( that were reelected) that voted for more war equipment. They also wanted TTIP. Until the public realizes we have to change our state representatives nothing will change. ..."
This election will spawn losers all over the place; the most tragic losers will be those
that voted a supposed maverick into the high office in order to fight the 'liberal' or
whatever establishment hoping to bring jobs back to the people.
However, you cannot fight the
establishment with the establishment and Trump -who is a billionaire FFS- is another one who
represents that. If he didn't he would not have been allowed to run.
Just for the same reason
that Bernie was squeezed out, not that I think he is a real socialist but one who would have
come too close to do some real change. To quote Rosa Luxemburg: If an election would mean
real change it would have been abolished
It is strange and telling that the discourse within the American public over the last 40
years or so allowed themselves to discuss and tackle to various levels of success issues like
sexism, racism, institutional racism, misogyny, xenophobia, even sexuality and yes, even gun
laws but one thing that
is an absolute no-no in discourse is the economical and subsequentially political system.
As
long as people believe the American Dream is within reach to them, just like they believe it
was for individuals like Trump, the economic system will remain its status quo and that is:
riches for a few, struggles for many.
The establishment will see for that and always find ways to maintain. One thing that has
always worked perfectly fine is to find scapegoats like foreigners, immigrants, people on
welfare, coloured people , minorities and so on. Can't even say this is typically American,
it has worked most recently in the UK within the brexit discussion and in Germany and other
places.
The power is with people, I remain optimistic; an election, though, will not change
anything
You correctly state that you cannot fight the establishment with Trump. But I suggest he
is the best choice. You assume a choice has been made to get that single person to help them.
I suggest a choice has been made to plant a suicide bomber in the establishment.
The problem has been that Obama has put an empathetic, intelligent and articulate face on
the front of a deeply corrupted system. To attack the system one appears to be attacking him
and that can be awkward.
With Trump in that position, the entire credibility of the establishment has been
destroyed. Trump is a clown. An idiot. Every time he spouting something misogynistic or
racist he became a better weapon for the public to use to against the establishments
structures. No better place for him than to have him as the Icon of the establishment. The
(now) unacceptable face.
As you say, the power is with the people. But they first must be angry and disgusted at
the establishment. Clinton was not distasteful enough to rally the lefts anger. Trump is perfect.
One thing particular about Killery: I believe she was meant to deliver more war for her
Davos employers. I've had enough of 'Mericuh's wars for profit, and to protect the Bankers
fortunes. At this point I'm ready to vote for Idi Amin, if it stops the banker wars being
waged for them by their proxy the United States.
Trump will not stop the wars. All anyone had to do was look at the voting records of the
republicans in office( that were reelected) that voted for more war equipment. They also
wanted TTIP. Until the public realizes we have to change our state representatives nothing
will change.
"... Why are state owned industries bad things? When one debates it the way the argument has been framed - Left vs Right - it is hard to defend, ending in a "commie vs. fascist" diatribe. ..."
"... If it's framed by "Why should profit be made from essential services, water, electricity, telephone, rail, health services, especially when there's only one delivery mechanism, a pipe, a rail, a cable, a hospital?" (and one paid for and put in by the Government) then that's a different debate. ..."
"... Is Amazon a force for change? Yes. Should it have been allowed to part fund its growth by arbitraging tax savings between one US state and another? No. ..."
"... Should Uber be able to set up a taxi business? Yes. If there is an existing business in place, with infrastructure and investment, should new entrants be forced to adhere to the same rules and regulations that supported that existing business, and taxed to allow the established businesses to evolve, with taxes paying for the re-training of people, paying for investments, supporting infrastructure? I think so. ..."
"... When we have autonomous vans replacing delivery drivers, should we tax companies that use them to offset the social cost of laying off millions of people in the transportation sector to pay for re-training and infrastructure investments, or should we simply allow offshore companies to export jobs and money? ..."
"... We need to ditch the neoliberal policies that created free market capitalism and not replace it with socialism, but replace it with logical, pragmatic, socially-focused capitalism ..."
Why are state owned industries bad things? When one debates it the way the argument has
been framed - Left vs Right - it is hard to defend, ending in a "commie vs. fascist"
diatribe.
If it's framed by "Why should profit be made from essential services, water,
electricity, telephone, rail, health services, especially when there's only one delivery
mechanism, a pipe, a rail, a cable, a hospital?" (and one paid for and put in by the
Government) then that's a different debate.
Then the debate moves to "Govt's can't run
companies". Only then can we frame the debate about fixing the right problem. Get Govt's to
run essential services effectively, not giving up that they can't and allowing corporations
to profit from essential services – that profit is your taxes.
To win this argument the debate needs to not be the ideological argument of Left vs Right.
We need a new approach for the 21st Century that embraces change, technology and dynamism and
overlays it with pragmatism, social caring and a drive for growth.
Is Amazon a force for change? Yes. Should it have been allowed to part fund its growth by
arbitraging tax savings between one US state and another? No.
Should Uber be able to set up a
taxi business? Yes. If there is an existing business in place, with infrastructure and
investment, should new entrants be forced to adhere to the same rules and regulations that
supported that existing business, and taxed to allow the established businesses to evolve,
with taxes paying for the re-training of people, paying for investments, supporting
infrastructure? I think so.
When we have autonomous vans replacing delivery drivers, should
we tax companies that use them to offset the social cost of laying off millions of people in
the transportation sector to pay for re-training and infrastructure investments, or should we
simply allow offshore companies to export jobs and money?
I suggest we need a new approach. Not Left or Right. We need to ditch the neoliberal
policies that created free market capitalism and not replace it with socialism, but replace
it with logical, pragmatic, socially-focused capitalism. So long as our choice is left or
right, you get Trumped. I hope someone can find a new way.
You can be one of those who finds a better way. So can I, so can every one of
us, if we're willing to take on the responsibility of participating in the process at the
local level, as I said in my earlier post. I'm an old man now, but I've always been involved
in the political process. We haven't always achieved what we wanted, that's a fact of life.
But my country, Australia, is a better place today than it was 1n 1937 when I was born. The
USA has suffered a setback this week, more reason for the young people to get into the
process at the coalface, and build better parties that reflect their values.
I think there's a lot of truth to this; over hear we could say that many Trump voters are
the equivalent of the miners and steel workers who lost out under Thatcherism, and whom
Labour used to at least try to represent.
But the other horn of the dilemma in which such people find themselves is cultural. A
cultural revolution has taken place over the past fifty years which has weakened, and
threatens to destroy, the culture that many of these people feel comfortable with, and people
like Clinton tell them to be happy about that, or be called bigots. Working people whose
lodestars are faith, flag and family are derided, and dismissed as relics.
A party which combined a more Left-wing populist economic policy with a socially
conservative cultural position would absolutely clean up, and would help a great many poor
people. But the Left is too infatuated with racial, sexual, moral and social revolution to
care. The "rust-belt" poor look to the Democrats for aid, are are given transgender
lavatories. It's an insult.
You took a great many words to say what you actually mean: "Hilary Clinton is a corrupt
lifelong politician totally in bed with the bankers, world financiers, and rich elites,
whilst peddling a enough rubbish to attract the SJWs. She's been found out and that's why she
lost".
Nothing in the article directs hate at voters or groups of voters. It is, arguably,
disgusted with the Trump and Brexit campaigns but is full of sympathy for the plights of many
who voted for them.
Secondly, voting for Trump just to rebel against 'highly paid know-it-alls with vain moral
superiority' is just crazy. It might not be racist or misogynistic but it is stupid. Voting
to 'p..s' someone off is treating your vote, democratic right and responsibility with
distain.
The craziest part of all of this is that the highly paid people who you are rebelling
against will get a tax cut from Trump. It is the poor that will bear the brunt of his
presidency.
"Neo-fascist responses"
"Trump-style extremism"
"they answer it by bashing immigrants and people of colour, vilifying Muslims, and degrading
women"
You call my right to vote the way I choose "stupid".
You just don't get it. Millions of Americans voted exactly this way. A big middle finger to
the establishment, media, Wall Street, "experts", and yes moral posturing know-it-alls is a
great way to use your vote.
You completely misunderstand Trump. He is far more for the working man than Clinton. The
poor voted for him in droves. And for good reason.
There has been no real recovery for working people or most people in the west since the
great recession. White working class people in both countries are angry. They are angry that
they are no longer given a significantly preferential seat at the dinner table (or at least
compared to yesteryear), angry that they have to compete equally with everyone else.
In the UK apparently we must now concentrate on white working class people concerning
education. They are not discriminated against and on the contrary still are free from many
prejudices that non whites experience yet they under perform.
And why should they receive preferential treatment? Are we to be judged on the past
exploits of generations before us? Perhaps their forebearers served for the country... well
my son's great grandfather served the UK during WWII even though he was from another country
and what did they give him in return... sweet f*** all; a one way ticket home with a pat on
the back and a "good luck" with dealing with his wounds and rehabilitation. Neither did it
benefit his ancestors the slightest so why should it be taken into account for Britons
today?
In order to justify the unjustifiable (a corporate elite exploiting the world as their own
private estate), they constructed an artificial equivalence to make it seem that their
self-interested economic system was part and parcel of a package of 'democracy',
'multi-racial tolerance', 'LGBT tolerance' etc, so that people would be fooled into thinking
that rejecting the economics meant rejecting all the other things too.
George Soros' "Open
Society Foundation'" is a key offender here. The false consciousness thus engendered does
indeed set the scene for fascism, but a genuine left opposition can and needs to be built and
we can only hope that we can succeed in so doing.
"... “‘Populism’ is the label that political elites attach to policies supported by ordinary citizens that they don’t like.” Populism is a movement against the status quo. It represents the beginnings of something new, though it is generally much clearer about what it is against than what it is for. It can be progressive or reactionary, but more usually both. ..."
The neoliberal era is being undermined from two directions. First, if its record of economic
growth has never been particularly strong, it is now dismal. Europe is barely larger than it
was on the eve of the financial crisis in 2007; the United States has done better but even its
growth has been anaemic. Economists such as Larry Summers believe that the prospect for the
future is most likely one of secular stagnation .
Worse, because the recovery has been so weak and fragile, there is a widespread belief that
another financial crisis may well beckon. In other words, the neoliberal era has delivered the
west back into the kind of crisis-ridden world that we last experienced in the 1930s. With this
background, it is hardly surprising that a majority in the west now believe their children will
be worse off than they were. Second, those who have lost out in the neoliberal era are no
longer prepared to acquiesce in their fate – they are increasingly in open revolt. We are
witnessing the end of the neoliberal era. It is not dead, but it is in its early death throes,
just as the social-democratic era was during the 1970s.
A sure sign of the declining influence of neoliberalism is the rising chorus of intellectual
voices raised against it. From the mid-70s through the 80s, the economic debate was
increasingly dominated by monetarists and free marketeers. But since the western financial
crisis, the centre of gravity of the intellectual debate has shifted profoundly. This is most
obvious in the United States, with economists such as Joseph Stiglitz, Paul Krugman, Dani
Rodrik and Jeffrey Sachs becoming increasingly influential. Thomas Piketty's Capital in the
Twenty-First Century has been a massive seller. His work and that of Tony
Atkinson and Angus Deaton have pushed the question of the inequality to the top of the
political agenda. In the UK, Ha-Joon Chang , for long isolated within
the economics profession, has gained a following far greater than those who think economics is
a branch of mathematics.
Meanwhile, some of those who were previously strong advocates of a neoliberal approach, such
as Larry Summers and the Financial Times 's Martin Wolf, have become extremely critical.
The wind is in the sails of the critics of neoliberalism; the neoliberals and monetarists are
in retreat. In the UK, the media and political worlds are well behind the curve. Few recognise
that we are at the end of an era. Old attitudes and assumptions still predominate, whether on
the BBC's Today programme, in the rightwing press or the parliamentary Labour party.
As Thomas
Piketty has shown, in the absence of countervailing pressures, capitalism naturally gravitates towards increasing
inequality. In the period between 1945 and the late 70s, Cold War competition was arguably the biggest such constraint. Since
the collapse of the Soviet Union, there have been none. As the popular backlash grows increasingly irresistible, however, such a
winner-takes-all regime becomes politically unsustainable.
Large sections of the population in both the US and the UK are now in revolt against their lot, as graphically illustrated by
the support for Trump and Sanders in the US and the Brexit vote in the UK. This popular revolt is often described, in a somewhat
denigratory and dismissive fashion, as populism. Or, as Francis Fukuyama writes in a recent excellent essay
in
Foreign Affairs: “‘Populism’ is the label that political elites attach to policies supported by ordinary citizens that
they don’t like.” Populism is a movement against the status quo. It represents the beginnings of something new, though it is
generally much clearer about what it is against than what it is for. It can be progressive or reactionary, but more usually
both.
"... Aditya Chakrabortty ( It's reckless. But a Tory cash splurge could win an election , 3 July) is right to point out the hypocrisy of the political right about public expenditure. While progressive proposals for public spending are decried as burdening the hard-pressed taxpayer, the right is happy to use public money to rescue the banks or boost their electoral chances. ..."
"... As I explain in my book Money: Myths, Truths and Alternatives, neoliberal economics is built on a fairytale about money that distorts our view of how a contemporary public money system operates. It is assumed that public spending depends on extracting money from the market and that money (like gold) is always in short supply. Neither is true. Both the market and the state generate money – the market through bank lending and the state through public spending. Both increase the money supply, while bank loan repayments and taxation reduce it. There is no natural shortage of money – which today mainly exists only as data. ..."
Neoliberal economics and other fairytales about money Politics is not about a
struggle over a fixed pot of money, says Mary Mellor, and the best way to end austerity is to
reject it as an ideology, says Peter McKenna
Aditya Chakrabortty (
It's reckless. But a Tory cash splurge could win an election , 3 July) is right to point
out the hypocrisy of the political right about public expenditure. While progressive proposals
for public spending are decried as burdening the hard-pressed taxpayer, the right is happy to
use public money to rescue the banks or boost their electoral chances.
As I explain in my book Money: Myths, Truths and Alternatives, neoliberal economics is built
on a fairytale about money that distorts our view of how a contemporary public money system
operates. It is assumed that public spending depends on extracting money from the market and
that money (like gold) is always in short supply. Neither is true. Both the market and the
state generate money – the market through bank lending and the state through public
spending. Both increase the money supply, while bank loan repayments and taxation reduce it.
There is no natural shortage of money – which today mainly exists only as data.
The case for austerity missed the point. Politics is not about a struggle over a fixed pot
of money. What is limited are resources (particularly the environment) and human capacity. How
these are best used should be a matter of democratic debate. The allocation of money should
depend on the priorities identified. In this the market has no more claim than the public
economy to be the source of sustainable human welfare.
Professor Mary Mellor Newcastle upon Tyne
• Over the years Aditya Chakrabortty has provided us with powerful critiques of
austerity. His message now – that EU membership "is the best way to end austerity"
– overlooks the fact that the UK was in the EU all that time.
Moreover, the EU's stability and growth pact requires that budget deficits and public debt
be pegged below 3% and 60% of GDP respectively.
Such notions are the beating heart of austerity, and the European commission's excessive
deficit procedure taken against errant states has almost universally resulted in swingeing
austerity programmes. These were approved and monitored by the commission and council, with the
UK only taken off the naughty step in 2017 after years of crippling austerity finally reduced
the deficit to 2.3% of GDP.
The best way to end austerity – and to sway voters – is to reject austerity as
an ideology regardless of remain or leave, and rehabilitate the concept of public investment in
a people's economy.
Peter McKenna
"... On the other hand, more open immigration policies will mean more workers, which will of course take jobs away, especially from the poorest in our own societies. Similarly, more open trade will more jobs in poorer countries and fewer jobs here, again taking jobs, especially from the poorest in our societies. this is morally wrong: we should feel solidarity with our own poor. ..."
"... Further, more open immigration policies are what capitalism 'wants': more workers will necessarily drive wages down, and so produce greater profits for corporations and the rich, and therefore greater inequality in our society overall. ..."
There is a fundamental difficulty here which progressives have not fully faced. It is that
more open trade and welcoming immigration policies are, on the one hand, a progressive and
moral good (we should feel solidarity with people from the global south; it feels wrong to
bar them from our countries and stop them from benefiting from our economies).
On the other
hand, more open immigration policies will mean more workers, which will of course take jobs
away, especially from the poorest in our own societies. Similarly, more open trade will more
jobs in poorer countries and fewer jobs here, again taking jobs, especially from the poorest
in our societies. this is morally wrong: we should feel solidarity with our own poor.
Further, more open immigration policies are what capitalism 'wants': more workers will
necessarily drive wages down, and so produce greater profits for corporations and the rich,
and therefore greater inequality in our society overall. Comfortably well-off liberals can
appear and feel progressive by supporting more open immigration, while in fact this support
aligns with capitalist policies that benefit them and exploit those who are worse off.
We need a progressive movement that can resolve this and square the circle.
Honestly, no, beyond stressing the fact that more open and welcoming immigration policies
are not unalloyed morally good things: they lead to lower wages for the poor and middle
class, and lead to greater inequality, since lower wages translate into greater profits for
corporations and their owners.
Perhaps if a progressive argument towards tempering and
controlling immigration can be made, based on the fact that open immigration leads to greater
inequality and in the end benefits the 1% the most, then we can get some sort of
progress.
"... To extract meaning from GDP trends we have to break it into its components: consumption, investment, government spending, the trade balance. Consumption is by far the largest of these, and the main driver of the economy, but its level is precariously underpinned by unsecured private debt. It is broadly accepted that real investment (in new productive capacity) is dismally inadequate for the continued growth of a modern economy; much of what does take place goes into buying paper assets. ..."
"... focusing on GDP is even more absurd than "prioritising short-term growth over long-term sustainability". ..."
"... a passage spells out the absurdity: "Anything that causes economic activity of any kind, whether good or bad, adds to GDP. An oil spill, for example, increases GDP because of the cost of cleaning it up: the bigger the spill, the better it is for GDP." ..."
"... He goes on and finally shows that "after a country's GDP per capita reaches a moderate level there is no correlation between the wealth of a country and the reported happiness of its population". ..."
As an economist I endorse Dan Button's article ( Stop
obsessing about GDP: we should focus on wellbeing , 11 June). The most we can say is that a
succession of GDP figures over months should indicate whether the economy is growing or moving
into recession. Also aggregate GDP statistics tell us nothing about how national wealth and
income are distributed: globalisation in recent decades has increased the size of the cake, but
the main beneficiaries have been the already better-off.
To extract meaning from GDP trends we have to break it into its components: consumption,
investment, government spending, the trade balance. Consumption is by far the largest of these,
and the main driver of the economy, but its level is precariously underpinned by unsecured
private debt. It is broadly accepted that real investment (in new productive capacity) is
dismally inadequate for the continued growth of a modern economy; much of what does take place
goes into buying paper assets.
As for government expenditure, most of us are crying out for more on education, health,
social care, police, early childhood services, to name a few, but as a nation we want "big
state" levels of public services financed by "small state" levels of taxation. Last, we have a
massive balance-of-payments deficit: we are exporting too little to pay for our imports; we are
living beyond our means. We can only continue this by selling capital assets (such as water
companies) to overseas investors, thus losing the dividends and tax revenue that they
generate.
Lawrence Lockhart Bath
• Spot on, Dan Button. But focusing on GDP is even more absurd than "prioritising
short-term growth over long-term sustainability". In Jeremy Lent's The Patterning Instinct (a
magnificent book
recently recommended by George Monbiot ) a passage spells out the absurdity: "Anything that
causes economic activity of any kind, whether good or bad, adds to GDP. An oil spill, for
example, increases GDP because of the cost of cleaning it up: the bigger the spill, the better
it is for GDP."
He goes on and finally shows that "after a country's GDP per capita reaches a moderate level
there is no correlation between the wealth of a country and the reported happiness of its
population".
Trouble is, this is hard for free-market "wealth creators" to swallow and, as Lent
observes: "the mainstream media unquestionably accept the mantra of our locked-in ideology that
economic growth, measured by GDP, is the social objective to be pursued above all else". So
well done Dan Button and the Guardian for questioning the mantra. Keep it up.
John Airs Liverpool
• Although the measurement of "personal wellbeing" introduced by David Cameron's
government in 2010 is a welcome addition to crude GDP measures, it relies heavily on subjective
assessments of life satisfaction, personal happiness, perception of financial situation, level
of anxiety and a strange "worthwhile rating". It would be more useful to measure the wellbeing
of society as a whole using objective criteria.
These could include, along with GDP per head, medical factors such as infant mortality,
longevity, incidence of mental illness, numbers of doctors per head and access to hospitals;
social factors such as crime rates, percentage of population in prison, stability of marriages
and partnerships, working hours, holidays, homelessness and unemployment; cultural factors such
as human rights and access to the arts; and environmental factors such as pollution and carbon
footprint.
Such a measure, if internationally agreed, could be used to rate the success or otherwise
over time of governments, and to compare wellbeing between countries.
Peter Wrigley Birstall, West Yorkshire
• It is increasingly accepted that continued economic growth is a short route to
eventual disaster for anyone not protected by high wealth: the decline in biodiversity, global
heating, air pollution, water stress, soil deterioration and rising sea levels are all trends
directly linked to the increase in the amount of the natural world's resources going to fuel
consumption. The only way we can protect the mass of human populations is to abandon economic
growth altogether and concentrate on better using what we have. This will include changing the
numerous ways in which human societies channel the profits of economic activity into the
pockets of a few, and challenging the immense pressure exerted by those few on governments
whether democratic or other.
Jeremy Cushing
Over the last two years, a different, in some ways unrecognizable Larry Summers has been appearing in newspaper editorial pages.
More circumspect in tone, this humbler Summers has been arguing that economic opportunities in the developing world are slowing,
and that the already rich economies are finding it hard to get out of the crisis. Barring some kind of breakthrough, Summers says,
an era of slow growth is here to stay.
In Summers's recent writings, this sombre conclusion has often been paired with a surprising political goal: advocating for a
"responsible nationalism". Now he argues that politicians must recognise that "the basic responsibility of government is to maximise
the welfare of citizens, not to pursue some abstract concept of the global good".
One curious thing about the pro-globalisation consensus of the 1990s and 2000s, and its collapse in recent years, is how closely
the cycle resembles a previous era. Pursuing free trade has always produced displacement and inequality – and political chaos, populism
and retrenchment to go with it. Every time the social consequences of free trade are overlooked, political backlash follows. But
free trade is only one of many forms that economic integration can take. History seems to suggest, however, that it might be the
most destabilising one.
... ... ...
The international systems that chastened figures such as Keynes helped produce in the next few years – especially the Bretton
Woods agreement and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Gatt) – set the terms under which the new wave of globalisation
would take place.
The key to the system's viability, in Rodrik's view, was its flexibility – something absent from contemporary globalisation,
with its one-size-fits-all model of capitalism. Bretton Woods stabilised exchange rates by pegging the dollar loosely to gold, and
other currencies to the dollar. Gatt consisted of rules governing free trade – negotiated by participating countries in a series
of multinational "rounds" – that left many areas of the world economy, such as agriculture, untouched or unaddressed. "Gatt's purpose
was never to maximise free trade," Rodrik writes. "It was to achieve the maximum amount of trade compatible with different nations
doing their own thing. In that respect, the institution proved spectacularly successful."
Partly because Gatt was not always dogmatic about free trade, it allowed most countries to figure out their own economic objectives,
within a somewhat international ambit. When nations contravened the agreement's terms on specific areas of national interest, they
found that it "contained loopholes wide enough for an elephant to pass", in Rodrik's words. If a nation wanted to protect its steel
industry, for example, it could claim "injury" under the rules of Gatt and raise tariffs to discourage steel imports: "an abomination
from the standpoint of free trade". These were useful for countries that were recovering from the war and needed to build up their
own industries via tariffs – duties imposed on particular imports. Meanwhile, from 1948 to 1990, world trade grew at an annual average
of nearly 7% – faster than the post-communist years, which we think of as the high point of globalisation. "If there was a golden
era of globalisation," Rodrik has written, "this was it."
Gatt, however, failed to cover many of the countries in the developing world. These countries eventually created their own system,
the United Nations conference on trade and development (UNCTAD). Under this rubric, many countries – especially in Latin America,
the Middle East, Africa and Asia – adopted a policy of protecting homegrown industries by replacing imports with domestically produced
goods. It worked poorly in some places – India and Argentina, for example, where the trade barriers were too high, resulting in
factories that cost more to set up than the value of the goods they produced – but remarkably well in others, such as east Asia,
much of Latin America and parts of sub-Saharan Africa, where homegrown industries did spring up. Though many later economists and
commentators would dismiss the achievements of this model, it theoretically fit Larry Summers's recent rubric on globalisation:
"the basic responsibility of government is to maximise the welfare of citizens, not to pursue some abstract concept of the global
good."
The critical turning point – away from this system of trade balanced against national protections – came in the 1980s. Flagging
growth and high inflation in the west, along with growing competition from Japan, opened the way for a political transformation.
The elections of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan were seminal, putting free-market radicals in charge of two of the world's
five biggest economies and ushering in an era of "hyperglobalisation". In the new political climate, economies with large public
sectors and strong governments within the global capitalist system were no longer seen as aids to the system's functioning, but
impediments to it.
Not only did these ideologies take hold in the US and the UK; they seized international institutions as well. Gatt renamed itself
as the World Trade Organization (WTO), and the new rules the body negotiated began to cut more deeply into national policies. Its
international trade rules sometimes undermined national legislation. The WTO's appellate court intervened relentlessly in member
nations' tax, environmental and regulatory policies, including those of the United States: the US's fuel emissions standards were
judged to discriminate against imported gasoline, and its
ban on imported shrimp caught without turtle-excluding
devices was overturned. If national health and safety regulations were stricter than WTO rules necessitated, they could only
remain in place if they were shown to have "scientific justification".
The purest version of hyperglobalisation was tried out in Latin America in the 1980s. Known as the "Washington consensus", this
model usually involved loans from the IMF that were contingent on those countries lowering trade barriers and privatising many of
their nationally held industries. Well into the 1990s, economists were proclaiming the indisputable benefits of openness. In an
influential 1995 paper, Jeffrey Sachs and Andrew Warner wrote: "We find no cases to support the frequent worry that a country might
open and yet fail to grow."
But the Washington consensus was bad for business: most countries did worse than before. Growth faltered, and citizens across
Latin America revolted against attempted privatisations of water and gas. In Argentina, which followed the Washington consensus
to the letter, a grave crisis resulted in
2002 , precipitating an economic collapse and massive street protests that forced out the government that had pursued privatising
reforms. Argentina's revolt presaged a left-populist upsurge across the continent: from 1999 to 2007, leftwing leaders and parties
took power in Brazil, Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador, all of them campaigning against the Washington consensus on globalisation.
These revolts were a preview of the backlash of today.
Rodrik – perhaps the contemporary economist whose views have been most amply vindicated by recent events – was himself a beneficiary
of protectionism in Turkey. His father's ballpoint pen company was sheltered under tariffs, and achieved enough success to allow
Rodrik to attend Harvard in the 1970s as an undergraduate. This personal understanding of the mixed nature of economic success may
be one of the reasons why his work runs against the broad consensus of mainstream economics writing on globalisation.
"I never felt that my ideas were out of the mainstream," Rodrik told me recently. Instead, it was that the mainstream had lost
touch with the diversity of opinions and methods that already existed within economics. "The economics profession is strange in
that the more you move away from the seminar room to the public domain, the more the nuances get lost, especially on issues of trade."
He lamented the fact that while, in the classroom, the models of trade discuss losers and winners, and, as a result, the necessity
of policies of redistribution, in practice, an "arrogance and hubris" had led many economists to ignore these implications. "Rather
than speaking truth to power, so to speak, many economists became cheerleaders for globalisation."
In his 2011 book The Globalization Paradox
, Rodrik concluded that "we cannot simultaneously pursue democracy, national determination, and economic globalisation." The
results of the 2016 elections and referendums provide ample testimony of the justness of the thesis, with millions voting to push
back, for better or for worse, against the campaigns and institutions that promised more globalisation. "I'm not at all surprised
by the backlash," Rodrik told me. "Really, nobody should have been surprised."
But what, in any case, would "more globalisation" look like? For the same economists and writers who have started to rethink
their commitments to greater integration, it doesn't mean quite what it did in the early 2000s. It's not only the discourse that's
changed: globalisation itself has changed, developing into a more chaotic and unequal system than many economists predicted. The
benefits of globalisation have been largely concentrated in a handful of Asian countries. And even in those countries, the good
times may be running out.
Statistics from Global Inequality
, a 2016 book by the development economist Branko Milanović, indicate that in relative terms the greatest benefits of globalisation
have accrued to a rising "emerging middle class", based preponderantly in China. But the cons are there, too: in absolute terms,
the largest gains have gone to what is commonly called "the 1%" – half of whom are based in the US. Economist Richard Baldwin has
shown in his recent book, The Great Convergence, that nearly all of the gains from globalisation have been concentrated in six countries.
Barring some political catastrophe, in which rightwing populism continued to gain, and in which globalisation would be the least
of our problems – Wolf admitted that he was "not at all sure" that this could be ruled out – globalisation was always going to slow;
in fact, it already has. One reason, says Wolf, was that "a very, very large proportion of the gains from globalisation – by no
means all – have been exploited. We have a more open world economy to trade than we've ever had before." Citing The Great Convergence,
Wolf noted that supply chains have already expanded, and that future developments, such as automation and the use of robots, looked
to undermine the promise of a growing industrial workforce. Today, the political priorities were less about trade and more about
the challenge of retraining workers , as technology renders old jobs obsolete and transforms the world of work.
Rodrik, too, believes that globalisation, whether reduced or increased, is unlikely to produce the kind of economic effects it
once did. For him, this slowdown has something to do with what he calls "premature deindustrialisation". In the past, the simplest
model of globalisation suggested that rich countries would gradually become "service economies", while emerging economies picked
up the industrial burden. Yet recent statistics show the world as a whole is deindustrialising. Countries that one would have expected
to have more industrial potential are going through the stages of automation more quickly than previously developed countries did,
and thereby failing to develop the broad industrial workforce seen as a key to shared prosperity.
For both Rodrik and Wolf, the political reaction to globalisation bore possibilities of deep uncertainty. "I really have found
it very difficult to decide whether what we're living through is a blip, or a fundamental and profound transformation of the world
– at least as significant as the one that brought about the first world war and the Russian revolution," Wolf told me. He cited
his agreement with economists such as Summers that shifting away from the earlier emphasis on globalisation had now become a political
priority; that to pursue still greater liberalisation was like showing "a red rag to a bull" in terms of what it might do to the
already compromised political stability of the western world.
Rodrik pointed to a belated emphasis, both among political figures and economists, on the necessity of compensating those displaced
by globalisation with retraining and more robust welfare states. But pro-free-traders had a history of cutting compensation: Bill
Clinton passed Nafta, but failed to expand safety nets. "The issue is that the people are rightly not trusting the centrists who
are now promising compensation," Rodrik said. "One reason that Hillary Clinton didn't get any traction with those people is that
she didn't have any credibility."
Rodrik felt that economics commentary failed to register the gravity of the situation: that there were increasingly few avenues
for global growth, and that much of the damage done by globalisation – economic and political – is irreversible. "There is a sense
that we're at a turning point," he said. "There's a lot more thinking about what can be done. There's a renewed emphasis on compensation
– which, you know, I think has come rather late."
There are almost 5,000 criminal gangs in the UK. But the old family firms are gone –
today's big players are multinational, diversified and tech-savvy.
By Duncan
Campbell Main image: Underworlds old and new: Curtis Warren, John Palmer, the Hellbanianz
and others. Photograph: Chris Radburn/PA
Thu 4 Jul 2019 06.01 BST Last modified on Thu 4 Jul 2019 12.22 BST
Shares 299
W ho rules the underworld today, and where do they conduct their business? Once there were
the familiar mugshots and Runyonesque nicknames, the clubs and pubs where the usual suspects
gathered, plotted and schemed. Now organised crime is run like any other business, and its
leading figures look like every other broker or tycoon. We have entered into a world of what
Sir Rob Wainwright, until recently Europe's most senior police officer, calls "anonymised"
crime. The underworld has become the overworld.
The National Crime Agency has estimated that £90bn of criminal money is being
laundered through the UK every year, 4% of the country's GDP. London has become the global
capital of money-laundering and the beating heart of European organised crime. English is now
the international underworld's lingua franca. Crime is an essential part of the British
economy, providing hundreds of thousands of jobs, not just for professional criminals –
the NCA reckons there are
4,629 organised crime groups in operation – but for police and prison officers,
lawyers and court officials, and a security business that now employs more than half a million
people.
Just as the names of familiar shops have been departing from the high street, the old family
firms of criminals are disappearing, whether in London, Glasgow, Newcastle or Manchester. And
just as British football fans have had to learn how to pronounce the names of the legions of
new foreign players, detectives have had to learn to do the same for the increasing number of
new criminals. Britain was once dealing with drugs imports from half a dozen countries; now it
is more than 30. A young person who would in the past have sought an apprenticeship in a trade
or industry may now find that drug dealing offers better career prospects. And, apart from
drugs and guns, British trading channels now facilitate the trafficking of women from eastern
Europe and Africa for prostitution and children from Vietnam as low-level drug workers.
The underworld's modus operandi has shifted in the past quarter century. "The international
nature of crime and technology are probably the two biggest changes," says Steve Rodhouse, the
NCA's head of operations. Speaking at the NCA's unprepossessing headquarters in Vauxhall, south
London, Rodhouse explains how the agency's work has mushroomed. "Pretty much all of the NCA's
most significant 'high-harm' operations now involve people, commodities or money transferring
across international borders. The days of having a drugs gang, a firearms gang or a
people-trafficking gang have changed because of the concept of polycriminality. Groups
satisfying criminal markets, whatever they may be, is now much more common. These are
businesses and people are looking to exploit markets, so why confine yourself to one
market?"
Wainwright, who served as Europol chief for nine years, has also noted this
internationalisation of crime. Addressing a Police Foundation gathering just after his
retirement last year, he said that Europol, the European equivalent of Interpol, having
expanded since its foundation in 1998 when "it consisted literally, of two men and a dog
– admittedly, a sniffer dog – in Luxembourg," now dealt with 65,000 cases a year.
By 2018, he reckoned that 5,000 organised crime groups were operating across Europe and the
mafia model had been replaced by a "more nimble" model, with 180 different nationalities
operating, mixing legal with illegal business and working with between 400 and 500 major
money-launderers. This was multinational business with specialists in recruitment, movement,
money-laundering and the forging of documents.
The internet, of course, is a major factor. Wainwright likened its effect on crime to that
of the motorcar in the 1920s and 30s, when suddenly criminals could escape at speed and take
advantage of new markets. He cited the dark web, which he said was selling 350,000 different
illegal items – 60% of which were drugs – but including everything from guns to
pornography and even operating a ratings system for speed of dispatch and quality. The
combination of new faces of whom the British police – and often Interpol and Europol
– were unaware, along with an increasingly tech-savvy pool of criminals able to disguise
their identities, made for a toxic cocktail. Crooks anonymous.
O ne group with little interest in anonymity are the Hellbanianz, a gang of cocky young
Albanians based in Barking, east London. They went online in spectacular fashion in 2017 via
Instagram and YouTube rap videos to flaunt their ill-gotten wealth and firepower.
Their most prominent member, Tristen Asllani, who lived in Hampstead, was jailed for 25
years in 2016 for drug dealing and firearms offences which included possessing a
Škorpion submachine gun. He was caught after a police chase in north London which ended
when he crashed his car into a computer repair shop in Crouch End. A photo of Asllani, showing
him stripped to the waist after he had apparently spent long hours in the prison gym, appeared
on a social media page called My Albanian in Jail, with a caption saying "Even inside the
prison we have all conditions, what's missing are only whores".
The flashy cars and bundles of banknotes on display in the Hellbanianz videos were the
result of the importation of cocaine and cannabis, but the gang was also involved in the
weapons trade. The pictures showed £50 notes wrapped around a cake and their HB logo
written in cannabis. After they were arrested and jailed, other gang members have posted
pictures of themselves, taken with smuggled mobile phones, from inside prison where they
cheerfully inscribe their gang name on the walls.
Muhamed Veliu, an Albanian investigative journalist, who knows London well, says that the
Hellbanianz have been on the crime scene in east London for many years. "They are sending a bad
message to young Albanians. By seeing such photos, they think the streets of UK are paved with
gold Bizarrely, despite the fact they are in the prison, they show the outside world photos of
their life behind the bars." He said that there was a concern that the British media
stereotyped all Albanians as criminals but, he added, the 2006 Securitas robbery, in which two
Albanians played key roles in the theft of
£53m from a depot in Kent, was regarded with some national pride back home. "It was 'the
crime of the century', it was seen as very different from making money from prostitution, which
is the lowest form of crime. It is wrong, of course, but they did need bravery to get involved,
and at least they went for a bank – that was the feeling in the Albanian community."
There are currently around 700 Albanians in British jails.
"Albania is Europe's largest producer of cannabis," says Tony Saggers, the former head of
drugs threat and intelligence at the NCA. "It is important not to stereotype, but the Kosovan
war led to Albanians pretending to be Kosovan in order to get asylum in the UK. Many of the
people who came just wanted a better life, but there were criminals among them who were able to
set up illicit networks The UK criminal has a get-rich-quick mentality while the Albanians'
strategy was get-rich-slow, so they have driven down the price of cocaine in the UK. They knew
that if they expanded, they could undercut the market." It helped that their reputation
preceded them. "The Albanian criminals may be ruthless and potentially murderous when
controlling their organised crime," said Saggers, "but when they come to the UK they try to be
more charismatic and they use fear – 'We're here, we need to get on,' that sort of
approach. So there is little violence from the older Albanian criminals in the UK, because they
know that violence attracts more attention."
The Albanians had already established themselves in a darker fashion when 26-year-old Luan
Plackici was jailed in 2003 and said to have made more than £1m from trafficking "poor,
naive and gullible" young women who thought they were on their way to jobs as waitresses or
barmaids. Some had to service up to 20 men a day to pay for the £8,000 "travel bill" from
Romania and Moldova.
The international nature of people-trafficking was exposed fully in 2014 by a trial of a
gang that imported more than 100 women into Britain. The trial ended with the gang leader,
Vishal Chaudhary, being jailed for 12 years. Chaudhary, who lived the high life in Canary Wharf
in London, contacted young women through social networks in Hungary, the Czech Republic and
Poland, offering work as receptionists, nannies or cleaners in England. But when they got to
the UK, the women were forced to work in brothels. Chaudhary's team, all of whom were jailed,
consisted of his brother, Kunal, who worked for Deloitte in Manchester, a Hungarian heavy
called Krisztian Abel and the latter's sister, Szilvia, who helped recruit the women.
A cannabis farm discovered in a house in Oldham in 2013. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The
Guardian
There are numbers of young people involved in what the legal system terms "forced
criminality". The lawyer Philippa Southwell has specialised in such cases, which apply in
particular to
young Vietnamese people brought illegally into the UK by traffickers and forced to work in
cannabis farms to pay back debts of up to £30,000 that their parents have undertaken in
order for them to have a new life in Europe.
"The modus operandi of criminal organisations is to target children or young adults,
trafficking them across the world in a journey that can take months," Southwell says. "Those
being trafficked from Vietnam, often transit via Russia, Germany and France, by boat, lorry and
even by foot. Once at their destination, they will be locked in a premises and made to tend the
cannabis plants, by watering them and ensuring the lighting is on. These cannabis grows are
sophisticated multi-million-pound drug operations, with the electricity often being extracted
illegally and high-value equipment used. The windows of the buildings may be nailed shut. The
farms normally operate in rural areas where the chance of detection is reduced."
The boys and young men were in a form of debt bondage, but no matter how hard they worked,
their debt never seemed to be paid off. "There is a misconception within the criminal justice
system that they are free to leave because the doors may not always be locked," says Southwell,
"but the reality is that they have nowhere to go – they are controlled through threats of
violence, debt bondage, isolation, fear and other complex control methods that are regularly
used by traffickers."
F rom the Chinese opium dealers in the 1920s, the Italian gangsters in the 30s, the Maltese
pimps in the 50s, the West Indian Yardies in the 60s, the Turkish heroin dealers in the 70s to
the east Europeans gangsters and Nigerian fraudsters today, there has long been an unfair
tendency to blame foreigners as dominant figures in the underworld. While they may have all had
their parts to play, the homegrown British villain – whether artful dodger or ruthless
kingpin – has always been the bedrock of the underworld.
"Everyone wants to be a gangster," says BX, a young former gang member from north-west
London. "Everyone's seen it on TV and that's what they want to be. They look at music videos
and it looks like the people in them are making hundreds of thousands of pounds, although the
reality is that they are still living at their mum's house. Most of them come from estates and
they see their parents going to work, struggling to pay the bills. They come home, their mum's
not there, and all the places where kids could play are closing down. Nine times out of 10,
they leave school without qualifications. So if you're broke, if you can't get a job, you're
going to take the opportunity. My parents had no clue what I was up to – I didn't come
back with any marks on my face."
The recent upsurge in knife attacks has focused attention on gangs. At one stage last year,
there were six separate knife murder trials underway at the Old Bailey, all gang-related, all
involving more than one defendant, none older than 22. "It's not a black thing, it's not a
white thing, everyone's doing it," says BX. "There's no: 'I'm black, he's white, we can't get
along' any more." There were still ample opportunities for smaller-time dealers: "You can make
a grand a week."
An organised gang carrying out robberies on scooters in London in 2018. Photograph: MET
Police
The hierarchy of gangs remained a key factor. "If you're a drug dealer, you have to find
people who will do your dirty work for you. The way it works is the elders, who are, say, 24 or
25, they see you doing well, so they might take you under their wing. The young kids acting as
look-outs, they're thinking: 'I'm part of that guy's enterprise. That could be me in however
many years, I could get promotion.' As they say, loyalty brings forth royalty."
Territory is important commercially. "If you're doing five keys (kilos) a week and then
suddenly you're only doing three a week, it doesn't take long to realise that someone's out
there taking your customers. So you have to eliminate the opposition. How do you do that? By
either taking them out, or tipping off the police. You are never supposed to snitch, but I know
one guy, from Southall, who's a millionaire now; he was in competition with a guy from the same
area so he informed the police." There's a not-unfounded suspicion that some informers have
continued to commit crimes while under police protection. "All the old-school rules –
they're gone. I know people who work with the police to get immunity for themselves. I know one
who everyone knows works with the police, he's even been shooting people, but you type his name
into Google you won't find anything about him and, believe me, his record is way longer than my
arm."
The risks are high. "Of the people I grew up with, only three of us haven't been to jail,
although I've been arrested many times. My older brother has been in and out of jail –
nine months here, six weeks there. But there are less police than ever, so that gives you the
incentive, and even if you get arrested, you're not going to do that long."
While the young gangs have largely replaced the old family-based crews, so have young,
helmeted, scooter-riding robbers smashing their ways into jewellers and mobile phone shops
taken on the role of the old sawn-off shotgun-wielding bank robbers.
W hile those smalltime home-grown villains may still thrive, an increasing number of members
of the British underworld have followed old imperial traditions and headed abroad to cut out
the middle-man, establishing themselves not only in the traditional bolt-hole of Spain, but in
the Netherlands, Thailand and South Africa. The person who was to rewrite the rulebook on drug
dealing is the street-smart Liverpudlian Curtis Warren, better known by his nicknames Cocky or
the Cocky Watchman. Born in 1963, his criminal career started at the age of 12 with a
conviction for car theft. By 16, he was on his way to borstal for assaulting the police. Other
offences followed, but it was only when he moved into the drugs business, working out of
Amsterdam, that he established his reputation as one of the most prolific traffickers of modern
times – Interpol's "Target One" and the subject of a joint British–Dutch
investigation codenamed Operation Crayfish.
While Warren's move to Amsterdam, where fellow British dealers also established themselves,
seemed like a smart idea in that he was less exposed to the British police, it was also a
weakness, because the Dutch authorities were able to tap his phone without restriction and
secure the evidence they needed. (Although they also required English help in translating
Liverpudlian for them.) In October 1996, police in the Netherlands seized 400kg of cocaine,
60kg of heroin, 1,500kg of cannabis, handguns and false passports. Nine Britons and a Colombian
were arrested, and Warren was soon portrayed as the biggest fish in the net. He was jailed for
12 years for a conspiracy to import what was claimed to be £125m of drugs into Britain.
The Observer suggested he was "the richest and most successful British criminal who has ever
been caught", and he was the only drug dealer to make it on to the Sunday Times rich list.
T-shirts with an old mugshot of Warren on them were still for sale in Liverpool 20 years after
Operation Crayfish.
Curtis Warren. Photograph: PA
After his release from jail in the Netherlands in June 2007, Warren was only a free man for
five weeks. He headed to Jersey, but was under constant surveillance and soon arrested. In
2009, he was convicted of conspiring to import £1m of cannabis into Jersey and jailed for
13 years. Warren was alleged to have invested his wealth in everything from petrol stations to
vineyards, football clubs to hotels. A Jersey court ordered him to pay £198m after he
failed to prove his business empire was not built on the proceeds of cocaine trafficking.
Detectives had secretly recorded him boasting during a 2004 prison visit of funnelling huge
amounts of cash via a money launderer. "Fuckin' 'ell, mate, sometimes we'd do about £10m
or £15m in a week," he told some of his visitors. "I was bragging like an idiot and just
big-talking in front of them," was Warren's explanation later. The Jersey attorney general,
Timothy Le Cocq QC, described him as "one of Europe's most notorious organised criminals". His
failure to pay the money resulted in a further 10 years' jail time.
He told Guardian journalist Helen Pidd, when she interviewed
him in jail in Jersey, that he disapproved of drugs: "I've never had a cigarette in my life
or a drink. I've never tasted alcohol or anything. No interest." His ambition after he was
freed was to leave England – "and never come back". He added: "I just wish I'd not been
such a worry to me mum."
Few people were better qualified to comment on Warren than former NCA man Tony Saggers, who
was an expert witness in Warren's trial and proceeds hearing. "Curtis Warren was a forerunner,"
he said. "You get people like him who come from a tough background, a council-house
environment, and he had a sort of bare-faced courage in some respects, to put himself in places
like Venezuela and Colombia, which were probably even more dangerous then than they are now. He
put himself at the other end of the supply chain, and in a way established that pattern for the
elite drug trafficker. But nowadays, high-level, high-profile criminals play less and less of a
role, and make use of others below them in a detached way."
Other British criminals have also cast their nets wide during the past two decades. One of
the best-known was Brian Wright, once one of Britain's most active cocaine smugglers, who was
nicknamed The Milkman – because he always delivered. He operated from both
Turkish-controlled Northern Cyprus and Spain. In 1998, he was alleged to have imported almost
two tonnes of the drug, with the result, according to one customs investigator, that "the
cocaine was coming in faster than people could snort it". The Dublin-born Wright owned a villa
near Cadiz, which he named El Lechero – the Spanish for milkman – and had a box at
Ascot, a flat in Chelsea's King's Quay and used some of his proceeds to fix races on which he
then bet, thus laundering his drug profits. Finally arrested in Spain, he was brought back to
England and, in 2007, at the age of 60, found guilty at Woolwich crown court of conspiracy to
supply drugs and jailed for30 years
.
Some very successful scams have been perpetrated on elderly Britons. John Palmer, who had
been involved in the Brink's-Mat bullion robbery (from
whence he got his nickname "Goldfinger") made his fortune in a crooked timeshare business in
Tenerife. A ruthless operator, he took advantage of thousands of gullible souls, many of them
elderly holidaymakers, who believed his spiel about the fortunes they could make by investing
in timeshare apartments that were never built. Outwardly, he appeared to have it all: the
yacht, the cars with the personalised number plates, dozens of properties. He even made it to
No 105 in the Sunday Times rich list. "Remember the golden rule," was the motto he loved to
quote, "he who has the gold makes the rules." But in 2001, he was convicted of a timeshare
fraud in which 16,000 victims lost an estimated £33m and served eight years in
prison.
Then, in 2015, Palmer was
shot dead by a hitman in his garden in Essex. There were rumours that he was killed because
he might have been cooperating with the Spanish police over another fraud case. His co-accused
were convicted in Spain in May this year and the police in Britain have duly issued a fresh
appeal for help to find his killer – with a reminder that there is a
£100,000 reward on offer in case that tempts an elderly underworld grass.
Any notion that Spain might still be a safe haven for expat criminals was dispelled in 2018
when Brian Charrington – a close associate of Curtis Warren and regarded as one of the
major international drug dealers of his generation – was jailed for 15 years
for trafficking and money-laundering in Alicante in 2018. Described in the Spanish press as "
el narco que escribia en Wikipedia ", because of his reputation for updating and
correcting his Wikipedia entry, the former car-dealer from Middlesbrough had been arrested in
2013 at his villa in Calpe, on the Costa Blanca, an area where some estate agents offer
bulletproof glass as a special feature along with the spa bath and barbecue area. There had
been wild rumours of crocodiles in his swimming pool, but disappointingly, the police found
none.
Charrington was alleged to have brought vast quantities of drugs into Spain via a yacht
docking in Altea, north of Benidorm. He claimed his money came legitimately. "I buy and sell
villas and I pay my taxes," he told the court, but was still fined nearly £30m. Following
a lengthy investigation involving Spanish, British, Venezuelan, Colombian and French police,
his assets, including a dozen houses and his cars and boats, were impounded. After his
sentence, his Wikipedia entry was speedily updated.
T he titles of true crime memoirs published in the past decade or so tell their own tale.
The Last Real Gangster by Freddie Foreman came out in 2015; The Last Gangster: My Final
Confession by Charlie Richardson arrived just after his death in 2012; The Last Godfather, the
Life and Crimes of Arthur Thompson, was published in Glasgow in 2007. A requiem for the old
British underworld.
In many ways, it was already slipping into a haze of nostalgia. The television series Peaky
Blinders has spawned its own fashion accessory industry. You can now buy Peaky Blinders
cufflinks shaped like razor-blades, or wear a Peaky Blinders cap and waistcoat from the new
David Beckham clothing line , something that might have prompted a dark smile from the
ruthless and acquisitive 1920s Birmingham gang on whom the series was based. The website
henorstag.com even recommends "the Peaky Blinders look" as perfect for a stag night: "For a
theme the ladies will love, you will need to capture the stylish world of the early 20th
century with black peak caps, stylish grey or black suits with waistcoat, as well as a dusty
black coat and shoes in order to complete the look." (Add a cosh and a cut-throat razor and
you'll really slay 'em.)
While the Kray twins brand continues as the underworld's equivalent of Marks & Spencer
– a framed letter from Ronnie Kray in Broadmoor is currently on offer on eBay for
£650 – changes in the law have made criminals less prepared to boast about past
crimes. In the old days, under the "double jeopardy" rule, once you were acquitted of a murder,
you could never be tried for it again. That rule was overturned with the 2003 Criminal Justice
Act, so the days when a villain could explain in their memoirs how they got away with a crime
have gone. The 2009 Coroners and Justice Act made it an offence for criminals to profit from
accounts of their crimes, so they could no longer sell their stories, or at least officially.
The 2002 Proceeds of Crime
Act and its increasing use against career criminals has meant that illicit incomes can be
seized.
No wonder the Hatton Garden burglary of 2015 – that "
one last job " carried out by the elderly "diamond wheezers" – received such
attention. Even one of the "last of the last", Fred Foreman, was hoping he was going to be
offered a role in it. "I heard that Terry (Perkins, one of the ringleaders) was looking for me,
not long before the burglary took place, so I presume that would have been what it was about,"
he says.
Perkins
died in his cell in Belmarsh prison last year. Foreman, who made his name with the Krays in
the 1960s, now lives in sheltered accomodation in west London. He doubts that the current
generation of gangsters will ever write their memoirs: "I don't think that anyone who has
turned to crime these days is going to live long enough to build up a reputation, are
they?"
But the recruiting sergeants of the underworld – poverty, greed, boredom, envy, peer
pressure, glamour – will never be short of volunteers, whether they live long enough to
make a name for themselves or not.
Underworld : the
Definitive History of Britain's Organised Crime by Duncan Campbell is published by Ebury Press
on 11 July
• Follow the Long Read on Twitter at @gdnlongread , and sign up to the long read weekly email
here
.
"... That distrust of the establishment has had highly visible political consequences: Farage, Trump, and Le Pen on the right; but also in new parties on the left ..."
In the years that followed, the crash, the crisis of the eurozone and the worldwide drop in
the price of oil and other commodities combined to put a huge dent in global trade. Since 2012,
the IMF reported in its World Economic Outlook for October 2016
, trade was growing at 3% a year – less than half the average of the previous three
decades. That month, Martin Wolf argued in a column that globalisation had "lost dynamism", due
to a slackening of the world economy, the "exhaustion" of new markets to exploit and a rise in
protectionist policies around the world. In an interview earlier this year, Wolf suggested
to me that, though he remained convinced globalisation had not been the decisive factor in
rising inequality, he had nonetheless not fully foreseen when he was writing Why Globalization
Works how "radical the implications" of worsening inequality "might be for the US, and
therefore the world".
Among these implications appears to be a rising distrust of the establishment that is blamed
for the inequality. "We have a very big political problem in many of our countries," he said.
"The elites – the policymaking business and financial elites – are
increasingly disliked . You need to make policy which brings people to think again that
their societies are run in a decent and civilised way."
That distrust of the establishment has had highly visible political consequences: Farage,
Trump, and Le Pen on the right; but also in new parties on the left, such as Spain's Podemos,
and curious populist hybrids, such as Italy's
Five Star Movement . As in 1997, but to an even greater degree, the volatile political
scene reflects public anxiety over "the process that has come to be called
'globalisation'".
If the critics of globalisation could be dismissed before because of their lack of economics
training, or ignored because they were in distant countries, or kept out of sight by a wall of
police, their sudden political ascendancy in the rich countries of the west cannot be so easily
discounted today.
Nearly half of all global pay is scooped up by just 10% of workers, according to the
International Labour Organization (ILO), while the lowest-paid 50% receive just 6.4%.
The lowest 20% – around 650 million workers – get less than 1% of total pay, a
figure that has barely moved in 13 years, the ILO analysis found. It used labour income
figures from 2004 to 2017, the latest available data.
A worker in the top 10% receives $7,445 a month (£5,866), while a worker in the
bottom 10% gets just $22.
As a Can-knucklehead I am sad to say I agree 100%. In 2005, Kurt Vonnegut quoted Susan
Sontag: "10 percent of any population is cruel, no matter what, and that 10 percent is
merciful, no matter what, and that the remaining 80 percent could be moved in either
direction."
"... Both neoliberal-driven governments and authoritarian societies share one important factor: They care more about consolidating power in the hands of the political, corporate and financial elite than they do about investing in the future of young people and expanding the benefits of the social contract and common good. ..."
"... Michael Yates (economist) points out throughout his book 'The Great Inequality', capitalism is devoid of any sense of social responsibility and is driven by an unchecked desire to accumulate capital at all costs. As power becomes global and politics remains local, ruling elites no longer make political concessions to workers or any other group that they either exploit or consider disposable. ..."
"... At bottom, neoliberals believe in a social hierarchy of "haves" and "have nots". They have taken this corrosive social vision and dressed it up with a "respectable" sounding ideology which all boils down to the cheap labor they depend on to make their fortunes. ..."
"... The ugly truth is that cheap-labour conservatives just don't like working people. They don't like "bottom up" prosperity, and the reason for it is very simple. "Corporate lords" have a harder time kicking them around. ..."
Both neoliberal-driven governments and authoritarian societies share one important factor:
They care more about consolidating power in the hands of the political, corporate and
financial elite than they do about investing in the future of young people and expanding the
benefits of the social contract and common good.
Michael Yates (economist) points out throughout his book 'The Great Inequality', capitalism
is devoid of any sense of social responsibility and is driven by an unchecked desire to
accumulate capital at all costs. As power becomes global and politics remains local, ruling
elites no longer make political concessions to workers or any other group that they either
exploit or consider disposable.
At bottom, neoliberals believe in a social hierarchy of "haves" and "have nots". They have
taken this corrosive social vision and dressed it up with a "respectable" sounding ideology
which all boils down to the cheap labor they depend on to make their fortunes.
The ugly truth is that cheap-labour conservatives just don't like working people. They
don't like "bottom up" prosperity, and the reason for it is very simple. "Corporate lords"
have a harder time kicking them around.
Once you understand this about the cheap-labor
conservatives, the real motivation for their policies makes perfect sense. Remember,
cheap-labour conservatives believe in social hierarchy and privilege, so the only prosperity
they want is limited to them. They want to see absolutely nothing that benefits those who
work for an hourly wage.
You also need to remember that voting the coalition out, which you need to do, will not
necessarily give you a neoliberal free zone; Labor needs to shed some the dogma as well.
"... Somehow, I think Kevin's being too generous saying NY Times is moderate when it comes to political views. IMO, reactionary is more appropriate given its editorial stances and what it's championed over its history. ..."
Interesting observation of
NY Times attitude after first D-Party debate noted by Kevin Gosztola:
"'Moderates' seems to be the New York Times media company's euphemism for itself. Liberals
at the Democratic presidential debate made the Times company 'anxious.'"
Somehow, I think Kevin's being too generous saying NY Times is moderate when it
comes to political views. IMO, reactionary is more appropriate given its editorial stances
and what it's championed over its history.
"... Philip Roddis Scribbler for some sixty years, and for fifteen a photographer too, Philip Roddis began blogging in the early noughties by inflicting film reviews on an unsuspecting public. Soon he was doing the same with illustrated writings on wanderings in Asia and Africa. He writes "to help me think, and because I like to be read", and finds photography's problem solving aspects "a break from those of writing, as well as an aid to writing and to reflective travel". His blog is Steel City Scribblings ..."
"... Its the age old trick moving the goalposts to adjust the game so you win. ..."
"... It appears to not only want to redefine the concept but also to reapply it to the modern world as a tool for applying political leverage. Its rather cynically exploiting our revulsion for what happened 80 years ago by using the concept as a way of stifling political dissent, in particular Israel's relations with its neighbors. This is political opportunism of the first order -- and very cynical opportunism at that -- which is likely to backfire since its likely to embrace Fascism rather than oppose it. (Its legislative agenda appears to include outlawing dissent by criminalizing it.) ..."
"... As American writer Joe Sobran once noted, "An anti-Semite used mean someone who hated Jews; now it means anyone that Jews hate." ..."
"... "What is anti-semitism": that is a very good question? The answer is a biased and violent socio-political constructivism a purely politicised terminology – and an intentionally weaponised one at that. ..."
"... Everyone knows what anti-semitism is about: the phrase is meaningless – except as a politicised weapon. It is a 'plastic phrase' – like the words 'freedom' and 'democracy' – it's meaning is variable and contestable. It is a 'word to wound' and should be categorised as being hate speech in itself. Anyone who employs AS is a racist themselves, and their discriminatory bias should be exposed by their profane and performative pronunciations. ..."
"... A smart group or groupings: who wanted to resist the coercive silencing of dissensus – would strategically move to reframe the debate away from the nihilistic concretisation of racism that is the politicised discourse. ..."
"... There is a semantic discussion to be had on definition but that is something not even the keenest minds can yet agree on – more importantly, and germane to Phil's article is the weaponisation of antisemitism as a means of exploiting political opponents, in other words hasbara. ..."
"... One of its chilling effects of hasbara is to always put critics of Israel on the backfoot now matter how egregiously Israel or their supporters behave, such as disproportionate violence inflicted on Palestinian civilians, or Labour MPs working hand in glove with Israeli operatives to subvert left wing elements within their own party. ..."
"... Number 4 is the most interesting tactic. All racism is wrong and hate Speech can be a criminal offence. If the anti semitic accusations are true how is it that, as far as I know from within the Labour Party, no Court cases have ever troubled a Judge? The answer is simple – that would require proof/evidence. The MSM are Judge and Jury and their required standard of proof is zero. ..."
"... Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities. ..."
"... In this definition, it seems that semite is an imaginary type or set, with indeterminable tokens or instances. Thus "rhetorical antisemitism" has indefinable, non-existent victims. So any allusion to tabu speaking about Jewishness will be accepted as antisemitic, with no possibility of refutation or defence. The only victim required is the accuser. ..."
"... Orwell coined 'doublespeak' for self-contradictory mind. this runs deeper than we think, because it provides the very basis by which we seem to think alone. A psyop is a mind-trap that baits reaction by which the unwary is induced to give power away. The idea of deceit is not new – and the notion of a power of deceit as self-destructive illusion is not new. ..."
Then came Giladgate
and the suspension of Labour MP Chris Williamson for defending Israeli Jewish musician – and vehement critic not only of his own
state but "a particular subset of Jews" – Gilad Atzmon.
I stress that term, a particular subset of Jews. Those who call Atzmon antisemitic have rarely in my experience troubled to read
him in the round, though a few offer cherry-picked quotes. I blame a confusion Atzmon is at pains to disentangle.
In The Wandering Who? he sets out three understandings of Jewishness.
One refers to those born Jewish
Another to followers of ethical values and spiritual disciplines encoded in the Torah. To make important generalisations about
either is absurd; to make important negative generalisations a double disgrace: a moral affront in and of itself, and a moral
affront in light of a thousand years of Western history culminating in Hitler.
The third understanding, however, refers to "Jews identifying as members of a superior race" . These last, says Atzmon,
"are the Jews I speak of in such negative terms, and whom I urge to question their arrogant assumptions" .
If these are the words of an antisemite, call me one too.
I myself have not encountered that third category in personal life. The Jews I know and count as friends are on the left, or at
any rate liberal. (Nor do any belong to Atzmon's second category: with a few exceptions I don't much rub shoulders with religious
types, whatever brand they smoke). But this reflects the demography of my worlnon-existence the non existence of Atzmon's third category
of Jews.
In the Never Again culture of Israel, and the powerhouses of London and New York City, they do exist, and I applaud the man's
courageous, principled and costly[
2 ] stance of calling
them out.
Talk of cherry picking brings us, in this context, back to Dame Hodge.
Three nights ago she was on Newsnight to slam the reinstatement of Chris Williamson. In so doing she issued another slander, folded
into an aside on the man Williamson had – with guilt by association a standard smear in Stalinist[
3 ] McCarthyite and other
forms of witchhunt – defended at no small cost.
The next day that man responded with clear proof that Hodge, probably through ignorance as much as malice, had profoundly misunderstood
a statement he'd made.
Here then, is Gilad Atzmon on the subject of Margaret Hodge on the subject of Chris Williamson.
I offer it not because Hodge is important, though as the above photo shows she still commands respect within the Labour Party.
I offer it because great care is called for when examining issues not intrinsically difficult but so buried by obfuscation and mendacity,
so emotionally charged and in this case so tightly bound with the quite different agenda of ousting Corbyn.
On these matters, Hodge's interventions are at best crass, ignorant and spiteful. At best – and in this she exemplifies so much
that is rotten in our political classes and debased media.
You might also read Atzmon's written response of yesterday, addressed more at Lord Falconer than Dame Hodge. After rebutting accusations
of holocaust denial, he concludes:
I categorically deny being an anti-Semite. Crucially, I have never been charged or even questioned about anything I said or wrote
by any law enforcement authority anywhere in the world. That Lord Falconer accuses an innocent citizen, one with an absolutely
clean record, of being "guilty" and the BBC presenter does not challenge or even question Falconer's assertion is a clear indication
that Britain is now a lawless place an authoritarian society governed by a compromised political class. Britain has become uninhabitable
for intellectuals, truth tellers and peace lovers. Sad it is but no longer a surprise. NOTES:
[1] In this context we should note three ironies. One is that this same Labour right applauded the Maidan Square coup which
brought antisemites, the real kind, into the Kiev administration to embolden Ukraine's far and thoroughly antisemitic right (as
when in 2017 thousands of nationalists marched in Kiev to celebrate the birthday of Stepan Bandera.) Another, related, is that
in devaluing the antisemite term – which is what you do when you call Corbyn one – you let real antisemites off the hook. A third
is that like the West at large, Israel – I mention this given how many names on Tom Watson's tweet are in Labour Friends of Israel
– has again and again been willing to work with antisemites, also the real kind, in pursuit of its agendas.
[2] The nature of Israel – both as a racist state and, to borrow from a Stephen Gowans book I'll shortly review, as a 'beachhead
for imperialism' from which to control the middle east – is obviously relevant in more ways than one. Here I confine myself to
the observation that Israeli Jewish critics of Israel, like white South African members of the ANC in the apartheid era, exemplify
– whatever other traits they may demonstrate – considerable courage.
[3] I'm aware of a revival, outside the traditional circles of Western Communist Parties, of interest in defending Stalin.
At one level this is understandable. Given the corruption of our media and political systems it can be tempting to assume that
whomever our rulers and their servants hold up as paragons of virtue, or as monstrosity incarnate, will be the opposite. I'd go
so far as to say such reasoning will more often than not deliver broadly accurate results. It's no substitute for proper investigation,
however, and I'm planning a post addressing not so much the brutality of Stalin as his criminal incompetence.
Facebook
Twitter
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
vKontakte
Email
Philip Roddis Scribbler for some sixty years, and for fifteen a photographer too, Philip Roddis began blogging in the early noughties by
inflicting film reviews on an unsuspecting public. Soon he was doing the same with illustrated writings on wanderings in Asia
and Africa. He writes "to help me think, and because I like to be read", and finds photography's problem solving aspects "a break
from those of writing, as well as an aid to writing and to reflective travel". His blog is
Steel City Scribblings
Can you spare $1.00 a month to support
independent media
Martin Usher
Its the age old trick moving the goalposts to adjust the game so you win. I grew up in a family that was heavily involved
in the anti-Fascist movement before the war ( before I was born) and was involved with what could be called "Jewish rescue"
-- helping people who had got out of Europe settle in the UK. As such I never really gave the the definition of anti-Semitism
any thought, it was obvious.
Recently I noticed that the definition had changed -- the goalposts had moved -- because of the work of a group I'd never
heard of before, the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. I grew up familiar with the ADL and knew it as relatively
non-political organization that went after any sort of anti-someone, not just anti-Semitism, but the IHRA turned out to be
not just focused on one issue but also intensely political.
It appears to not only want to redefine the concept but also to reapply it to the modern world as a tool for applying
political leverage. Its rather cynically exploiting our revulsion for what happened 80 years ago by using the concept as a
way of stifling political dissent, in particular Israel's relations with its neighbors. This is political opportunism of the
first order -- and very cynical opportunism at that -- which is likely to backfire since its likely to embrace Fascism rather
than oppose it. (Its legislative agenda appears to include outlawing dissent by criminalizing it.)
So I'll just stick with the old school definition and old school organizations, thank you very much. This upstart organization
may have traction in government, its got the money, the PR and probably runs a very effective blacklist (which I'm now a member,
I'd guess). However, I very firmly believe that we are ultimately obliged to do what's morally right, not what's expedient.
Seamus Padraig
As American writer Joe Sobran once noted, "An anti-Semite used mean someone who hated Jews; now it means anyone that Jews
hate."
BigB
"What is anti-semitism": that is a very good question? The answer is a biased and violent socio-political constructivism
a purely politicised terminology – and an intentionally weaponised one at that.
There has been no scientific basis for racial categorisation or discrimination for decades now. Probably not since Lewontin
and Jay-Gould critiqued E O Wilson's 'Sociobiology' (see Lewontin's extended essay "Biology as Ideology" from 1991). Since
even then; biology has moved on rapidly – genetic determinism is dead.
With it is the 19th century reductive materialist categorisation
of population groups as 'objects with particulars' or distinct races with specific quotients of intelligence or other determining
biological factors. Every grouping is of individuals who are more alike than any minor differentiations that may be apparent
or supposed. No two people are ever the same: right down to the structure and functional neuro-anatomy their brains – as advanced
imaging techniques and neuroscience have shown (see Gina Rippon's "The Gendered Brain" for an in-depth discussion of the science.)
So what shapes us if not our genes this does. Our conditioning and environmental reactions. That is this discourse, or any
other encountered discourse we are primarily shaped by epigenetic environmental and socio-cultural factors. So much so, epigenetics
supersedes genetics – and can even curtail genetic development (see Rippon's discussion of 'Caeusescu's babies').
We are picking
up on social cues and other environmental factors all the time. To which we micro-adapt to on an instant by instant socio-interactional
basis. This is what shapes identity – the affordances, cues and inter-subjective interaction with culture and the environment
– Lewontin's 'Triple Helix'.
So what is anti-semitism: in the light of their being no scientific categorisation of race? The political constructivism
of discriminatory social categorisations is an 'imagined sociology'. One that has no basis in either fact or reality. As Lewontin
determined: "race is a racist construct".
Everyone knows what anti-semitism is about: the phrase is meaningless – except as a politicised weapon. It is a 'plastic
phrase' – like the words 'freedom' and 'democracy' – it's meaning is variable and contestable. It is a 'word to wound' and
should be categorised as being hate speech in itself. Anyone who employs AS is a racist themselves, and their discriminatory
bias should be exposed by their profane and performative pronunciations.
So why is AS in the political lexicon if it is no longer acceptable in the scientific lexicon? Are we not supposed to have
a science based empirical paradigm?
I would say that it's principal usage is as an attack vector on perceived socialism and character masking of capitalism
itself – in its current expanded usage and iteration. It is more than just covering the heinous war crimes and apartheid of
the Israeli state and Zionist venture. It's usage has been extended (I called it 'definition creep' of the IHRA) to defend
the endemic and structural racism of capitalism itself. It is a morbid symptom of the move to curtail free speech, stifle debate
and dissensus, and control the public fora which can be extended to 9/11 truth and anti-capitalist critique – specifically
of any cabal or oligarchical domination – as well as defending Israel itself. It can basically mean anything: when allied with
the pernicious and weasel worded 11 'working definitions'.
For me, the political universe of discourse is largely moribund. It is a capitalist-captured endocolonisation of any real
discourse of freedom and liberation. And 'democracy': you can forget democracy policy is about consensus narrative construction,
behavioural change, and conformity. There is no such ideology as anti-capitalist ideology any more there is only capitalist
obedience conformity or capitalist obedience conformity binary constructivisms to choose from. One where you cannot critically
unmask the core truths of capitalist institutional racism without being at risk of being branded a racist.
A smart group or groupings: who wanted to resist the coercive silencing of dissensus – would strategically move to reframe
the debate away from the nihilistic concretisation of racism that is the politicised discourse. With education, and the
application of the "Pedagogy of the Oppressed" – a whole new dialogic could be created one that circumvents the nihilism of
the capitalist-captured racist constructivism of their political debate. After all, we have the science on our side – if we
ever want to shift the paradigm. And not just for race: for all discriminations. Capitalism pretends to tackle racism by creating
it. It is the commodification and objectification of individual human beings into perceived discriminatory groups that is at
fault.
We do not have to follow the framing of the narrative that is a top-down polarising politicised dominion over humanity.
Humanists can create their own debate, on their own terms, based on the latest science and information. Racism is defunct and
bad education, poor and redundant 19th century classification, and Universal Humanism nihilation. If it is to dominate the
politicised universe of discourse – a new paradigmatic universe of non-racist, non-sexist, non-violent, non-discriminatory
discourse is easily achievable. Culture is who we are and what we do. Welcome to the micro-evolutionary nexus. Welcome to the
future of humanist non-discriminatory thought and socio-cultural recategorisation. Welcome to the socialised redundancy of
racism and race.
Tiny
The Boy Who Cried Wolf
An Aesop fable adapted by Louis Untermeyer
A boy employed to guard the sheep
Despised his work. He liked to sleep.
And when a lamb was lost he'd shout
"Wolf! Wolf! The wolves are all about."
The neighbors searched from noon 'til nine
But of the beast there was no sign
Yet "Wolf!" cried the boy the next morning when
The villagers came out again.
One Evening around 6 o' clock,
A real wolf fell upon the flock.
"Wolf!" cried the boy." A wolf indeed."
But no one paid him any heed.
Although he screamed to wake the dead,
"He's fooled us every time." They said.
And let the hungry wolf enjoy
His feast of mutton, lamb and boy.
The moral is this:
A man who is wise,
The Boy Who Cried Wolf
An Aesop fable adapted by Louis Untermeyer
A boy employed to guard the sheep
Despised his work. He liked to sleep.
And when a lamb was lost he'd shout
"Wolf! Wolf! The wolves are all about."
The neighbors searched from noon 'til nine
But of the beast there was no sign
Yet "Wolf!" cried the boy the next morning when
The villagers came out again.
One Evening around 6 o' clock,
A real wolf fell upon the flock.
"Wolf!" cried the boy." A wolf indeed."
But no one paid him any heed.
Although he screamed to wake the dead,
"He's fooled us every time." They said.
And let the hungry wolf enjoy
His feast of mutton, lamb and boy.
The moral is this:
A man who is wise,
Does not defend himself with lies.
Liars are not believed forsooth,
Even when liars tell the truth.
wardropper
Dame Hodge, as Normal Finkelstein beautifully describes her, is, frankly, not very bright.
Being bright is no longer a requirement for high political office.
In fact it is screened out at an early stage of a neophyte's career.
And what if Atzmon is 'anti-Semitic'? I'm not saying he would claim to be; but it stands to reason that he would suit
at least some people's definition of an anti-Semite–certainly your definition.
So what about it? If Gilad is critical of Jewish identity (identities?), maybe it's because he knows what he's talking
about . Not only was he born in Israel and raised in a very Zionist family, but he has made it his lifelong avocation to
study up on the history of Jewishness and Jewish identity. Even if you say his is just an opinion, you still have to admit
that his is an extremely well-informed opinion. This is not Dr. Goebbels banging away on his Schreibmaschine here. Gilad
certainly has a right to his views.
And what if it were to turn out that he's right, Louis? What if there are real problems with Jewishness that have historically
caused gentiles–first Christian and now Moslem–to view Jews generally with suspicion if not contempt? In short: what if the
rest of the world isn't just 'crazy'? What if?
I have read Gilad's books and followed his blog for some time now (even before he appeared at Unz), and while I may not
agree with every last little thing he says, I find his writing in general very lucid and enlightening. But most of all, I have
a lot of respect for the guy because of his integrity and courage; because of his determination to look in the collective mirror,
as it were, and honestly report what he really sees–rather than what he wishes he saw.
(Oh: and he blows a mean stax, too! If any of you people here are into the old John Coltrane-style jazz, you really ought
to check out Gilad the next time you get the chance. His shows are second to none.)
No one is interested in what others have to say about Atzmon, anymore. We read Atzmon and decide for ourselves.
It predictably contains something as shallow as your comment, that he is antisemitic. The world, save for a very small group
with a sinister agenda, are bored with this stupidity.
mark
Oy vey, goy! The truth is anti semitic!! Shut it down!!!
I read your pathetic piece 8 years ago and looked at it again just now. You indeed manage to parrot other people's slander,
yet the one thing you failed to do is to point exactly where in my work do i express hatred or call to discriminate Jews for
being Jews. I certainly am critical of certain aspects of Jewish politics (in consistance with my opposition to all forms of
biologically oriented identiterianism) . In my work I prove beyond doubt that Jewish ID politics is not merely a Zionist symptom
but far wider phenomenon. In my work i insist that Jewish poliyics (left, right and centre) must be subject to criticsm I am
indeed an opponent of Jewish Marxism as you pointed out in your article My criticism of this tribal phenomenon is identical
with Lenin's criticism of the Bund (1903) ,,,I am about to go for a gig but will be interested to see whether you can produce
an argument..I expect something slightly more profound that calling Unz or Shamir 'antisemites' or 'white supremacist' I hope
that you are up for the challenge
Louis Proyect
I am indeed an opponent of Jewish Marxism as you pointed out in your article.
--
I imagine that you are referring to Groucho rather than Karl who was actually a Christian. I have to admit that the scene
in "The Marx Brothers go West" was a bit troubling when Harpo smashed his harp over the head of a Catholic nun played in this
film by Margaret Dumont.
Gilad
I actually have no issue with Karl Marx but I have a serious issue with the Bund and Bundists and I make this point clear in
my work on tribal marxism.. you obviously didn't do your homework
Hello everybody, Gilad Atzmon here,,, Just in case you missed it, Here is an expose of caricature Lord Falconer reading a Zionist
script in front of a BBC's camera https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fATmjCFckRs
Francis Lee
You think that anti-semitism violence (vintage 1941-45) was bad enough in Ukraine, try the Baltics, now our glorious NATO ally.
As far as I know SS Waffen Units still had their reunions in Riga and Vilnius. Given the age profile it would seem that only
few of the mass murderers are still alive. But the fact that they were still allowed to parade in an EU country at that late
date is extremely disquieting. And it is a fact that the record past and present is studiously unreported. Censorship by omission.
You see, Nazis are okay as long as they are own our side.
Of course the Baltic locals played their part in the mass murder, one in particular the Kovno garage massacre was so abominable
that even the Germans were shocked. Check it out if you have the stomach for it.
In spite of Latvia Prime Minister's Maris Kučinskis disapproval, Riga authorized the March 16 march to honor Latvia's Waffen-SS
Volunteer Legion established on that date in 1943. International protests have failed to prevent the march, just as they failed
earlier. D uring WW2, some 150 thousand Latvians served on the side of the III Reich. They served in the so-called Volunteer
Legion of the SS consisting of the 15th and 19th Grenadier Divisions of the Waffen-SS (or 1st and 2nd Latvian Divisions), the
Latvian Luftwaffe Legion, German divisions and police battalions. They are responsible for many war crimes. One of them took
place in Podgaje on February 2, 1945. During the breakthrough of the Pomeranian Wall, SS-men of Battle Group Elster which was
part of the 15th Waffen SS Grenadier Division murdered 32 Polish POWs from the 3rd Infantry Regiment of the 1rst Infantry Division
of the Polish People's Army. They were bound by barbed wire and burned alive in a barn.
Marches honoring Latvian SS-men have been a regular event in Riga since 1990. In 1998, the Latvian government made that
date a national holiday, though international protests forced it to be reduced in 2000 to a national day of memory.
It is no different in neighboring Estonia. It celebrates August 28, which is when Waffen-SS began to recruit, in 1942, volunteer
for its Estonian Legion which became the 20th Waffen-SS Grenadier Division. It fought at Narva and in Lower Silesia and Bohemia.
Estonian SS-men also participated in counter-partisan operations in the rear areas of the Eastern Front, committing mass atrocities
on the civilian population. It was commanded by SS-Obergruppenführer Erich von dem Bach-Zelewski, the future butcher of Warsaw.
Apart from the 30 thousand Estonians in the Waffen-SS, thousands more served in SS border guard units, security police, and
the Wehrmacht.
Lithuania maintains the cult of the so-called Plekhavicius Legion, the Lithuanian Local Corps, or LVR, a criminal collaborationist
organization serving the III Reich, and Ukraine worships the 14th Volunteer Grenadier Division of the Waffen-SS Galizien, whose
formation's anniversary (April 27, 1943), is loudly celebrated in Lvov and other cities of western Ukraine. Glorifying the
SS-Galizien alongside the Banderist OUN-UPA became the foundation on which the post-Maidan Ukraine's national identity is being
built.
Croatia honors the Ustasha and the SS-men of the 7th Waffen-SS Volunteer Mountain Division Prinz Eugen, while Bosnia-Herzegovina
likewise honors the SS-men of the 13th Waffen-SS Bosnia-Herzegovina Mountain Division Handschar. Hungary and Romania often
stage historic reconstructions and other events commemorating these countries participation in World War II on Hitler's side
on the Eastern Front.
Finally the Baltic States are fostering a cult of the so-called "forest brothers", or anti-commmunist guerrillas of 1944-1953
consisting of many former SS-men and Nazi collaborators
bevin
One of the problems with this campaign is that it has come to be seen as being, basically, about Corbyn and the Labour party
whereas in fact it is about expanding the Israeli state's license to kill Palestinians while being rewarded by taxpayers in
the UK.
The real issue, which particularly interests the UK which is, in historical terms, largely responsible for the existence of
this European colony in the Holy Land, is that the peoples of Palestine have been subjected to a series of injustices without
parallel in the modern world. And that, at almost every stage of Israel's seventy year descent into fascism-for that is what
it is and who Likud and its allies are- it has been supported by the UK and the UK's political master, the United States.
It is this matter- the snipers killing ambulance attendants in Gaza, the burgeoning and appalling crisis caused by the Israeli
siege, the inhumane treatment of prisoners, the contempt shown for established international law, a contempt which has been
an important factor is reducing the post-war UN system to wreckage and allowing the serial aggressions of imperialist states-
it is this matter which ought to be exercising the media, Parliament and, most particularly, the Labour Party.
Members of the party cannot dodge the fact that, when the UK left Palestine, abandoning its mandates and withdrawing its police
forces it handed the people of Palestine, whom it had systematically disarmed, over to the offices of the terrorist organisations
which formed the Jewish state and perpetrated the Naqba.
And the government of the UK at the time was dominated by the Labour Party. Israel was created by the Labour Party's actions
and irresponsible inactions. It weighs on the collective conscience of the party and of the, now shattered remnants of, the
Trade Union movement whose leaders treated the working people of Palestine with a cynical indifference which telegraphed the
movement's decline
In other words, no party in the world, with the possible exception of the egregious Democrats in the USA, has more reason to
be critical of the government of Israel and to insist that that state be sanctioned and boycotted until it is ready to deal
honestly with the majority of its subjects, the disenfranchised residents of the state, the occupied areas of Palestine and
the millions of descendants of those expelled from their land and homes in 1948. The Party should call a special conference
to examine its policies on Israel and to put together a comprehensive plan to reverse the crimes of the past, and present and
to bring the justice and fair treatment Britain promised the League of Nations to these victims of the Empire.
And those who protest that Israel should be left alone, and its crimes condoned, its child murders welcomed and its abuse of
prisoners approved, ought to be excluded from the Party on obvious grounds with the Whip being withdrawn from all those MPs
who have chosen, in being 'Friends of Israel', to be enemies of humanity and advocates of evildoing.
Seamus Padraig
Eloquent! Thanks for the comment.
mark
This anti Semitism smear campaign serves two purposes. (1.) To criminalise any and all criticism of Zionist atrocities and war crimes, no matter how egregious.
(2.) To vilify Corbyn and "drive him out of public life", as openly declared by the Board of Deputies and the Israeli embassy.
I'll say it again, bevin. You should be writing above the line
Rhisiart Gwilym
Hear, hear to Philip's comment! Your level of knowledge and perspicacity – with a central core of steely moral honour – isn't
all that common in the world. Please don't hide you light, b! Let's hear more of your analyses.
Harry Stotle
There is a semantic discussion to be had on definition but that is something not even the keenest minds can yet agree on –
more importantly, and germane to Phil's article is the weaponisation of antisemitism as a means of exploiting political opponents,
in other words hasbara.
One of its chilling effects of hasbara is to always put critics of Israel on the backfoot now matter how egregiously Israel
or their supporters behave, such as disproportionate violence inflicted on Palestinian civilians, or Labour MPs working hand
in glove with Israeli operatives to subvert left wing elements within their own party.
Stephen Sizer discusses the manual explaining how certain hasbara techniques are applied at different stages culminating
in accusations of antisemitism designed to bring about personal or professional ruin.
When consider motive amongst those Labour MPs screaming for the head of Chris Williamson and by extension Jeremy Corbyn
several possibilities come to mind.
MPs may be afraid they might be net to be accused so identify with the aggressor rather than the person being vilified (even
though those being tainted are invariably left wing with a strong record on anti-racisim)
It may be that some of them are simply ignorant, an idea that cannot be entirely be dismissed given how indoctrianted some
of our political class are.
Or it could be they are complicit: in other words they understand how useful hasbara can be, especially as a device to purge
the Labour party of socialists and as a means of ushering a new age of Blairism.
Incredible as it may seem some Labour MPs still go all misty eyed when the views of Anthony Charles Lynton Blair come up,
rather like right wingers in the tory party who still have attachment issues with Pinochets former girlfriend, Baroness Thatcher.
Ken Kenn
Number 4 is the most interesting tactic.
All racism is wrong and hate Speech can be a criminal offence. If the anti semitic accusations are true how is it that, as far as I know from within the Labour Party, no Court cases have
ever troubled a Judge? The answer is simple – that would require proof/evidence. The MSM are Judge and Jury and their required standard of proof is zero.
Just add " allegedly " to a quote or " he said/ she said " and that's all they need to bamboozle the masses.
I'll hazard a guess that no-one from the Labour Party will end up in any court on any antisemitic charges in the future
either.
SharonM
Hasn't it got to the point of self-parody? The zionists have even managed to make remembrance of a genocide well overdone.
That takes some astonishing exploitation.
Bob Marsden
IHRA (International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance) definition of antisemitism.
Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations
of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions
and religious facilities.
This definition of anti-semitism doesn't define semite.
If semite is held to be a synonym or euphemism for Jew, [all semites are Jews, all Jews are semites] then the word is redundant
and can be removed from the definition of antiJewishness.
If this isn't the sense intended, as is implied by characterising "non-Jewish individuals" as potential victims, then a
definition must include procedures for discriminating who is and isn't a semite, to answer such questions as: Is an Ethiopean
Jew a semite? Is an Ashkenasi Jew a semite? Is a convert to Judaism a semite? and can non-Jews be semites?. Can a semite be
identified by depictions of their facial features, such as the shape of the nose? If so Yasser Arafat was a semite.
In this definition, it seems that semite is an imaginary type or set, with indeterminable tokens or instances. Thus "rhetorical
antisemitism" has indefinable, non-existent victims. So any allusion to tabu speaking about Jewishness will be accepted as
antisemitic, with no possibility of refutation or defence. The only victim required is the accuser.
So the definition is a prejudicial nonsense, as is manifested in its current usage.
Incidentally:
Basic Law: Israel as the Nation State of the Jewish People
1 -- Basic principles
A. The land of Israel is the historical homeland of the Jewish people, in which the State of Israel was established.
B. The State of Israel is the national home of the Jewish people, in which it fulfills its natural, cultural, religious and
historical right to self-determination.
C. The right to exercise national self-determination in the State of Israel is unique to the Jewish people.
This omits the fact that the land was home to other peoples, and defines the State in racial terms. So any adverse comment
on Israel is automatically anti-Jewish.
Antipropo
You stumble when you say "if so Yasser Arafat is a Semite" because of course ALL Palestinians, in fact all Arabs are semitic.
The term Semite and the slander antisemite have been stolen-just as they stole and continue to steal Palestine- by the Jewish
zionists and their willing accomplices in the Christian west.
Guy
" If so Yasser Arafat was a Semite."
Yes, as are the Palestinians .I am surprised that Israel , it's occupants ,zionists and all have not been taken to task as
to whether they are actually Semitic .
It is a canard and we have all fell for it.
mark
Palestinians are the real descendants of the Jews of the Bible. The fake Jews like Nuttyyahoo or Mielkevic, or whatever his
name is, all hail from the Khazar kingdom near the Caspian Sea. That is their homeland.
Guy
I first came across this information many years ago in reading the book "The Thirteenth Tribe " by Arthur Koestler .I have
since read much about this hidden peace of historical information from other sources and some from Jewish archives.
Tony Blair was asked at an Israeli University if he believed Jeremy Corbyn himself was anti-Semitic, Blair said yes.
Blair's false accusations while presenting no evidence are deeply damaging to Mr Corbyn and hugely damaging to the Labour Party,
in fact it brings Mr Corbyn and the Labour Party into disrepute in blatant contradiction to Labour Party rules. A false accusation
of Anti-Semitism is just as obnoxious as a genuine accusation, the former made with the intention of harming Jeremy Corbyn
and to bring both Corbyn and the Labour Party into disrepute is met with a shrug of the shoulders 'nothing to see here, move
along' Similarly Margaret Hodge can say Corbyn is " A fucking Anti-Semite and racist" and nothing happens to her. Hypocrisy
of the highest order. Is it any wonder the Party has lost nearly 100,000 members in the past couple of years.
different frank
"Formerly an anti-Semite was somebody who hated Jews because they were Jews and had a Jewish soul. But nowadays an anti-Semite
is somebody who is hated by Jews." ~Hajo Meyer (born August 12, 1924 – 23 August, 2014) holocaust survivor
Another word for a post truth politics is the psyop.
Using the mind as a weapon against itself. My response is to go deeper than the baiting reaction of emotional reaction or rational opposition. The ability of the mind to make special or indeed sacred is to set apart in order to set over and against – with the key
being in the ability to seed, set, and enforce a framework of narrative identity.
Working the polarised identity is not unique to power seeking through Jewish influence but is part and parcel of power set
apart and over life as the mind of cunning contrivance or cleverness.
Gilad Atzmon mentions in his book that for around 2000 years, the richest daughters were married to the cleverest sons,
and that this worked a measurable eugenic outcome in the population as a whole.
Irrespective of the specific historical context of any particular development of cultural identity is the underlying matrix
or mechanism of its assertion and substitution of relational being by managed conflict.
I write to illuminate this towards our re-cognition and re-membering in true relational being and not within the framework
of problems that predefine the terms of their own 'answer' such as to protect the problem from resolution and release by means
of packaged presentations of complex instruments.
There is another facet of relational being that needs to come in here and that is of resonant communication as distinct
from coded symbols and association. Attention focussed within its own 'special' thinking is diverted and in a sense bubbled
off from its true relational being. Narcissism in this sense is built into the idea or image of self along with threat of extinction
that invokes both terror and rage as polarities of division that generate a progeny of reactive containment under illusion
of escape.
The more investment in 'solutions' that displace or dissociate the original error, the more identity is set and subjected
under its own original split-word – but projected or assigned to the OTHER – be that G-d or Creation – it is now perceived
rather than beheld, and through a lens of separation of the a-tempt to lord it over, along with the fear and hatred of subjection.
These two are one error but split the experience of victim and victimiser.
The characteristic signature of the 'ego' or false self is conflict under narrative control. But to maintain continuity
(believed survival or sustainability) requires the ongoing inducement to avert the 'greater fear' of humiliation of loss of
possession and control by sacrificing through 'lesser evils' or 'necessary lies, wars or sickness by which to repackage and
redistribute psychic emotional conflict – AWAY from the 'self-special'.
Everyone protects their investment as they see it and yet the native intelligence by which to re-evaluate a poor choice
so as to replace with a more truly aligned outcome, is self-denied by a refusal to look within – under fear of threat or weakness.
Thus the clever-minded can seem to look within with astonishing clarity – but only to the weaponisation and marketisation of
what is revealed. Which is riding the crest of the wave so as to be in position of control from a segregated sense of self
or private agenda that is by definition set apart and over others – on whom one's own motives are projected and attacked there.
Orwell coined 'doublespeak' for self-contradictory mind. this runs deeper than we think, because it provides the very basis
by which we seem to think alone. A psyop is a mind-trap that baits reaction by which the unwary is induced to give power away.
The idea of deceit is not new – and the notion of a power of deceit as self-destructive illusion is not new.
That we are in a sense living what we take to be life under an already deceit or illusion is not new, nor the recognition
that denials come back to the mind that thinks thereby to have become 'more' or 'better' in unexpected ways.
One way of reading the world is to use what comes to our notice as a thread to our own 'unconscious' participation or correspondence
so that instead of enacting the mind of judgement and living its script, we observe the mind in act and release investment
in conflict identity. If you give willingness for this you will notice the mind in every attempt to re-interject a sense of
'control' or separation. The more you notice the more energy and attention is released from succumbing to a personal sense
of power, to an impersonal love. Perhaps 'love' – like 'God' – is too degraded a word to use – but love of power for its own
sake is giving all power to powerlessness. What else would so intensely focus in embodying such an idea but a powerlessness
in terror of looking within, set in rage on its sense of denial 'without'.
Is is said that all power is of God – but that does not make an illusion of power real.
But to participate in an illusion of power is to give unto Caesar what is due unto God.
Releasing the reversal of cause and effect is recognising and aligning in truth we do not manufacture, possess or control –
but are at-oned with in sharing. The narrative is shifted in purpose. You are given a special role in the healing and awakening
from a collective entanglement. But it is never more or less than to be who you are – as distinct from trying to be what you
are not at expense of a full or overflowing awareness.
Hate and guilt can make a world and suffer it real – but do You WANT this?
Who lives by the 'Seperation' word shall die by the S-word.
For the true Word is before and after – and in a sense inside time that seems to cover story.
The power that works in darkness of denied conflict, deems light an attack on its power of protection from light. But light
simply is awareness. Only an illusion of light can 'attack' an illusion of darkness.
In this sense the mind is a trickster when spinning out from the heart's knowing. Entertainment becomes entrainment to an invested
identity habit.
harry law
Tom Watson put this letter together endorsed by 80 Labour Party MP's.
After implying that the changes to the composition of the NEC panel involved corruption. The letter goes on ..
"It is clear to us that the Labour party's disciplinary process remains mired by the appearance of political interference,
this must stop, we need an independent process".
Then unbelievably in the very next sentence he contradicts himself by calling for political interference.
"We call on Jeremy Corbyn to show leadership by asking for this inappropriate, offensive and reputationally damaging decision
to be overturned".
In his last sentence, after Williamson is allowed back into the party by a properly constituted and legal administrative process
overlooked by two Barristers, he throws due process under the bus. People like Margaret Hodge who called Jeremy Corbyn "A fucking
Antis-Semite and racist" and who called upon any CLP who minimised Anti-Semitism "that we should just close them down" these
people reveal their true nature on free speech, democracy and due process, they are against all three. Here is his last sentence
"Ultimately, it is for Jeremy Corbyn to decide whether Chris Williamson retains the Labour whip, he must remove it immediately
if we are to stand any hope of persuading anyone that the Labour Party is taking Anti-Semitism seriously". Can the Labour Party
be taken seriously?
It's mostly British rock stars who have spoken out against Israeli policies and actions that terrorise Palestinians. That may
say something about the nature of the music industry in Britain as opposed to its American equivalent.
The US music industry,
indeed the entertainment industry generally since major record labels these days are owned and run by the same corporations
that own and run television and movie studios, book and magazine publishers, and news media, is one where the power of money
and to make and break careers is highly concentrated among a few companies and individuals.
Rhys Jaggar
Antisemitism is actually a very silly term since it means 'the state of opposing semites and their values'. The first question to ask is who, exactly, the Semites were and are? The definition broadly given is 'those people who speak the semitic languages'.
So here is a list of Semitic languages:
1. ARABIC – 300 million speakers. Ho hum, so being anti-semitic means hating arabs does it? Should I call Bibi Netanyahu
antisemitic for hating the Palestinians? NAUGHTY BOY! SPANK! SPANK!!
2. AMHARIC – 22 million speakers. This is a bunch of Ethiopians who you may or may not choose to like. But they are most certainly
not Jewish.
3. TIGRINYA – 6.9 million speakers. Another Ethiopian group.
4. HEBREW – 5 million native speakers. So rather less than one in sixty Semites are actually Hebrew-speaking Jews. Do 59/60
semites really wish Bibi Netanyahu et al to corral them all under one umbrella with him at the helm? I have my doubts, you
know .
5. TIGRE – 1 million speaker. A third small Ethiopian sect.
6. ARAMAIC – 0.5 to 1 million speakers from Assyria.
7. MALTESE – around half amillion speakers.
So Jews have appropriated a term for themselves when they represent less than two percent of Semites. What arrogance they
possess!
So before we go any further, I suggest Jeremy Corbyn uses as one defensive strand that he likes many arab semites .that
should cause unrest with Miluds given orders by the Mossad, Downing Street and GCHQ.
Secondly I suggest that Jews coin a new term referring solely to them as they are not, nor will they likely ever be the
overwhelming majority of semites on earth. How about JEW HATER?
Finally I call on all non Jewish semites to disavow the use of the term antisemitic when referring to Jews, expressing outrage
that Jews could insult their distinct cultures, traditions and values through insisting on using a term despicably inappropriate
for matters at hand.
They could call for Margaret Hodge to be kicked out of the Labour Party for antinonjewsemitic behaviour, but that might
be being petty
Little wonder that discussions about politics can leave us feeling that we are banging our heads against a brick wall – even when
talking to people we might otherwise respect. Fortunately, recent psychological research also offers evidence-based ways towards
achieving more fruitful discussions.
Ask 'how' rather than 'why'
Thanks to the illusion of explanatory depth, many political arguments will be based on false premises, spoken with great confidence
but with a minimal understanding of the issues at hand. For this reason, a simple but powerful way of deflating someone's argument
is to ask for more detail. "You need to get the 'other side' focusing on how something would play itself out, in a step by step fashion",
says Prof Dan Johnson at Washington and Lee University in Lexington, Virginia. By revealing the shallowness of their existing knowledge,
this prompts a more moderate and humble attitude.
In 2013,
Prof Philip Fernbach
at the University of Colorado, Boulder,
and colleagues asked participants in cap-and-trade schemes – designed to limit companies' carbon emissions – to describe in depth
how they worked. Subjects initially took strongly polarised views but after the limits of their knowledge were exposed, their attitudes
became more moderate and less biased.
It's important to note that simply asking why people supported or opposed the policy – without requiring them to explain how it
works – had no effect, since those reasons could be shallower ("It helps the environment") with little detail. You need to ask how
something works to get the effect.
If you are debating the merits of a no-deal Brexit, you might ask someone to describe exactly how the UK's international trade
would change under WTO terms. If you are challenging a climate emergency denier, you might ask them to describe exactly how their
alternative theories can explain the recent rise in temperatures. It's a strategy that the broadcaster James O'Brien employs on his
LBC talk show – to powerful effect.
Fill their knowledge gap with a convincing story
If you are trying to debunk a particular falsehood – like a conspiracy theory or fake news – you should make sure that your explanation
offers a convincing, coherent narrative that fills all the gaps left in the other person's understanding.
Consider the following
experiment
by Prof Brendan Nyhan of the University of Michigan and Prof Jason Reifler of the University of Exeter. Subjects read
stories about a fictional senator allegedly under investigation for bribery who had subsequently resigned from his post. Written
evidence – a letter from prosecutors confirming his innocence – did little to change the participants' suspicions of his guilt. But
when offered an alternative explanation for his resignation – to take on another role – participants changed their minds. The same
can be seen in murder trials: people are more likely to accept someone's innocence if another suspect has also been accused, since
that fills the biggest gap in the story: whodunnit.
Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
Boris Johnson, Jeremy Hunt, Michael Gove, Sajid Javid and Rory Stewart taking part in a BBC TV debate earlier this
month. Photograph: Jeff Overs/BBC/PA
The persuasive power of well-constructed narratives means that it's often useful to discuss the sources of misinformation, so
that the person can understand why they were being misled in the first place. Anti-vaxxers, for instance, may believe a medical conspiracy
to cover up the supposed dangers of vaccines. You are more likely to change minds if you replace that narrative with an equally cohesive
and convincing story – such as
Andrew Wakefield
's scientific fraud, and the fact that he was set to profit from his paper linking autism to MMR vaccines. Just stating the scientific
evidence will not be as persuasive.
Reframe the issue
Each of our beliefs is deeply rooted in a much broader and more complex political ideology. Climate crisis denial, for instance,
is now inextricably linked to beliefs in free trade, capitalism and the dangers of environmental regulation.
Attacking one issue may therefore threaten to unravel someone's whole worldview – a feeling that triggers emotionally charged
motivated reasoning. It is for this reason that
highly educated
Republicans
in the US deny the overwhelming evidence.
You are not going to alter someone's whole political ideology in one discussion, so a better strategy is to disentangle the issue
at hand from their broader beliefs, or to explain how the facts can still be accommodated into their worldview. A free-market capitalist
who denies global warming might be far more receptive to the evidence if you explain that the development of renewable energies could
lead to technological breakthroughs and generate economic growth.
Appeal to an alternative identity
If the attempt to reframe the issue fails, you might have more success by appealing to another part of the person's identity entirely.
Someone's political affiliation will never completely define them, after all. Besides being a conservative or a socialist, a Brexiter
or a remainer, we associate ourselves with other traits and values – things like our profession, or our role as a parent. We might
see ourselves as a particularly honest person, or someone who is especially creative. "All people have multiple identities," says
Prof Jay Van Bavel at New York University, who studies the neuroscience of the
"partisan brain"
. "These
identities can become active at any given time, depending on the circumstances."
ass="inline-garnett-quote inline-icon ">
You are more likely to achieve your aims by arguing gently and kindly. You will also come across better to onlookers
It's natural that when talking about politics, the salient identity will be our support for a particular party or movement. But
when people are asked to first reflect on their other, nonpolitical values, they tend to become
more objective in discussion on highly partisan issues
, as they stop viewing facts through their ideological lens.
You could try to use this to your advantage during a heated conversation, with subtle flattery that appeals to another identity
and its set of values; if you are talking to a science teacher, you might try to emphasise their capacity to appraise evidence even-handedly.
The aim is to help them recognise that they can change their mind on certain issues while staying true to other important elements
of their personality.
Persuade them to take an outside perspective
Another simple strategy to encourage a more detached and rational mindset is to ask your conversation partner to imagine the argument
from the viewpoint of someone from another country. How, for example, would someone in Australia or Iceland view Boris Johnson as
our new prime minister?
Prof Ethan Kross at the University of Michigan, and Prof Igor Grossmann at the University of Waterloo in Ontario, Canada, have
shown that this strategy increases
"psychological distance"
from the issue at hand and cools emotionally charged reasoning so that you can see things more objectively. During the US presidential
elections, for instance, their participants were asked to consider how someone in Iceland would view the candidates. They were subsequently
more willing to accept the limits of their knowledge and to listen to alternative viewpoints; after the experiment, they were even
more likely to join a bipartisan discussion group.
Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
The front pages of two New York newspapers on Friday 2 June 2017, as Donald Trump pledged to withdraw the US from the
Paris climate agreement. Photograph: Richard B Levine/Alamy
This is only one way to increase someone's psychological distance, and there are many others. If you are considering policies
with potentially long-term consequences, you could ask them to imagine viewing the situation through the eyes of someone in the future.
However you do it, encouraging this shift in perspective should make your friend or relative more receptive to the facts you are
presenting, rather than simply reacting with knee-jerk dismissals.
Be kind
Here's a lesson that certain polemicists in the media might do well to remember – people are generally much more rational in their
arguments, and more willing to own up to the limits of their knowledge and understanding, if they are treated with respect and compassion.
Aggression, by contrast, leads them to feel that their identity is threatened, which in turn can make them closed-minded.
Assuming that the purpose of your argument is to change minds, rather than to signal your own superiority,
you are much more likely to achieve your aims by arguing gently and kindly
rather than belligerently
, and affirming your respect for the person, even if you are telling them some hard truths. As a bonus,
you will also come across better to onlookers. "There's a lot of work showing that third-party observers always attribute high levels
of competence when the person is conducting themselves with more civility," says Dr Joe Vitriol, a psychologist at Lehigh University
in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. As Lady Mary Wortley Montagu put it in the 18th century: "Civility costs nothing and buys everything."
•
David Robson is the author of
The Intelligence Trap: Why Smart People Do Stupid Things and How to Make Wiser Decisions
(Hodder & Stoughton, £20). To order a copy go to
guardianbookshop.com
. Free UK p&p on all online orders over £15
First, let's look at Bellingcat involvement in Ukraine.
On July 11th 2014 an event happened that shook my world, literally. Bellingcat
reported that the Russians attacked Ukrainian armed forces from across the border in
Zelenopillya. The Ukrainians suffered traumatic losses. Once again, Eliot Higgins provides the
data to determine this. Once again Bellingcat was wrong about the origin of the attack.
This single battle marked the turning point for the entire war. The Donbass militia went on
a large offensive for the first time and destroyed a big Ukrainian encampment with a rocket
attack.
How can I afford to be so assertive? At 4:30 in the morning on July 11th every house in my
town started shaking because of the massive explosions going on at Zelenopillya. I did say it
shook my world, didn't I?
I was between the Russian border and the camp. We could see the smoke from the rockets and
the
sky was lit with the explosions . The
explosions were loud enough to wake the dead that morning. There were no rockets flying
over my head. For Russia to fire them, that's exactly where they would have been.
At that point we were under Ukrainian occupation for a couple of months. Two days before the
attack on Zelenopillya happened, a Ukrainian army officer told the post master to get the
children out of town within 2 days. The army was pulling out and a cleansing battalion (Donbas
battalion) was coming in to weed out "separatists and supporters." That was when I came face to
face with Mark
Paslowsky, the American nazi . The article gives his background and tells what was going
on.
Bellingcat misidentifies the weapon as artillery. Grad rockets were fired at Zelenopillya by
the Rovenki militia that day. I spoke with the militia that fired them about 1 week after the
fact. In the linked articles the Ukrainians state plainly that it was militia using Grad
rockets.
The Ukrainians took some of their wounded across the border to Russia. It's not quite
something you do if Russia was really attacking you. The worst injuries were treated locally.
Donbass people ran there after the battle to help the wounded and the Ukrainian soldiers were
treated at local hospitals. Ukraine abandoned them.
The story got a lot of play in the west in the west as a Russian attack on Ukraine thanks to
this event. It was added to the list of reasons to sanction Russia. If the attack on
Zelenopillya didn't happen, I probably wouldn't be here to write this.
For the third time on an important event, Bellingcat shows it cannot identify the origin or
firing location of a weapon and misidentifies both the weapon type and the direction of fire in
media.
Getting the facts straight about the MH-17 shoot down is the difference between hundreds of
families getting justice and closure for those deaths or never seeing it. Convict the wrong
party and justice is never served. New victims are made with false or erroneous evidence.
Bellingcat's importance to the JIT (Joint Investigative Team) investigation of MH-17 is
apparent through all the media Higgins and Toler are quoted in media as the independent
experts.
That last statement should grab your attention. Bellingcat and its founders Elliot Higgins
and Aric Toler's credibility rests on the fact that they are independent researchers. If they
are working for an interested party in any investigation, Bellingcat's credibility is destroyed
and their research means nothing. After all, it's been paid for.
Bellingcat really grabbed the public's attention and imagination after the shoot down of
flight MH-17 over Ukraine. Independent researchers Higgins and Toler went to work to find the
missile launch site and the responsible parties, or did they?
As early as February 2014, Higgins showed the beginning of a clear pattern regarding
Ukraine. In the tweet below this OSINT expert researcher was linking to a
1 month old blog started by
Sviatoslav Yurash . What's special about Yurash at this time is that he was Ukrainian
ultranationalist Dimitry Yarosh's English language spokesman. If that well known fact wasn't
enough to caution Higgins, what was?
In the next article to follow, starting with Yurash as the first example, I'll show you how
all these volunteer experts including Higgins get paid. The article will further cement and
establish the relationships between Bellingcat, Weisburd, Watts and other intel and news
headline providers with each other as well as their employers.
For now, the admission made by the Ukrainian Information Ministry and Aric Toler will have
to be enough.
In
addition, already 21 November Dmitry Zolotukhin met with his US counterpart, team
representative Bellingcat Arik Toler , who conducted a similar training for journalists in Kyiv
on the invitation of Media Development Foundation. They also discussed the possibility of
holding a conference in Kiev on thematic instruments OSINT-use techniques in the modern media."
One of the Media Development Center's
sponsors is NATO . It is a project of the US Embassy in Kiev because of the association
with the embassy's diplomatic paper, the Kyiv Post.
If that isn't enough, let's see how close Bellingcat's Aric Toler views the
relationship.
According to both Information Policy Advisor Dmitry Zolotukhin and Toler, they are partners.
Eric Toler and Eliot Higgins(Bellingcat), along with Aaron Weisburd, Clint Watts, and
Joel
Harding have been working with the same Ukrainian Information Ministry that started the
"Mytorovyets" or Peacekeeper website.
They help the SBU geo-locate people in Ukraine. As shown above, they also train people to
geo-locate anyone considered anti-Maidan or anti-nationalist in Ukraine. They didn't
disappoint.
I think this pretty well sums up how independent Bellingcat's investigation has been. To add
insult to injury, Higgins and Toler work directly with previously identified Ukrainian
Intelligence hackers and Pravy Sektor members (ultra-nationalist Ukrainians) to get Bellingcat
"independent research" information.
InformNapalm and its hackers are Ukrainian Intel agents working for the Information
Ministry. In their own words – The main activities of the project are
collecting and analysing OSINT-information , found in open
sources, including social networks. InformNapalm's investigation of 53rd Artillery Brigade
commander colonel Sergei Muchkayev, suspected of killing the MH17 passengers, was used in
the report of the Bellingcat research team .
Who was the information source for independent researchers at Bellingcat? Dimitry Yarosh's
best friend, Valentyn Nalivaychenko was one of them. In the spring of 2014, he replaced
SBU(Ukraine's Security Service) personnel with ultra-nationalists because they had the right
ideology. Another was Anton Gerashchenko who is responsible for persecuting the press in
Ukraine.
In
few days and hours after the crash of MH17 Ukrainian officials widely publicly discussed
all that data (except the photo of "Paris Match") anonymously downloaded by someone to social
nets. For example on July 17 Gerashchenko (The ministry of internal affairs) showed the photo
of Buk at Torez; on July 18 Avakov (The ministry of internal affairs) showed the video of Buk
at Luhansk; also on July 18 Nalivaychenko (the chief of Ukrainian security service) showed the
video of Buk at Snizhne, and on July 19 Vitaliy Naida (Ukrainian security service) showed shot
fragment of video frame (not the video itself) from Zugres.
Under the best circumstances Bellingcat's research can only be seen as a Ukrainian
Intelligence production. If neither Higgins or Toler were actively engaged with Ukrainian
operations on the many levels that they are, their source material is still very tainted. When
all your research material comes from a party under investigation, you are no longer a neutral
party. You can't pee in a blood sample and call it evidence. Are Higgins and Toler credible?
You decide.
Max van der Werff has become a go-to resource for understanding information about MH-17. I
have spoken at length with Max and his fellow researchers @bellingmouse. This linked article shows the strength of research
these REAL volunteers have brought to the MH-17 investigation . I had to ask Max the great
who-dun-it question. His response was after thousands of hours of research, he didn't know. Too
many people were withholding information and remaining uncooperative on all sides.
What he was sure of is that Bellingcat's research is shoddy and a lot of the evidence
appears fabricated.
Max van der Werf has been interviewed by the JIT investigative team on 4 occasions, given
over 6 hours of recorded interviews to them, as well as over 14GB of data.
Examples of this include the fact that all of the images and video are such low quality and
resolution, it's impossible to make definite determinations from them.
One of the chase vehicles (jeep) in Bellingcat's BUK convoy is driving with the door open.
In another image of the BUK transport supposedly taken by a local resident, the apartment was
not occupied in the summer of 2014. There was no one there to take the image. It was again so
grainy and low quality that even a military vehicle substitution was not noticeable. None of
the neighbors that were there saw a BUK on a trailer.
The route of travel according to Bellingcat would have taken the BUK launcher toward the
conflict zone twice while battles were being fought across the region. Anyone familiar with the
area or that had a map would take a direct route which would have made it much less noticeable
driving through unpopulated areas.
Images taken after the shoot down are just as bad. Some unimportant parts of the image are
in focus while it's almost impossible to make out the BUK even though it's right beside the
photographer.
The so-called wire-tapped conversation was proven to be a Ukrainian SBU production. How is
it still a part of the evidence chain?
What van der Werff and @bellingmouse have proven unequivocally is that another investigation
needs to take place that looks for real evidence. The JIT, for their part had the impossible
task of investigating a hostile shoot-down of a jetliner with no previous airline disaster
investigation experience in a war zone that was active. The problem with it is objectivity was
thrown out the window as soon as Ukraine got the right to reject evidence and control what
would be made public.
What has looking for Ruskies done? In the eyes of Congress it made you and every publication
that strives for neutral information or even writing from their political slant a Ruskie. You
work for Vladimir Putin.
It has taken away any hope of justice for people in Syria and the families of MH-17 victims
unless real neutral investigations take place.
It's taken away real news from the masses and replaced it with policy pieces from people
that get paid to hate you. You are after all, the Russian interference that they talk
about.
It is possible that Skripal was a source of some information in Steele dossier
Notable quotes:
"... Another corroboration was the Trump Tower meeting: ostensibly set up by Trump linked Araz Agalarov could verify the piss taking allegations. It's well worth revisiting the Elizabeth Vos Disobedient Media article for background on this meeting set up Mifsud et al: who are linked to London – not Moscow. ..."
"... "Genuine" in the sense that it was really written by a KGB insider (which Skripal was), NOT in the sense that what he alleged was true. The point is that the source of the Steele-Clinton dossier would have been revealed and, of course, the source would have been a proven consummate liar and traitor. This would blow Mueller's "investigation" out of the water. ..."
"... As someone who has worked for more than a decade with the microfilm collection of Soviet documents in the Hoover Institution Archives, I can say that the dossier itself was compiled by a Russian, whose command of English is far from perfect and who follows the KGB (now FSB) practice of writing intelligence reports, in particular the practice of capitalizing all names for easy reference. The report includes Putin's inner circle – Peskov, Ivanov, Sechin, Lavrov. The anonymous author claims to have "trusted compatriots" who knew the roles that each Kremlin insider, including Putin himself, played in the Trump election saga and were prepared to tell him. ..."
"... Sergei Skripal could fit the description of the "Russian" referred to in the third paragraph. ..."
The main corroboration for the Steele Dossier was Christopher Steele: briefing the press at the Tabard Inn, Washington – to set
up a collaboration loop. Julian Assange tweeted that one of the journalists was Paul Wood who looks like a spook or an asset himself.
Another journalists was Michael Isikoff. His planted story war used to collaborate the Dossier as the basis of the FBI's FISA
warrant to surveill Carter Page.
The Nunes Memo also states that Steele back-chanelled additional allegations into the DOJ via Bruce Ohr.
Another corroboration was the Trump Tower meeting: ostensibly set up by Trump linked Araz Agalarov could verify the piss
taking allegations. It's well worth revisiting the Elizabeth Vos Disobedient Media article for background on this meeting set
up Mifsud et al: who are linked to London – not Moscow.
Anyway, all these "experts" – and Wikipedia – seem to have got their information from one source – Steele: who both wrote and
then corroborated his own dossier. With a little help from his intel friends
"Genuine" in the sense that it was really written by a KGB insider (which Skripal was), NOT in the sense that what he alleged
was true. The point is that the source of the Steele-Clinton dossier would have been revealed and, of course, the source would
have been a proven consummate liar and traitor. This would blow Mueller's "investigation" out of the water.
But I'll not engage with you any further on this, since there's none so blind as those who will not see.
Thomas Peterson
why exactly does it seem likely Skripal was one of Steele's sources? did Steele even need any sources to write his ludicrous 'dossier'?
The Orbis report makes as if it knows all the ins-and-outs and comings-and-goings within Putin's impenetrable Kremlin. It
reports information from anonymous "trusted compatriots," "knowledgeable sources," "former intelligence officers," and "ministry
of foreign affairs officials." The report gives a fly-on-the-wall account of just about every conceivable event associated with
Donald Trump's Russian connections. It claims to know more than is knowable as it recounts sordid tales of prostitutes, "golden
showers," bribes, squabbles in Putin's inner circle, and who controls the dossiers of kompromat (compromising information).
There are two possible explanations for the fly-on-the-wall claims of the Orbis report: Either its author (who is not Mr. Steele)
decided to write fiction, or collected enough gossip to fill a 30-page report, or a combination of the two. The author of the
Orbis report has one more advantage: He knew that what he was writing was unverifiable. He advertises himself as the only Kremlin
outsider with enough "reliable" contacts to explain what is really going within Putin's office.
As someone who has worked for more than a decade with the microfilm collection of Soviet documents in the Hoover Institution
Archives, I can say that the dossier itself was compiled by a Russian, whose command of English is far from perfect and who follows
the KGB (now FSB) practice of writing intelligence reports, in particular the practice of capitalizing all names for easy reference.
The report includes Putin's inner circle – Peskov, Ivanov, Sechin, Lavrov. The anonymous author claims to have "trusted compatriots"
who knew the roles that each Kremlin insider, including Putin himself, played in the Trump election saga and were prepared to
tell him.
The Orbis report spins the tale of Putin insiders, spurred on by Putin himself, engaging in a five-year courtship of Donald
Trump in which they offer him lucrative real estate deals that he rejects but leaves himself open to blackmail as a result of
sexual escapades with prostitutes in St. Petersburg and Moscow (the famous "golden shower" incident). Despite his reluctance to
enter into lucrative business deals, Trump "and his inner circle have accepted regular intelligence from the Kremlin, including
on his Democratic and other political rivals," according to the Orbis report.
This story makes no sense. In 2011, when the courtship purportedly begins, Trump was a TV personality and beauty pageant
impresario. Neither in the U.S. or Russia would anyone of authority anticipate that Trump would one day become the presidential
candidate of a major U.S. political party, making him the target of Russian intelligence.
Sergei Skripal could fit the description of the "Russian" referred to in the third paragraph.
"... It seems that everyone is lying about the Skripal affair. The UK govt. version is riddled with inconsistencies. But it does seem that 2 GRU officers were wandering around Salisbury. Why? And the Russians are lying about that. ..."
"... The likelihood is that the GRU were there to discuss with Skripal his wishes to return to Russia. There is an alternative likelihood that they were there to quiz him on his contribution to the Dodgy Dossier. Both scenarios could well lead to the British secret services deciding to take Skripal out, even down, and blame it on the Russians. ..."
"... I would suggest that Skripal and his daughter are now either living somewhere else in Natoland under different identities and some money to keep them quiet, or else their existence became too awkward and risky and sadly they have been liquidated. ..."
In view of the latest revelations from the leaked report, which seem to prove that at least some elements of the Douma "chemical
attack" were entirely staged, we want to take look back at the chaotic events of Spring 2018.
What was the agenda behind the Douma false flag?
Why was the US response seemingly token and ineffective?
Why was the Secretary of State Rex Tillerson fired?
What agenda tied the Skripal case to the Douma attack?
The following is an extract from an article by Catte originally published April 14th last year, which takes on a greater weight
in light of certain evidence – not only that the Douma attack was faked, but that the OPCW is compromised.
The neocon faction in the US is usually (and reasonably) regarded as the motivator behind much of the western aggression in the
Middle East.
Since at least 2001 and the launch of the "War on Terror" the US has led the way in finding or creating facile excuses to fight
oil wars and hegemonic wars and proxy wars in the region. But this time the dynamics look a little different.
This time it really looks as if the UK has been setting the pace of the "response".
The fact (as stated above) that Mattis was apparently telegraphing his own private doubts a)about the verifiability of the attacks,
and b)about the dangers of a military response suggests he was a far from enthusiastic partaker in this adventure.
Trump's attitude is harder to gauge. His tweets veered wildly between unhinged threats and apparent efforts at conciliation. But
he must have known he would lose (and seemingly has lost) a great part of his natural voter base (who elected him on a no-more-war
mandate) by an act of open aggression that threatened confrontation with Russia on the flimsiest of pretexts.
Granted the US has been looking for excuses to intervene ever more overtly in Syria since 2013, and in that sense this Douma "initiative"
is a continuation of their longterm policy. It's also true Russia was warning just such a false flag would be attempted in early
March. But in the intervening month the situation on the ground has changed so radically that such an attempt no longer made any
sense.
A false flag in early March, while pockets of the US proxy army were still holding ground in Ghouta would have enabled a possible
offensive in their support which would prevent Ghouta falling entirely into government hands and thereby also maintain the pressure
on Damascus. A false flag in early April is all but useless because the US proxy army in the region was completely vanquished and
nothing would be gained by an offensive in that place at that time.
You can see why Mattis and others in the administration might be reluctant to take part in the false flag/punitive air strike
narrative if they saw nothing currently to be gained to repay the risk. They may have preferred to wait for developments and plan
for a more productive way of playing the R2P card in the future.
The US media has been similarly, and uncharacteristically divided and apparently unsure. Tucker Carlson railed against the stupidity
of attacking Syria. Commentators on MSNBC were also expressing intense scepticism of the US intent and fear about possible escalation.
The UK govt and media on the other hand has been much more homogeneous in advocating for action. No doubts of the type expressed
by Mattis have been heard from the lips of an UK government minister. Even May, a cowardly PM, has been (under how much pressure?)
voicing sterling certitude in public that action HAD to be taken.
Couple this with the – as yet unverified – claims by Russia of direct UK involvement in arranging the Douma "attack", and the
claims by Syria that the perps are in their custody, and a tentative storyline emerges. It's possible this time there were other
considerations in the mix beside the usual need to "be seen to do something" and Trump's perpetual requirement to appease the liberal
Russiagaters and lunatic warmongers at home. Maybe this time it was also about helping the UK out of a sticky problem.
The Skripal consideration
Probably the only thing we can all broadly agree on about the Skripal narrative is that it manifestly did not go according to
plan. However it was intended to play out, it wasn't this way. Since some time in mid to late March it's been clear the entire thing
has become little more than an exercise in damage-limitation, leak-plugging and general containment.
The official story is a hot mess of proven falsehoods, contradictions, implausible conspiracy theories, more falsehoods and inexplicable
silences were cricket chirps tell us all we need to know.
The UK government has lied and evaded on every key aspect.
1) It lied again and again about the information Porton Down had given it
2) Its lawyers all but lied to Mr Justice Robinson about whether or not the Skripals had relatives in Russia in an unscrupulous
attempt to maintain total control of them, or at least of the narrative.
3) It is not publishing the OPCW report on the chemical analyses, and the summary of that report reads like an exercise in allusion
and weasel-wording. Even the name of the "toxic substance" found in the Skripals' blood is omitted, and the only thing tying it to
the UK government's public claims of "novichok" is association by inference and proximity.
Indeed if current claims by Russian FM Lavrov turn out to be true, a "novichok" (whatever that precisely means in this case) may
not have been the only substance found in those samples, and a compound called "BZ", a non-lethal agent developed in Europe and America,
has been discovered and suppressed in the OPCW report (more about that later).
None of the alleged victims of this alleged attack has been seen in public even in passing since the event. There is no film or
photographs of DS Bailey leaving the hospital, no film or photographs of his wife or family members doing the same. No interviews
with Bailey, no interviews with his wife, family, distant relatives, work colleagues.
The Skripals themselves were announced to be alive and out of danger mere days after claims they were all but certain to die.
Yulia, soon thereafter, apparently called her cousin Viktoria only to subsequently announce, indirectly through the helpful agency
of the Metropolitan Police, that she didn't want to talk to her cousin – or anyone else – at all.
She is now allegedly discharged from hospital and has "specially trained officers helping to take care of" her in an undisclosed
location. A form or words so creepily sinister it's hard to imagine how they were ever permitted the light of day.
Very little of this bizarre, self-defeating, embarrassing, hysterical story makes any sense other than as a random narrative,
snaking wildly in response to events the narrative-makers can't completely control.
Why? What went wrong? Why has the UK government got itself into this mess? And how much did the Douma "gas attack" and subsequent
drive for a concerted western "response" have to do with trying to fix that?
Is this what happened?
If a false flag chemical attack had taken place in Syria at the time Russia predicted, just a week or two after the Skripal poisoning,
a lot of the attention that's been paid to the Skripals over the last month would likely have been diverted. Many of the questions
being asked by Russia and in the alt media may never have been asked as the focus of the world turned to a possible superpower stand-off
in the Middle East.
So, could it be the Skripal event was never intended to last so long in the public eye? Could it be that it was indeed a false
flag, or a fake event, as many have alleged, planned as a sketchy prelude to, or warm up act for a bigger chemical attack in Syria,
scheduled for a week or so later in mid-March – just around the time Russia was warning of such a possibility?
Could it be this planned event was unexpectedly canceled by the leading players in the drama (the US) when the Russians called
them out and the rapid and unexpected fall of Ghouta meant any such intervention became pointless at least for the moment?
Did this cancelation leave the UK swinging in the wind, with a fantastical story that was never intended to withstand close scrutiny,
and no second act for distraction?
So, did they push on with the now virtually useless "chemical attack", botch it (again), leaving a clear evidence trail leading
back to them? Did they then further insist on an allied "response" to their botched false flag in order to provide yet more distraction
and hopefully destroy some of that evidence?
This would explain why the UK may have been pushing for the false flag to happen (as claimed by Russia) even after it could no
longer serve much useful purpose on the ground, and why the Douma "attack" seems to have been so sketchily done by a gang on the
run. The UK needed the second part to happen in order to distract from the first.
It would explain why the US has been less than enthused by the idea of reprisals. Because while killing Syrians to further geo-strategic
interests is not a problem, killing Syrians (and risking escalation with Russia) in order to rescue an embarrassed UK government
is less appealing.
And it would explain why the "reprisals" when they came were so half-hearted.
If this is true, Theresa May and her cabinet are currently way out on a limb even by cynical UK standards. Not only have they
lied about the Skripal event, but in order to cover up that lie they have promoted a false flag in Syria, and "responded" to it by
a flagrant breach of international and domestic law. Worst of all, if the Russians aren't bluffing, they have some evidence to prove
some of the most egregious parts of this.
This is very bad.
But even if some or all of our speculation proves false, and even if the Russian claims of UK collusion with terrorists in Syria
prove unfounded, May is still guilty of multiple lies and has still waged war without parliamentary approval.
This is a major issue. She and her government should resign. But it's unlikely that will happen.
So what next? There is a sense this is a watershed for many of the parties involved and for the citizens of the countries drawn
into this.
Will the usual suspects try to avoid paying for their crimes and misadventures by more rhetoric, more false flags, more "reprisals"?
Or will this signal some other change in direction?
We'll all know soon enough.
andyoldlabour
D S Bailey was interviewed by the BBC after leaving the hospital, but that interview simply raised more questions. Why was his
family allowed in the hospital without hazmat suits when the hospital staff were wearing them?
We were originally told that Bailey was contaminated whilst wearing police issue gloves, yet the BBC article said he was wearing
a hazmat suit.
Nerve toxins kill thousands, yet only three people were initially contaminated and recovered.
Refraktor
It's beyond reasonable doubt that there was no Novichok: assuming that substance even exists. It could be that Sergei and Yulia
were stooges loyal to MI5. It could be they were whacked with bz or fentanyl (by MI5) in the restaurant. That's all it would take.
Of course army heads of nursing and CID officers would be circulating ready get a handle on developments. Perhaps it later became
necessary to kill someone after the complete non-lethality of Novichok was revealed. Perhaps this death was really caused by heroin
overdose or else something quite natural. Perhaps not. I concur that the most likely motive for this false flag was an attempt
to escalate in Syria. Given the total barking insanity of the Skripal Saga it might be that NATO genuinely contemplated war with
Russia at this time. When they lobbed those cruise missiles I thought their dreams were about to come true. Maniacs.
Stonky
Speaking of which, where on Earth IS Sergei Skripal?
Sergei was a double agent who could have had his finger in all sorts of dubious pies. There might easily be logical (if not
legitimate) reasons for keeping him under wraps. Surely the more pertinent question is: Where is Yulia?
Because even if you swallow every fragment of the official UK nonsense, you're still left with this oddity:
Yulia Skripal is a young woman who was the completely innocent victim of a dastardly assassination plot masterminded
by the evil Vlad. Having survived this attempt on her life, she has responded by deciding that she never again wants to see
or speak to anyone at all. Ever.
Nick
It seems that everyone is lying about the Skripal affair. The UK govt. version is riddled with inconsistencies. But it does
seem that 2 GRU officers were wandering around Salisbury. Why? And the Russians are lying about that.
Portonchok
Nick,
The likelihood is that the GRU were there to discuss with Skripal his wishes to return to Russia. There is an alternative
likelihood that they were there to quiz him on his contribution to the Dodgy Dossier. Both scenarios could well lead to
the British secret services deciding to take Skripal out, even down, and blame it on the Russians.
I would suggest that Skripal and his daughter are now either living somewhere else in Natoland under different identities
and some money to keep them quiet, or else their existence became too awkward and risky and sadly they have been liquidated.
Stonky
But it does seem that 2 GRU officers were wandering around Salisbury. .. Why?
Nick, even accepting that the two guys were Russian intelligence operatives, there are a million explanations for their presence
in Salisbury that day that make more sense than the official UK explanation: They came to assassinate Sergei Skripal by smearing
the world's deadliest nerve agent on his door handle in the middle of a Sunday afternoon, while wearing no protective clothing
Jen
There is no proof that the two Russian men Ruslan Boshirov and Alexander Petrov were GRU officers. The so-called "proof" for that
line of thinking comes from Bellingcat, a known propaganda outfit, who obtained the "proof" in highly suspect ways that suggest
it was given cherry-picked information made to fit the narrative.
It is far more likely that out of the many tourists to Salisbury – hundreds perhaps, and many of them from Russia as well –
these two men were picked out at random by UK government authorities as targets of suspicion because they happened to be travelling
together and must have fit a preconceived template in which secret Russian agents (like Dmitri Kovtun and Andrei Lugovoi before
them, when those two fellows were supposed to have poisoned Alexander Litvinenko back in 2006) are believed to travel in pairs.
John2o2o
Two Russians were wandering round Salisbury. That is all we know. Has it never occurred to you that the UK government and/or the
people who poisoned the Skripals might be using them as convenient scapegoats? It may even be that they were deliberately
lured to Salisbury to be set up in this way and had nothing to do with the poisoning.
OffG
Is there any solid evidence they were GRU? Has that ever been firmed up beyond Bellingcat's 'data dump' of largely unproven documents?
Seamus Padraig
The going theory is that the Russian agents were led into a trap. The GRU may have been made to believe somehow that Skripal intended
to re-defect, and that's why they really went to Salisbury–not to assassinate him, but to help him arrange his escape. That's
when the MI6 moved in for the kill, hoping to pin the crime on Russia.
To be sure, it's hard to get to the bottom of this cloak-and-dagger stuff when all we have access to is open-source information.
But one thing is pretty clear to me: the idea that Russia would have allowed Skripal to defect, then waited all those years and
taken crazy risks to kill him after having had him in their direct custody in a Russian prison for over 6 years, where they could
have easily killed him at any time, is ridiculous.
John2o2o
They are not proven to be Russian agents.
Reg
John2o2o
No, not proven but is it possible they were low level couriers in a meeting set up by Yulia where information was to be swapped
as the price as re-admittance to Russia for Sergei, particularly given Sergei's mothers advancing age.
It would explain the UK's panicked reaction as this was a meeting that must be stopped at all costs. How much would Sergei know
of UK security service operations if he was still active? It would also explained why Yulia as also targeted and why there turned
off their phones as they sought to shake off their UK handlers. A meeting is more credible in broad daylight than an assassination.
An assassination with an escape route involving a train from Salisbury on Sunday is not credible.
It could even be that the UK security services carried out the attack in the hope of blaming Russia if the could convince them
it was carried out by Russia. Having kept the OPCW away they could then interfere with the evidence at will with Novachock. They
could be filmed propped up in bed blaming Russia (like Litvinenko), but they didn't play ball so have been kept incommunicado
ever since apart from a a carefully scripted interview. The attacks on the other two months later could be to add credibility
to a narrative that was loosing all credibility even among the general public.
JudyJ
"Having kept the OPCW away "
I always considered it was highly suspicious that the UK was most reluctant to involve the OPCW right from the outset even
though that would be the normal internationally accepted practice in the circumstances; and when Russia was imploring them to
do so.
Significantly, the UK only brought them into the picture (reluctantly) when they were given legal advice that Russia were entitled
to invite the OPCW to investigate, and whoever issued the invitation first would have overall control of the final report (i.e.
they could liaise with the OPCW in the drafting, they could redact it, and decide who was to receive copies of the full report
as opposed to the summary report).
My suspicion now, knowing what we know about the OPCW Douma scandal, is that the UK were totally in cahoots with the US over
the Salisbury events and when the prospect of having no option but to call in the OPCW emerged the US simply said "Don't worry
about a thing. Just leave it with us. We'll sort things out".
Kathy
The British seem to me to act, hide and manipulate from behind the USA.
I think that Trump was really not meant to happen. Killery was supposed to take over the reins and continue the waging of wars
in the Middle East. Syria being the immediate agenda.
The two above events both link up in an attempt to force Trump into complying. One of the connections is the attempt to try to
smear Trump with the dodgy dossier. The chemical false flag was intended to provide the warmongers with enough pressure to force
Trump to act and involve America against his better judgement in an all out war in Syria. luckily this became a short term token
one off. Much to British annoyance.
It is the connection with the intelligence services that is key. All of these events seem to be designed to push Trump into compliance
and conformity. It is the knowledge of /and his probable involvement with Christopher Steele, that suggest poor Sergey knew to
much of both events, and so had to be silenced. The Skripal affair was, I think attempting a cherry on the cake demonizing of
Russia with the Skripal narrative. A twist of the knife while Trump was under investigation over his supposed puppet status by/
collusion with Russia.
It seems that the latest persecution of Assange is also mostly being pushed by Britain. Assange certainly did play a big part
in the narrative not playing out as planned.
crank
Remarkable that despite all that is known, an article (well, two really) like this does not meniton Israel once.
The extract from Catte's piece last year starts with the sentence, 'The neocon faction in the US is usually (and reasonably)
regarded as the motivator behind much of the western aggression in the Middle East.'
The 'neocon faction' means what exactly ? Why not just say it ? It means Israel and the international power bloc aligned with
Israel.
Perhaps Douma and Salisbury make more sense if they are put into a context of Israel writing and running US (and by extension,
UK) foreign policies. And what of Russia's strange and often unmentioned relationship with Israel?
If anyone is serious about unwrapping the onion of lies and misdirection that passes for 'current events', then its time to consider
Israel and its networks of supporters as the central focal point.
9/11 only makes sense, I would say, with this in mind. Ditto the Kennedy killings. If you think these events have significance
in our present,and you genuinely stand against racist supremicism and crazed plans for world domination, then speak out about
Israel before such speech is criminalised everywhere.
Dissidents_unit
Well said Crank. I have always believed Mossad had a hand in the alleged assassination attempt of the Skripals as Israel does
have chemical weapons and has refused affiliation with the OPCW in order, I presume, to avoid inspections and having to decommission
the chemical weapons they have. If anybody is to be accused of meddling in other nation's elections, politics etc Israel is right
up there as the prime suspects – they obviously control Trump, they were caught on Video (at least a non diplomatic representative
from the Israeli Embassy in the UK who branded himself as managing 'special projects') offering Joan Ryan – a Labour MP – £1m
to run a smear campaign against Corbyn – which she gladly accepted. They have run continuous, spurious, ridiculous anti-Semitism
claims against Corbyn and Labour which has only served to turn the public more against them and they are massacring and murdering
Palestinians with impunity – all supported by the UK and USA.
I think Mossad were the Government (UK's) agents with respect to the Skripal affair. I am of the firm belief that the Skripals
are both dead – after all, the UK Government cannot afford to release them so to speak. I say this because Sergei used to speak
to his elderly mother in Russia if not every day, at least several times a week and he has not been in touch with her neither
has Yulia. Yulia had a flat, a fiancé, a job and a wedding to arrange back in Russia – I don't believe she just walked away from
all that.
Portonchok
And what of Russia's strange and often unmentioned relationship with Israel?
It's not strange at all. By far the largest group of immigrants into Israel are Russians.
John2o2o
Jews under the bed? I don't agree with your analysis. Israel has nothing to do with the Skripal poisoning. I understand your mistrust
of Israel, but it is not to blame for all the ills of the world.
crank
How do you know that 'Israel had nothing to do with the Skripal poisoning' ?
You don't.
I know of no connection directly linking the events to agents of the Israeli state, but what does that mean? We don't really know
any more than that the UK government story is a transparent fabrication.
If you conclude that Israel effectively runs US foreign policy then the Syrian situation has to be considered in that context.
(Likewise Iran).
It's not called the Anglo-zionist empire for nothing.
Catte's article was basically a theorised link between Douma and Salisbury. Douma is in Syria, which is under attack from Israel,
according to a plan drawn up in Israel decades ago, with proxy army from Neocon Washington (i.e. Israel)
mark
That's a good point. But I am struck by the leading role currently played by the UK in the recent litany of false flags and smear
campaigns. The UK was a prime mover in setting up the "White Helmets" and the various Syrian gas hoaxes. Litvinenko. Skripal.
The Steele Dirty Dossier. The Corbyn anti Semitism hoax. Admittedly probably with a large Zionist element.
crank
The Henry Jackson Society would be one obvious hub of neocon organisation within the UK political establishment. There surely
are others that we are as yet unaware of (NB the recent Facebook revelations of political interference around the globe.) In much the same way that the 'special relationship' between the US and Britain basically translates into Britain acting as
America's de facto diplomatic poodle, HJS has long seen itself as an outpost to disseminate US neoconservative ideology in the
British political establishment, media and civil society.
O/T I know, but on the subject of the esteemed (!) Henry Jackson Society, I had to laugh the other day when I read about the pending
departure of Alexander Yakovenko from the Russian Embassy in London.
A Dr Andrew Foxall, who (according to the Daily Mail) is the 'expert' Head of Russian Studies at the HJC, stated that it was
clearly a suspicious move because ambassadorial positions are normally held for 5 or 3 years, not for the 8 years that Yakovenko
had been there. He even spoon-fed us with the information that "8 is not divisible by 5 or 3" and therefore this has to be a forced
move. I suggest that Dr Foxall needs to stop and think just a touch longer if he is ever asked to comment in public in future
and not seriously damage whatever reputation he might claim to have. I ask you.
JudyJ
Sorry, should have made better use of my 'edit' time! HJC should of course read HJS. My proof-reading abilities are as questionable
as Dr Andrew Foxall's maths!
crank
If anyone has not reviewed Christopher Bollyn's case against Israel for 9/11, I would suggest that now is the time.
Only a widespread revelation of the role of Israel in 9/11 can stop their war on Iran from proceding.
There are only two viable theories about Skirpal IMO. The first is that his daughter had persuaded the old man to come home and
the englanders learned this at short notice.
Sergeant Nick Bailey the thug on call that day, really screwed up the attempt to off Skirpal even poisoning himself in order
to 'get' Skirpal before he met with the Russian officers who had been sent to negotiate his return home.
Proximity to English chemical weapons determined the method.
The second is also dependent on the proximity of English chemical weapons manufacturing base at Porton Downs. That is the English
were responsible for training Syrian headchoppers in chemical warfare and they taught their terrorists about Novichok to false
flag in Syria in a way that would make Russia appear culpable.
One of the trainee terrorists went to lunch and overheard the Skripals talking Russian & became so upset the invasion and war
had been lost, he decided to poison em.
The latter doesn't fit the known facts as well as the former, but it is more credible than anything the Englander spies have
offered.
Dissidents_unit
URKismet – just a comment – it turns out that the first responder apart from Nick Bailey was, in fact, the Head of Nursing of
the British Army! No coincidence there I think. Either she or Nick Bailey or both are surely suspects in the administration of
the toxic substance?
Wilmers31
Many people forget that Skripal took (according to wikipedia) approximately 300 other agents down with him when he was busted
in Moscow.
That makes about 600 individuals (only 1 relative for each) who must be his enemies. Someone was after revenge? Whether that
one was in Britain in exile or in Russia we don't know. People ignore such a large group of potential enemies.
Seamus Padraig
So why did the Russians allow the Skripals to emigrate to the UK in the first place? They had Sergei in prison for 6 years; they
could have had him bumped off at any time while he was their prisoner. But for some odd reason they chose not to. Strange
Wilmers31
It was a prisoner exchange before Skripal had completed his sentence. The UK must have had an asset which Moscow really wanted,
persons or . don't know. It is now time that these prisoner/spy exchanges no longer happen in secret. Why they let him out earlier
is not understandable from what we know at the moment.
Wilmers31
The one thumb down is surprising. If that is for the idea to cease prisoner/spy exchanges that is somewhat silly as these exchanges
do not make for happiness, as we have seen. If exchanges are so good, why not exchange Kevin Mallory with the Chinese? People
need to cop the complete punishment for their crimes, you do not exchange murderers or fraudsters, either.
If the criticism is about the hundreds of people who are tempted for revenge after their cover was blown through Skripal then
this is bizarre. What purpose does it serve to sweep it under the carpet that Skripal was only one person in a system? Maybe wikipedia's
figure of 300 was wrong – let's have the correct figure then.
We can read in memoirs like Brian Crozier's "Free Agent" and "Gold Warriors" (Seagraves) what operations there were in Chile,
Africa, Philippines etc but the many people who were involved are never mentioned. The individuals like Skripal or Crozier are
the visible tips of the icebergs and it is legitimate to ask who else was involved in the operations, covert or open, legal or
illegal, and who funded.
davemass
Profumo was jailed for lying to Parliament.
Surely May, and all accomplices should suffer the samne fate??
wardropper
I expect the US secret service just asked our secret service to take the initiative for once, since the US were beginning to look
like the bad guys
Paul Harvey
I have privately speculated that the raison d'etre of the Skirpal farce was simply to generate the belief system and memetic narrative
that Russia is currently producing chemical weapons/ nerve agents and is willing to openly use them on their perceived 'enemies'
abroad (and of course that the origin of these chemical weapons, ie Novichok can 'proved' to be exclusively of Russian providence.
Why is the above important? Because if there is ever a chemical weapons attack in Syria on civilians and hundreds die and the
nerve agent is 'proved' by the OPCW to be Novichok then of course Russia would get the blame for supplying the 'Assad regime'
with this chemical agent. (Sarin, anthrax etc cannot be exclusively traced back to Russia, only Novichok and it alone can be,
if we believe the prior Skirpal narrative).
As a side note – the story that Trump was shown images of dead English ducks and hospitalised English children in relation
to the Skirpal incident makes me wonder if this was an attempt by British psychological warfare operatives to pre-program Trump
and his team, so when videos eventually emerge of dead animals and hospitalised Syrian children, the link is already fixed in
their mind as to what a Novichok 'attack' looks like).
One has to admit the story that surfaced last month of dead ducks/hospitalised kids images shown to Trump in relation to the
Skirpal narrative was very strange to say the least.
Just as the Skirpal case 'fixed' the Novichok narrative in the MSM as exclusively of Russian providence, one can also speculate
that the Douma 'Barrel Bomb' meme (and the fake OPCW Report) was another key part of the narrative – if a speculative Novichok
attack occurs and footage emerges of similar containers as used in the the fake Douma chlorine attack, the OPCW can already point
to the providence of the delivery system as being exclusively of Syrian military origin and the Douma events as simply a precursor
to a current 'Novichok' attack (just as the Skirpal events would be used as a precursor to Russian culpability and perhaps even
the suggestion of active Russian involvement in a mass chemical attack on Syrian women and children using the agent Novichok.)
Maybe this is what the Russians mean by UK involvement in Douma – maybe they worked out that the Skirpal events were a precursor
to a wider false flag event to be staged down the line by elements of British military and state intelligence networks in conjunction
with elements within NATO and U.S. intelligence structures.
I know this is total speculation and I provide it as food for thought and grounds for further research in reference to this
article.
That is a tremendous piece of work. It should go down in history, but people are already forgetting Skripal's name. A truly
brilliant summary.
mark
Chemical weapons have been used against the Syrian military, inflicting casualties. They have also been used routinely by the
British taxpayer funded head choppers and throat slitters to terrorise civilians indiscriminately for years. As for "scant evidence
of jihadists weaponizing chemicals", they have been arrested in Turkey by the Turkish police in possession of canisters of sarin
nerve gas. Just one of many documented instances. But maybe this just comes from a "conspiracist mindset." Maybe it's totally
irrelevant to the issue when terrorists are arrested in Turkey in possession of nerve gas.
mark
The UK taxpayer funded head choppers and throat slitters routinely seize civilians as hostages, then murder them and blame it
on Assad. They have massacred entire villages then called in their chums in the BBC to film the evidence of "Assad's latest atrocity."
Like they film the devastation in Gaza and try to pass it off as rocket damage in Israel. All in a day's lying for the folks at
the Botty Bangers Club.
John
Isn't it odd that you used opcw findings when it matched what you want but it doesn't fit now so you're having a hissy fit! I
hope horrid things happen to you fake socialist
lundiel
isn't it odd that sarin gas or even chlorine has only been used to kill their own women and children rather than the Baathist
military?
No. Western media aren't going to get in a frenzy if some of Assad's soldiers are killed.
crank
isn't it odd that sarin gas or even chlorine has only been used to kill their own women and children rather than the Baathist
military?
– In a word, no. Anyone with even the slightest comprehension of how psychological warfare works would understand this.
Louis Proyec – 'reader'
Maybe read more widely, or start thinking more deeply, or stop bullshitting so lamely.
Loverat
I came across a similar post Louis made on another topic a while ago.
The political language and terms used in his posts always suggest his political position is his starting point then arranging
selective facts to support it. First, the classic line of attack is accusing others of 'conspiracy theorists' – a tactic used
by mainstream journalists and Bellingcat and el against the academics and experts of the Syria Working Group. As said below, that
does not cut it – especially now the 'conspiracy theorists' have for the umpteenth time been vindicated.
Louis, comes out with stuff like 'Baathist troops' (he uses the word 'Baathist' three times in his post as if it was somehow
relevant) whereas someone normal, of genuine intelligence and independent, would use the description 'Syrian Army'. Why would
you say 'Baathist troops' or use other pointless labels unless you are trying to distract from the real issues while attempting
to give the impression of having some knowledge. His political posturing offers nothing by way of getting to the truth and he
appears to be another self-serving armchair commentator.
mark
Maybe we could get him a job with Bellingcat.
OffG
You're embarrassing yourself, Louis. Throwing out stale ad homs like 'conspiracist' isn't enough any more. You need to up your
game, deal with the developing reality or retire.
Jen
We need the other anti-Assad troll back but the danger is I might get sick of hitting him again with Yassin al-Haj's article for
the New York Times where the Syrian activist admits to having stayed with the White Helmets in Ghouta in mid-2013 before fleeing
to Raqqa and leaving his wife Samira Khalil behind.
Ken
Take it easy on poor old Louis; what can one expect from a fellow who probably believes that 9/11 was not a false flag either?
And that one is a complete no-brainer to see.
Rhisiart Gwilym
Come on! Let's encourage the poor old fart to go on posting here. He's always good for an incredulous laugh. And he's a warning
too to anyone trying to make sense of Western criminal realpolitik, an object lesson in what happens to a supposed 'radical thinker'
– hah! – who drinks too deeply of the Western propaganda kool-aid, and holds the stuff down, too, until it comes time to regurgitate
it as if it were 'original thinking', the poor sucker. Don't off him. He's useful as light amusement.
PS: in case you think I'm being a bit ad-hominy, I'm a poor broken down old fart myself. But I still have my wits about me,
and I can still smell the stench of the West's Permanent Bullshit Blizzard when I meet it. Catch up soon Louis! Till then – thanks
for all the laffs! :O)
JudyJ
" isn't it odd that sarin gas or even chlorine has only been used to kill their own women and children rather than the Baathist
military?"
No, not at all odd.
1. To be clear, when you say "their own" I presume you mean the Syrian women and children who the (mainly non-Syrian) terrorists
hold as captives to ensure their men folk co-operate with them, or to be used in propaganda campaigns including 'false flag' scenarios.
2. In what form would you suggest the Jihadi murderers might be tempted to use chlorine in a way capable of killing opposition
soldiers? Chlorine is essentially an unpleasant irritant if misused. To kill, it would have to be administered in an enclosed
space where there was no means of escape for the victims.
3. We are constantly being fed the lie that the terrorists don't have sarin so it would be rather foolish of them to deploy
it against opposition soldiers. Even they've worked that one out.
4. The terrorists are mercenaries paid by western agencies whose primary function is to carry out acts to discredit the Assad
Government, thereby providing an ultimate excuse for military action to overthrow the Assad Government. The most obvious way to
do this is to murder, as you so sensitively express it, "a bunch of Syrians" in a way that the West finds appropriate to point
the finger at the Assad Government and its Russian allies.
This all makes a lot more sense than the idea that the Syrian Government assisted by the Russians would choose to murder innocent
Syrian civilians, not least by using outlawed chemical weapons, and incur the wrath of western powers at the point when they were
succeeding in defeating the terrorists with relative ease.
Over the last five pieces (
Part 1 ,
Part 2
,
Part 3 ,
Part 4 ,
Part 5 ) I have, slowly but surely, advanced a theory of what happened in the Skripal case. I must confess to having done so
with a fair amount of unease. I don't want to believe that my Government has been stating a case that is false. I don't
want to believe that the public have been lied to. I don't want to have to think that there has been a lot of effort made
to present an explanation that hides the truth.
And yet, given the fact that the Government story contains self-evident fallacies, and cannot be made to add up, I don't think
that there's much alternative than to be hugely sceptical about their claims. I stated the two main fallacies in
Part 1 , which are the claims that three people were poisoned by the nerve agent A-234, which is 5-8 times more toxic than VX,
and that because A-234 was developed in the Soviet Union, the Russian State is responsible for what happened. The first claim cannot
be true, because the three people are alive and well and have suffered no irreparable damage. The second claim is palpably untrue,
because A-234 has been synthesised in a number of countries.
Yet this is only the tip of the iceberg of the absurdities and anomalies. I don't intend to go through all of them, but would
simply point anyone who does believe the official story to concentrate on three words: The Door Handle. This was apparently where
the poison was poured, so allow me to pose five questions about this claim to those who believe it to be true:
During the "clean-up" operation, there were lots of military chaps wearing HazMat suits, which are designed to protect against exposure
to toxic chemicals. How, then, did the assassin apparently manage to pour this same lethal, military grade nerve agent on a door
handle, without wearing a HazMat suit? On the other hand, if he or she was wearing a HazMat suit when performing the operation, wouldn't
someone in Christie Miller Road have noticed and found it – shall we say – a bit odd? If the poison was administered to the door
handle, how exactly did both Sergei and Yulia Skripal manage to touch it (people don't normally both touch the door handle if they
go in the house together), and how did they manage to get exactly the right quantities on their skin so that they collapsed at exactly
the same time, some four hours later? The door handle theory only reared its head some three weeks after the poisoning, at which
point the substance was said to have been still present in a "highly pure" form. During this three weeks, many people went in and
out of Mr Skripal's house using the front door. How did they manage to do so without using the door handle, or if they did, how did
they manage not to succumb to poisoning? Part of the Government's alleged evidence pointing at the high likelihood of Russian involvement
in the case, is an FSB instruction manual showing – amongst other things – how to assassinate someone by pouring Novichok on a door
handle. Suspending our disbelief on this claim for a moment (and admittedly that is hard), did the Government have the manual when
they made their accusations against the Russian Government on 12th and 14th March, and if so, why did the door handle theory not
surface for more than a week after this?
Of course, a few moments consideration about the door handle theory will show that – like the rest of the official story – it
is simply wrong. And because it is so plainly wrong, that is why we can safely say that the real explanation lies elsewhere.
Nevertheless, I am aware that in advancing another explanation, there are likely to be many holes in it too. Whilst much of what
I have said throughout this series has been based on facts and eyewitness statements, the theory I have advanced from those facts
and witness statements remains unproven. And so I would ask that where I have got things wrong, you would forgive me, and where things
don't make sense, you would point them out.
Having said that, what I want to do in this final piece it to tie up a few loose ends and – most particularly – attempt to demonstrate
how the theory I have advanced explains some of the other anomalies in the case in a far more cogent and rational way than does the
official story. So here goes.
The Deafening Silence of Sergei Skripal
One of the least talked about points in the official story, yet one that really is very important, is that if it were a true account,
Mr Skripal would almost certainly have no more clue about who poisoned him than the average person in the street. If it were true
that an unknown assassin, appointed by the Russian Government, poured military-grade nerve agent onto his front door on 4th March,
before fleeing back to the Motherland, Mr Skripal and his daughter, Yulia, would be as much in the dark as to who did it than you
or I.
Now, if that were the case, two things would naturally follow. The first is that Mr Skripal would almost certainly be inclined
to believe the version of events given to him by the Metropolitan Police. Think about it. He wakes up one morning in a strange hospital
bed, and has absolutely no clue why he is there or what happened to him. Then a kindly policeman comes and explains that he was the
target of an assassination attempt using a lethal nerve agent, and that the British Government believes that it was ordered by the
Russian Government. What is he going to believe? Fairly obvious I would think. At least he would have no reason to disbelieve them.
The second thing that would naturally follow is that, as soon as he was able, he would want to release a statement, either on
paper, or in an interview, where he not only pledges his support for the Metropolitan Police and their ongoing investigation, and
no doubt hints at involvement of the Russian State, but also – and this is crucial – where he also gives the public some information
about what actually happened to him on 4th March: where he went, when he first started to feel ill, and what he last remembers.
Again, think about it. If you were in his shoes, wouldn't you want to catch the people who did it? And wouldn't you assume that
the more information you could give to the public, perhaps even clearing up some of the anomalies (such as the reason for the agitation
in Zizzis), the more chance there would be that someone's memory might be jogged and vital information given to the police?
Of course you would. And yet so far, Mr Skripal has released no such statement. Why?
It isn't that he is physically or mentally incapacitated. We know from Yulia Skripal's brief call to her cousin on April 5th (which
almost certainly wasn't "meant" to happen), that Sergei was by that time fine. In response to Viktoria's question about her father,
she said this:
"Everything is ok. He is resting now, having a nap. Everyone's health is fine, there are no irreparable things. I will be discharged
soon. Everything is ok."
That was nearly three months ago, and yet the Sergei Skripal who was fine on 5th April, having suffered no irreparable damage
from apparently being poisoned by the world's most deadly nerve agent, and who was discharged on 18th May, still has not spoken.
I put it that the theory I have advanced (see
Part 5 in
particular), suggests an obvious reason for his silence. Were he in the dark about the identity of those who poisoned him, as the
official story implies, his silence would be inexplicable. Don't you want to catch the perpetrators of this crime upon you and your
daughter, Sergei?
Yet, if we assume that actually he knows exactly who poisoned him and why they poisoned him – as would be the case according to
the theory I have advanced – then his silence is very easily explained. He cannot be allowed to be interviewed about what happened,
because he would blow the whole wretched business clean out of the water. He cannot be allowed to make an open statement, with the
press there to ask free questions, because it would come out that he had been meeting someone at the bench in The Maltings, and that
this someone whom he met was the person who poisoned him.
In addition, his (highly likely) authorship of the Trump Dossier would be revealed. And if this were to happen, not only would
it be seen that the foundation upon which the whole
Trump/Russia collusion hoax was based was made of straw, but it would become clear that the interference in the 2016 US Presidential
election was never really about Russian interference to get Trump elected; but rather about British interference to stop
Trump getting elected.
The deafening silence of Mr Skripal is therefore strong evidence of a number of things:
That the Government story, in which he was the unsuspecting victim of a Kremlin plot, is without foundation. That he well knows who
his poisoners were and why they poisoned him. That he cannot be allowed to speak freely because if he was, a scandal of monumental
proportions would be revealed. The Deafening Silence of Yulia Skripal
Deafening silence of Yulia? What am I talking about? She has released a number of statements through the Metropolitan Police,
and in the statement (not interview) she made to Reuters. So what do I mean?
Many have pointed out a number of remarkable things about her Reuters statement. For one, she looked remarkably well. For another,
the language of the statement she read was highly suggestive that it was first written in English – not by her – and then translated
into Russian (statements like "I do not wish to avail myself of their services" don't normally trip off the tongue of native English
speakers, let alone those who speak it as a second language).
But for me the most remarkable thing about all of her statements are not what they do say, but rather what they don't say. As
with Sergei's silence, Yulia has nothing whatsoever to say about the day of the poisoning. Isn't that odd? She notes that she and
her father survived an "attempted assassination". She notes that a nerve agent was used to do it. But she says nothing about her
and her father's movements that day. Nothing about what they did and where they went. Nothing about when they first succumbed to
the effects of the poisoning. Nothing to suggest that her father's agitation in Zizzis may have been caused by poisoning.
In short, she says nothing whatsoever about the poisoning itself. Zero. Diddly squat. Zilch. Nada. Nothing. Why?
As with Sergei's non-statements, this doesn't compute. If you happened to wake up in a hospital to be told that you had been the
victim of a nerve agent poisoning, you would almost certainly want to tell people as much as possible about your movements up to
the point of the poisoning. Wouldn't you? Of course. Especially if not only you had been poisoned, but also your dad. You'd at least
want to sound a bit more interested in actually catching the perpetrators than Yulia, who didn't so much as mention it, and instead
sounded like she just wanted to move on and forget it ever happened.
Once again, this total silence on something so crucial just doesn't fit at all with the official story. That narrative suggests
that Sergei and Yulia were innocent victims of a Kremlin-hired assassin. That narrative suggests they don't know who that Kremlin-hired
assassin was. But it also suggests that they of all people have a huge interest in giving details of what happened to them that day.
And yet there is silence.
Does it fit better with the theory I have proposed? You bet it does. If what I have suggested is anywhere close to the truth,
just like Sergei, Yulia cannot be allowed the freedom to give a proper interview where any question is allowed. She cannot be given
consular access by the Russian Embassy. Why not? Because she knows what her dad was up to; she knows why he was meeting people at
a park bench on Sunday 4th March; and she knows that the two of them were poisoned by the people who they were meeting.
Why did she agree to an interview? No doubt she realises what a difficult and vulnerable position she is in. Despite claims to
the contrary, she clearly has no contact with her family back in Russia, or indeed any contact with the outside world. She was almost
certainly pressured into making a statement, and yet -- as Tony Kevin convincingly argues
here -- it has many signs of being a compromise statement.
And so she agreed to making a fairly nebulous statement -- one which is almost inconceivable from the point of view of the official
narrative, but which fits perfectly with the narrative I have advanced.
The Deafening Silence of Nick Bailey
One final deafening silence that doesn't exactly do wonders for the official narrative, is the silence of Detective Sergeant Nick
Bailey. He has always been a big puzzle in this case, for a number of reasons. It was first said that he was poisoned at The Maltings.
However, the problem with this explanation is that there was absolutely no reason for him to have been there. The case was treated
by Salisbury District Hospital as a case of Fentanyl poisoning. Why would a member of the Criminal Intelligence Department (CID)
be called to a bench to an apparent opioid overdose?
It was then said by none other than Lord Ian Blair that DS Bailey was actually poisoned at Mr Skripal's house. But again, the
same question arises. Why would a member of CID be sent to the home of a person in a what looked like a case of opioid poisoning?
The story then swung backwards and forwards a number of times between a poisoning at the Maltings and a poisoning at Mr Skripal's
house. These anomalies are very important, but even more important is that they could have been put straight by DS Bailey himself.
If the official story was correct, not only would it have been super easy to have verified where DS Bailey was poisoned, but he himself
could have testified to it. And yet like the Skripals, there has been nothing!
Given the absurd changes to this particular part of the story – and it is perhaps the easiest of all parts to verify – my assumption
is that he was poisoned at neither The Maltings or Mr Skripal's house. Instead, just as I wrote in
Part 5 that
I believe it likely the Skripals were poisoned by an incapacitating nerve agent in the red bag that was then seen next to the bench,
I think it highly likely that DS Bailey was poisoned from the same source.
But where? The red bag was
removed from the scene by a police officer and placed in an evidence bag. Why would this have been done? Because the pair on
the bench were suspected of overdosing on an opioid, and the bag would naturally be removed by police so that its contents could
be examined. And whereas I think it unlikely that someone from CID would be called to the scene of a drug overdose, it seems quite
likely that they might receive and handle evidence taken from such a scene. Therefore my guess – and I stress that it is only a guess
– is that DS Bailey was the man who received the bag, and whilst looking inside to see its contents, was poisoned by the same incapacitating
agent as the Skripals (possibly something like 3-Quinuclidinyl Benzilate (BZ), but definitely not A-234).
Again, if the official story were true, what would prevent DS Bailey from giving a brief statement or interview, confirming exactly
what happened to him? But if the red bag theory is close to the mark, then it becomes plainly obvious why this hasn't yet happened.
Smokes and Mirrors
Which actually brings me on to the penultimate point I want to make in this piece, and indeed in this 6-part series. Everything
in the official story, no matter how absurd, seems designed to point our attention away from the most probable source, place and
type of poisoning: The red bag, at the bench, and an incapacitating nerve agent. And it does so because if our attention is focused
on them, then a very different story begins to emerge. Which cannot be allowed to happen.
As stated above, claims about A-234 being used just don't add up. Neither the time delay, nor the symptoms, nor the recovery of
the Skripals with no irreparable damage match up to what this deadly, military grade, high purity, lethal nerve agent that is so
much more toxic than VX, is meant to do. What the claim does, however, is points our attention away from what is far more likely
– an incapacitating agent administered to the Skripals between 3:45 and 4:00pm on 4th March.
As stated above, claims about the door handle just don't add up. Neither the fact that both Sergei and Yulia were poisoned, nor
the fact that others went in and out of the house before the door handle theory was put forward and didn't succumb, nor the fact
that the substance on it apparently remained of "high purity" weeks later – none of these things make any sense. What the claim does,
however, is directs our thoughts away from what is far more likely – that the substance used to poison the Skripals was administered
at the bench, and probably via the red bag.
The apparent motive put forward in the official narrative doesn't add up either. There is a general agreement among countries
that you do not target spies who have been part of a swap. Why? Because if you do, you can kiss goodbye to ever getting any other
spies swapped in the future. It's called shooting yourself in the foot big time! But what this frankly risible explanation for the
apparent motive behind the poisoning does, however, is to point our attention away from what Mr Skripal was really up to. And as
I set out in
Part 4 , this was very likely something to do with authoring the Trump Dossier.
Nothing about the official story makes sense. None of it adds up. It is riddled with holes. But I would submit that the only thing
that does make sense about it, is that the parts that go to make up the sum are all desperate attempts to divert attention. They
are smokes and mirrors, designed to stop us from considering some of the more obvious aspects of the case, and some of the more startling
aspects of the case – Mr Skripal's involvement with MI6; his likely involvement in or authorship of the Trump Dossier; the likelihood
that he was due to meet people at the bench in The Maltings; the probability that this is why he was agitated and in a hurry in Zizzis;
the likelihood that he knows who poisoned him and why.
And of course the reason that these things are not supposed to be considered is that if – and I acknowledge it is a big if – the
alternative explanation I have advanced is true, and if it became generally known, then it would cause just about the biggest political
crisis in British political history.
And Finally
Having said that, I have to say that I don't believe it at all likely that the British Government knew about any of this before
it occurred. I get the impression that the intelligence agencies on both sides of the Atlantic are a law unto themselves, and I think
it likely that some of their number wanted to send Mr Skripal a message, one which would look like an opioid overdose, one which
he would recover from reasonably quickly, and one which would be forgotten very soon.
However, I don't think that the poisoning of DS Bailey was meant to happen, but when it did, it set off a series of events that
quickly got out of control. I don't think the identity of Sergei Skripal as a Russian involved in a spy swap was ever meant to make
it into the press, but it did and very soon what looked like some kind of opioid poisoning quickly became an international spy saga.
The British Government's reckless and extraordinarily quick reaction to the case was, apart from being a travesty of the rule
of law, one of the biggest clues that the official narrative was not true. If it were true, they could have took their time, acted
calmly, and let the investigation run its course. Instead, what we got was a lawless, irrational and absurd response. It all smacked
of a panicked reaction, and whilst it made no sense in terms of the story they sold us, it makes perfect sense if the truth was that
they were desperate to prevent news getting out about who Skripal really was, what he had been up to, and how the poisoning might
well be connected with that work. And indeed the D-notices they slapped on the reporting of that stuff, and of Mr Skripal's connections
to Christopher Steele and Pablo Miller, are further evidence that it is so.
And so they very quickly decided to turn attention away from the big clues of the case, by invoking the scary sounding "Novichok"
and pinning the blame – without any evidence – on the Russian State. To this date, they have given us no evidence to back up their
claim, much less a suspect, but have unwittingly given us a bunch of absurdities that can be blown out of the water through the use
of simple reason and logic.
They should have remembered this:
"Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap" (Galatians 6:7)
But I have a feeling they don't believe it applies to them. I have a feeling that it does.
And so there's my case. As I say, there are bound to be a good many holes and no doubt many errors and inconsistencies in it.
Please do forgive me for those. As for the rest of it -- Make of it what you will.
' On Friday, Salisbury District Hospital's director of nursing Lorna Wilkinson announced Mr Rowley had been discharged and Public
Health England said he posed no risk to the community She said "I would also like to reassure everyone that, despite many people
seeking advice following these incidents, there have only ever been a total of five people who have been exposed to this nerve
agent and admitted to hospital for treatment"'.
This whole Salisbury saga is a complete riddle. The A&E consultant wrote to the Times saying nobody had ever been treated for
nerve agent poisoning, yet here we are months later and the director of nursing is totally contradicting him. Don't they talk
to each other at Salisbury District Hospital? Or, more likely, was the consultant going off-script?
JudyJ
Ross, Yes, considering Sergei and Yulia were placed in medical comas for several weeks supposedly to aid their recovery, Rowley's
treatment and speedy recovery appear to have inexplicably followed a completely different pattern. With regard to Dr Davies' letter
to the Times, have a look at 'The Blogmire' website where there has been posted in the past two or three days a brief report on
this, followed by interesting reader comments. Rob Slane, who also provides articles for this website, is 'Mr' Blogmire and he
managed to contact Dr Davies but really received less than convincing information.
"400 potentially contaminated items" is absolutely meaningless but sounds good. It is a useful means to imply that the police
are on top of things. Even if they found contamination on any of the items, I'm not sure what it would prove. Basically all they
mean is they have removed everything that Rowley and Sturgess might have touched since some randomly selected vague date or been
told by Rowley was the date he 'acquired' the 'bottle'. It could be all their clothing, everything in the fridge or kitchen cupboards,
everything in the bathroom etc etc If history repeats itself they won't even bother to test the items but will just incinerate
the lot.
D'Esterre
JudyJ: "400 potentially contaminated items"
I was puzzled at this. I remarked to a family member that it looks as if either somebody at Porton Down has been very careless,
or the spooks don't understand subtlety.
Mulga Mumblebrain
The brainwashed morons are impressed by big numbers.
D'Esterre
Jen: " .you have to explain why the UK authorities incinerated the Zizzi's Restaurant table where the Skripals had lunch ."
That's interesting. I hadn't known that. Curious though: if the authorities incinerated the table at which they had lunch,
how is it that the front desk – where presumably they paid the bill – wasn't also incinerated? Come to that, what about whatever
was on the table: cloth, utensils, plates and so on. Also waitstaff and kitchen staff: surely they'd have been contaminated as
well?
Truly, the more we're told about this incident, the more farcical it sounds. Ditto the incident with the unfortunate couple
in Amesbury. None of it makes sense.
Mulga Mumblebrain
When the Western kakistocracies and the Evil psychopaths who comprise them, in politics, the 'intelligence' apparatus and the
fakestream media brainwashing machine, lie about everything to do with Russia ie about Putin's legitimacy, the nature of Russian
society, the 'popularity' of fascist Quislings like Navalny, Russia' role in saving Syria from the takfiri death-squad armies
sent against it, about Russia's non-existent role in Western installation of fascists in power in Kiev, Russian 'meddling' in
US elections etc, etc, etc, on the balance of probabilities it is HIGHLY UNLIKELY that these pathological liars are telling the
truth about the Skripals. Particularly when we know that they are lying in asserting that ONLY Russia could make novichoks, only
Russia had any motive, that only Russia bumps off inconvenient people and that only Russia had anything to gain from it, on the
eve of the FIFA World Cup and with various Sorosian vermin braying that it be cancelled. How utterly galling it must be for these
psychopathic Russophobes that it was the greatest World Cup, on and off the field, for decades, perhaps ever.
Yulia Skripal's agreeing to convey the message concerning her possibly meeting with Russian authorities – "I do not wish to avail
myself of their services" -, raises suspicion that she and her father Sergei Skripal were "in on" an engineered false flag chemical
event from the start. Perhaps others have already done the investigative research and verified Yulia Skripal did indeed undergo
a tracheotomy, the neck scar seemingly over-exposed and the central focus for all who watched her short Reuters "interview". Has
this been confirmed by the doctor(s) who performed the surgical procedure, nurses assisting those surgeon(s) in the operating
room, medical photos, medical records, etc..
If Ms. Skripal indeed underwent surgical tracheotomy, our thought that the neck scar was the result of a covert conspirator
surgeon's making a simple incision and immediately sewing it up – to appear as if Ms. Skripal underwent a lifesaving surgical
procedure -, goes out the window.
Can anyone help in clarifying this? Has it been verified Ms. Skripal underwent the procedure and that her neck scar should
not be perceived as anything other than from a truly necessary lifesaving action?
Thank you.
vexarb
@thorella: "The uk legal system and uk forensics are second to none."
Dr. John Kelly, RIP. Assassinated by MI6 by order of Prime Miniister TB.Liar of Dodgy Dossier, interred without mandatory Crown
Coroners Inquest with Case Sealed for 70 years by order of Lord "Safe Pair of Hands"Hunt of Bloody
Sunday fame, and Dr.Kelly's bodily remains subsequently dug up and incinerated to destroy chemical evidence by order of Prime
Minister St Theresa of Porton Down.
"Second to none" in what?
Jen
The Russian Foreign Ministry and the Russian embassy in London are too busy having a laugh at seeing the whole affair collapse
under its own inconsistencies and at the British government and security services trying to prop up the whole mess and failing
to distract public attention away from the shit-heap that Theresa May has made of Brexit.
Why should the Russians bother commenting on it at all, when we can all see it's a false flag without the Russians having to tell
us?
This is a domestic UK issue about MI6 being out of control.
BigB
The main corroboration for the Steele Dossier was Christopher Steele: briefing the press at the Tabard Inn, Washington – to set
up a collaboration loop. Julian Assange tweeted that one of the journalists was Paul Wood who looks like a spook or an asset himself.
https://mobile.twitter.com/JulianAssange/status/976943588394323973
Another journalists was Michael Isikoff. His planted story war used to collaborate the Dossier as the basis of the FBI's FISA
warrant to surveill Carter Page.
The Nunes Memo also states that Steele back-chanelled additional allegations into the DOJ via Bruce Ohr.
Another corroboration was the Trump Tower meeting: ostensibly set up by Trump linked Araz Agalarov could verify the piss taking
allegations. It's well worth revisiting the Elizabeth Vos Disobedient Media article for background on this meeting set up Mifsud
et al: who are linked to London – not Moscow.
Anyway, all these "experts" – and Wikipedia – seem to have got their information from one source – Steele: who both wrote and
then corroborated his own dossier. With a little help from his intel friends
"Genuine" in the sense that it was really written by a KGB insider (which Skripal was), NOT in the sense that what he alleged
was true.
The point is that the source of the Steele-Clinton dossier would have been revealed and, of course, the source would have been
a proven consummate liar and traitor. This would blow Mueller's "investigation" out of the water.
But I'll not engage with you any further on this, since there's none so blind as those who will not see.
Thomas Peterson
why exactly does it seem likely Skripal was one of Steele's sources? did Steele even need any sources to write his ludicrous 'dossier'?
The Orbis report makes as if it knows all the ins-and-outs and comings-and-goings within Putin's impenetrable Kremlin. It
reports information from anonymous "trusted compatriots," "knowledgeable sources," "former intelligence officers," and "ministry
of foreign affairs officials." The report gives a fly-on-the-wall account of just about every conceivable event associated with
Donald Trump's Russian connections. It claims to know more than is knowable as it recounts sordid tales of prostitutes, "golden
showers," bribes, squabbles in Putin's inner circle, and who controls the dossiers of kompromat (compromising information).
There are two possible explanations for the fly-on-the-wall claims of the Orbis report: Either its author (who is not Mr. Steele)
decided to write fiction, or collected enough gossip to fill a 30-page report, or a combination of the two. The author of the
Orbis report has one more advantage: He knew that what he was writing was unverifiable. He advertises himself as the only Kremlin
outsider with enough "reliable" contacts to explain what is really going within Putin's office.
As someone who has worked for more than a decade with the microfilm collection of Soviet documents in the Hoover Institution
Archives, I can say that the dossier itself was compiled by a Russian, whose command of English is far from perfect and who
follows the KGB (now FSB) practice of writing intelligence reports, in particular the practice of capitalizing all names for easy
reference. The report includes Putin's inner circle – Peskov, Ivanov, Sechin, Lavrov. The anonymous author claims to have "trusted
compatriots" who knew the roles that each Kremlin insider, including Putin himself, played in the Trump election saga and were
prepared to tell him.
The Orbis report spins the tale of Putin insiders, spurred on by Putin himself, engaging in a five-year courtship of Donald
Trump in which they offer him lucrative real estate deals that he rejects but leaves himself open to blackmail as a result of
sexual escapades with prostitutes in St. Petersburg and Moscow (the famous "golden shower" incident). Despite his reluctance to
enter into lucrative business deals, Trump "and his inner circle have accepted regular intelligence from the Kremlin, including
on his Democratic and other political rivals," according to the Orbis report.
This story makes no sense. In 2011, when the courtship purportedly begins, Trump was a TV personality and beauty pageant
impresario. Neither in the U.S. or Russia would anyone of authority anticipate that Trump would one day become the presidential
candidate of a major U.S. political party, making him the target of Russian intelligence.
Sergei Skripal could fit the description of the "Russian" referred to in the third paragraph.
Thomas Peterson
I don't assume it. I see no reason to think Skripal had anything to do with the dossier. More likely in my view the sources, if
there were any, were Ukrainians and Americans.
There's a stink of Ukraine about it.
Mulga Mumblebrain
After a history of intelligence lying in the West that includes the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, the Warren Commission, 'yellow rain'
in Indochina, KAL 007, Lockerbie, Kuwaiti babies thrown from incubators, the USS Liberty, Saddam's WMD, Gaddafi's 'container-loads
of Viagra', MH17, the Russian 'invasion of Georgia', the Russian 'invasion of Ukraine', the Tian An Men Square 'massacre' etc
(I could go on ALL day), to credit ANYTHING that Western intelligence agencies state is sign either of intractable dementia, or
duplicity-or both, probably.
Jen
Yes I suppose a document based mostly on hearsay, rumour and guesswork, and with an accuracy of 60 – 70% (where? in spelling?),
ought to be taken seriously – to the kitty litter box.
I mentioned Paul Roderick Gregory and Craig Murray as two people who dismissed the dossier as fraudulent. What "experts" can
you put forward, GB, who support the dossier's contents as genuine or accurate? I suppose you think Luke Daniel Harding and Eliot
Higgins might qualify as experts supporting the dossier's contents as more or less accurate?
Jen
Gregory says the dossier fails the laugh test and is full of bizarre statements. Murray regards it as equivalent to the Hitler
Diaries hoax. Where do they not find anything wrong in the dossier?
bevin
If all that you have to go on for now is a dossier put together by a mercenary for the use of a political party in attack ads,
produced at great expense, and totally unsourced and uncorroborated, the world is in a worse way than you fear.
Or perhaps, it's not the world but you?
Mulga Mumblebrain
The utterly fraudulent 'dossier' was also used to gain an illegal FISA warrant to spy on the Trump campaign, as part of the conspiracy
to derail Trump's electoral bid, elect the blood-soaked feminazi Gorgon, Clinton, and further the hate campaign against Russia.
Three miles from Amesbury, six miles from Salisbury. 'Porton Down is the elephant in the room': former British ambassador who
visited Nukus plant where Novichok was tested, Craig Murray dismantles Amesbury poisoning
story on BCFMradio,
Porton Down : What is the experimental government facility in Wiltshire at the centre of recent poisonings?
The secretive laboratory has unintentionally become key in political developments and international relations
The major incident in Amesbury saw two people poisoned by the same nerve agent that almost killed the Skripals, government
scientists have confirmed. The attack turns attention once more to Porton Down, the mysterious laboratory that has unintentionally
become central to the response to the attacks.
The secretive government facility at Porton Down has been used for experiments involving deadly and often undisclosed weapons,
and in the wake of the Salisbury attack has become indelibly associated with the nerve agent used in the attack. The Met – whose
counter-terror police are now leading the investigation – confirmed that samples had been tested at the facility and that they
showed "show the two people have been exposed to the nerve agent Novichok".
Porton Down is often talked about in the singular, but is actually a site located near Porton village that is host to a whole
group of different organisations. The two key ones are the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory, which is run by the Ministry
of Defence and usually referred to as Dstl, as well as Public Health England – both bodies have been involved in the response
to the recent poisonings, though it is the former laboratory whose activity is most mysterious.
Bullingdon Boris resigns, feigns matters of principle, limbers up for the top job he was promised at Eton. As 1922 committee
cheers for Theresa May ring out to the rafters, British government prepares for controlled demolition.
Three miles from Amesbury, six miles from Salisbury. 'Porton Down is the elephant in the room': former British ambassador who
visited #Nukus plant where #novichok was tested, Craig Murray dismantles #Amesbury poisoning story
https://youtu.be/LbbxNkPDNrQ on @BCFMradio
Porton Down: What is the experimental government facility in Wiltshire at the centre of recent poisonings?
The secretive laboratory has unintentionally become key in political developments and international relations
The major incident in Amesbury saw two people poisoned by the same nerve agent that almost killed the Skripals, government
scientists have confirmed. The attack turns attention once more to Porton Down, the mysterious laboratory that has unintentionally
become central to the response to the attacks.
The secretive government facility at Porton Down has been used for experiments involving deadly and often undisclosed weapons,
and in the wake of the Salisbury attack has become indelibly associated with the nerve agent used in the attack. The Met – whose
counter-terror police are now leading the investigation – confirmed that samples had been tested at the facility and that they
showed "show the two people have been exposed to the nerve agent Novichok".
Porton Down is often talked about in the singular, but is actually a site located near Porton village that is host to a whole
group of different organisations. The two key ones are the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory, which is run by the Ministry
of Defence and usually referred to as Dstl, as well as Public Health England – both bodies have been involved in the response
to the recent poisonings, though it is the former laboratory whose activity is most mysterious.
Bullingdon Boris resigns, feigns matters of principle, limbers up for the top job he was promised at Eton. As 1922 committee
cheers for Theresa May ring out to the rafters, British government prepares for controlled demolition.
There's another source of "deadly silence".
A doctor was reported (by the BBC on 8th May) to have given CPR to Julia for 30 minutes without being contaminated by the "novichok".
Indeed, the doctor reported to the BBC that she 'felt fine' afterwards.
No-one has seen nor heard from this doctor since, yet a doctor should be easy enough to trace.
mike nagel
Considering the mendacity of the media on this and other matters has anyone considered the possibility that no poisoning of any
kind took place in March? The whole story has been a giant load of road apples from day one. What we are expected to swallow by
the powers that be cannot possibly be so, perhaps the Skripals never sat on that bench in the first place.
I certainly have. My favourite part of the fairy tale is the cat and two guinea pigs.
Yonatan
The 'door handle' theory only arose as a means of explaining how the policeman was contaminated. He was allegedly present soon
after the Skripals were found, and became contaminated, while others, including a doctor who closely examined the Skripals, did
not. Occam's Razor suggests that the Skripals and the policeman were affected at the same time before other witnesses were present.
This implies that the policeman was a witness to the attack.
summitflyer
Thank you Rob Slane for this study of the Skripal case.As an outsider from another country I am grateful for your work .Your assumptions
are far more likely than what we have heard from the government officials .As ugly as the truth of the matter might be , it would
be better if they found a way to fess up .At this point it does not look good for the UK credibility .
Paul X
I'm intrigued by why the White House or the Administrstion hasn't asked why an ex-Senior spy, Steele, was given permission by
the British Secret Service to write his dossier at all, based as it was purportedly on his time as Head of the Russia Desk at
MI6, let alone pass it over to the Democrats while carefully leaking it to the media all with Steele's stated opinion that he'd
do anything to stop Trump getting elected. It's clear why the US Intelligence Services are unconcerned, they also deplored Trump's
election but why is there nothing about British interference in the election from Trump himself? Is it a row he's saving up or
does it does show that Trump v the Dark State is rubbish, they are all in it together?
The poisonings were most probably organised by the state within the state. This speech although almost twenty years old gives
some idea of the powers of the deep state and how the government relates to them http://zersetzen.wikispaces.com/file/view/Gerald+Reaveley+James.pdf
Paul X
Who knows whether the British had a motive to incapacitate Sergei and then keep him in custody so it's hard to see how it can
be said so categorically. If Sergei was serious about returning to Russia to see his mother before she died (a not unnatural sentiment
especially for such a sentimental man) then there may have been very pressing reasons to keep him here, notably what he would
say in his inevitable 'de-briefing' by ex-colleagues. It isn't denied that he continued to work with MI6 and may have had a hand
in the Steele dossier. Julia's arrival seems to have moved the game forward and 'action' became imperative. The story itself has
the hall marks of Eton and Trinity, a good 'wheeze'. Hastily put together it would have unraveled immediately without the D Notice.
Now they have to decide whether they can dare let either of them have their freedom; Julia has a long life ahead; is she to be
held incommunicado for decades?
I don't know if it has been asked before, but: why poison Yulia Skripal anyway? If this was some sort of professional hit, it
was very badly timed, given that Yulia was only visiting her father.
I personally do not believe that any of these 5 people had been poisoned by a nerve agent. And by that I mean an organophosphate
compound. BZ is not that class of compound. (I have a degree in chemistry).
Those compounds are exceedingly toxic. If their use (or rather non-use) is military then they must kill enemy troops quickly
and with minimal amount. Speed is crucial. Semi conscious enemy soldiers are dangerous.
What I find frustrating is that – because we are being so cynically lied to by our government – we have been seriously misled
about the toxicity of these chemicals. You really don't stand any sort of chance if you are poisoned by them.
Paul X
Julia's boyfriend is apparently in the Russian Secret Service and his mother is a senior figure in Russian Intelligence. She may
have been passing on Putin's reply to Sergei's request to return home to visit his seriously ill elderly mother? He was irritable
because he'd realised he'd have to decide, UK or Russia. And if it was to be Russia then he knew he'd have to spill the beans
on Steele; tough decision! I agree it would be odd to target her if she was 'just' his daughter on a brief visit. Julia may have
been as much a target as her father?
Paul Carline
If they were poisoned by a 'Novichok' nerve agent they would be dead.
Who 'identified' the supposed Novichok? Porton Down.
Who provided the sample for the OPCW? Porton Down.
Who has stocks of all known nerve agents? Porton Down.
Can the OPCW be trusted? No.
Can Brad Pitte II be trusted? No.
George
"The Western forces conspired to do it" = "conspiracy stuff".
"The Russian forces conspired to do it" = "not conspiracy stuff".
When is a conspiracy not a conspiracy?
bevin
Whether "Russia" had a motive is moot. But there is no evidence that "Russia" had any particular means than any other potential
culprit, such as MI6.
As to'precedent' the number of assassinations carried out abroad by Russian intelligence pales in comparison with those carried
out by Military Intelligence in the UK, the CIA and Mossad.
You are reduced to citing the very unlikely 'precedent' of Litivenko which every effort of The Establishment has failed to produce
anything more than a meaningless finding by a tame High Court judge. No legal proceedings have discovered any connection between
the death and the Russian state.
On the other hand 'western' intelligence agencies are notoriously engaged in assassinations and have been on an industrial scale
for seventy years. Cf The Committee chaired by Senator Church.
Let's see. An MI6 spy, known to be still actively working on MI6 deception, is involved in an incident in which a claim is made
that he's been poisoned with a deadly nerve agent by the Russians, which is disputed by hospital staff and Porton Down people
behind the scenes, and can't be checked out by investigative journalists in the mainstream media, because there aren't any investigative
journalists in the mainstream media, and immediately the Government knows that Russia did it. Doesn't that suggest to you that
Mr Skripal may have been part of the set-up right from the start?
As for his daughter, is that the same Yulia Skripal in the pictures after the event as the one in the restaurant before the
event?
Cherrycoke
Of course, Christopher Steele was also involved in the Litvinenko case:
"Steele's already dim view of the Kremlin darkened in November, 2006, when Alexander Litvinenko, a former Russian K.G.B. officer
and a Putin critic who had been recruited by M.I.6, suffered an agonizing death in a London hospital, after drinking a cup of
tea poisoned with radioactive polonium-210. Moscow had evidently sanctioned a brazen murder in his own country. Steele was put
in charge of M.I.6's investigation. Authorities initially planned to indict one suspect in the murder, but Steele's investigative
work persuaded them to indict a second suspect as well."
Did Steele develop a 'dark view' of Thanatopolis DC after the years of rendition and torture, the illegal aggression and genocide
in Iraq, or the carnage of the drone missile terrorism, or the death-squad 'night raid' rampage by US Special Forces. If not,
why not?
Circumstances unknown and withheld from public knowledge oblige people in 'power' or positions of influence under such power to
act in ways that make no sense to anyone with sense.
News for mass consumption is a sideshow but also a conditioning to remain inside the framing of a narrative identity. The 'Western
intelligence' could not do a better job of damaging their credibility by the WAY they operate as well as the what of it.
However "No one understood better than Stalin that the true object of propaganda is neither to convince nor even to persuade,
but to produce a uniform pattern of public utterance in which the first trace of unorthodox thought immediately reveals itself
as a jarring dissonance." (Alan Bullock, in Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives).
While the what of it can be tested to some degree for congruency with itself and with all the factors involved, the WAY of
it speaks of either desperation of from a conviction that intellectual criticism is powerless in a post truth coup.
My sense is of either the leadership class being captive to powers they do not feel able to challenge or are cornered in some
way by their circumstance so as not to have any other recourse than – in this case – stirring up hatred in incitement to violence
with Russia. This could all be a brinkmanship of geopolitical 'poker' or it could be that the only 'escape' from such a mess as
we inherit and persist in is war.
My sense is that when we cannot or will not embrace change somewhat 'gracefully' or in some willingness – then we give power
to whatever external 'crisis' ripens to force it – and seek to 'survive' at the expense of those we abandoned or indeed conscripted
or made into targets for WMD.
Dictating terms to a world of 'united states' under broad spectrum dominance of a tyrannous rule is not justified by 'symbols
and stories' of freedom.
National and International security rests on honest communication, backed by supporting deeds so as to grow trust in place
of treachery. No one has a clean past, but if we persist in re-enacting it, we will forsake the presence of mind by which to choose
not to.
The nature of politics has had all its goalposts moved to a rigged system of finance and law that pre-empt any movement of
cultural development apart from corporate capture – and allow that corporations have only the power given them by such a systemic
'development'. No one HAS power but for an agenda larger than their own usefulness.
Worldly power has always operated a narrative control at some level – but technology has 'outsourced' our own will and consciousness
to systems and machinery of our own attempt and intent to replace Life with our own making. I see a larger 'script' than power
struggle – or rather I see an awakening 'script' running beneath the narrative identity conflict.
Whether we have a fated outcome or make our own (under a fatal condition), the framing of the physicalised sense of self is
the 'life in the world'. But this framing is not itself physical so much as conditioned association and reflex that is hidden
from sight while we engage within its framing as a sense of personal struggle under and driven by 'necessity' of survival in the
terms we set or are forcefully and fearfully identified in.
Deceit is simply a weapon in a world of war – including the claiming of a moral high ground whenever it suits an invalidating
of the 'other'. Loss of communication, trust and therefore integrity is the state of a lack of substance. However, 'claiming the
moral high ground' as a personal right to power is the same old story. The complexities of deceits and entanglements increase
with the persistence of identities and investments in them – which of course run as 'self-evident reality' by reactions that embody
the beliefs.
Western News Agencies Mistranslate Iran's President Speech - It Is Not The First Time
Such 'Error' HappensJOHN CHUCKMAN , Jun 26, 2019 2:10:12
PM |
23
Yesterday the news agencies Associated Press and Reuters mistranslated a
speech by Iran's President Hassan Rouhani. They made it sound as if Rouhani insulted U.S.
President Donald Trump as 'mentally retarded'. Rouhani never said that.
Iran's conservative new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, said Wednesday that Israel must be
"wiped off the map" and that attacks by Palestinians would destroy it, the ISNA press
agency reported.
...
Referring to comments by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the leader of the Islamic revolution,
Ahmadinejad said, "As the imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map."
Ever since he spoke at an anti-Zionism conference in Tehran last October, President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad of Iran has been known for one statement above all. As translated by news
agencies at the time, it was that Israel "should be wiped off the map." Iran's nuclear
program and sponsorship of militant Muslim groups are rarely mentioned without reference to
the infamous map remark.
Here, for example, is R. Nicholas Burns, the under secretary of state for political
affairs, recently: "Given the radical nature of Iran under Ahmadinejad and its stated wish
to wipe Israel off the map of the world, it is entirely unconvincing that we could or
should live with a nuclear Iran."
"Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to wipe Israel off the map because no such idiom
exists in Persian," remarked Juan Cole, a Middle East specialist at the University of
Michigan and critic of American policy who has argued that the Iranian president was
misquoted. "He did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying
Jerusalem, would collapse." Since Iran has not "attacked another country aggressively for
over a century," he said in an e-mail exchange, "I smell the whiff of war propaganda."
Jonathan Steele, a columnist for the left-leaning Guardian newspaper in London, recently
laid out the case this way: "The Iranian president was quoting an ancient statement by
Iran's first Islamist leader, the late Ayatollah Khomeini, that 'this regime occupying
Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time,' just as the Shah's regime in Iran had
vanished. He was not making a military threat. He was calling for an end to the occupation
of Jerusalem at some point in the future. The 'page of time' phrase suggests he did not
expect it to happen soon."
Despite the above
and other explanations the false "wipe Israel off the map" translation never died. Years
later it still reappeared in Guardian pieces which required it to issuemultiple
corrections and clarifications.
Now, as the Trump administration is pushing for war on Iran, a similar mistranslation
miraculously happened. It were again 'western' news agencies who lightened the fire:
A lot of Western media is reporting that Iranian President Rouhani called Trump
"mentally retarded." This is inaccurate.
Regarding Trump, he just said "no wise person would take such an action [the new sanctions
imposed]."
Absolutely incorrect. There is a word for "retarded" in Persian & Rouhani didn't use
it. Prior to him saying "mental disability" he even prefaced his comment by saying "mental
weakness." Those who speak Persian can listen & judge for themselves. Here is a video
clip of Rouhani's comment: link
Iran leadership doesn't understand the words "nice" or "compassion," they never have.
Sadly, the thing they do understand is Strength and Power, and the USA is by far the most
powerful Military Force in the world, with 1.5 Trillion Dollars invested over the last two
years alone..
....The wonderful Iranian people are suffering, and for no reason at all. Their
leadership spends all of its money on Terror, and little on anything else. The U.S. has not
forgotten Iran's use of IED's & EFP's (bombs), which killed 2000 Americans, and wounded
many more...
.... Iran's very ignorant and insulting statement , put out today, only shows that they
do not understand reality. Any attack by Iran on anything American will be met with great
and overwhelming force. In some areas, overwhelming will mean obliteration. No more John
Kerry & Obama!
Reuters , which also peddled the mistranslation, gleefully
connected the dots :
This follows in the footsteps of a rich history of mistranslating and obfuscating which is
rarely, if ever, corrected by our Guardians of Truth. I will not hold my breath for AP to
pull its tweet out issue any sort of correction. The war machine is revving up, truth be
damned.
To add a few obfuscations to the list of mistranslations: the Palestinian intifada. Sounds
scary, no? Violence against the benevolent Israelis. Because what does intifada actually
mean? Uprising, which by its nature suggests oppression, something which just 'can't' be
happening in Palestine, hence the need for intifada.
Or take jihad, 'a pillor' of Islam. Again, very scary, as jihad 'means' suicide bombs and
killing infidels. What the Guardians of Truth never mention is that jihad in Islam is a very,
very broad term that includes such things as helping the poor or less fortunate, educating
oneself, quiet reflection, and prayer. Jihad as meaning 'holy war' was a sense meaning
derived much later than the founding of the religion, as a reaction to very real threats to
believers of the time, the Crusades and Mongol invasions. That this specific sense meaning
was essentially confined to history afterward, only to be revived by Wahhabists and takfiris,
and one not believed in by the vast majority of Muslims, is never explained. 'Cause all them
crazy Muslims believe in jihad!
In all cases where the boogeyman of the day needs concocting, rest assured the
'mainstream' press, with AP in the lead, will be there to build a gleaming edifice mistruths,
omissions, and lies.
In approximately 17 months, the american public can make strides to fix this mess.
I guess that is a long time for the iranians, but still maybe best option.
Just in case there is any doubt in American minds here is the Israeli Ambassador to the UN.
He thinks the sanctions are working well. Iran is panicking.
They mistranslate Trump all the time, or they spin what he says. It is amazing to watch.
For instance, at the Helsinki meeting, where he met with Putin and they discussed multiple
topics, but the press ignored any topic but demanding that Trump denounce Putin and "admit"
that Putin helped him steal the election, and that he was therefore not the legitimate
president.
Obviously, Trump was not going to say that, so he said that he was the legitimate
president, and the mockingbird media spun that into "the president is a traitor to America
because he said that 17 national intelligence agencies are lying".
.....The ministers lie, the professors lie, the television lies,
the priests lie .
These lies mean that the country wants to die.
Lie after lie starts out into the prairie grass,
like enormous caravans of Conestoga wagons .
And a long desire for death flows out, guiding the
enormous caravans from beneath,
stringing together the vague and foolish words.
It is a desire to eat death,
to gobble it down,
to rush on it like a cobra with mouth open
It's a desire to take death inside,
to feel it burning inside, pushing out velvety hairs,
like a clothes brush in the intestines --
This is the thrill that leads the President on to lie....
Robert Bly, The Teeth Mother Naked at Last, originally published by City Lights books
1970
Maybe the translation is inacurate but the message had the expected reaction from Trump:
Tweet furor.
It is good that Trump realizes that he does not have the monopole of insulting leaders.
The USA is a country that since WWII has never won any war. How could it give a lesson to
Iran who won a 8 years war against Iraq despite the support that the USA, the Gulf countries
and Western countries gave to Iraq.
Loud noise and indecisive actions: The disaster of the USA foreign policy
I remember watching CNN translate Khamenei's "Nuclear Power" to "Nuclear Weapons" right on
live TV in 2013. This is not new.
/div> Virgile "The USA is a country that since WWII has never won any war".
The US won a war against Grenada [population 95,000] I would go so far as to say they whupped
ass. True there were only 64 Cuban soldiers there [security guards] All members of the US armed
forces were involved and 5,000 medals were given out. Ra Ra USA.
Posted by: Harry Law , Jun 26, 2019 5:29:37 PM |
50
Virgile "The USA is a country that since WWII has never won any war". The US won a war
against Grenada [population 95,000] I would go so far as to say they whupped ass. True there
were only 64 Cuban soldiers there [security guards] All members of the US armed forces were
involved and 5,000 medals were given out. Ra Ra USA.
Posted by: Harry Law | Jun 26, 2019 5:29:37 PM |
50
b-
I am a Persian speaker and is true that president Rouhani never said Trump is retarded, we
now have way passed the point that insults can matte. Nevertheless it was better if President
Rouhani would have called Trump and the rest of the ruling US regime like what the whole
world has now come to understand, a true and unique collection of retards on a shining hill.
Reminds me of when Nikita Khruschev attempted to explain in 1956 his view that that
capitalism would destroy itself from within by quoting Marx: "What the bourgeoisie therefore
produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers." This was notoriously
mistranslated into English as "We will bury you", as if the Soviets were out to kill all
westerners themselves. Of course this mistranslated was quoted time and time again in western
media, fueling Cold War paranoia for years to come.
blue @ 19 The news media are wedded to the state which is wedded to the banking system which
are all subsidiaries of global capitalism. They don't need to correct themselves. They may
have the occasional family feud, but they're all on the same team. They will admit to
"mistakes" being made, but only long after it makes no difference.
We have a FREE PRESS in America-Pravda on the Potomac, Izvestia on the Hudson.
Have a look sometime at the Venn Diagrams that portray the overlapping/interlocking
memberships of the regulatory/financial/corporate leadership class.
But more than that, whatever the idea of a free press once meant, with the rise of digital
corporate networking "platforms", not subject to any accountability, the barriers to entry of
any competing narratives to the mainstream discourse are nearly insurmountable. Except maybe
through subversion?
What is missing is a true public 'Marketplace of Ideas'
The deliberate mis-translations of non-english speaking "adversaries" of the US is common in
the msm. Putin is frequently and deliberately mis-translated to make him appear dictatorial
and aggressive.
I listened to Rohani's speech. He said that if JCPOA is bad, it is bad for all parties; and
if it is good, it is good for all parties. They cannot expect for JCPOA to be bad for them
and good for us. They withdrew from the JCPOA and expect us to stay with the agreement. This
is what he meant when he said: White house has been affected by mental inability and mental
disability.
ADKC
Iran is at war. US and gang are trying to destroy Iran as a nation. The biggest asset in
times of war is deception. Used by both the attacker and the attacked.
Khamenei
has Tweeted a series of tweets, and his scribe has posted what he tweeted along with
other words
at his website in English so there's no mistranslation. Here's one of the series of 6:
"The graceful Iranian nation has been accused & insulted by world's most vicious
regime, the U.S., which is a source of wars, conflicts & plunder. Iranian nation won't
give up over such insults. Iranians have been wronged by oppressive sanctions but not
weakened & remain powerful."
They were made 14+ hours ago, yet I'm the first to post notice of them here?!
The USA government excels at propaganda. It always has. Doesn't matter if it babies and
incubators, mistranslated leaders of targeted countries, or supposed mass graves. BTW... what
ever happened to all those mass graves in Iraq? HRW was going to dig them all up and document
them. Hundreds of thousands. Most Americans I talk to still believe in this. Was it true?
Saddam himself had claimed it wasn't true. That it was Kurdish propaganda to gain sympathy.
He claimed the Anfal campaign was only to push the Kurds off the border so he could control
arms smuggling and that casualties were minimal. Looking into the search. They are graves
with a few hundred here and there but where are the rest of the bodies? If you google Iraq
mass graves there are more articles about ISIS mass graves than the Anfal campaign. There
were people killed in the South during the Shia uprising after the first gulf war than there
was for the Anfal campaign. Was that a lie too? Nearly every American believes it still.
PM admits graves claim 'untrue'
Peter Beaumont, foreign affairs editor
Downing Street has admitted to The Observer that repeated claims by Tony Blair that
'400,000 bodies had been found in Iraqi mass graves' is untrue, and only about 5,000 corpses
have so far been uncovered.
The claims by Blair in November and December of last year, were given widespread credence,
quoted by MPs and widely published, including in the introduction to a US government pamphlet
on Iraq's mass graves.
In that publication - Iraq's Legacy of Terror: Mass Graves produced by USAID, the US
government aid distribution agency, Blair is quoted from 20 November last year: 'We've
already discovered, just so far, the remains of 400,000 people in mass graves.'
Anyone who can undestand Farsi ( Persian language) can litsen Rouhani's speech. He did not
name "Trump", he said " White House".
I have been watching CNN news channel who said that Rouhani made a personal attack on Trump!
That was not true.
There was no personal attack on Rouhani's speech.
Importantly, the context of the speech and conclusion is diffent from western media reports
and western translations.
I would like give few links of some Iranian news agencies, reporting Rouhani's speech for
International use, as reference here:
1) FrasNews Agency
Rouhani said:
"These days, we see the White House in confusion and we are witnessing undue and
ridiculous words and adoption of a scandalous policy,"
..."The US sanctions are crime against humanity. The US recent measures indicate their
ultimate failure. The new US measures are the result of their frustration and confusion over
Iran. The White House has mental disability,"
Le président iranien, affirmant que les États-Unis, malgré de
nombreuses tentatives de pression exercées par divers leviers sur l'Iran, ont
échoué dans leurs objectifs, a poursuivi : "Une étrange frustration et
une grande confusion règnent au sein du Corps dirigeant de la Maison Blanche. Ils se
sentent déçus car ils n'ont obtenu aucun résultat, ils s'attendaient
à voir l'Iran brisé dans l'espace de quelques mois, mais ils ont fini par
constater que les Iraniens agissent de plus en plus fermement, de manière plus
créative que jamais ".
The president also decried the new US sanctions against Iran, saying the White House has
been thrown into confusion as its officials are making "inappropriate and ridiculous"
comments and adopting the policy of disgrace.
Wow that's amazing! Probably the best known Khrushchev 'quote', presented as evidence of
his boorish nature, is an intentional mistranslation. And the Marx quote is not exactly
obscure, it's from Chapter 1 of the Communist Manifesto for eff sake! At least it makes a
change from the 'lets just make things up' cottage industry of Lenin & Stalin
'quotes'.
"A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its
shoes."
Mark Twain (or some other student of wisdom)
... https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/26/books/famous-misquotations.html
Apr 26, 2017 - Mark Twain is one of many who gets credit for famous quotations he never wrote
or said. ... credited with saying "a lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth
is still putting on its shoes" ... Proverbial wisdom, in which a quotation is elevated to the
status of a proverb because its source is unknown;.
Circe , Jun 27, 2019 10:19:52 AM |
136Noirette , Jun 27, 2019 10:50:17 AM |
137
Mistranslations are a classical cheap n easy way to sway opinion.
Interesting that the examples b quotes, and most of those promoted currently by the
US-uk-eu, afaik, understand, are intended to project into the voice of Iranians, Russians,
Syrians, utterances, declarations, to be labelled insults, slander, threats, impropriety,
even rage, coming from these parties, as
there is nothing much else to display!
(Spanish is too comprehensible > does not apply to Mexico, Cuba, S. America.)
Often cultural matters play a role, but are ignored. Ahmadinejad was endlessly vilified
and mocked by the W-MSM for saying what was translated as there are no homosexuals in
Iran (no idea what the original formulation was) - which 'obviously' can't be 'true.'
Besides homosexuality being unacceptable in conservative rule-books, Iran is, or was (to
2010) above (or with) Thailand the no. 1. practitioner / destination for sex change
operations. Iran had super educated docs, great hospitals, etc.
Ahmadinejad was relying on a kind of fundamentalist principle where the 'soul' or the
'essential quality' of a person is what is tantamount, what counts above all. The physical
manifestation, here the human body, can be transformed to be in harmony with the deep-felt or
'innately' ascribed orientation or 'spirit.' So, no homosexuals in Iran, or only a few who
are in 'transition.' (Not denying real suffering of gays in Iran, other story.)
The W, in first place the US, is doing precisely the same with its 'gender change'
promotion, as applied to children and young teens. Here too, 'feelings' and 'identity'
override 'nature' : the physical can be overturned, overcome, fixed.
Such cultural issues play a role in mis-translations, deliberate or not. It may appear
that I wandered far off topic, I just picked a topical comprehensible ex. Sharia law is more
complex..
I am gross and perverted
I'm obsessed 'n deranged
I have existed for years
But very little has changed
I'm the tool of the Government
And industry too
For I am destined to rule
And regulate you
I may be vile and pernicious
But you can't look away
I make you think I'm delicious
With the stuff that I say
I'm the best you can get
Have you guessed me yet?
I'm the slime oozin' out
From your TV set
You will obey me while I lead you
And eat the garbage that I feed you
Until the day that we don't need you
Don't go for help . . . no one will heed you
Your mind is totally controlled
It has been stuffed into my mold
And you will do as you are told
Until the rights to you are sold
The accusation played important role in unleashing neo-McCartyism campaign in the USA. So "The Moor has done his duty. The Moor
can go ...."
Notable quotes:
"... Russian information troll farm the Internet Research Agency spent just 0.05 percent as much on Facebook ads as Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump's campaigns combined in the run-up to the 2016 U.S. presidential election, yet still reached a massive audience. While there might have been other Russian disinformation groups, the IRA spent $46,000 on pre-election day Facebook ads compared to $81 million spent by Clinton and Trump together, discluding political action committees who could have spent even more than that on the campaigns' behalf. ..."
"... So, the Lilliputian Russians, spending a pittance compared to the Goliaths of the Clinton and Trump campaigns, was the deciding factor in 2016? Bullshit. ..."
"... The pathetic and laughable U.S. intelligence community (aka IC) did not do a state-by-state breakdown of how these various social media campaigns operated in those states that swung the election to Trump. ..."
"... the IC is completely silent on the efforts of other countries, such as China and Israel. ..."
"... I had my own experience with Russian media influence, or the lack of such influence to be more precise. I was interviewed on Russia Today aka RT on March 4, 2017 to comment on Donald Trump's claim that the FBI had wiretapped Trump Towers. During that interview I noted that the Brits, not the FBI, were ones doing electronic surveillance of Trump. And how did the public and the media react to that bomb shell pronouncement by me? Crickets. No reaction. ..."
"... The crazy insistence that Russia grossly interfered in our 2016 election is a canard. Too bad the vast majority of America has bought into this absurd nonsense. Yes, there were groups linked to the Russian government that were pushing stories on social media. ..."
"... I think Iran/Contra was the watershed moment. The CIA became very politicized and the quality of analysis and spy trade craft declined significantly. John Brennan turned the place into a freak show. When you have "Dykes on Bikes" day at CIA Headquarters you know you have lost your way. ..."
"... Not only is the IC community discredited but so should most of the Democratic media operations and campaign advisors. ..."
Republicans and Democrats, along with almost all of the media, have accepted the lie that
the Russians engaged in unprecedented "interference" in the 2016 Presidential election. It is a
ridiculous proposition and is based on a presumption rather than actual evidence. The Intel
Community said it is true so, by definition, it must be true.
Let's focus on the actual numbers. How much money did the Russians spend? According to
Robert Mueller, $1.25
million per month . If you start that money clock in May of 2016, that means those pesky
Rookies spent $8.75 million. But let us be generous and add on the previous four months,
essentially starting the clock in January 2016 before the first primary votes. That brings the
total to $13 million.
Russian information troll farm the Internet Research Agency spent just 0.05 percent as much
on Facebook ads as
Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump's campaigns combined in the run-up to the 2016 U.S.
presidential election, yet still reached a massive audience. While there might have been other
Russian disinformation groups, the IRA spent $46,000 on pre-election day Facebook ads compared
to $81 million spent by Clinton and Trump together, discluding political action committees who
could have spent even more than that on the campaigns' behalf.
Trump and Clinton, when you factor in their various political action committees, spent
millions more.
A fuller analysis of the spending on the major social media platforms was provided by
Medium.com :
Surprisingly, Clinton's campaign was overall more active on Twitter and on Facebook than
Trump's , generating 19 percent more messages (11,475 messages by Clinton to 9,390 by Trump).
On Facebook, Clinton generated 500 more messages than Trump. While Trump's tweets seemed to
garner more news coverage, Clinton's campaign was actually substantially more active on social
media, generating 25 messages a day on average to Trump's 20.
Yet, Trump's social media following was larger than Clinton's . In November 2015, Clinton
had 1.7 million followers on Facebook. By Election Day that had grown to 8.4 million, a 394
percent increase. Trump had 4.2 million Followers on Facebook in November 2015. By Election
Day, that number jumped to 12.35 million, a 194 percent increase. So, while Clinton saw a
greater increase, Trump still had nearly 4 million more followers. . . .
All of this suggests that while Clinton's campaign was overall more active on its social
media accounts, it did not receive the same amount of attention and support on social media as
compared with Donald Trump. . . .
In the last months of the campaign, generally the focus shifted to voter registration and
then get-out-the vote efforts. Social media can be a useful starting place for helping give
supporters events and activities to do to be part of the campaign and to help with the effort
of winning the election. Although both campaigns, indeed, increased their calls-to-action in
the last two months of the campaign, Clinton beat Trump in volume of such messages on Facebook
and Twitter, producing a third more call-to-action type messages (See Figure 17). If we only
look at Facebook, however, Trump's campaign produced as many call-to-action type message as
Clinton in October.
When it came to asking people to vote, the Clinton campaign produced more than twice as many
messages asking for people to vote on election day on the two platforms (See Figure 18), but
most of that was on Twitter. On Facebook, both campaigns urged people to vote at the same rate,
but on Twitter, Clinton's campaign produces three times more appeals for votes than does
Trump.
So, the Lilliputian Russians, spending a pittance compared to the Goliaths of the Clinton
and Trump campaigns, was the deciding factor in 2016? Bullshit.
The pathetic and laughable U.S. intelligence community (aka IC) did not do a state-by-state
breakdown of how these various social media campaigns operated in those states that swung the
election to Trump. Nor did the IC look back at the Russian and Soviet Union covert propaganda
efforts over the previous 90 years. If you are going to do a comparison you need to have a
benchmark. This is what we know for certain--Russia and its predecessor, the USSR, ran
comprehensive and continuous information operations in the United States, including computer
network operations.
No one can say with any degree of certainty that what Russia did in 2016 was qualitatively
and quantitatively different. Also, the IC is completely silent on the efforts of other
countries, such as China and Israel. Nope, just accept on faith that the Russians committed an
attack worse than Pearl Harbor.
I had my own experience with Russian media influence, or the lack of such influence to be
more precise. I was interviewed on Russia Today aka RT on March 4, 2017 to comment on Donald
Trump's claim that the FBI had wiretapped Trump Towers. During that interview I noted that the
Brits, not the FBI, were ones doing electronic surveillance of Trump. And how did the public
and the media react to that bomb shell pronouncement by me? Crickets. No reaction.
The crazy insistence that Russia grossly interfered in our 2016 election is a canard. Too
bad the vast majority of America has bought into this absurd nonsense. Yes, there were groups
linked to the Russian government that were pushing stories on social media. The Chinese did the
same thing. So did the Israelis and the Brits. I am sure there are other countries who were
pushing their own agenda as well. But that is a truth American is too damn lazy to grasp.
Well, you're dead ass wrong. Shocker. I did not "leave" with a solid pension. I stayed four
years. No pension. But I did maintain clearances and continued to work with CIA, DIA and NSA
over the ensuing 25 years. My criticism is grounded in experience. I think Iran/Contra was
the watershed moment. The CIA became very politicized and the quality of analysis and spy
trade craft declined significantly. John Brennan turned the place into a freak show. When you
have "Dykes on Bikes" day at CIA Headquarters you know you have lost your way.
"...did not do a state-by-state breakdown of how these various social media campaigns
operated in those states that swung the election to Trump. "
Hilary's campaign staff didn't do this level of work when directing their own media efforts
either. At some point she, being the head of the campaign, should have been able to get
answers to the questions "what is the return for each advertising effort" and "what does that
do to the electoral vote count." Not only is the IC community discredited but so should most
of the Democratic media operations and campaign advisors.
"... A separate set of minutes from the first meeting attended by Johnson records the Guardian 's close collaboration with military officials. ..."
"... Under the direction of these military intelligence handlers, the Guardian played a role in bringing other newspapers internationally to heel. The minutes note, ..."
"... In 2016, Paul Johnson used an unprecedented interview with a serving head of MI5, Andrew Parker, to propagandize for the antidemocratic, warmongering interests of British imperialism. ..."
"... These facts are damning proof of the Guardian 's total integration into the propaganda wing of the MoD following its involvement in the WikiLeaks and Snowden files releases. Indeed, the work of WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange has served to expose and confirm the deep ties of the entire mainstream media to the military-intelligence complex. ..."
"... The Guardian has been viewed historically as the voice of British liberal dissent, critical of the worst excesses of British capitalism at home and abroad. But it has always acted as a political policeman -- filtering the news "responsibly" and channelling the resulting anger into impotent moral appeals to the state and other authorities. ..."
"... This time, however, the Guardian was told by the security services that even rigorously filtering the Snowden's revelations was not good enough. It must stop publishing immediately. ..."
"... Emails obtained by the Associated Press in 2014 showed that this was an operation conducted in intimate collusion between the government, the British security services and the US National Security Agency, including then Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. ..."
"... In the end, two GCHQ security officials directly oversaw the Guardian ' s destruction of its own material. Three Guardian staff members, including Paul Johnson himself, destroyed the hard drives in the Guardian 's possession with angle grinders and other equipment provided by GCHQ officials. ..."
"... One of Assange's persecutors-in-chief, Luke Harding, enjoys the most intimate relations with the security services. His notorious November 2018 fabrication, claiming Assange held meetings with US President Donald Trump's former campaign manager Paul Manafort, was published in the Guardian just two weeks after Johnson was thanked for "re-establishing links" with the MoD. ..."
"... Working for the war department makes The Guardian's workforce soldiers. They ar defending the unelected Oligarchy with their pens/keyboards and greedy obsequiousness. ..."
"... And all the while the rest of the media collude in the deception of the public by labelling the Guardian at every opportunity as "left-wing". Exactly the same conspiracy exists involving the BBC. ..."
"... Working with intelligence agencies plays to the egos of these 'journalists'. Anything that makes them feel important. The Guardian prints for Radio Free Europe/ Radio Liberty. Enough said. Intelligence: "Russia is doing X,Y and Z. This is strictly off the record." ..."
"... Exactly right. If the guardian had even pretended that it seriously knew what it was talking about, people might have had a smidgeon of trust in its articles. In its current state, it might as well be Mickey Mouse Weekly. ..."
"... Clearly there should not be any future involvement of the MSM in exposing scandal. They are Establishment tools, not defenders of the public interest. ..."
"... The lesson of history is that as soon as independent sites gain traffic, they are 'approached' by Security Services, heavy hitters etc. It may be financing, it may be threats. But it happens so regularly that it is clearly an arm of Establishment policy. ..."
"... Luke Harding isn't just an asset of state security services, he's an incompetent asset. How ironic. ..."
"... You have to make some allowance for poor old Luke. He's still deeply traumatised from the time the KGB broke into his Moscow flat and tampered with his alarm clock and turned off his central heating. ..."
"... People mistakenly claim that the Guardian was once a creditable serious newspaper of some integrity. This is wrong. It was never more than a piece of Zionist toilet paper, going back to the days of the old Manchester Guardian. It was shilling for Israel even before it existed. ..."
Minutes of Ministry of Defence (MoD) meetings have confirmed the role of Britain's Guardian newspaper as a mouthpiece for
the intelligence agencies.
Last week, independent journalist Matt Kennard revealed that the paper's deputy editor, Paul Johnson, was personally thanked by
the Defence and Security Media Advisory Notice (or D-Notice) committee for integrating the Guardian into the operations of
the security services.
Minutes of a meeting in 2018 read [You can read the full document here, or embedded below – OffG Editor] :
The Chairman thanked Paul Johnson for his service to the Committee. Paul had joined the Committee in the wake of the Snowden affair
and had been instrumental in re-establishing links with the Guardian.
D-Notices are used by the British state to veto the publication of news damaging to its interests. The slavish collusion of the
mainstream media ensures that such notices function as gag orders.
Johnson joined the committee in 2014 and evidently excelled in his performance. A separate set of minutes from the first meeting
attended by Johnson records the Guardian 's close collaboration with military officials.
Under a section detailing "advice" given by the intelligence agencies to the media, the document reads: most of the occurrences
and requests for advice were related to further publications by The Guardian of extracts from the Snowden documents. The Secretary
reported that the engagement of DPBAC [Defence Press and Broadcasting Advisory Committee] Secretariat with The Guardian had
continued to strengthen during the last six months, with regular dialogues between the Secretary and Deputy Secretaries and Guardian
journalists.
The secretary and deputy secretaries were Air Vice-Marshal Andrew Vallance CB OBE, Air Commodore David Adams and Brigadier Geoffrey
Dodds OBE. The chairman was Peter Watkins CBE, the MoD's director general of Strategy, Security and Policy Operations.
Under the direction of these military intelligence handlers, the Guardian played a role in bringing other newspapers
internationally to heel. The minutes note, because of an agreement between The Guardian and allied publications overseas
to coordinate their respective disclosures of Snowden material, advice given to the Guardian has been passed on to the
New York Times and others, helping guide the disclosures of these outlets.
In September 2014, the Guardian allowed the former head of GCHQ (Government Communications Headquarters) Sir David Omand
to publish an article titled, "Edward Snowden's leaks are misguided -- they risk exposing us to cyber-attacks .
He declared:
"Journalists are not best placed to identify security risks; we have to trust those who oversee the intelligence-gathering."
In 2016, Paul Johnson used an unprecedented interview with a serving head of MI5, Andrew Parker, to propagandize for the antidemocratic,
warmongering interests of British imperialism.
These facts are damning proof of the Guardian 's total integration into the propaganda wing of the MoD following its involvement
in the WikiLeaks and Snowden files releases. Indeed, the work of WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange has served to expose and
confirm the deep ties of the entire mainstream media to the military-intelligence complex.
The Guardian has been viewed historically as the voice of British liberal dissent, critical of the worst excesses of British
capitalism at home and abroad. But it has always acted as a political policeman -- filtering the news "responsibly" and channelling
the resulting anger into impotent moral appeals to the state and other authorities.
Its dealings with Assange and Snowden transformed political allegiance into direct subservience. Its liberal, critical pretensions
unravelled in a matter of a few months.
When Assange looked to the Guardian and other papers internationally such as the New York Times to publish the Afghan
and Iraq war logs and secret US diplomatic cables in 2010, the editors' main concern was damage control. Within a month of an initial
publication of documents, the Guardian had broken off relations with Assange -- publishing an infamous December 17 editorial
WikiLeaks: the man and the idea.
It stated that the Guardian had only agreed to publish "a small number of cables" to control the political fall-out from
the details of murder, torture, espionage and corruption they revealed and give it the opportunity of "editing, contextualising,
explanation and redaction."
The main purpose of the editorial was to support Assange's extradition to Sweden on trumped-up allegations of sexual misconduct
relating to a trip to that country a few months earlier.
In an op-ed piece published last month by former Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger, he assumes to take the moral high ground
by claiming that WikiLeaks issued leaks unredacted, and wanted to continue this practise, in contrast with his "responsible" journalism.
An editorial published immediately prior to Rusbridger's article, again supporting Assange's extradition to Sweden to face "charges"
that don't exist, stated:
The Guardian disapproved of the mass publication of unredacted documents and broke with Mr. Assange over the issue."
This is a self-serving lie. WikiLeaks has pointed out that the editorial "conveniently leaves out" that it was the Guardian
-- through a book authored by David Leigh and Luke Harding -- that disclosed the password to the digital file Assange had given
them in confidence. The book was a hatchet
job on WikiLeaks. The rights to it were sold, becoming the basis of a
slanderous Hollywood movie. When NSA
contractor Edward Snowden leaked files detailing blanket state surveillance of the world's population in 2013, the Guardian
set out to play the same "responsible" role.
Asked afterwards if the paper had held back from publishing anything about GCHQ and UK security services because of "worries
about national security," the ever-pliant Mr. Rusbridger replied, "Yes, we've held back a great deal, we've published a small
amount of what we have read."
This time, however, the Guardian was told by the security services that even rigorously filtering the Snowden's revelations
was not good enough. It must stop publishing immediately.
The country's top civil servant, Cabinet Secretary Sir Jeremy Heywood, called the Guardian 's offices to pass on the demands
of then Prime Minister David Cameron that the Snowden material either be returned to the government or destroyed. Editors were threatened
with legal action if they did not comply.
Rusbridger later explained, "The tone was steely, if cordial, but there was an implicit threat that others within government
and Whitehall favoured a far more draconian approach."
This is a masterpiece of understatement. Emails obtained by the Associated Press in 2014 showed that this was an operation
conducted in intimate collusion between the government, the British security services and the US National Security Agency, including
then Director of National Intelligence James Clapper.
In the end, two GCHQ security officials directly oversaw the Guardian ' s destruction of its own material. Three Guardian
staff members, including Paul Johnson himself,
destroyed the hard drives in the Guardian
's possession with angle grinders and other equipment provided by GCHQ officials.
The Guardian had been put in a position it never wanted. Its liberal reputation, and previous disclosures, had made it
the newspaper of choice for WikiLeaks' and Snowden's revelations. But the scale of what had been uncovered threatened the fundamental
interests of British and US imperialism. It therefore rolled over when the government told it to cease and desist, before taking
its place alongside the rest of the right-wing media on the secret committee responsible for press censorship and propaganda dissemination.
One of Assange's persecutors-in-chief, Luke Harding, enjoys the most intimate relations with the security services. His notorious
November 2018 fabrication, claiming Assange held meetings with US President Donald Trump's former campaign manager Paul Manafort,
was published in the Guardian just two weeks after Johnson was thanked for "re-establishing links" with the MoD.
The story was widely cited and formed a keystone of the efforts, spearheaded by the Democrats in the US, to present WikiLeaks
and "Russian interference" as the causes of Trump's 2016 election victory.
Harding played a central role in silencing questions over the UK government's bogus account of the Skripal affair in mid-2018.
These events were the subject of at least one D-notice, issued while Paul Johnson was on the responsible committee.
An unintended but valuable consequence of the WikiLeaks exposures has been to explode the fraud of the Guardian 's claim
to any critical independence from the state. The crimes of the major imperialist powers against the world's population made available
by WikiLeaks were so great that they could not be neutralised, even by the Guardian 's professional gatekeepers of the "truth."
Not a word published in this imperialist propaganda sheet can ever be taken at face value.
Working for the war department makes The Guardian's workforce soldiers. They ar defending the unelected Oligarchy with their
pens/keyboards and greedy obsequiousness.
But shouldn't we give the Guardian's soldiers a well-deserved credit for the hard work in 'Extreme Logic Twisting' (ELT) as
they rely on diehard lefitism to justify and achieve NeoCon/far-right agenda ?
It must be really tough for them, unless they are gaining Artificial Intelligence assistance which it seems they are using
in replacing the forcibly-retrenched traditional commenters with Establishment-friendly bots.
Tom
And all the while the rest of the media collude in the deception of the public by labelling the Guardian at every opportunity
as "left-wing". Exactly the same conspiracy exists involving the BBC.
Sav
Working with intelligence agencies plays to the egos of these 'journalists'. Anything that makes them feel important. The
Guardian prints for Radio Free Europe/ Radio Liberty. Enough said. Intelligence: "Russia is doing X,Y and Z. This is strictly
off the record."
Make a load of posts on Guardian comments with spoofed Russian IP addresses
Intelligence: "We've got information Russian intelligence is influencing article comments with bots"
Guardian "Oh my God..you're right. We're being attacked by Russia. God save the Queen"
MichaelK
Rusbridger could of course have given a few concrete, specific, examples of where exactly the Guardian and Assange clashed about
what texts should be released for publication, along with their reasoning. This would have allowed readers to see for themseleves
and make up their own minds.
The gap between Assange and the Guardian is precisely founded on this difference. The Guardian doesn't want people to have
the opportunity to make up their own minds. They just want people to trust the Guardian to tell them what they need to know. This,
of course, is the very reason Wikileaks came into existance, in opposition to this journalistic, priestly, set of liberal dogmas.
wardropper
Exactly right. If the guardian had even pretended that it seriously knew what it was talking about, people might have
had a smidgeon of trust in its articles. In its current state, it might as well be Mickey Mouse Weekly.
Rhys Jaggar
Clearly there should not be any future involvement of the MSM in exposing scandal. They are Establishment tools, not defenders
of the public interest.
The question is how Wikileaks could reveal such damning evidence using independent websites, run by individuals utterly divorced
from Establishments.
What is needed is an education of ordinary folks not to read the MSM and find new sites they can trust, however transiently.
The lesson of history is that as soon as independent sites gain traffic, they are 'approached' by Security Services, heavy
hitters etc. It may be financing, it may be threats. But it happens so regularly that it is clearly an arm of Establishment policy.
Fully agree, but I think it goes much deeper than that. Agree that "ordinary folks" should be informed that the MSM are establishment
tools, but 'ordinary folks' in general don't care in the slightest about such things and are mostly only interested in what will
maximize our personal pleasure (usually through seeking to make money in any way possible, that will allow us to generate as much
status and power and pleasure as possible). All else be damned.
That is the zeitgeist these days among vast portions of 'ordinary folks' who are plugged into the cultural matrix, it seems
"WikiLeaks has pointed out that the editorial "conveniently leaves out" that it was the Guardian -- through a book authored by
David Leigh and Luke Harding -- that disclosed the password to the digital file Assange had given them in confidence." So
Luke Harding isn't just an asset of state security services, he's an incompetent asset. How ironic.
mark
You have to make some allowance for poor old Luke. He's still deeply traumatised from the time the KGB broke into his Moscow
flat and tampered with his alarm clock and turned off his central heating.
mark
People mistakenly claim that the Guardian was once a creditable serious newspaper of some integrity. This is wrong. It was
never more than a piece of Zionist toilet paper, going back to the days of the old Manchester Guardian. It was shilling for Israel
even before it existed.
Antonym
The Manchester Guardian was a response to the Peterloo massacre in 1819 where the British establishment treated a GB crowd as
they did protesting natives of their colonies, with the sword. The six acts was follow up to legally tie loose strings up. All
pure British actions, zero (proto)Israeli. Next Mark will blame Jews for 1066.
Antonym
Before the Snowden files drama (2013) the Guardian produced many articles critical of Israel: Just study their response to "Cast
Lead" after January 2009. They were one of the first to focus on "child victims" to invoke sympathy for Gaza, a different form
of child abuse from grooming kids as suicide bombers.
Haltonbrat
CP Scott introduced Weizman to Lloyd George and the used his columns to support the Zionists.
"... Harding's avowed contact with Steele may also have contributed to another high profile blunder in April this year. In the immediate wake of the apparent poisoning of Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia in Salisbury, UK, the UK government issued a D(SMA) notice , blocking mention of Pablo Miller -- Skripal's MI6 recruiter -- in the media. ..."
On September 21, The Guardian ran an absolutely sensational exclusive, based on disclosures made by "multiple" anonymous sources
to Luke Harding, one of the paper's leading journalists - in 2017, Russian diplomats allegedly held secret talks in London with associates
of Assange, in an attempt to assist in the Wikileaks founder's escape from the UK.
The dastardly conspiracy would've entailed Assange being smuggled out of the Ecuadorian embassy in Knightsbridge under cover
of Christmas Eve in a diplomatic vehicle and transported to Russia, where he'd be safe from extradition to the US, ending his eight-years
of effective arbitrary detention in the process.
In any event, the audacious plot was eventually aborted after being deemed "too
risky" -- even for the reckless daredevils of Moscow -- mere days before its planned execution date.
Rommy Vallejo, head of Ecuador's
intelligence agency, is said to have travelled to the UK around December 15 to supervise the operation, and left when it was called
off.
'Extraordinary, Deliberate Lies'
The Russian Embassy in London
was quick to condemn the
article on Twitter, calling the claims "another example of disinformation and fake news" in the UK mainstream media, and noting the
paper violated national media standards by failing to ask the Russian side for a comment prior to the report's release. "This publication
has nothing to do with the reality. The Embassy has never engaged with Ecuadorian colleagues, or with anyone else, in discussions
of any kind on Russia's participation in ending Assange's stay within the diplomatic mission of Ecuador.
We're puzzled by the sensational
attitude of the authors. As recently as September 18, Culture Secretary Jeremy Wright called for increased efforts to combat media
and online disinformation. [The] Guardian piece is a brilliant example of the kind of journalism British reader should be protected
from," a spokesperson added in an official statement.
In a subsequent statement
, the Russian Foreign Ministry slammed the article for containing a "whole series of similar anti-Russia innuendos, and once again
made clear Russian diplomats did not contact staff of the Ecuadoran Embassy in London or Assange's associates in order to assist
in his escape from the UK.
However,
a
far more damning indictment of the article's extraordinary, evidence-free claims was provided by Craig Murray, former UK Ambassador
to Uzbekistan, who denounced the "quite extraordinary set of deliberate lies" in a September 23 blog post. In doing so, he revealed
he and Fidel Narvaez -- a close confidant of Assange fingered as the key point of contact between the Ecuadorian embassy and Moscow
in the article -- had engaged in discussions with Assange in 2017 regarding a possible departure from the UK capital, and debated
possible future destinations for the embattled Wikileaks founder.
"It's not only the case Russia didn't figure in those plans, Julian directly ruled out the possibility of going to Russia. I know
100% for certain the entire story is a complete and utter fabrication. I cannot find words enough to express the depth of my contempt
for Harding and [Editor] Katherine Viner, who've betrayed completely the values of journalism. The aim of the piece is evidently
to add a further layer to the fake news of Wikileaks' non-existent relationship to Russia as part of the "Hillary didn't really lose"
narrative. I am, frankly, rather shocked," Murray
wrote
.
Friends in Spooky Places
The identities of Harding's alleged anonymous sources aren't even hinted at in the article, but Murray made a striking suggestion
-- he "strongly suspect[ed]" that "MI6 tool" Harding's informants were the UK security services. If true, this would make the article
"entirely black propaganda" produced by British spies. Whether MI6 agents are the source of the story or not, it's certainly true
Harding enjoys a very close relationship indeed with British intelligence services -- a bond he has frequently, openly and proudly
advertised in articles and books.
For instance, in his highly controversial 2017 book Collusion, Harding argued Donald Trump
had a relationship with the Russian 'deep state' dating back to the 1980s, and colluded with the Kremlin to subvert US democracy.
To support this conclusion, he frequently cited claims fed to him directly by Christopher Steele, the ex-MI6 spy turned 'business
intelligence' professional, who authored the utterly discredited 'Trump-Russia' dossier for Fusion GPS.
When challenged to provide any evidence whatsoever for his book's assertions by Aaron Mate of The Real News, Harding was left mumbling
and stuttering -- he was also unable to defend
his claim that an individual's use of an emoji was proof they were working for Russian intelligence, and terminated the interview
prematurely.
Harding's avowed contact with Steele may also have contributed to another high profile blunder in April this year. In the immediate
wake of the apparent poisoning of Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia in Salisbury, UK, the UK government
issued a D(SMA) notice , blocking mention of Pablo
Miller -- Skripal's MI6 recruiter -- in the media. Individuals who conducted internet searches for Miller afterwards quickly found
his LinkedIn profile, which identified him as a 'Senior Analyst' at Orbis Intelligence -- Steele's corporate espionage company.-
It is true, or was. As I say, this 2017 forum thread, which links to Pablo Miller's LinkedIn profile, states Orbis is listed on
Miller's CV -- https://t.co/Fx0vu1qorJ . Stop regurgitating anonymous claims
by your spook pals and do some research, Luke -- Kit Klarenberg (@KitKlarenberg)
March 12, 2018
Miller's page was quickly deleted though, and Harding took to Twitter to issue firm denials of a connection between Miller and the
firm, going so far as to suggest "someone" was using search engine optimization techniques to dishonestly associate Miller and Orbis.
However, enterprising Sputnik journalist Kit Klarenberg quickly and easily found an online forum thread dating from 2017 clearly
identifying Miller as an Orbis employee -- as of September, Harding is yet to respond, or retract his claims.
"... Risen detailed how his editors had been "quite willing to cooperate with the government." In fact, a top CIA official even told Risen that his rule of thumb for approving a covert operation was, "How will this look on the front page of the New York Times?" ..."
"... Bernstein obtained CIA documents that revealed that more than 400 American journalists in the previous 25 years had "secretly carried out assignments for the Central Intelligence Agency." ..."
"... Virtually all major US media outlets cooperated with the CIA, Bernstein revealed, including ABC, NBC, the AP, UPI, Reuters, Newsweek, Hearst newspapers, the Miami Herald, the Saturday Evening Post, and the New York Herald‑Tribune. ..."
"... However, he added, "By far the most valuable of these associations, according to CIA officials, have been with the New York Times, CBS and Time Inc." ..."
"... These layers of state manipulation, censorship, and even direct crafting of the news media show that, as much as they claim to be independent, The New York Times and other outlets effectively serve as de facto spokespeople for the government -- or at least for the US national security state. ..."
The New York Times casually acknowledged that it sends major scoops to the US government
before publication, to make sure "national security officials" have "no concerns."
By Ben Norton
June 25, 2019 " Information Clearing House " - The New York
Times has publicly acknowledged that it sends some of its stories to the US government for
approval from "national security officials" before publication.
This confirms what veteran New York Times correspondents like James Risen have said: The
American newspaper of record regularly collaborates with the US government, suppressing
reporting that top officials don't want made public.
On June 15, the Times reported that the US government is escalating its cyber
attacks on Russia's power grid . According to the article, "the Trump administration is
using new authorities to deploy cybertools more aggressively," as part of a larger "digital
Cold War between Washington and Moscow."
In response to the report, Donald Trump attacked the
Times on Twitter, calling the article "a virtual act of Treason."
The New York Times PR office replied to Trump from its official Twitter account, defending
the story and noting that it had, in fact, been cleared with the US government before being
printed.
"Accusing the press of treason is dangerous," the Times communications team said. "We
described the article to the government before publication."
"As our story notes, President Trump's own national security officials said there were no
concerns," the Times added.
NY Times editors 'quite willing to cooperate with
the government'
The symbiotic relationship between the US corporate media and the government has been known
for some time. American intelligence agencies play the press like a musical instrument, using
it it to selectively leak information at opportune moments to push US soft power and advance
Washington's interests.
But rarely is this symbiotic relationship so casually and publicly acknowledged.
In 2018, former New York Times reporter James Risen published a 15,000-word article in
The Intercept providing further insight into how this unspoken alliance operates.
Risen
detailed how his editors had been "quite willing to cooperate with the government." In fact, a
top CIA official even told Risen that his rule of thumb for approving a covert operation was,
"How will this look on the front page of the New York Times?"
There is an "informal arrangement" between the state and the press, Risen explained, where
US government officials "regularly engaged in quiet negotiations with the press to try to stop
the publication of sensitive national security stories."
"At the time, I usually went along with these negotiations," the former New York Times
reported said. He recalled an example of a story he was writing on Afghanistan just prior to
the September 11, 2001 attacks. Then-CIA Director George Tenet called Risen personally and
asked him to kill the story.
"He told me the disclosure would threaten the safety of the CIA officers in Afghanistan,"
Risen said. "I agreed."
Risen said he later questioned whether or not this was the right decision. "If I had
reported the story before 9/11, the CIA would have been angry, but it might have led to a
public debate about whether the United States was doing enough to capture or kill bin Laden,"
he wrote. "That public debate might have forced the CIA to take the effort to get bin Laden
more seriously."
This dilemma led Risen to reconsider responding to US government requests to censor stories.
"And that ultimately set me on a collision course with the editors at the New York Times," he
said.
"After the 9/11 attacks, the Bush administration began asking the press to kill stories more
frequently," Risen continued. "They did it so often that I became convinced the administration
was invoking national security to quash stories that were merely politically embarrassing." In
the lead-up to the Iraq War, Risen frequently "clashed" with Times editors because he raised
questions about the US government's lies. But his stories "stories raising questions about the
intelligence, particularly the administration's claims of a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda,
were being cut, buried, or held out of the paper altogether."
The Times' executive editor Howell Raines "was believed by many at the paper to prefer
stories that supported the case for war," Risen said.
In another anecdote, the former Times journalist recalled a scoop he had uncovered on a
botched CIA plot. The Bush administration got wind of it and called him to the White House,
where then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice ordered the Times to bury the story.
Risen said Rice told him "to forget about the story, destroy my notes, and never make
another phone call to discuss the matter with anyone."
"The Bush administration was successfully convincing the press to hold or kill national
security stories," Risen wrote. And the Barack Obama administration subsequently accelerated
the "war on the press."
CIA media infiltration and manufacturing consent
In their renowned study of US media, "
Manufacturing Consent : The Political Economy of the Mass Media," Edward S. Herman and
Chomsky articulated a "propaganda model," showing how "the media serve, and propagandize on
behalf of, the powerful societal interests that control and finance them," through "the
selection of right-thinking personnel and by the editors' and working journalists'
internalization of priorities and definitions of newsworthiness that conform to the
institution's policy."
But in some cases, the relationship between US intelligence agencies and the corporate media
is not just one of mere ideological policing, indirect pressure, or friendship, but rather one
of employment.
In the 1950s, the CIA launched a covert operation called Project Mockingbird, in which it
surveilled, influenced, and manipulated American journalists and media coverage, explicitly in
order to direct public opinion against the Soviet Union, China, and the growing international
communist movement.
Legendary journalist Carl Bernstein, a former Washington Post reporter who helped uncover
the Watergate scandal, published a major cover story for Rolling Stone in 1977 titled "
The CIA and
the Media : How America's Most Powerful News Media Worked Hand in Glove with the Central
Intelligence Agency and Why the Church Committee Covered It Up."
Bernstein obtained CIA documents that revealed that more than 400 American journalists in
the previous 25 years had "secretly carried out assignments for the Central Intelligence
Agency."
Bernstein wrote:
"Some of these journalists' relationships with the Agency were tacit; some were explicit.
There was cooperation, accommodation and overlap. Journalists provided a full range of
clandestine services -- from simple intelligence gathering to serving as go‑betweens with
spies in Communist countries. Reporters shared their notebooks with the CIA. Editors shared
their staffs. Some of the journalists were Pulitzer Prize winners, distinguished reporters who
considered themselves ambassadors without‑portfolio for their country. Most were less
exalted: foreign correspondents who found that their association with the Agency helped their
work; stringers and freelancers who were as interested in the derring‑do of the spy
business as in filing articles; and, the smallest category, full‑time CIA employees
masquerading as journalists abroad. In many instances, CIA documents show, journalists were
engaged to perform tasks for the CIA with the consent of the managements of America's leading
news organizations."
Virtually all major US media outlets cooperated with the CIA, Bernstein revealed, including
ABC, NBC, the AP, UPI, Reuters, Newsweek, Hearst newspapers, the Miami Herald, the Saturday
Evening Post, and the New York Herald‑Tribune.
However, he added, "By far the most valuable of these associations, according to CIA
officials, have been with the New York Times, CBS and Time Inc."
These layers of state
manipulation, censorship, and even direct crafting of the news media show that, as much as they
claim to be independent, The New York Times and other outlets effectively serve as de facto
spokespeople for the government -- or at least for the US national security state.
Ben Norton is a journalist and writer. He is a reporter for The Grayzone, and the producer
of the Moderate Rebels podcast,
which he co-hosts with Max Blumenthal. His website is BenNorton.com , and he tweets at @ BenjaminNorton .
This article was originally published by " Grayzone
"
Stiglitz does not explain us what forces can bring this so called "progressive capitalism". So far I not see social forces
that can enact it.
Why financial oligarchy that is the ruling class under the neoliberalism relinquish the power voluntarily, without a fight?
After all they control the state and counterattack any changes: look at color revolution (aka Russiagate) launched against Trump,
who represent adherents of a different flavor of neoliberalism.
Neoliberalism entered zombie stage as ideology was discredited in 2008, but there is not still a viable alternative to it. Trump
is promoting "national neoliberalism" -- neoliberalism without globalization and with trade wars between rival economic blocks.
It might be worse then classic neoliberalism for common people.
Notable quotes:
"... By contrast, the third camp advocates what I call progressive capitalism , which prescribes a radically different economic agenda, based on four priorities. The first is to restore the balance between markets, the state and civil society. Slow economic growth, rising inequality, financial instability and environmental degradation are problems born of the market, and thus cannot and will not be overcome by the market on its own. Governments have a duty to limit and shape markets through environmental, health, occupational safety and other types of regulation. It is also the government's job to do what the market cannot or will not do, such as actively investing in basic research, technology, education and the health of its constituents. ..."
"... The rise in corporate market power, combined with the decline in workers' bargaining power, goes a long way toward explaining why inequality is so high and growth so tepid. Unless government takes a more active role than neoliberalism prescribes, these problems will likely become much worse, owing to advances in robotisation and artificial intelligence. ..."
"... There is no magic bullet that can reverse the damage done by decades of neoliberalism. But a comprehensive agenda along the lines sketched above absolutely can. Much will depend on whether reformers are as resolute in combating problems like excessive market power and inequality as the private sector is in creating them. ..."
"... This agenda is eminently affordable; in fact, we cannot afford not to enact it. The alternatives offered by nationalists and neoliberals would guarantee more stagnation, inequality, environmental degradation and political acrimony, potentially leading to outcomes we do not even want to imagine. ..."
"... Progressive capitalism is not an oxymoron. Rather, it is the most viable and vibrant alternative to an ideology that has clearly failed. As such, it represents the best chance we have of escaping our current economic and political malaise. ..."
Bill Clinton and Tony Blair represented neoliberalism with a human face but remained beholden to an expired ideology. Photograph:
Mark Lennihan/AP W hat kind of economic system is most conducive to human wellbeing? That question has come to define the current
era, because, after 40 years of neoliberalism in the United States and other advanced economies, we know what doesn't work.
The neoliberal experiment – lower taxes on the rich, deregulation of labour and product markets, financialisation, and globalisation
– has been a spectacular failure. Growth is lower than it was in the quarter-century after the second world war, and most of it has
accrued to the very top of the income scale. After decades of
stagnant or even falling incomes for those below them, neoliberalism must be pronounced dead and buried.
Vying to succeed it are at least three major political alternatives: far-right nationalism, centre-left reformism and the progressive
left (with the centre-right representing the neoliberal failure). And yet, with the exception of the progressive left, these alternatives
remain beholden to some form of the ideology that has (or should have) expired.
The centre-left, for example, represents neoliberalism with a human face. Its goal is to bring the policies of former US president
Bill Clinton and former British prime minister Tony
Blair into the 21st century, making only slight revisions to the prevailing modes of financialisation and globalisation.
Meanwhile, the nationalist right disowns globalisation, blaming migrants and foreigners for all of today's problems. Yet as Donald
Trump's presidency has shown, it is no less committed – at least in its American variant – to tax cuts for the rich, deregulation
and shrinking or eliminating social programmes.
By contrast, the third camp advocates what I call
progressive
capitalism , which prescribes a radically different economic agenda, based on four priorities. The first is to restore the balance
between markets, the state and civil society. Slow economic growth, rising inequality, financial instability and environmental degradation
are problems born of the market, and thus cannot and will not be overcome by the market on its own. Governments have a duty to limit
and shape markets through environmental, health, occupational safety and other types of regulation. It is also the government's job
to do what the market cannot or will not do, such as actively investing in basic research, technology, education and the health of
its constituents.
The second priority is to recognise that the "wealth of nations" is the result of
scientific inquiry – learning about the world around us – and social organisation that allows large groups of people to work
together for the common good. Markets still have a crucial role to play in facilitating social cooperation, but they serve this purpose
only if they are governed by the rule of law and subject to democratic checks. Otherwise, individuals can get rich by exploiting
others, extracting wealth through rent-seeking rather than creating wealth through genuine ingenuity. Many of today's wealthy took
the exploitation route to get where they are. They have been well served by Trump's policies, which have encouraged rent-seeking
while destroying the underlying sources of wealth creation. Progressive capitalism seeks to do precisely the opposite.
There is no magic bullet that can reverse the damage done by decades of neoliberalism
This brings us to the third priority: addressing the growing problem of concentrated
market power . By exploiting information advantages, buying up potential competitors and creating entry barriers, dominant firms
are able to engage in large-scale rent-seeking to the detriment of everyone else. The rise in corporate market power, combined with
the decline in workers' bargaining power, goes a long way toward explaining why inequality is so high and growth so tepid. Unless
government takes a more active role than neoliberalism prescribes, these problems will likely become much worse, owing to advances
in robotisation and artificial intelligence.
The fourth key item on the progressive agenda is to sever the link between economic power and political influence. Economic power
and political influence are mutually reinforcing and self-perpetuating, especially where, as in the US, wealthy individuals and corporations
may spend without limit in elections. As the US moves ever closer to a fundamentally undemocratic system of "one dollar, one vote",
the system of checks and balances so necessary for democracy likely cannot hold: nothing will be able to constrain the power of the
wealthy. This is not just a moral and political problem: economies with less inequality actually
perform better .
Progressive-capitalist reforms thus have to begin by curtailing the influence of money in politics and reducing wealth inequality.
There is no magic bullet that can reverse the damage done by decades of neoliberalism. But a comprehensive agenda along the
lines sketched above absolutely can. Much will depend on whether reformers are as resolute in combating problems like excessive market
power and inequality as the private sector is in creating them.
A comprehensive agenda must focus on education, research and the other true sources of wealth. It must protect the environment
and fight climate change with the same vigilance as the Green New Dealers in the US and Extinction Rebellion in the United Kingdom.
And it must provide public programmes to ensure that no citizen is denied the basic requisites of a decent life. These include economic
security, access to work and a living wage, health care and adequate housing, a secure retirement, and a quality education for one's
children.
This agenda is eminently affordable; in fact, we cannot afford not to enact it. The alternatives offered by nationalists and neoliberals
would guarantee more stagnation, inequality, environmental degradation and political acrimony, potentially leading to outcomes we
do not even want to imagine.
Progressive capitalism is not an oxymoron. Rather, it is the most viable and vibrant alternative to an ideology that has clearly
failed. As such, it represents the best chance we have of escaping our current economic and political malaise.
Joseph E Stiglitz is a Nobel
laureate in economics, university professor at Columbia University and chief economist at the Roosevelt Institute.
Project Syndicate
Really? Cameron is too far to the left to even get on the Democratic ticket in America:
if he proposed his healthcare reforms in the States he'd probably be assassinated.
I think you are mistaking what Cameron says, with what he does. Cameron has obviously
realised that in the UK the frothing at the mouth bonkers ideology of the new right in the US
wouldn't go down too well with the public, and would make the Tories toxic and unelectable.
So he has chosen the strategy of speaking as though he were a woolly "wet" Conservative,
whilst actually following the agenda of the new right.
One of the things about psychopaths, is that because they have no real values, they are
very good at using charm and disingenuous specious arguments to justify their agenda. You
appear to fail to take into account how the healthcare issue is seen very differently in the
UK than the US. If Cameron had a US style healthcare policy, our current PM would probably be
Gordon Brown, facing a minority Conservative opposition.
This is the whole thing about this psychopathic worldview, it aims to achieve its
objectives by hook or crook. So with a more receptive public it will be more open about its
objectives, whereas in a culturally different environment, it will use stealth to achieve its
aims.
This is how psycopaths operate, they are all things to all people, even though the
agenda they follow is the same.
Schools are teaching to the test. As someone who recently retrained as a secondary science
teacher - after nearly 30 years as a journalist - I know this to be true.
Education is a prime example of where neoliberalism has had a negative effect. It worked well
when labour was pumping billions into it and they invested in early intervention schemes such
as sure start and nursery expansion. Unfortunately under the tories we have had those
progressive policies scaled right back. Children with SEND and/or in care are commodities
bought and sold by local authorities. I've been working in a PRU which is a private company
and it does good things, but I can't help but think if that was in the public sector that it
would be in a purpose built building rather than some scruffy office with no playground.
The facilities aren't what you would expect in this day in age. If we had a proper
functioning government with a plan then what happens with vulnerable children would be
properly organised rather than a reactive shit show.
"Schools teach to the test, depriving children of a rounded and useful education."
Boy do they. I work in Business/IT training and as the years have rolled on I and every
colleague I can think of have noticed more and more people coming to courses that they are
unfit for. Not because they are stupid, but because they have been taught to be stupid. So
used to being taught to the test that they are afraid to ask questions. Increasingly I get
asked "what's the right way to do...", usually referring to situation in which there is no
right way, just a right way for your business, at a specific point in time.
I had the great pleasure of watching our new MD describe his first customer-facing project,
which was a disaster, but they "learned" from it. I had to point out to him that I teach the
two disciplines involved - businesss analysis and project management - and if he or his team
had attended any of the courses - all of which are free to them - they would have learned
about the issues they would face, because (astonishingly) they are well-known.
I fear that these incurious adult children are at the bottom of Brexit, Trump and many of the
other ills that afflict us. Learning how to do things is difficult and sometimes boring. Much
better to wander in with zero idea of what has already been done and repeat the mistakes of
the past. I see the future as a treadmill where the same mistakes are made repetitively and
greeted with as much surprise as if they had never happened before. We have always been at
war with Eastasia...
"... I can only assume that, as with so many of their other ideas, the internet / radio hosts promoting her ideas as the solution to the worlds problems have never actually read anything she said, or did, or possibly if they had, they have not understood it. ..."
"... Usually, with philosophers, you can see how it is not their words, but that someone has interpreted them for their own ends (Nietzsche etc), but in the case of Rand, no mis-interpretation is required, unless you are trying to portray her views as anything other than deeply misanthropic. ..."
I always view Ayn Rand as someone who most right wing dictators would place themselves
somewhere to the left of.
I have no idea how she became the poster child for the libertarian movement, I can only
assume that, as with so many of their other ideas, the internet / radio hosts promoting her
ideas as the solution to the worlds problems have never actually read anything she said, or
did, or possibly if they had, they have not understood it.
Usually, with philosophers, you can see how it is not their words, but that someone has
interpreted them for their own ends (Nietzsche etc), but in the case of Rand, no
mis-interpretation is required, unless you are trying to portray her views as anything other
than deeply misanthropic.
The degree of statism in a country's political system, is the degree to which it breaks
up the country into rival gangs and sets men against one another. When individual rights
are abrogated, there is no way to determine who is entitled to what; there is no way to
determine the justice of anyone's claims, desires, or interests. The criterion, therefore,
reverts to the tribal concept of: one's wishes are limited only by the power of one's
gang.
Such a black and white view of reality. This is the entire problem with Rand's worldview,
reality is far too complex. Here, you talk about the level of "statism" - there are many
different methods of using the state to achieve goals which help improve your life and those
in the society around you.
For example, in Scandanavian countries, and other northern European ones, the state is
used to make up for distribution deficiencies in the market system - that is, to reign in
those at either end of the socio-economic scale to make the distribution more equal, which
has been scientifically shown to reduce all manner of social ills caused by a large amount of
economic inequality.
They do this whilst minimising the impact on economic freedom.
So it's erroneous to think statism = soviet russia style dictatorships.
As for individual rights - well, these are clearly important, but certainly not as a
blanket ideology behind society. Negative sides to individual rights are things like:
• Educational freedom - 2 + 2 can equal 5!
• Parenting - society has to deal with bad parenting as the child reaches adulthood, so
society deserves an equal say: I don't have to vaccinate my kids! (recent MMR jab a prime
example)
• I'm free to pollute the environment, make excessive noise because the government has
no place stopping me.
As a society, a balance needs to be maintained. A balance between a person's individual
liberty and the impact on the society around them. This is the main area where Rand's
philosophy fails - she simply does not acknowledge the very complex relationship humans have
with each other, with society as a whole, and the world around them.
"... This is the reduction ad absurdum that libertarianism is always reduced to. A subscription police force is an an idiocy, a bit like a subscription fire service. ..."
"... Even by the 18th Century, people had figured out that made no sense. How on earth could it work? A private police force would be beholden to its paymasters and no one else. ..."
"... As I have said many times, a pure libertarian society would be a warlord society, with the feeble or non-existent state unable to restrain the richest and most powerful people in that society. Truly a hell on earth. ..."
The basic axiom of libertarian political theory holds that every man is a self-owner,
having absolute jurisdiction over his own body. In effect, this means that no one else may
justly invade, or aggress against, another's person. It follows then that each person
justly owns whatever previously unowned resources he appropriates or 'mixes his labor
with'. From these twin axioms -- self-ownership and 'homesteading' -- stem the
justification for the entire system of property rights titles in a free market
society."
That's all very well, but without the means to protect, defend and preserve these things
that one "owns", it amounts to very little. And that is where collectivisation comes in. For
what is the law but a series of codes that we collectively as a society agree to abide by.
Without the rule of law to protect me, whatever I own will soon be taken by someone stronger
and more aggressive that me. Individuals cannot assert their rights as individuals, for they
are not strong enough to do so. The irony, which is lost on libertarians, is that for
individual rights to be preserved we must sacrifice a little of our individualism to
collectively band together to defend those rights.
Then don't pay if you don't want to, that's my point. If you want police pay a
subscription. I suppose this is floating away from objectivism and more into
libertarianism. The principle is the same how ever.
This is the reduction ad absurdum that libertarianism is always reduced to. A subscription
police force is an an idiocy, a bit like a subscription fire service.
Even by the 18th
Century, people had figured out that made no sense. How on earth could it work? A private
police force would be beholden to its paymasters and no one else.
Presumably there would be
multiple such police forces - for free-market competition, of course. These police forces
would become de facto private armies. And from where would they derive their authority? From
he who pays them the most?
As I have said many times, a pure libertarian society would be a
warlord society, with the feeble or non-existent state unable to restrain the richest and
most powerful people in that society. Truly a hell on earth.
While there is certainly an element of Paul supporters, in my experience here in the
Bay/Central Coast is that it is predominantly Dems, liberals, progressives, socialists and
a surprising number of anarchists (many of which are not the typical window-breaking
stereotype).
I would guess its all of us who are suspicious of hierarchical state capitalism - whether
of the left or the right. Many Anarchists have a libertarian mindset, and seek cooperation
(rather than a competition in who can break the most windows), but reject the dominance and
structures of the elite, which are usually completely undemocratic.
People think of anarchy as equating with lawless selfishness because that's how it works
in real life.
No, that is not anarchy. That is a load of selfish bastards claiming to be anarchists and
using this as a justification for their being selfish bastards. I remember only too well the
cry of no small number of the trendy fashion-punk-anarchists of the 1980's to justify their
hedonism and lack of responsibility " I'm an Anarchist, me: I can do anything! ".And
my response to them? " Are you fuck!!! ".
Sadly, however, many like yourself choose to take the definition of anarchy which is a
total misrepresentation of it equating to chaos and disorder, and which as I noted in my
earlier comment, has been deliberately promulgated and used by the State and its supportive
media. And in doing so, you do the philosophy a disservice, as you only help spread this
representation, which eventually becomes the accepted understanding. And this is what the
State and the oligarchs desire most, as it keeps people away from those most dangerous of
thoughts, about actually trying to control their own lives.
So easy to say when you so blithely ignore the historical injustices, the inequality of
opportunity and the theft - the first person to claim a parcel of land as their own exclusive
property was committing an act of theft.
It's not entrepreneurial; it's base rent-seeking and
it was a violent act of forced approbriation by denying natural rights to others.
The
subsequent claims to title are enforced by the threat of violence through the emergence of a
pervasive state.
A modern example is the oligarchs who carved up the commons in a collapsing and
disintegrating Soviet Union. Their's was an act of theft committed against society and the
common good. Your definition of freedom is predicated on theft and is a denial of natural
freedoms,
Listen, in the computer age, I can find FACTS in seconds. Here are some FACTS ! ------------------------------------------ Trump says he will create 25 million jobs,--REALLY ??? -5 GOP presidents have NOT created 25 million jobs in 57 YEARS ! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Clinton created almost as many jobs as 5 GOP presidents. Let's cut to the chase. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, here are the net increases
in private-sector employment under each president, chronologically by party since 1961-- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Republicans---
Richard Nixon: Increase of 7.1 million jobs Gerald Ford: Increase of 1.3 million jobs Ronald Reagan: Increase of 14.7 million jobs George H.W. Bush: Increase of 1.5 million jobs George W. Bush: Decline of 646,000 jobs ---Total:-------------- Increase of 23.9 million jobs under Republican presidents
-Democrats---
John F. Kennedy: Increase of 2.7 million jobs Lyndon B. Johnson: Increase of 9.5 million jobs Jimmy Carter: Increase of 9.0 million jobs Bill Clinton: Increase of 20.8 million jobs Barack Obama: Increase of 14,332,000 jobs
--- Total: Increase of 56.3 million jobs. --
------------------------------------------------------ It is a fact of history that nine of the ten economic recessions since 1953, when Dwight D.
Eisenhower became President, have come under Republican Presidents as follows:
July 1953 to May 1954–Eisenhower
August 1957 to April 1958–Eisenhower
April 1960 to February 1961–Eisenhower
December 1969 to November 1970–Nixon
November 1973 to March 1975–Nixon/Ford
January 1980 to July 1980–Carter (Democrat)
July 1981-November 1982–Reagan
July 1990-March 1991 -- HW Bush
March 2001-November 2001–W Bush
December 2007-June 2009–W Bush/Obama–last five months under Democrat
----
The longest recessions were under W Bush and Obama; Reagan; and Nixon/Ford, with the
unemployment rate reaching 10 percent, 10.8 percent, and 9 percent respectively in those
recessions. The shortest recession was under Jimmy Carter, six months in 1980, but the only
Democrat to have a recession begin while in office, and suffered at the polls partially on that
fact, that it was in an election year!
Eisenhower had three recession periods, while Nixon had two, and W. Bush had two. ----------- http://www.theprogressiveprofessor.com/?p=26206 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
When conservatives/neoliberals/GOP are in charge the economy and jobs GO TO SHIT -- !!!
@Sonofrex
For starters, try reading David Graeber's 'Debt: The first 5000 years' for a comprehensive
account on concepts of money, property, debt and obligation from an anthropological
perspective which soundly buries your cherished assumptions and beliefs about the primacy of
private property and it's conflation with freedom. Perhaps one of the most compelling book
I've read in recent times.
"... "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy" - Alexis de Toqueville ..."
The problem is that as De Toqueville realises (his quote below) most of the people
commenting here are simply living a parasitic existence benefiting from state largesse -
sucking the teat of a bloated and overburdened state caring not whether their sustenance is
remotely sustainable and just voting for ever more
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the
voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that
moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the
public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy" -
Alexis de Toqueville
Imagine being stuck in a fall out shelter or an underground bunker during some apocalypse
with a devoted Ayn Rand follower or followers. Gurantee they would be killed and eaten with
in the first few hours.
Rand followers remind me of my little neices and nephews when they fight over candy and
toys. You tell them they have to share and they say no mine mine it's all mine. Now imagine a
grown man or woman doing the same exact thing except they run a major corporation or worse
are an elected official. They have tried to make money off of every crisis in the past thirty
years.
Rands followers are selfish greedy, most likely insane, jackles who have destroyed and
plundered the American and world economy for thier own ends. Usually so they can have the
most toys like cars, houses, hot tubs, private jets, viagra and wild sex parties Mind you
they most likely have to pay people to have sex with them. I have nothing against capitalism
but they need to reeled in at some point. Sadly goverment does not do it's job by looking
after the public but after their own wallets. The people who view her has a sage and goddess
are seriously out of touch with reality.
Honestly her idea's are failures, the west is in debt up to it's eyeballs, Asia is rising
and Latin America is telling America and Europe to collectively go and screw ourselves. I am
not happy about this but apart of me is a bit amused by it.
The intellectual antecedents of the new right go back to Leo Strauss and the University of
Chicago among others. Canadian academic Shadia Drury wrote two books critical of Straussian
philosophy: "Leo Strauss and the American Right" (1999) and "The Political Ideas of Leo
Strauss" (first published 1988, revised 2005). Counterpunch.org carries a number of articles
by Gary Leupp, Francis Boyle and others also castigating the influence of Leo Strauss and his
followers on US foreign policy. Seymour Hersch also took a blowtorch to Strauss in an article
for The New Yorker many years ago when George W Bush was US President (link:
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2003/05/12/030512fa_fact?currentPage=4#ixzz1437Z8MNs).
Indeed! I attended a public lecture by Thomas Frank (former young conservative-now left
wing) at the LSE, and he was even describing Tea Party Placards, reading: (paraphrase)
'government get your hands off my Medicare'!
@Fissile
I've seen that before. Although hardly an anarcho-capitalist, my uncle in Australia; a music
teacher in a private school would alway rail against unions and so-called union-power at
every opportunity. The moment his job came under threat, he'd signed up for membership
forthwith.
"... Friedrich von Hayek, one of the creed's most revered economic gurus, spent his productive years railing against government old age pension and medical insurance schemes. When he became old and infirm, he signed on for both social security and medicare. ..."
Friedrich von Hayek, one of the creed's most revered economic gurus, spent his productive
years railing against government old age pension and medical insurance schemes. When he
became old and infirm, he signed on for both social security and medicare.
Love it. When push comes to shove all those ideologies and beliefs crumble into the dust of
practical needs. Another individual who cloaked the self-interest of the rich and
powerful into some kind of spurious ideology.
George wrote a rather good article about Von
Hayek a few years ago I seem to remember.
It's no wonder the US is so screwed up these days. Somehow the NeoCons, before and after
stealing the 2,000 election for Bush, with the help of abundance of Liars 4 Hire think tanks
like CATO, CEI, AEI, Heritage Foundation blah, blah, blah, bankrolled by the likes of the
Koch Bros, The Scaifes, Exxon, Monsanto, Dow, Dupont the Nuke Industry etc. were, and are
still able to convince low intelligence people that wrong is right, bad is good, meanness is
"compassion" and abuse is "tough love".
But it only works if those being duped are already predisposed to hateful philosophy, and
that they got in spades with careful conditioning (brainwashing) from bastards like Rush
Limbaugh and Rupert Murdoch, people with no moral scruples whatsoever.
Thus the right today (actually for a long while now) is no more than a collection of
racists and bigots, pathological liars and scammers, charlatans and greedmeisters.
It's why they care nothing for the poor, nothing for protection the environment, nothing
for anyone or anything but themselves. They are the cult of mean.
As former right-wing operative Allen Raymond famously said: "this is not about morality,
this is about winning"
"Marx/dialectical materialism...reduces humanity's complex social and political
relations to a simple conflict between the "bourgeoisie" and the "proletariat"; ie the
owners of property and the workers, by which Marx and Engels meant, basically, factory
workers. Any class which didn't tick one of these boxes was either, like the peasants,
shopkeepers, artisans and aristocrats, destined to "decay and finally disappear...
I don't read Marx quite like that:
"The lower strata of the middle class -- the small tradespeople, shopkeepers, and retired
tradesmen generally, the handicraftsmen and peasants -- all these sink gradually into the
proletariat, partly because their diminutive capital does not suffice for the scale on which
Modern Industry is carried on, and is swamped in the competition with the large capitalists,
partly because their specialized skill is rendered worthless by new methods of
production.
Thus, the proletariat is recruited from all classes of the population." (Communist
Manifesto)
"Marx... entirely trusted to the intellectual development of the working class, which was
sure to result from combined action and mutual discussion." (Engel footnote)
"... Classic Marxist dualism of proletariat-bourgeois broke down once the ownership and control of capital started to diverge with the employment of a vast managerial class. It s quite possible today even for 'proletariat' to own more of their company though stock than the middle manager above them. On top of that we now produce consumerism in the west and ideas over what you might call industry. Lots of stuff we produce is just aesthetic, surface, ephemeral, and useless. :) ..."
"Any class which didn't tick one of these boxes was either, like the peasants, shopkeepers,
artisans and aristocrats, destined to "decay and finally disappear in the face of modern
industry", or, like the unemployed, was "social scum, that passively rotting mass thrown off
by the lowest layers of old society", with no legitimate existence in a post-revolutionary
world."
You are describing here Marx's predictions about the consequences of the processes of
capital, not necessarily what he would have wanted to happen. As Fredric Jameson suggests in
his recent Representing Capital, Capital can be read as despairing dissection of an economic
juggernaut indifferent to everything other than satisfying its own accumulative drive, one
that leads inevitably to the polarity of vast wealth on the one hand and unemployment and
immiseration on the other. If anything has ever been prescient, that was.
It's also abundantly clear from Capital that Marx believed just as much that capitalism
deprived life and work of satisfaction, meaning and pleasure as he welcomed the progress of
modern industrial technological civilisation.
Also, if you think Marx lacked humanity you should take a look at the 'Working Day'
chapter of Capital, Volume One and the final Book, 'On So-Called Primitive Accumulation.'
It's a mistake to believe that Marx thought that socialism would inevitably follow
capitalism and that history was working to a neat plan.
Marx entertained many (sometimes contradictory) possibilities about alternatives to
capitalism, including ones involving other classes that the proletariat. See his letter to
Vera Zasulich of 1881:
Some might do, but the main Marxist critique of social democracy is that, by providing a
safety net for the poorest in society and potentially creating limited meritocracy it
creates the conditions for continued false consciousness and doesn't allow for class
consciousness to form, which is one of the main pre-conditions (along with a fully
developed capitalist industrial economy) for revolution to begin. The most successful
examples of this can be seen in countries like Germany where many will angrily insist that
their countries exist in a state of post-class politics thanks to their social-democrat
systems.
Classic Marxist dualism of proletariat-bourgeois broke down once the ownership and control
of capital started to diverge with the employment of a vast managerial class. It s quite
possible today even for 'proletariat' to own more of their company though stock than the
middle manager above them. On top of that we now produce consumerism in the west and ideas
over what you might call industry. Lots of stuff we produce is just aesthetic, surface,
ephemeral, and useless. :)
But I do agree the social democratic model is essentially conservative and protects an
elite though, but anyway that system is changing now as we have identity politics, activism,
globalisation etc, the nation state is withering and has been for years, it's attacked from
without and within.
... the Manifesto contains in theoretical form many of the horrors later visited upon
the people of the Soviet Union and some other communist nations. Dialectical materialism
reduces humanity's complex social and political relations to a simple conflict between the
"bourgeoisie" and the "proletariat"; ie the owners of property and the workers, by which
Marx and Engels meant, basically, factory workers.
I think the first thing Marx would have said, in fact almost by definition, the first
thing he wanted to say, was that every consciousness is a product of its surroundings. And
likewise, Marx's criticism of capitalism was in every way a product of his understanding of
the economic realities in the middle of the nineteenth century. In other words, if your going
to talk about 'dialectical materialism' you shouldn't neglect the second word.
Given that Das Capital was always a critcism of capitalism, and given also that since the
end of the Cold War, capitalism has been claimed the victor, (and has led to another economic
recession as a result)isn't Marx as relevent to day as he ever was?
Marxism is a humane and noble system in theory, which turns out to be savage barbarism
when put into practice.
Read some Marx, or a least some serious analysis of Marx. Getting past chapter one is the
challenge - try following David Harvey's online course. Marx's work constitutes a brilliant
critique of capitalism rather than a blueprint for a socialist society (there is some of this
but it's pretty sketchy). He had some marvellous insights, though being human he got stuff
wrong, too.
It was people like the Bolsheviks who turned Marx and then Lenin into unassailable
authorities justifying just about anything.
But Marx's work continues to provide an important perspective on how capitalist societies
work and why they stagger from crisis to crisis.
The difference between Marx and Rand is that the former was a profound thinker and deeply
humane man. He could be turgid but also had moments of coruscating literary brilliance.
Rand was a fifth-rate apologist for plutocracy, followed by cryptofascists all over
America, from republican politicians to a whole gaggle of Hollywood hacks.
Google suggests the weak-minded include Angelina Jolie, Brad Pitt, Vince Vaughan, Charlize
Theron, Rob Lowe and Eva Mendes. Who knows? If they really are Rand fans they should be held
up to public ridicule. It's a nice irony, though, all of those ordinary people rushing off to
spend their dollars watching celebrities who secretly despise them.
"... Republicanism and true Christianity are mutually exclusive. There is nothing for them to quote. Sharing your wealth? Giving to the poor? Egalitarianism? Loving your neighbour? The Good Samaritan? ..."
"... Best to pretend that Christianity is about extreme right wing economic policy (and fascist social mores), even though it is the opposite. ..."
"... And Tea Partiers like Ayn Rand? The most anti-Christian and anti-American lunatic you can find? The corporate agenda and Wall Street interests trump everything else. No news there. ..."
"... A lot of these people describe themselves as Christian, makes you wonder which part of Jesus' message they loved more, the part that said the poor should rot without help, or the part where he said violence was justified and the chasing of wealth is to be lauded. ..."
It never stops to amaze me how the American Republican Right claims to be Christian. Have you
noticed that they NEVER quote the words of Jesus Christ? I don't blame them,
Republicanism and true Christianity are mutually exclusive. There is nothing for them to
quote. Sharing your wealth? Giving to the poor? Egalitarianism? Loving your neighbour? The
Good Samaritan?
Dirty words all. Best to pretend that Christianity is about extreme right wing
economic policy (and fascist social mores), even though it is the opposite.
If Jesus came to the US today, he would not like Republicans and they would not like him.
Santorum, Palin, Limbaugh etc. would strap him to the electric chair and pull the lever if
they could, no doubt.
And Tea Partiers like Ayn Rand? The most anti-Christian and anti-American lunatic you
can find? The corporate agenda and Wall Street interests trump everything else. No news
there.
The most bizarre aspect of the rights infatuation with Ayn Rand is that she was an
ardent Atheist who's beliefs are diametrically opposite to those of Jesus & the
Bible.
A lot of these people describe themselves as Christian, makes you wonder which part of
Jesus' message they loved more, the part that said the poor should rot without help, or the
part where he said violence was justified and the chasing of wealth is to be lauded.
"the only way you're gonna be able to sleep at night (and go to heaven in the afterlife) is
to believe that the system has some moral justification based on the laws of nature"
I think this is one of the drivers in the shift from Catholicism to Protestanism,
especially in Northern Europe.
For Medieval Catholics everyone was where God had put them, so the rich were rich and the
poor poor as part of Gods plan, and anyone trying to change it was going against God.
Which is handy if you are a Baron or Bishop living the high life surrounded my thousands of
starving peasants (having armed retainers also helped).
Come the industrial revolution and the rise of the business and trade classes that's not so
appealing, so now God rewards the virtuous and hard working, who naturally rise to the
top.
Rand used Medicare under her husband's name (to evade being found out), while Hayek took
hypocrisy to a whole new level; he not only had state provided healthcare in his native
Austria, but also used it in the USA, too, after Charles Koch (who paid Hayek to advocate the
abolition of such welfare) urged him to. So, Hayek is a far bigger welfare sponger than the
people the Right so loves to deionize. Again, like Rand he did this secretly, never
acknowledging that he used the system which he wished to deny to others. That is obscene
dishonesty and conceitedness.
Then there's Milton Friedman, who, in the documentary The 1% , declared, with a
straight face, that the wealthy could not bribe politicians and thus that there was no
corruption in politics!
In the face of such hypocrisy and stupidity one can only assume their followers are
egotists who only hear what they want to hear.
I can hardly write, I'm so angry! This disgusting, and digustingly influential, woman signed
on for Medicare and Social Security? I wish my husband could! He has suffered two massive
strokes and is so severely cognitively impaired that I am dreading his return home from the
hospital (where he's entitled to be right now because I pay nearly $2,000 a month in "Cobra"
healthcare insurance). At 59, he's too young for Medicare, and because we were saving out of
modest incomes for our pension-less retirement, we have more than the pitiful $3,000 in the
bank that Medicaid (Medi-Cal in California) allows. He needs to be watched 24 hours ALL the
time. I won't go on; I feel guilty taking time out to read & comment.
Fascinating analysis. The fascist/dominatrix, messianic, and stereotype
(of people and the public and private sectors) in the writing dovetail into
a seemless motif. Quite a new perspective on niche-marketing. One can
see the market that the writing is being directed to and ultimately respected
by: people who demand simple solutions for complex problems.
There is the sense of her own triumphalist infallibility in the writing. Positively
creepy and eventually off-putting. Even Nietzsche had a sense of humour.
When less than half the eligible population votes, the most easily-led, easily-frightened,
easily-lied-to segment of the population is an intrinsically much more valuable political
asset.
The whole of North American right-wing thought is organised around this concrete,
inescapable fact. It's become the solid framework around which an entire conservative
culture, from media to religion to education policy, has crystallised.
This is why it really isn't always possible to make a great deal of sense of North
American conservative culture -- a lot of it is simply redundant and empty, as inherently
meaningless as a flag or national anthem shorn of all their ignoble associations.
The division of labour between leaders hungry to lead and followers desperate to be led is
simply that well-entrenched. The meaning of texts and symbols -- arbitrarily and randomly
seized upon and misrepresented by third rate intellects with enough of the psychopath in them
to seem charismatic to suburban dullards and bigots -- is simply assumed ('x said it,
so...'). Then meaning and context are left behind, while the tropes and images survive in the
hearts of those for whom they're simply reassuring -- points of reference in a world they've
been raised not to understand.
And joking aside, was her mind and her thinking not befuddled by the high manic state that
results from amphetamine addiction. Puts her theories seriously into question doesn't it.
Millions of copies of Atlas Shrugged are purchased but very few are read and virtually all of
them become landfill after a single college semester. Like every other college student I
purchased the book because it was required reading and like 98% of U.S. college students I
ignored the book and cribbed my assignments out of Cliff Notes.
It's drivel. It's beyond moronic because even the most cursory examination provides
examples of inherited wealth and advantage that are almost impossible to overcome by labor
and talent alone.
Even the "great" Bill Gates had the almost unique position of access to computers in his
teens that most graduate students of the time would have envied and two parents working for
IBM that fed him the critical contract that made him rich.
The book, the philosophy, the author, and the followers are all frauds.
Ayn Rand's philosophy is sick. I would say that it is just as sick as fascism. We on the left
must do everything we can to stop the spread of this vile philosophy.
One has to admire Rand for stating what Western government and large corporations are mafia
par excellence but never admit this in public - their philosophy, their creed.
This mafia rules Western world through sham elections, putting copycat parties against
each other on the ring while rooting out any viable alternatives. This mafia also wants to
dominate the whole world via interventions, sanctions, threats. They diligently check voting
track record of third world countries in UN and cruelly punish those who voted
independently.
This plutocratic clique has monopolized media, controls largest social networks, through
intelligence agencies organize bogus propaganda campaigns against dissidents
jessthecrip
6 March 2012 4:36PM
If Rand's ideas continue to spread I have little hope for the survival of the human race.
Without co-operation our species will die out, probably taking many others with it.
Crap, Rand never proposed that people should not co-operate with each other. Only an
absolute fool would say such a thing. Ayn Rand was many things, some of them very nasty
indeed, but foolish was most certainly not one of them.
She claimed that people should do what they liked free from force as much as is practical,
if that meant freely choosing to co-operate with others for mutual benefit, then so be it. I
hope you can see that this is a completely different kettle of fish. Co-operation is indeed
what actually happens far more then it does not, even more so when the government is not
forcing people to do things by the use of the criminal law.
This must be the case otherwise mankind would have always lived in isolated chaos, the
evidence for which has never been found.
Have you ever tried to have sex without co-operating with someone else?
Oh yes, I am sorry, of course you have. Well, try not to do it anywhere near as often, you
may go blind, or gain more hairy palms.
"... Kant believed in the absolute wrongness of coercion and deception. Kant believed in never treating people as a means to your end. Kant believed reason and rationality to be the foundation of morality, and morality to apply to all people as rational agents. ..."
Rand thought Kant to be "the most evil man in history".
Kant believed in the absolute wrongness of coercion and deception. Kant believed in never
treating people as a means to your end. Kant believed reason and rationality to be the
foundation of morality, and morality to apply to all people as rational agents.
Kant's idea of obligation is important. Humans have an evolutionary tendency for
selfishness; to compete. But that is not to say what is natural is moral.
There is also evidence for an evolutionary tendency to alturism. I'm not sure you need
even get as far as Kant, much of what Rand's arguing seems fundamentally unscientific, let
alone immoral.
Should Rand have devoted any time/effort to the study of morality, she may have found the
writings of Kant most useful; if not alternative .
Kant's idea of obligation is important. Humans have an evolutionary tendency for
selfishness; to compete. But that is not to say what is natural is moral .
Kant argued that a moral act is one where the subject is obliged to do so - not where one
does it for personal gain or enjoyment. This is not to say that morality should not be
enjoyed per se but one should not solely act on the premise of enjoyment.
The prolific socialist and thinker, George Bernard Shaw, said An Englishman is only moral
when he is uncomfortable'
There is some truth in this; Rand's idea that morality is selfishness, virtue is self
interest and good is personal accumulation denies the collective nature of humanity.
Man is not an island.
Humanity has an obligation to others. The capitalist crowd purport that one is solely
responsible for one's won gain. Not so. We live in a country that provides opportunity, those
who succeed by that opportunity have not done so merely off their own back. They have done so
in a particular society. You need look no further than the African continent to see that
personal/material gain is not subject solely to the individual. The repressive and tyrannous
society much of Africa plays down the effort of the individual, regardless of their admirable
effort and determination.
I hope Kant may agree with me that Rand, the republicans and the ideological conservatives
has an obligation to be quiet and sit down.
...Ayn Rand was a bitter, unhappy and twisted individual. That so many follow her is
testament only to the power of the propaganda machine controlled by the elite.
This says it all:-
"I wonder how many would continue to worship at the shrine of Ayn Rand if they knew that
towards the end of her life she signed on for both Medicare and social security. She had
railed furiously against both programmes, as they represented everything she despised about
the intrusive state. Her belief system was no match for the realities of age and ill
health."
It would be hard to find a better metaphor for our banking system.
"... In my opinion Ryan had no true understanding of the point of philosophical debate or that a system is meant to have a practical effect on all Society I mean that is the entire point of Plato in his Republic is to build a Just Society. ..."
"... I agree with Epicurus that a philosophy is truly worthless unless it heals your mind and your soul from misconceptions and false beliefs. ..."
One reason why Ayn Rand may be popular is that unfortunately to an increasing extent in
Western philosophy today individualism is necessarily equated with selfishness. This is not
axiomatic. Individualism would literally not exist and would be ineffectual in practice
without the support of others, whether family and/or friends, education, technology, work and
society and the state in general. Rand did not see the contadictions in her own life and not
just at the end of it.
Although being Jewish and brought up in anti-Semitic Tsarist Russia (a prejudice not
unknown in Bolshevik Russia to) she was allowed on the principle of all individuals have
rights and was well off enough to go to university in what was then Petrograd.
Rand supported what was probably the most popular party in Russia, the Social
Revolutionaries led by Alexander Kerensky.
If only he had been successful rather than Lenin the hard pressed Russian peoples may have
been saved from all sorts of evils and the West too?
On emigrating to America she worked in Hollywood so benefiting from the new technology of
film making, the climatic conditions that California provided so necessary for the industry's
success, and capitalism that funded it. Capitalism cannot exist without myriad social
interactions between individuals; even the self-employed need customers.
Rand as George Monbiot points out lacked subtely, irony and doubt that is essential for
philosophical, political and social and economic analysis. Just like the Neo-Cons and their
knee jerk opponents today.
Her theories are based in her social class she never truly had to suffer it appears even in
Russia. I do not call her a philosopher she is no true philosopher simply a rich person
trying to work her views for the betterment of her social class.
I have read many of the Greek thinkers from Plato to Epicetius and no Greek thinker ever
removed Ethics entirly from their systems. The Stoics for example taught Phyisics, Logic, and
Ethics. Ethics is in fact a major part of Plato, Airstotle and the two other schools of
Hellenstic times though the Skepics are an ouliner.
In my opinion Ryan had no true understanding of the point of philosophical debate or that
a system is meant to have a practical effect on all Society I mean that is the entire point
of Plato in his Republic is to build a Just Society.
I am a life long philosopher in training and I agree with Epicurus that a philosophy is
truly worthless unless it heals your mind and your soul from misconceptions and false
beliefs.
There was a essay I read at University that Rand makes me think about. It was titled
Life Boat Ethics. It was an argument for the rich nations not supporting the poorer
nations. The Argument was like this.
1st Principle Our world is limited in Resources.
Prismse A
Imagine all the world is made up of life boats. The rich have the best life boats in the
seas of fate. They made them they protect them and improve them and attempt to keep them
afloat through stopping infighting on board and keeping steady crew without over
crowding.
Primse B
While the poor nations have basic life rafts that are made of the lowest quality and are
sinking and leaving their crews and the mercy of nature.
Because of their lack of strict work ethic and willingness to trade long term goas for short
term enjoyments and constant infighting for anamialistic lusts they are unwilling to create
better life boats like the rich nations and control their populations on broad.
Primse C
Helping the poorer nations might seem face of it to be good but it is really fighting
nature and that is truly wrong.
Primse D
The wise course is to allow the poorer nations to sink in th ocean and give the richer and
indeed superior peoples more room to sail these harsh seas. To found new boats and new lives
for they are the people that matter anyways.
Concluision
Rich nations out to have self interest as their drive for all things and ought to not care
about those problems that do no directly effect their personal lives.
This essay I believe has become reality we here in Europe and accross the Sea in America
are seeing this logic working out in real life and I believe the Left s no way to stop it at
present but we better not stop or we will be the kids on a raft just wanting in a boat for
simply a better life.
Philosophy as true power people ought to learn to resepect its force in our world I
do.
This is where Rand kicks in, I have no interest in your health and nor do I have a
responsibility for it no matter what your chosen group of penny loafer-ed box checkers
say
I have no interest in purchasing your latest nuclear weapons, defending your country,
subsidising your royal family, bailing out your bankers, constructing and maintaining the
pavements outside your house, lighting your street, subsidising your MPs, paying for your
police call out when you've been burgled, sweeping your streets, subsidising the collection
of your rubbish, oh and paying for that fire in your house to be extinguished no matter what
your box checkers say. No interest whatsoever. This precisely is where Ayn Rand kicks in.
"... Curious that the Ayn Rand's of this world are always very keen on a socialized police force and armed services. Presumably, they consider these services the first line of defense against the starving mob. ..."
Curious that the Ayn Rand's of this world are always very keen on a socialized police force
and armed services. Presumably, they consider these services the first line of defense
against the starving mob.
According to Ayn Rand, we are supposed to consider the rich and successful as supreme
individualists who are simply the fittest to lead in a dog eat dog world.
However, looking at powerful individuals with their soft pudgy faces, their paunchy bodies
and carefully groomed hair it is obvious that these people are not born to rule. Curiously,
when they are threatened by an outside force, it is never them who serve but the useless poor
who are expected to develop a sense of community, quaintly called patriotism, and defend
them. Does anyone really imagine that in a true meritocracy these same people would survive
and prosper.
Rand is the Republican God...well, her and Jesus. They just love her love of selfishness.
It's what the GOP thinks makes America great. They talk about individualism, freedom, and so
on but it's really all about the rich getting to keep all their money. People who are drawn
to Rand are drawn to her because they want to excuse their own selfishness as some sort of
ideal.
To describe Ayn Rand's ideas as philosophy really is gilding a turd. She may have called it
"objectivism", but the -ism suggests an intellectual stringency, which it simply lacks.
"Atlas Shrugged" is a work of badly written fiction, or propaganda rather, not a
philosophical text, but that distinction is easily lost on a gullible American public. While
it may now play the role of guiding text of the American right as opposed to Marx' writings
for the left, Rand's preposterous ideology is more the intellectual and moral equivalent to
"Mein Kampf" than to "Das Kapital". That such a nasty and amoral doctrine should find favour
with a nation, which sees itself as "Christian", underlines how hollow that particular brand
of Christianity has become.
Policies like this will produce 1 rich person and approximately 999,999,999 poor people-if
put into effect, yet remarkably are popular! I can understand millionaires and billionaires
liking this philosophy but what about the normal people, the middle-classes who flock to
this?
Either they think they are richer than they are-in which case a wake-up call is coming! Or
they think they themselves will never need society's safety-net-in which case for many a
wake-up call is again coming! Or they think that if they pull with the system one day they
too will be rich-sadly becoming rich in Western society (US/UK) is like winning the
lottery-"it could be you!"-yes it COULD be you, it probably won't be you, in fact it will
almost certainly not be you-but yes we can't rule out the statement "it COULD be you!"-hoping
for a 1 in a million, million chance in effect.
Unrestrained selfishness is like allowing people in a room to slash each other's
throats-eventually the room ends up full of dead people-forgive the sarcam but is this a
fantastic outcome that we should all aspire to! Condemning the majority of society to misery
so a very few can live the high-life is no way to run a world-yes it is true that we in the
west do this all the time-today countless unseen millions live on less than 2 dollars per
day-human life and pecious (literally once in a lifetime) human potential wasted-utterly
wasted!
As for the quote that Rand went onto Medicare etc towards the end of her life-if true this
is yet another example of something I've often considered to be true-that those of extreme
political views (be it right-wing or left-wing) are invariably selfish, egocentric
hypocrites-and when you come to see this it is an ugly world! The bank-bail-outs are a prime
example-we are preached about "taking responsibility" by our leaders but this only applies to
unemployed people and the poor (or "feckless" to use the common parlance)-when very rich
bankers mess up as a result of their own poor decisions they are bailed out by the very same
government they previously professed to despise-yes that it taking responsibility in action
isn't it?, that is being morally virtuous?-pure and utter distilled hypocrisy in action! As
for Rand coming from a rich family-is thre anybody of a right ing viewpoin that wasn't born
into money-have any of them knon the poverty (at first hand) that they are so quick to
describe in unflattering terms!
Although I find the basic Objectivist philosophy objectionable there is one part of Atlas
Shrugged that has always puzzled me.
Rand praises her creative geniuses as men who always pay their workers well in order to
attract into their employment the best workers in the industry. This idea seems reasonable so
why don't the current Randian devotees within capitalist corporations do it?
Anyway, the difference between Rand's capitalism and what we have today is that all her
genius's own their own companies whereas that can't be said for most of the CEO s in the
modern world. Arguably the working class now includes the highest levels of the boardroom and
the directors are as much in thrall to their bosses as are the company cleaners.
Modern
capitalism's fatal flaw is the shareholder who, in many cases, doesn't even know which
company their investment/pension fund has invested in. We, the public, are the owners of
these companies and it is up to us whether we ask our investments to behave as ethical organisations or whether we continue to let them pressure the boards of directors of the
world into producing greater and greater returns.
Unless you own no products based on shares then YOU are the new boss and arguably you are
worse than the old boss.
"Don't give yourselves to these unnatural men - machine men with machine minds and machine
hearts! You are not machines, you are not cattle, you are men! You have the love of humanity
in your hearts! You don't hate! Only the unloved hate; the unloved and the unnatural.
Soldiers! Don't fight for slavery! Fight for liberty! " -Chaplin. (entire quote can be found
here - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0032553/quotes )
The central flaw of objectivism - a kind of wishful-thinking moral alchemy where base
selfishness somehow turns into something better - isn't unique to the 'right' by any means.
identity politics is riddled with it, although they call it 'empowerment'.
have no problem with Rand accepting social security payments, if she was legally
entitled to them. That's what they are there for. But I wonder why she chose to do so under
an assumed name, if that is correct. If she had wanted to make the point that she was
taking back some of her own money, surely that point would have been better made by being
open about it.
The obvious reason why she did it under an assumed name is that she knew perfectly well it
wouldn't sit with the bollocks about 'rugged individualism', and wouldn't be seen as 'taking
back her own money' (what if her medical care amounted to more than the portion of her taxes
assigned to medicare?), but as ranky hypocrisy.
Not to mention it would be an intellectualy circle she could never square.
Rand was a woman who, on her death bed, praised wealth and independence, while
simultaneously begging charity and succor from the state.
That would be a flaw in the woman, not the ideology, lets stick to that eh?
No, absolutely a flaw in in the ideology. If it's creator wasn't prepared to see it
through to the then, why think anyone would?
Any ideology that so fundamentally fails to understand human nature, our needs and
desires, our flaws, our alturism, and that we're fundamentally social animals, shouldn't even
be begun to be taken seriously.
The rank hypocrisy aside, what she did on her death bed was far more rational than the
nonsense she'd been preaching her whole life.
I wonder how many would continue to worship at the shrine of Ayn Rand if they knew that
towards the end of her life she signed on for both Medicare and social security. She had
railed furiously against both programmes, as they represented everything she despised about
the intrusive state. Her belief system was no match for the realities of age and ill
health.
Probably wouldn't change anything. Cameron claimed the same Disability Living Allowance
for his son that he is now taking away from disabled and terminally ill people in this
country.
Greed is slowing evolution. We are deliberately cultivating a generation whose only
purpose is to pay off the debts of the last one. Progress has stopped, so why are we
continuing on the same course?
Brilliant piece. Rand's philosophy is the philosophy of the psychopath, but you can see its
appeal: it absolves her acolytes of the need to care. It must feel tremendously liberating,
if you're that way inclined (i.e. a self-proclaimed ubermensch with a serious empathy
deficit.)
I remember reading an interview with Harry Stein, author of 'How I Accidentally Joined the
Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy: And Found Inner Peace'. He said that becoming right-wing made him
realise that he didn't have to worry about everything constantly. I'm fairly sure that you
can be a liberal without perpetually flagellating yourself for the sins of the world.
Her writing may as well be used to legitimise the business methods of Montana in Scarface,
and a loveley example of the Rand thought processes, here now, in the present day - The
Russian version of capitalism......Gangsterism is about right. The morals of the shark tank.
I think she just hated herself and never grew up and projected that onto everyone else. (The
teenage boys analogy is apposite.) It is central to right-wing (and ultra-religious) mindsets
that everything that happens in the world is somebody else's fault, never theirs, they
relinquish any responsibility for or role in any social problems or dynamics, especially and
ironically those things to do with the way they are. They are the ultimate victims and this
is a kind of psychosocial infantilism. They talk a lot about the need for 'personal
responsibility' (in theory) because they don't have any, and act the opposite. They need a
spurious 'objectivism' to hide behind, a 'reality' separate from human consciousness (as
another contributor correctly identified) because of a crushing insecurity. Their superiority
complexes are an ultra transparent and futile warding off of crippling feelings of
inferiority. It is an abject, and dangerous state of mind. Fortunately many people who go
through this phase grow out of it, they have a dark night of the soul, flashes of insight
into themselves, are forced to face their shit and become better people or whatever. People
like Ayn Rand, err, don't. Sad.
Rand was a creep. Her personal life was a train wreck. Described in biographies as cruel,
megalomaniacal, ungrateful and tasteless, she surrounded herself with a cult of loyal
followers. She made a cuckold of her husband and humiliated him in public when he began
suffering from dementia. She was addicted to amphetamines. By all accounts, she was not a
very nice person. After William Edward Hickman kidnapped and dismembered a 12-year-old
girl, she wrote admiringly of the state of mind that could engage in such an atrocity:
"Other people do not exist for him, and he does not see why they should". Hickman had
"no regard whatsoever for all that society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his
own. He has the true, innate psychology of a Superman. He can never realize and feel 'other
people."
This echoes almost word for word Rand's later description of her character Howard Roark,
the hero of her novel The Fountainhead: ' He was born without the ability to consider
others .'"
It's amazing that this drug-addled, adulterous, cruel & utterly graceless individual
is held in such regard by a significant chunk of right-wing America.
Her athiesism alone would bar anyone else from a moments consideration nevermind such
veneration.
Her appeal it seems to me is in offering superficial answers in an utterly certain way
that allows for no question or time spent (in Objectivist terms 'wasted') considering
alternates (ie the pure demigogue).
Sadly that sort of rubbish has an appeal to a certain (usually male) adolescent
mindset......and in a nation where the media is devoted to treating its populace as if they
were late teen/early 20-somethings all their lifes it doesn't surprise me she has a small but
noteable following.
Given the way the UK is being pushed to discard our own & embrace American 'pop'
culture I wouldn't be surprised to see something similar begin here either.
Sadly.
she wrote admiringly of the state of mind that could engage in such an atrocity:
it is striking that the human population appears to maintain a level of psychopathy, rather
as some deleterious genes are persistent despite their selective unfitness for the group and
their prtogressive removal and disappearance being advantageous. I guess that rather like
e.g. haemophilia, psychopathy needs to be recognised for what it is, and its maladaptiveness
treated and contained as well as possible. There is a lot of rather florid
social-behavioural/economic-political disorder around at present in a very chaotic human
environment. There are plenty more Rands waving their GOP flags right now.
Rand was a creep. Her personal life was a train wreck. Described in biographies as cruel,
megalomaniacal, ungrateful and tasteless, she surrounded herself with a cult of loyal
followers. She made a cuckold of her husband and humiliated him in public when he began
suffering from dementia. She was addicted to amphetamines. By all accounts, she was not a
very nice person. After William Edward Hickman kidnapped and dismembered a 12-year-old girl,
she wrote admiringly of the state of mind that could engage in such an atrocity:
"Other people do not exist for him, and he does not see why they should". Hickman had "no
regard whatsoever for all that society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own. He
has the true, innate psychology of a Superman. He can never realize and feel 'other
people."
This echoes almost word for word Rand's later description of her character Howard Roark,
the hero of her novel The Fountainhead: 'He was born without the ability to consider
others.'"
There's a good review of Atlas Shrugged by Whittaker Chambers in the National Review in 1957,
available here .
Extract:
Out of a lifetime of reading, I can recall no other book in which a tone of overriding
arrogance was so implacably sustained. Its shrillness is without reprieve. Its dogmatism is
without appeal.
This holds that the only moral course is pure self-interest. We owe nothing, she
insists, to anyone, even to members of our own families.
The persistence of such wrong-headed and dangerous stupidity in humankind, despite all the
objective evidence underpinned by the clearest understanding of how and why reciprocal
altruism works so well, is one of the most threatening characteristics of our species. Rand
has much to answer for as we now struggle to shake off such a malign and damaging doctrinal
idiocy as hers and all that has followed from it..
I once tried reading Atlas Shrugged, I really really tried... But only got 300 pages in, then
had to give up.
It wasn't the brutal politics/economics, I knew that in advance.
It wasn't the inability to write a flowing sentence, I knew it was more political fiction,
rather than literature.
It wasn't even the ridiculous plot, which requires a suspension of disbelief as if it is
situated in a bizarro world.
It was the distinct feeling I was seeing the world through the eyes of a sociopath, where
"other people" are despicable alien others, and only other sociopaths exist, admire and
recognize each other. Very unsettling. The inability of the protagonists to connect with
people or understand their motivations was so unbearable I had to put it aside.
Amusingly, Wikipedia notes on the film of Atlas Shrugged:
More than 100,000 DVD inserts were recalled within days due to the jacket's
philosophically incorrect description of "Ayn Rand's timeless novel of courage and
self-sacrifice.
"I care very much about literature as the place where real ethical dilemmas are met and
dealt with, so to have novels as transcendentally awful as 'Atlas Shrugs' and 'The
Fountainhead' sort of undermines my project."
I read The Fountainhead a few years ago. I agree the dialogue was hilarious(ly bad).
Other
than that, it was less hilarious than just embarrassingly dreadful. Ironically, the novel was
a wonderful reductio ad absurdum of her entire philosophy.
"... The central themes of her philosophy appear to be her idea of selfishness which people all too often transfer into their own concepts. ..."
"... She also has many valid points in the individual's ideas of 'selflessness' which are all too often born of misguided adoption of someone else's values, not of deep and stable understanding of the human condition. ..."
Have just finished The Fountainhead and was, like a lot of people, almost shocked by what
'appear' to be the tenets.
However, and as usual, people have read it with their own political agenda and especially
the Republicans who are bereft of anything remotely resembling a coherent intellectual
agenda, grab on to it and manipulate it for their nasty little purposes.
The central themes of her philosophy appear to be her idea of selfishness which people all
too often transfer into their own concepts. If we look deeper we can see quite another
message which rings true for all people and this is that we should be true to ourselves and
not take on other people's values, philosophies, idea and tastes etc. In other words her
'second handers'. I agree with her. A closer read also sees her describing the sterile
poverty of acting for power and money. Where does that fit in to the Republican
philosophy?
She also has many valid points in the individual's ideas of 'selflessness' which are all
too often born of misguided adoption of someone else's values, not of deep and stable
understanding of the human condition.
I don't want to appear to be defending someone who I am sure would vote Republican but the
gushing of ridiculous judgmental reactions based on probably a quick read is just silly. She
deserves to be read properly, by everyone!
If you watch Curtis' excellent 'All watched over by Robots of loving grace' you can see how
utterly fraudulent Rand comes across, she seemed a bitter, lonely and pathetic creature whose
petty and vindictive asides at society was one built on a complete insecurity complex, she
was just acting out her own debauched fantasies and she found the right home (the US) to
fulfill them.
It says something of a society, and inparticularly the utterly nutty 'Tea Party' to see
Rand as champion of 'free will' and ' deregulation' in fact only in the US could her views be
actually takens seriously, so much so they named a corporation after her.
Frighteningly I suspect that the autocrats-in-planning are reading Kurzweil lately, who
combines the New Right with the Randian Silicon Valley cyber-utopianism of which Curtis
describes in his doco.
Great article, George. Some superb posts here, very intelligent. Beautiful demolition of Rand
- always worth repeating ( I remember an Adam Curtis BBC2 documentary being particularly good
too). And good to see Erich Fromm mentioned, an important thinker who grappled with the
origins of fascism.
Maybe Rand did have NPD. NPD - Narcissistic Personality Disorder - it is close to
psychopathy in many ways. Extremely predatory, master spinners. There are plenty of them in
Canary Wharf and the City, and apparently it takes on average two years to find them and
remove them, as they can destroy companies. Unfortunately over the years I have had to cope
with several, and they scar you for life. They are quite infantile in many ways. There is a
very weak signal between certain parts of their brain (hippocampus ?) and they are as cold
and callous as the Waffen SS. Psychologically, one must avoid any criticism of them, never
play their games or argue with them and placate them while you gather evidence. Forget about
any normal human values like empathy, it's just not there. You have to lie in wait until they
expose a weakness, then suddenly go for the jugular with terminal velocity using hard
evidence of their savagery - anything less will result in your destruction.
Now back to Cameron, Osborne and the rest of the Tory fascists. We have to use similar
techniques.
If you can't be bothered with the books, there's an interesting film about Ayn Rand starring
Helen Mirren, who does the accent brilliantly. I don't know how accurately the events are
portrayed, but the film does play up the idea of Rand as a cultish figure who manipulates her
adoring followers, throws hissy fits, causes schisms, etc.
There's a brilliant scene where she persuades her (happily married and much younger)
second-in-command into having an affair with her because it is 'objectively' the right thing
to do. Both the young wife and Rand's own husband are utterly humiliated.
Rant's work has a special appeal to obnoxious teenage boys; friendless and
unappreciated, toxic to girls, they take a special comfort in identifying with Rant's
socially crippled isolated misunderstood geniuses and enjoy the rape scenes in the novels
where the heroine enjoys the whole experience.
Interesting, and I'd say important comments... I think sexual selection is basically
the issue. As much as I didn't like the film Happy Go Lucky I thought the Scott
character was interesting http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40Dw1Q2jvsY
how many 'creeps' are marginalised by crude sexual selection, blatant cruel discrimination,
the willful flaunting of what is essentially genetic luck; what better to engender a zero sum
sense of a world based on unfairness?
There have been experiments with depressed subordinate monkeys (Alpha males removed), one
of which is given a serotonin boosting drug... (like MDMA I think) that monkey quickly rises
to alpha male status.
If people, as they're so inclined to do, identify with their sexuality to the exclusion of
virtue (after all what better than virtue, a conscience, to pour cold water on casual sex?
hence the problem of binge drinking) they will in many cases derive enough narcissistic
confidence to be 'successful' - in exactly the way that unscrupulous bankers would wish.
Many of the losers will turn to Rand... and far worse, I fear.
"... In short, according to Mettler, the rich complain about the state while taking most of the benefits that the state provides. ..."
"... The Tea Party loonies are modern ' Randies', and idolize John Galt [hero of Atlas Shrugged ]. Like malaria, this disease is highly resistant to eradication and still kills millions. ..."
"... It proceeds in a more subtle way, showing that the rich and the affluent benefit from the state and benefit even more than the poorer. It's the rich that use the state for their benefit, not the poorer. ..."
"... Ayn Rand's objectivized nonsense, sought to treat humans as objects - see the experience of the farmed animal (similarly prosocial animals). ..."
"... it is a joke to take fools in much as Hubbard did when he created the Scientology cult. ..."
"... Democratic socialism has long been practiced and until the ascent of destructive neo-liberalism, was the pre-eminent political philosophy from 1945. ..."
"... "Capitalists believe economically that people should be free to choose how to use their capital, free movement of money, for both worker and owner." A position as idealistic and impractical as Rand's. It presupposes that both worker and owner as individuals have equal strength in any negotiation. It presupposes that ownership in itself is moral irrespective of how it was obtained. ..."
"... ...if she we're alive she wouldn't last five seconds on CiF. By modern standards, ironically, she's a light weight. ..."
"... Funny how those supporting this sort of 'philosophy' always see a role for a state to have an army and police force to protect their wealth - surely the true believer in Objectivism would not need such things and any person of money who was unable to protect themselves with their own resources would deserve whatever was coming to them? ..."
"Free society" is for these righty-wingers a society with unregulated corporate rule where democratic rule by the people for the
people ("government") does not exist.
Watching her 1959 interview, I am convinced that her extreme ideology is tangled up with her personal experiences and other
psychological
factors. She came across as cold and seemingly detached from the humanity around her.
She also appeared entirely untroubled by the fact that others might hold different views, so convinced was she of her rightness.
The Tea Party loonies are modern ' Randies', and idolize John Galt [hero of Atlas Shrugged ]. Like malaria, this disease
is highly resistant to eradication and still kills millions.
I didn't read the read I mentioned above. According to the book description and an article I read earlier about the book (as far
as I remember), the book doesn't show simply that the state is good while the lack of state is bad and so contradict Rand directly.
It proceeds in a more subtle way, showing that the rich and the affluent benefit from the state and benefit even more than
the poorer. It's the rich that use the state for their benefit, not the poorer.
This doesn't mean that the absence of a state
would be the ideal situation. The rich want a state that works only for their benefit, what is necessary is a state that works
for everybody, that diminishes inequality.
EconomicDeterminist
6 March 2012 6:57PM Response to tom1832, 5 March 2012 8:35PM
The left is obsessed with trying to find the intellectual antecedents of the new right. Intellectual?
Indeed.
I'm reminded of the outrageously behaved (& therefore isolated by the other kids) sociopathic brat continually being told by its
doting mother "there there there, nevermind, don't listen to a word of it, they're only jealous"
Quite how the right-wing imagines anyone on the left does anything but point & laugh at their 'philosophical heroine' (!!?)
beggars belief.
Rand is simply a damaged intellectual pygmy offering a deeply unoriginal juvenile nonsense so obviously born out of her own refugee
experiences.
"Rand grew up to be a selfish individualist who claimed both that altruism is harmful, and that human beings are fully rational,
with infant and childhood experience exerting no influence on adult behaviour."
I think Rand's addiction to amphetamines over decades is a partial explanation for her sociopathic nature, or perhaps a
symptom of it.
Another good explanation is the childhood trauma she experienced when her mother took away her toys for a year (to toughen
her up or somesuch). At the end of the year, Rand, still a young child, expected her toys back, only for her mother to tell her
that she'd given the toys to the local orphanage. Rand grew up to be a selfish individualist who claimed both that altruism is
harmful, and that human beings are fully rational, with infant and childhood experience exerting no influence on adult behaviour.
"The worker becomes all the poorer the more wealth he produces, the more his production increases in power and range. The
worker becomes an ever cheaper commodity the more commodities he creates. With the increasing value of the world of things
proceeds in direct proportion to the devaluation of the world of men. Labor produces not only commodities; it produces itself
and the worker as a commodity -- and does so in the proportion in which it produces commodities generally."
Marx's, Labour Theory of Value. An outstanding contribution to how social relations are corrupted within the social economy, through
capitalist exploitation.
But, communism meant elite prescription - social tyranny.
Ayn Rand's objectivized nonsense, sought to treat humans as objects - see the experience of the farmed animal (similarly prosocial
animals).
All I wish to say is, thanks for the universal principle of human rights.
And down with Financialization. Another thought provoking article from Mr Monbiot.
I have not read Rand's work but the impression I get from your account of it is that it is a joke to take fools in much as Hubbard
did when he created the Scientology cult.
Fine, I'll call it "Randism" and now she is all fine and Dandy too.
What are you talking about?
Democratic socialism has long been practiced and until the ascent of destructive neo-liberalism,
was the pre-eminent political philosophy from 1945.
Randism is atavistic gobbledegook, that has never been implemented. In the degree
to which it has influenced far right politicians in the US and UK, it has proved to be wholly negative.
"Capitalists believe economically that people should be free to choose how to use their capital, free movement of money, for
both worker and owner." A position as idealistic and impractical as Rand's. It presupposes that both worker and owner as individuals have equal strength
in any negotiation. It presupposes that ownership in itself is moral irrespective of how it was obtained.
Funny how those supporting this sort of 'philosophy' always see a role for a state to have an army and police force to protect
their wealth - surely the true believer in Objectivism would not need such things and any person of money who was unable to protect
themselves with their own resources would deserve whatever was coming to them?
"Many of us it seems can no longer differentiate between 'right' and 'wrong' or see the importance of defending a sense of common
humanity, with those who seek to protect the poor and vulnerable in society scorned and berated,..."
Well said, well written - but in order to turn this around we have to remember we are faced with the dictum "There is no society."
The absolute belief in that nihilistic proposition leaves no ground for negotiation. Once again we ask, "What is to be done?"
George Monbiot is right: Rand was probably a female sociopath...
Notable quotes:
"... Through her novels (such as Atlas Shrugged) and her nonfiction (such as The Virtue of Selfishness) she explained a philosophy she called Objectivism. This holds that the only moral course is pure self-interest. We owe nothing, she insists, to anyone, even to members of our own families. She described the poor and weak as "refuse" and "parasites", and excoriated anyone seeking to assist them. Apart from the police, the courts and the armed forces, there should be no role for government: no social security, no public health or education, no public infrastructure or transport, no fire service, no regulations, no income tax. ..."
"... Rand's is the philosophy of the psychopath, a misanthropic fantasy of cruelty, revenge and greed. Yet, as Gary Weiss shows in his new book, Ayn Rand Nation, she has become to the new right what Karl Marx once was to the left: a demigod at the head of a chiliastic cult. Almost one third of Americans, according to a recent poll, have read Atlas Shrugged, and it now sells hundreds of thousands of copies every year. ..."
"... the Tea Party movement has taken her to its heart. No rally of theirs is complete without placards reading "Who is John Galt?" and "Rand was right". Rand, Weiss argues, provides the unifying ideology which has "distilled vague anger and unhappiness into a sense of purpose". She is energetically promoted by the broadcasters Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Rick Santelli. She is the guiding spirit of the Republicans in Congress. ..."
"... It is not hard to see why Rand appeals to billionaires. She offers them something that is crucial to every successful political movement: a sense of victimhood. She tells them that they are parasitised by the ungrateful poor and oppressed by intrusive, controlling governments. ..."
"... the most devoted member of her inner circle was Alan Greenspan , former head of the US Federal Reserve. ..."
"... As for bankers, their need to win the trust of their clients guarantees that they will act with honour and integrity. Unregulated capitalism, he maintains, is a "superlatively moral system". ..."
"... Once in government, Greenspan applied his guru's philosophy to the letter, cutting taxes for the rich, repealing the laws constraining banks, refusing to regulate the predatory lending and the derivatives trading which eventually brought the system down. Much of this is already documented, but Weiss shows that in the US, Greenspan has successfully airbrushed history. ..."
Her
psychopathic ideas made billionaires feel like victims and turned millions of followers into
their doormats Comments
1,227 Illustration by Daniel Pudles I t has a fair claim to be the ugliest philosophy the
postwar world has produced. Selfishness, it contends, is good, altruism evil, empathy and
compassion are irrational and destructive. The poor deserve to die; the rich deserve unmediated
power. It has already been tested, and has failed spectacularly and catastrophically. Yet the
belief system constructed by Ayn Rand , who died 30 years ago today, has never
been more popular or influential.
Rand was a Russian from a prosperous family who emigrated to the United States. Through her
novels (such as Atlas Shrugged) and her nonfiction (such as The Virtue of Selfishness) she
explained a philosophy she called Objectivism. This holds that the only moral course is pure
self-interest. We owe nothing, she insists, to anyone, even to members of our own families. She
described the poor and weak as "refuse" and "parasites", and excoriated anyone seeking to
assist them. Apart from the police, the courts and the armed forces, there should be no role
for government: no social security, no public health or education, no public infrastructure or
transport, no fire service, no regulations, no income tax.
Atlas Shrugged, published in 1957, depicts a United States crippled by government
intervention in which heroic millionaires struggle against a nation of spongers. The
millionaires, whom she portrays as Atlas holding the world aloft, withdraw their labour, with
the result that the nation collapses. It is rescued, through unregulated greed and selfishness,
by one of the heroic plutocrats, John Galt .
The poor die like flies as a result of government programmes and their own sloth and
fecklessness. Those who try to help them are gassed. In a notorious passage, she argues that
all the passengers in a train filled with poisoned fumes deserved their fate. One, for
instance, was a teacher who taught children to be team players; one was a mother married to a
civil servant, who cared for her children; one was a housewife "who believed that she had the
right to elect politicians, of whom she knew nothing".
Rand's is the philosophy of the psychopath, a misanthropic fantasy of cruelty, revenge and
greed. Yet, as Gary Weiss
shows in his new book, Ayn Rand Nation, she has become to the new right what Karl Marx once was
to the left: a demigod at the head of a chiliastic cult. Almost one third of Americans,
according to a recent poll, have read Atlas Shrugged, and it now sells hundreds of thousands of
copies every year.
Ignoring Rand's evangelical atheism, the Tea Party movement has taken her
to its heart. No rally of theirs is complete without placards reading "Who is John Galt?" and
"Rand was right". Rand, Weiss argues, provides the unifying ideology which has "distilled vague
anger and unhappiness into a sense of purpose". She is energetically promoted by the
broadcasters Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Rick Santelli. She is the guiding spirit of the
Republicans in Congress.
Like all philosophies, Objectivism is absorbed, secondhand, by people who have never read
it. I believe it is making itself felt on this side of the Atlantic: in the clamorous new
demands to remove the 50p tax band for the very rich, for instance; or among the sneering,
jeering bloggers who write for the Telegraph and the Spectator, mocking compassion and empathy,
attacking efforts to make the word a kinder place.
It is not hard to see why Rand appeals to billionaires. She offers them something that is
crucial to every successful political movement: a sense of victimhood. She tells them that they
are parasitised by the ungrateful poor and oppressed by intrusive, controlling governments.
It is harder to see what it gives the ordinary teabaggers, who would suffer grievously from
a withdrawal of government. But such is the degree of misinformation which saturates this
movement and so prevalent in the US is Willy Loman syndrome (the gulf between reality and
expectations) that millions blithely volunteer themselves as billionaires' doormats. I wonder
how many would continue to worship at the shrine of Ayn Rand if they knew that towards the end of
her life she signed on for both Medicare and social security. She had railed furiously against
both programmes, as they represented everything she despised about the intrusive state. Her
belief system was no match for the realities of age and ill health.
But they have a still more powerful reason to reject her philosophy: as Adam Curtis's BBC
documentary showed last year, the most devoted member of her inner circle was Alan Greenspan , former head of
the US Federal Reserve. Among the essays he wrote for Rand were those published in a book he
co-edited with her called Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal
. Here, starkly explained, you'll find the philosophy he brought into government. There is no
need for the regulation of business – even builders or Big Pharma – he argued, as
"the 'greed' of the businessman or, more appropriately, his profit-seeking is the unexcelled
protector of the consumer". As for bankers, their need to win the trust of their clients
guarantees that they will act with honour and integrity. Unregulated capitalism, he maintains,
is a "superlatively moral system".
Once in government, Greenspan applied his guru's philosophy to the letter, cutting taxes for
the rich, repealing the laws constraining banks, refusing to regulate the predatory lending and
the derivatives trading which eventually brought the system down. Much of this is already
documented, but Weiss shows that in the US, Greenspan has successfully airbrushed history.
Despite the many years he spent at her side, despite his previous admission that it was Rand
who persuaded him that "capitalism is not only efficient and practical but also moral", he
mentioned her in his memoirs only to suggest that it was a youthful indiscretion – and
this, it seems, is now the official version. Weiss presents powerful evidence that even today
Greenspan remains her loyal disciple, having renounced his partial admission of failure to
Congress.
Saturated in her philosophy, the new right on both sides of the Atlantic continues to demand
the rollback of the state, even as the wreckage of that policy lies all around. The poor go
down, the ultra-rich survive and prosper. Ayn Rand would have approved.
Another very informative article from one of the few writers with any sense of having a
'finger on the pulse.'
It's sad that it's taken over 30 years for the real shaping influences behind the current
system to be identified and discussed outside the boundaries of a few university
conferences.
The Right have been absolutely brilliant at media control and obfuscation. Their gurus
have been camouflaged and the whole process of influencing Reagan and Thatcher's governments
from the late 1970's has escaped exactly the kind of scrutiny that George gives Rand.
We might also investigate the influence of John Nash's (A Beautiful Mind) 'Gameplay'
experiments in a similar fashion along with the economic gurus who followed Hayek so
slavishly.
It has been known for years that the neo liberal project was designed not just to under
mine democracy and convert people into passive cloned market junkies, but to put an end to
the whole of the Enlightenment Project, which perhaps naively saw human development,. growth
and other human qualities totally savaged and defeated by this poisonous evil, which emulates
all the worst aspects of Fascism without the flags and theatre.
Sadly, this is not a 'this is happening' phenomenon; it's a 'this has happened
phenomenon.' The taint and viral effect of its impact on uk and usa political structures has
already caused major damage. All three major political parties in the uk have for 30 years
subscribed to its tenets though they were no doubt not presented in such a flagrant form as
Rand's writing.
How problematic is it to now look at the polity and rescue it from such a major
ideological shift? Certainly, the major parties cannot shuck off the cape of their key
beliefs after promoting Right wing ideologies for so long, and the traditional Left is no
more.
However, it is good to see some pithy journalism that goes to the heart of the matter -
those of us who have been pleading for less x factor celebrity worshipping of politicians can
at least feel as though this shifts the spectrum to real and significant issues that have
affected the lives of everyone for so long.
I wonder how many would continue to worship at the shrine of Ayn Rand if they knew that
towards the end of her life she signed on for both Medicare and social security.
In case nobody mentioned this book before, which is relevant to the theme:
These submerged policies, Mettler shows, obscure the role of government and
exaggerate that of the market. As a result, citizens are unaware not only of the benefits
they receive, but of the massive advantages given to powerful interests, such as insurance
companies and the financial industry. Neither do they realize that the policies of the
submerged state shower their largest benefits on the most affluent Americans, exacerbating
inequality.
What has been very noticeable about the development of bureaucracy in the public and private
spheres over the last 40 years (since Thatcher govt of 79) has been the way systems are
designed now to place responsibility and culpability on the workers delivering the services -
Teachers, Nurses, social workers, etc. While those making the policies, passing the laws,
overseeing the regulations- viz. the people 'at the top', now no longer take the rap when
something goes wrong- they may be the Captain of their particular ship, but the
responsibility now rests with the man sweeping the decks. Instead they are covered by tying
up in knots those teachers etc. having to fill in endless check lists and reports, which have
as much use as clicking 'yes' one has understood those long legal terms provided by software
companies.... yet are legally binding. So how the hell do we get out of this mess? By us as
individuals uniting through unions or whatever and saying NO. No to your dumb educational
directives, No to your cruel welfare policies, No to your stupid NHS mismanagement.... there
would be a lot of No's but eventually we could say collectively 'Yes I did the right thing'.
Staff distress? Cleaning ( in another county) was privatised to make profit in Thatcher
times.The work of two cleaners became the task of one person. Extra duties were loaded on
-serving meals and drinks, fetching blankets and equipment. Wages dropped by a small degree
-but important when we ere earning, say, £65 a week. Indemnity/insurance against
catching infections was withdrawn. Firstly owned by Jeyes and then sold on to Rentokill
,obviously good for shareholders. A new 'manager' appeared with their own office.
'The left wing dialogue about neoliberalism used to be that it was the Wild West and that
anything goes. Now apparently it's a machine of mass control.'
It is the Wild West and anything goes for the corporate entities, and a machine of control
of the masses. Hence the wish of neoliberals to remove legislation that protects workers and
consumers.
As someone who thinks von Mises and Hayek made invaluable contributions to economics I was
surprised to see such a ringing endorsement for Mises's ideas in the Guardian:
"Public-service workers are now subjected to a panoptical regime of monitoring and
assessment, using the benchmarks von Mises rightly warned were inapplicable and absurd."
That is spot on. Yes, Mises thought that workers should no more be allowed to corner a
market in labour than companies should be allowed to create monopolies in products, and this
is certainly a point where he can be criticized. Using the name "neoliberal" to cover
such very different ideas as Milton's and Hayek's though is absurd - they had completely
opposite ideas about vast government spending to recover from recession. Try looking up John
James Cowperthwaite, who oversaw post-war development in Hong Kong by getting government out
of the way.
He forbade the use of any performance targets of the type Blair brought in, and refused to
compile GDP statistics, thinking the government would game them.
Both von Mises and Hayek would be horrified at the money printing of modern central banks,
especially since 2008. To ascribe modern policy to their ideas is simply nonsense - they did
not (as far as I know) ever suggest central control of interest rates , stock buying by
central banks or saving a bank that has failed through fraud and greed.
If "neoliberalism" is our present dominant ideology, then please do not use the word to
describe their work.
As a matter of semantics, neo-liberalism delivered on the promise of freedom...for
capitalists to be free of ethical accountability, social responsibility, and government
regulation and taxes...
Finally. A writer who can talk about neoliberalism as NOT being a retro version of classical
laissez faire liberalism. It is about imposing "The Market" as the sole arbiter of Truth on
us all.
Only the 'Market' knows what is true in life - no need for 'democracy' or 'education'.
Neoliberals believe - unlike classical liberals with their view of people as rational
individuals acting in their own self-interest - people are inherently 'unreliable',
stupid.
Only entrepreneurs - those close to the market - can know 'the truth' about anything.
To succeed we all need to take our cues in life from what the market tells us.
Neoliberalism is not about a 'small state'. The state is repurposed to impose the 'all
knowing' market on everyone and everything. That is neoliberalism's political project. It is
ultimately not about 'economics'.
But the world didn't work like that, and the people who didn't fit had to be shoved
under the wheel of history.
This is a remarkably similar summation of Rand's worldview of entire classes of people: if
you are poor, you deserve it. Expect nothing from the State to raise you from the cycle of
poverty. The State is evil and should be eliminated. No evil can come from the Business
Culture (or more accurately the Business Cult). The U.S. Republican worldview summed up right
there.
The only sane response to Ayn Rand is the creation of the Human Values Project ,
where creating a better world for all is its manifesto and mandate.
Many thanks for the article. The Right keep erecting her on a pedestal and saying her
ideas are infallible like the Pope. She can't be pulled down off that pedestal enough
times.
"... Your claim is not that people decide rights via participation in political process (social contract), it is that there are universal natural individual rights that cannot be violated based in... something; there is no negotiability like there is with the social contract. Your apparantly foundationless rights cannot be changed by political process - so where do they come from? ..."
"... Your claim is that some quality of people grants immutable rights, not that rights are decided by people. Are you of the strain that thinks we should be allowed to starve our kids (Rothbard)? Or that non-capitalist societies are fair game to be killed and enslaved, to have thier land put to 'better' use (Locke)? Perhaps that latter one underlies the feeling that it would be easy to up sticks and move to some undefined piece of land. ..."
"... You have changed the nice things you listed now, you said maternity leave/pay, weekends, etc. Those were granted by collective potitical action, not the generosity of the capitalists. If Jeff Bezos could hire 1st graders he obviously would. ..."
"... The State is the gun. Always has been, always will be. And yes, there is a place for the gun in society - defence - but not in extorting money from peaceful people. ..."
Your claim is not that people decide rights via participation in political process (social
contract), it is that there are universal natural individual rights that cannot be violated
based in... something; there is no negotiability like there is with the social contract. Your
apparantly foundationless rights cannot be changed by political process - so where do they
come from?
Your claim is that some quality of people grants immutable rights, not that rights are
decided by people. Are you of the strain that thinks we should be allowed to starve our kids
(Rothbard)? Or that non-capitalist societies are fair game to be killed and enslaved, to have
thier land put to 'better' use (Locke)? Perhaps that latter one underlies the feeling that it
would be easy to up sticks and move to some undefined piece of land.
You have changed the nice things you listed now, you said maternity leave/pay, weekends,
etc. Those were granted by collective potitical action, not the generosity of the
capitalists. If Jeff Bezos could hire 1st graders he obviously would.
So you having to leave because you don't wamt to participate in tax paying is coercion,
but people having to leave because they don't want to live under Libertarianism isn't?
Incidentally, which countries at the top of the PISA or OECD rankings do not have massive
state education?
As for Hong Kong, its entire existence is predicated on extreme acts of aggression by the
British. The opium trade and its profits started the ball rolling after an aggressive war.
The Hong Kong authority also owns most of the land, leasing it; they therefore have massive
influence on who gets what and what they do with it - more so than most other nations.
"As you are free to leave, no individual state institution is is forcing you to
participate under pain of violence. If the fact you have no place to go that does not take
tax means that you are coerced, then someone who cannot live but by participation in
free-market capitalism would also be coerced into participation"
I think we won't agree on this because we have a fundamentally different understanding of
coercion. The way I see it, I should not have a leave the place I live in to not have
coercive action taking away my money. I should be able to say, no thanks. It is the
difference between my willingly purchasing something and a mugger taking my money at
gunpoint. The State is the gun. Always has been, always will be. And yes, there is a place
for the gun in society - defence - but not in extorting money from peaceful people.
And people can and do live without being part of the capitalist system. They can live off
the land. They can set up communes. They can use a barter system if they want. Capitalism
just gives people more opportunities, but they can opt out if they want. Or move to a place
that doesn't have capitalism, like many places in Africa or South America or Cuba. Funny who
must people try to leave those places though. Millions do not flock there. They do the other
way round.
"In your opinion."
Yes, true. In my opinion. But I have backed that opinion up with a well reasoned argument
for my position. It didn't just come out of thin air. It comes from recognising the nature of
government is force, violence and coercion. Again, it is the gun in society. And in my
opinion, I think it is wrong, immoral and will always lead to bad outcomes to use the gun to
solve societies more tricky problems. And we can clearly see the bad results of public /
State education, socialised healthcare, welfare, government involvement in the economy, etc,
etc, etc. All do badly.
"Did I? I didn't sign up before birth to participate, and I have no other options but to
participate or die."
You have other options, as previously mentioned. Live off the land, move to a
non-capitalist country, set up a commune, etc.
"Still unsure upon what these rights are based. The mere fact that people can reason
does not necessarily instill or ground right."
Where else can they come from? If you say "government". Well when does government get its
power and decide on your rights? From the people that make up government. So we are back to
people again.
"You tell us elsewhere that we don't really have capitalism, the state and other actors
dominate and fiddle etc. Now you clam capitalism has provided all these nice things* - pick
one."
No. It is not a case of picking one. It is not an "either / or" situation. Economic
freedom and economic oppression exist on a sliding scale. You have more free economies, like
the US (especially prior to 1913) and you have less free economies, like the USSR or Cuba.
The parts of freedom we have, give us the good stuff, gives us innovation and allows society
to grow richer and lift more people out of poverty. The more bad stuff that gets involved,
the less we have, the more society stagnates. The USSR was a lot poorer and dirtier
(environmentally) and had a lot more famine and waste because it was highly centrally
controlled.
"So it had nothing to do with quasi-British authorities selling narcotics to mainland
China then?"
Not much. There may have been some of that but nowhere near enough to explain the
explosion of wealth in HK.
We ARE social animals. Which is why I laugh when I hear right-wing opinions compared to
the laws of the jungle. As far as I can gather, in the jungle, there are no such things as
property laws, inheritance, land enclosure, or indeed money! Humanity's development is as
socialised societies, with surpluses, consent, and so on.
And there has never been free-market capitalism. A misnomer if ever there was one.
Holding up the EU as the root of all woes, while at the same time dominating political
discourse and deflecting the blame from the real culprits.
All at a time when public spending cuts in the name of austerity (itself a direct reaction
to the failings of the neoliberal economic system) are spreading untold misery. At a time
when we finally have an opposition ready to challenge the policies of austerity, the issue
has been conveniently brushed under the brexit rug.
Right-wing ideology is often presented as a natural state and not ideological at all. This
denial is a central feature, acting as a way of abdicating responsibility for harmful and
selfish actions and providing means of fostering intellectual suspicion to prevent challenges
or structured and coherent critiques like your own.
The right engenders coalitions of people disinterested in politics and distrustful of
politicians with those who feel intellectually superior but see politics as an amoral game in
the pursuit of "enlightened" self-interest.
As a result, everything about it is disingenous.
There is no alternative (that we want you to choose). It's not racist to (constantly,
always negatively and to the expense of everything else) talk about immigration. Cutting
taxes for the rich reduces inequality (because we change the criteria to exclude the richest
from the calculations). This is also because there are dualities at play. Neoliberalism
relies on immigration to increase worker competition and suppress wage demand but courts the
xenophobic vote (which is why even with reduced EU migration Brexit has so far increased
overall immigration and would continue to do so in the event of no deal or May's deal). Both
Remainers and Leavers have accused the other of being a neoliberal project, and in certain
aspects -because of these dualities - both sides are correct.
I also believe the disdain for "political correctness" is somewhat a result of
neoliberalism, since marketisation is so fundamental to the project and the wedge of the
market is advertising, the language of bullshit and manipulation. People railing against
political correctness feel judged for their automatic thoughts that they identify as natural
instead of culturally determined. Behavioural advertising encourages these thoughts and
suppresses consideration. It is a recipe for resentment.
"... If 'free markets' of enterprising individuals have been tested to destruction, then capitalism is unable to articulate an ideology with which to legitimise itself. ..."
"... Therefore, neoliberal hegemony can only be perpetuated with authoritarian, nationalist ideologies and an order of market feudalism. ..."
"... The market is no longer an enabler of private enterprise, but something more like a medieval religion, conferring ultimate authority on a demagogue. ..."
"... Only in theory is neoliberalism a form of laissez-faire. Neoliberalism is not a case of the state saying, as it were: 'OK everyone, we'll impose some very broad legal parameters, so we'll make sure the police will turn up if someone breaks into your house; but otherwise we'll hang back and let you do what you want'. ..."
"... Hayek is perfectly clear that a strong state is required to force people to act according to market logic. If left to their own devices, they might collectivise, think up dangerous utopian ideologies, and the next thing you know there would be socialism. ..."
"... This the paradox of neoliberalism as an intellectual critique of government: a socialist state can only be prohibited with an equally strong state. That is, neoliberals are not opposed to a state as such, but to a specifically centrally-planned state based on principles of social justice - a state which, to Hayek's mind, could only end in t totalitarianism. ..."
"... It should be understood (and I speak above all as a critic of neoliberalism) that neoliberal ideology is not merely a system of class power, but an entire metaphysic, a way of understanding the world that has an emotional hold over people. For any ideology to universalize itself, it must be based on some very powerful ideas. Hayek and Von Mises were Jewish fugitives of Nazism, living through the worst horrors of twentieth-century totalitarianism. There are passages of Hayek's that describe a world operating according to the rules of a benign abstract system that make it sound rather lovely. To understand neoliberalism, we must see that it has an appeal. ..."
"... However, there is no perfect order of price signals. People do not simply act according to economic self-interest. Therefore, neoliberalism is a utopian political project like any other, requiring the brute power of the state to enforce ideological tenets. With tragic irony, the neoliberal order eventually becomes not dissimilar to the totalitarian regimes that Hayek railed against. ..."
The other point to be made is that the return of fundamentalist nationalism is arguably a
radicalized form of neoliberalism. If 'free markets' of enterprising individuals have
been tested to destruction, then capitalism is unable to articulate an ideology with which to
legitimise itself.
Therefore, neoliberal hegemony can only be perpetuated with authoritarian, nationalist
ideologies and an order of market feudalism.
In other words, neoliberalism's authoritarian orientations, previously effaced beneath
discourses of egalitarian free-enterprise, become overt.
The market is no longer an enabler of private enterprise, but something more like a
medieval religion, conferring ultimate authority on a demagogue.
Individual entrepreneurs collectivise into a 'people' serving a market which has become
synonymous with nationhood. A corporate state emerges, free of the regulatory fetters of
democracy.
The final restriction on the market - democracy itself - is removed. There then is no
separate market and state, just a totalitarian market state.
Yes, the EU is an ordoliberal institution - the state imposing rules on the market from
without. Thus, it is not the chief danger. The takeover of 5G, and therefore our entire
economy and industry, by Huawei - now that would be a loss of state sovereignty. But because
Huawei is nominally a corporation, people do not think about is a form of governmental
bureaucracy, but if powerful enough that is exactly what it is.
Pinkie123: So good to read your understandings of neoliberalism. The political project is the
imposition of the all seeing all knowing 'market' on all aspects of human life. This version
of the market is an 'information processor'. Speaking of the different idea of the
laissez-faire version of market/non market areas and the function of the night watchman state
are you aware there are different neoliberalisms? The EU for example runs on the version
called 'ordoliberalism'. I understand that this still sees some areas of society as separate
from 'the market'?
ADamnSmith: Philip Mirowski has discussed this 'under the radar' aspect of neoliberalism. How
to impose 'the market' on human affairs - best not to be to explicit about what you are
doing. Only recently has some knowledge about the actual neoliberal project been appearing.
Most people think of neoliberalism as 'making the rich richer' - just a ramped up version of
capitalism. That's how the left has thought of it and they have been ineffective in stopping
its implementation.
Neoliberalism allows with impunity pesticide businesses to apply high risk toxic pesticides
everywhere seriously affecting the health of children, everyone as well as poisoning the
biosphere and all its biodiversity. This freedom has gone far too far and is totally
unacceptable and these chemicals should be banished immediately.
The left have been entirely wrong to believe that neoliberalism is a mobilisation of
anarchic, 'free' markets. It never was so. Only a few more acute thinkers on the left
(Jacques Ranciere, Foucault, Deleuze and, more recently, Mark Fisher, Wendy Brown, Will
Davies and David Graeber) have understood neoliberalism to be a techno-economic order of
control, requiring a state apparatus to enforce wholly artificial directives.
Also, the work
of recent critics of data markets such as Shoshana Zuboff has shown capitalism to be evolving
into a totalitarian system of control through cybernetic data aggregation.
Only in theory is neoliberalism a form of laissez-faire. Neoliberalism is not a case of the
state saying, as it were: 'OK everyone, we'll impose some very broad legal parameters, so
we'll make sure the police will turn up if someone breaks into your house; but otherwise
we'll hang back and let you do what you want'.
Hayek is perfectly clear that a strong state
is required to force people to act according to market logic. If left to their own devices,
they might collectivise, think up dangerous utopian ideologies, and the next thing you know
there would be socialism.
This the paradox of neoliberalism as an intellectual critique of
government: a socialist state can only be prohibited with an equally strong state. That is,
neoliberals are not opposed to a state as such, but to a specifically centrally-planned state
based on principles of social justice - a state which, to Hayek's mind, could only end in t
totalitarianism.
Because concepts of social justice are expressed in language, neoliberals
are suspicious of linguistic concepts, regarding them as politically dangerous. Their
preference has always been for numbers. Hence, market bureaucracy aims for the quantification
of all values - translating the entirety of social reality into metrics, data, objectively
measurable price signals. Numbers are safe. The laws of numbers never change. Numbers do not
lead to revolutions. Hence, all the audit, performance review and tick-boxing that has been
enforced into public institutions serves to render them forever subservient to numerical
(market) logic. However, because social institutions are not measurable, attempts to make
them so become increasingly mystical and absurd. Administrators manage data that has no
relation to reality. Quantitatively unmeasurable things - like happiness or success - are
measured, with absurd results.
It should be understood (and I speak above all as a critic of neoliberalism) that
neoliberal ideology is not merely a system of class power, but an entire metaphysic, a way of
understanding the world that has an emotional hold over people. For any ideology to
universalize itself, it must be based on some very powerful ideas. Hayek and Von Mises were
Jewish fugitives of Nazism, living through the worst horrors of twentieth-century
totalitarianism. There are passages of Hayek's that describe a world operating according to
the rules of a benign abstract system that make it sound rather lovely. To understand
neoliberalism, we must see that it has an appeal.
However, there is no perfect order of price signals. People do not simply act according to
economic self-interest. Therefore, neoliberalism is a utopian political project like any
other, requiring the brute power of the state to enforce ideological tenets. With tragic
irony, the neoliberal order eventually becomes not dissimilar to the totalitarian regimes
that Hayek railed against.
"... In his first speech to a joint session of Congress, President Trump promised to deliver on his populist campaign pledges to protect Americans from globalization. "For too long," he bemoaned, "we've watched our middle class shrink as we've exported our jobs and wealth to foreign countries." But now, he asserted, the time has come to "restart the engine of the American economy" and "bring back millions of jobs." ..."
"... To achieve his goals, Trump proposed mixing massive tax-cuts and sweeping regulatory rollbacks with increased spending on the military, infrastructure and border control. ..."
...with Trump the ideological patina of faith in free markets has gone and he's more or less
just engaged in an asset stripping exercise. Thing is, though, you can't get away with that
without some kind of distraction, and in Trump's case it's his country club racist's
understanding of geopolitics converted into campaign rhetoric and immigration policy.
I don't think this is some masterplan -- he just happened to stumble into the stage at a
point where there was an opening for his kind of rhetoric. I'm just amazed someone smarter
didn't see it earlier and capitalise.
Under Trumps tax plan, a single mother with 2 kids working fulltime at minumum wage gets 75
dollars a YEAR in childcare, about $-1.50 per week.
----------
While the rich, those making up to 400,000 per year get 2000.00 per year child credit off
their taxes.
---------------
Name a benefit for the poor,
that the recent tax bill passed by Trump and GREEDY GOP.
In his first speech to a joint session of Congress, President Trump promised to deliver on
his populist campaign pledges to protect Americans from globalization. "For too long," he
bemoaned, "we've watched our middle class shrink as we've exported our jobs and wealth to
foreign countries." But now, he asserted, the time has come to "restart the engine of the
American economy" and "bring back millions of jobs."
To achieve his goals, Trump proposed
mixing massive tax-cuts and sweeping regulatory rollbacks with increased spending on the
military, infrastructure and border control.
This same messy mix of free market
fundamentalism and hyper-nationalistic populism is presently taking shape in Trump's proposed
budget. But the apparent contradiction there isn't likely to slow down Trump's pro-market,
pro-Wall Street, pro-wealth agenda.
His supporters may soon discover that his professions of
care for those left behind by globalization are -- aside from some mostly symbolic moves on
trade -- empty.
Just look at what has already happened with the GOP's proposed replacement for Obamacare,
which if enacted would bring increased pain and suffering to the anxious voters who put their
trust in Trump's populism in the first place.
While these Americans might have thought their
votes would win them protection from the instabilities and austerities of market-led
globalization, what they are getting is a neoliberal president in populist clothing.
I adore the ill educated, unintentional, satirical nature of some of the Rand supporters
comments here - unsurprisingly predominantly American. Who appear to have a tenuous grasp on
the nature and meaning of philosophy. Who replace rational thought with cod philosophy and
hysterical rants, - that would embarrass your average cargo cult worshiper - as a
justification for their own sociopathy and intellectual inadequacy. Take a bow...
MoreThanExists and the even more comic BruceMajors
Ironic isn't it, America may end up becoming the Western world's first failed state? A
kind of Somalia with hamburgers,obesity and better drainage; ruled by Christian
fundamentalist neo liberal warlords and Ayn Rand inspired gangsters, funded by Wall Street
parasites, with the Tea Party as the Sturm Abteilung (SA), and "Atlas Shrugged" as their most
sacred holy text written by a third rate Sadeian dominatrix.
Remember the fascist war cry as they went into battle against Republican troops during the
Spanish Civil War, "Death to the intellect! Long live death!". How appropriate?!! Maybe
Rand's disciples could work that into a revised version of "The Star-Spangled Banner.?"
"Liberal" originally meant the freedom to trade and do business. Before liberalism trade was
controlled by cartels, guilds and gifted by prerogative. The freedom to trade is not the root
cause of our problems. The drift to monopoly and the legal enforcement of it is new and
should be resisted. But the freedom to do business is a freedom for us all.
1. Hayek's book 'The Road to Serfdom' uses an erroneous metaphor. He argues that if we allow gov regulation, services and spending
to continue then we will end up serfs. However, serfs are basically the indentured or slave labourers of private citizens and
landowners not of the state. Only in a system of private capital can there be serfs. Neo liberalism creates serfs not a public
system.
2. According to Hayek all regulation on business should be eliminated and only labour should be regulated to make it cheap
and contain it so that private investors can have their returns guaranteed. Hence the purpose of the state is to pass laws to
suppress workers.
These two things illustrate neo-liberalism. Deception and repression of labour.
"... First, neoliberalism, to those who understand how finance works (no mainstream economist, then) was never an economic theory, but rather a business model: essentially it describes how to structure an economy for rent seeking. ..."
"... Michael Hudson describes it as "pro-finance". His definition of austerity, which is part and parcel of the neoliberal business model, is also worth quoting: "austerity is what a good economic policy looks like to a creditor [rentier]"; in other words, it has nothing to do with the economically meaningless notion of good housekeeping (state finances are radically different from household finances). ..."
"... The term "neoliberal" is misleading. Neoliberals put capital above people. Neoliberals are the next-worst thing to neoconservatives. That said, why would anybody trust a pols promise? ..."
Neoliberalism is not an ideology in its practical application. It is a business model for
structuring the economy for rent seeking or wealth extraction: turning everything into a cash
cow to be milked until it's dry and then move on to the next one.
First, neoliberalism, to those who understand how finance works (no mainstream
economist, then) was never an economic theory, but rather a business model: essentially it
describes how to structure an economy for rent seeking.
Michael Hudson describes it as "pro-finance". His definition of austerity, which is
part and parcel of the neoliberal business model, is also worth quoting: "austerity is what a
good economic policy looks like to a creditor [rentier]"; in other words, it has nothing to
do with the economically meaningless notion of good housekeeping (state finances are
radically different from household finances).
Second, the freedom that Adam Smith talked about was freedom for the real economy from
rent seeking, from wealth extraction - freedom, in modern parlance, from the neoliberal
business model.
I think you are confusing the state with the ideology. Neoliberalism is an ideology that has
become embedded in the state. Of course it is the state that privatises public services to
private firms. But the ideology behind that policy is what George Monbiot is writing about.
I work for the NHS myself. Take for example, the policy of foundation trusts bidding to
run services hundreds of miles from their bases, etc. It may be state policy, but it is a
neoliberal nonsense. You would find the NHS littered with bureaucracy that would not be there
if the neoliberal ideology of trying to foster "competition" had not become a state
policy.
"Neoliberalism promised freedom – instead it delivers stifling control"
The term "neoliberal" is misleading.
Neoliberals put capital above people.
Neoliberals are the next-worst thing to neoconservatives.
That said, why would anybody trust a pols promise?
imo
Only the greedy, selfish, well off, egotistical and share holders believe that Public
Services should, could and would benefit from privatisation and deregulation.
Education and Health for example are (in theory) a universal right in the UK. As numbers
in the population rise and demographics change so do costs ie delivery of the service becomes
more expensive.As market force logic is introduced it also becomes less responsive - hence
people not able to get the right drugs and treatment and challenging and challenged young
people being denied an education that is vital for them in increasing numbers.
Meanwhile - as Public Services are devalued and denuded in this system the private sector
becomes increasingly wealthy at the top while its workers become poorer and less powerful at
the bottom.
With the introduction of Tory austerity which punishes the latter to the benefit of the
former there is no surprise that this system does not work and has provided a platform for
the unscrupulous greedy and corrupt to exploit Brexit and produce conditions which will take
'Neoliberalism' to where logic suggests it would always go - with the powerful rich protected
minority exerting their power over an increasingly poor and powerless majority.
The competitive tender approach ensures the cheapest bids get the contracts and the cheapest
bids are those most likely to employ exploited labour and cheap materials as well as cutting
corners. Result? a job of sorts gets done, but the quality is rubbish, with no investment or
pride in the product. Look at Hong Kong where this is longstanding practice: new tunnel, half
the extractor fans do not work correctly because they were poorly installed. I once spoke to
the Chief Engineer of the Tsing Ma bridge, he was stressed out of his socks for the whole
construction period trying to monitor all the subcontractors who had bid so low they had to
cheat to make a profit with the result that they would try to cut corners and avoid doing
things if they thought they could get away with it. Good job that engineer was diligent.
Others may be less able or willing.
BTW: I seldom find comparisons in UK-media to other countries when those countries are
better.
I think that's because most of the UK media is propaganda for the established system,
which they rely on for advertising revenue and access to information. If an outlet's
journalists start seriously questioning the existing system, a few things happen: 1.
the journo doesn't get promoted within the system; 2. their access to information is
curtailed (they are not invited to briefings etc., and; 3. advertising revenue drops. As the
business model of most mainstream media is to present consumer audiences to advertisers, this
is not going to sit well with the owners, see 1 and 2 above leading to poor evaluations. Any
journo with half a brain quickly learns this and fits in. Only so far and no further.
As a Tory for most of my longish life, I have to agree that whilst some things have
flourished once privatised, certain services must remain in public ownership and control to
enable governments to improve or reduce, depending on national taxation and expenditure - if
people want better services then they must be prepared to pay for them, and of course the
long-term pensions of the workforce. Managers should be subject matter experts before running
departments, not just accountants or management consultants, so they can improve delivery not
just constantly re-structure or carp on about 'efficiency savings'.
Having worked in shipping, that industry has oscillated several times but rail is an
interesting example - a disaster in the dying days of national ownership, the private world
started well improving safety, reliability and capacity but has gone downhill in recent
years, not helped by the track management system. Again, the airlines started well but now
several have gone into administration and BA has 'down-qualitied' itself to become one of the
worst.
Some parts of the NHS can be provided by private industry but limited to service provision
and collective buying only - certainly NOT cancer screening.
Then, when you look at private providers who go bust and completely fail to provide any
acceptable capability - jails, probation, social care etc. one wonders when, if ever,
politicians will realise that it costs them, the civil service and commercial management an
incredible amount of time, effort and cost just to fail!
Outsourcing government work is the most inefficient way of getting it done for the benefit of
taxpayers. When the profits private companies make from it are added to what economies must
invest to pay the taxes for it it's astonishing how popular it has become throughout the
world, something only explicable if those authorising it are amongst the most stupid of
financial administrators or the most corrupt.
Outsourcing for example £1m worth of work requires that amount to be paid in taxes,
which needs about £5m to be earned in wages and profits to pay £1m in taxes,
which in turn needs an investment of perhaps ten times that amount, when the £1m is
borrowed by debt laden governments to be repaid by over-borrowed and overtaxed economies.
If the outsourced company is not profit-making it will borrow the capital to be able to
deliver what's required and that in turn will raise the amount it will want for future work,
which is what I think accounts for Carillion and the other outsource giants going to the
wall.
The process is generally the fault of governments failing to adhere strictly to the necessity
of only paying its workforce on average the same as the private sector pays its workers,
which in democracies is not an unfair requirement demanded by equality legislation. Many
would claim that such was why Margaret Thatcher decided on privatising so many public
utilities especially after the miners' strike in Ted Heath's government and why it gained so
much support and popularity when wages and benefits for similar skill levels seemed so much
better and jobs more secure for many public sector workers involved than they were in the
private sector. Now of course, the high costs of private necessary public services are making
life unbearable for the majority of workers and welfare recipients while profits are going
abroad to those who own them and the EU in getting the flak – courtesy of the media -
for the resultant poverty and austerity, allowed the false £350m a week to win the
referendum. The £4 billion a week worth of exports to the EU paid most of that and the
way companies are relocating to hedge against Brexit means a lot of lost jobs will go with
them – some earlier estimates but it at more than 100,000 - which doesn't seem to deter
those determinedly wanting out of the EU one little bit.
This is a blessing for the low labour cost Member States, who being in the populous markets
the multinationals need, can attract the UK industries looking to further cut costs and
freight charges so those that go will never come back because higher costs in the Brexit UK
will not be compensated for easily with uncompetitive price hikes for EU customers, unlike
CAP payments that have been promised to farmers by the government proBrexit Minister.
The doom and gloom felt by many I think is well justified when sovereign debt and bank credit
is considered relative to taxes. While sovereign debt is regarded as an asset and future
taxes are acceptable for bank credit and both can be securitized by banking systems to borrow
even more capital that will be acceptable to central banks as QE, it's not surprising that
sovereigns don't need to worry about economies being unable to provide the taxes their
governments unlawfully spend even when leaving it for future generations is also unlawful
i.e. is a crime, since if they don't, their central banks and bond holders covered by them
will. When the cost in trillions since 2016 already spent by government in preparing for
Brexit is included one can't help but think that the financial economy has made a proverbial
killing from UK incorporated and now owns most if not all of it. If most of the finance for
Brexit came from its financiers and investors is it possible that after Brexit they'll pour
trillions back into the economy to make it capable of not only surviving but also competing
favourably with the EU, Japan, China, and the US?
I have to disagree. Hardly anything has flourished after privatisation. The big failures,
which get all the publicity, were generally basket case private businesses which had to be
nationalised to save them from collapse.
Sometimes they are stuffed with public money and
sold at a loss to the public, like the Tory nationalisation of Rolls Royce, or deprived of
funds like British Rail to provide an excuse to liberate thousands of square miles of real
estate
This latter is the scheme for the NHS with hospitals and other property provided at
great public expense sold off to any shark who says he has the money, and once it's private
load the enterprise with debt and walk away.
Unlike the privatisations of the 80s and 90s there's barely any pretence these days
that new sell-offs are anything more than simply part of a quest to find new avenues for
profit-making in an economy with tons of liquid capital but not enough places to profitability
put it.
Back in the Thatcher/Reagan years there were at people around who genuinely believed in the
superiority of the market, or at least, made the effort to set out an intellectual case for
it.
Now we're in a different era. After 2008, hardly anyone really believes in neoliberal
ideas anymore, not to the point that they'd openly make the case for them anyway. But while
different visions have appeared to some extent on both left and right, most of those in
positions of power and influence have so internalised Thatcher's 'there is no alternative'
that it's beyond their political horizons to treat any alternatives which do emerge as
serious propositions, let alone come up with their own.
So neoliberalism stumbles on almost as a reflex action. Ben Fine calls it a 'zombie' but I
think the better analogy is cannibalism. Unlike the privatisations of the 80s and 90s there's
barely any pretence these days that new sell-offs are anything more than simply part of a
quest to find new avenues for profit-making in an economy with tons of liquid capital but not
enough places to profitability put it. Because structurally speaking most of the economy is
tapped out.
Privatising public services at this point is just a way to asset strip and/or funnel
public revenue streams to a private sector which has been stuck in neoliberal short-term, low
skill, low productivity, low wage, high debt mode for so long that it has lost the ability to
grow. So now it is eating itself, or at least eating the structures which hold it up and
allow it to survive.
The central premise used by Governments for privatising public servcies seems to have been
that publicly run services are inefficient compared to private companies; that the need to
turn a profit means wasteful systems and behaviours are minimised. Therefore, money can be
saved by outsourcing as private companies can provide the same or better service more
cheaply.
I think this is very disrespectful to all those who work in public service, many of whom
are dedicated to their jobs to provide care or a good service to members of the public. The
idea that making money is the only motivating force that can make someone do their job well
seems flawed. Further, if efficiency gains alone are not enough to make a profit, then the
only recourse for companies is to provide a poorer service or be more exploitative of their
employees, which is regularly played out.
This central premise is not widely challenged by politicians. It seems accepted as fact. I
wonder if there have been any studies to either support or challenge this idea.
'Big-gubment' exists to enforce property-rights. Libertarians bleat on about how freedom
is founded in the right own to property and yet fail to realise that these so-called
'rights', which are a negation of natural rights (the world and it's resources belongs to all
equally, and that lands to land, water and seed are in essence premised on theft) requires a
large, powerful and authoritarian apparatus capable of effectively projecting violence to
enforce property rights. claims to property are premised on violence.
Your so-called philosophy fails on first premises.
And in case you don't get it, the threat of a worker revolution saw the welfare state
arise as a carrot to complement the stick. With the stick becoming increasingly ineffective
in the earlier part of the 20th century, the disquiet needed to be quelled through other
means. That method was the social democratic welfare state. The collapse of Communism as an
existential threat, followed by the emergence of economic globalisation (shopping around for
the cheapest labour), consumerism and automation have all effectively eroded class solidarity
amongst those most disenfranchised by a state enforced inequality and eroded the value of
labour. The beneficiaries of the state as a mechanism for enforcing their claims to property
no longer need the working classes.
Hence we find that around the world, western democracies are withdrawing the carrot and
reasserting the stick.
"... Sanders supported Clinton too in the general election. He also actively campaigned for her. ..."
"... apples and oranges, Thomas and Herr, Would you care to defend her "posture" on NATO? Ditto, for her contributing to the "Evil Vlad" narrative? Israel?? Wiki: Warren states she supports a two state solution, but she believes Palestinian application for membership in the UN isn't helpful.[63] ..."
"... "Warren lied about her ancestry to circumvent diversity quotas. Why should anyone believe anything she has to say?" You are going to be told this a million times before 11/20 but that's bullshit. It's been well established that she didn't get any job because of that. ..."
"... "In the most exhaustive review undertaken of Elizabeth Warren's professional history, the Globe found clear evidence, in documents and interviews, that her claim to Native American ethnicity was never considered by the Harvard Law faculty, which voted resoundingly to hire her, or by those who hired her to four prior positions at other law schools. At every step of her remarkable rise in the legal profession, the people responsible for hiring her saw her as a white woman." ..."
"... With Warren and Sanders talking complete sense about our oligarchy, the electorate's expectations are going to improve. Nothing could be better. We've been asked to settle for Republican-lite servants of mammon for too long in the Democratic Party and that's going to change. ..."
"... Hell, if we're going to fine them for data breaches, do we start with the DNC? ..."
"... In a poll last week of 2,312 registered voters in South Carolina, Warren gained nine points to reach 17% compared to Biden's 37%. Among 18-34 year olds, Warren is leading 24% to Sanders' 19% and Biden's 17%. ..."
"... I keep hearing from the mainstream media that Biden is leading in the polls. But we ought to note that Biden's up against a group including Warren, Sanders, Harris etc who are pushing a progressive policies, and if you take their percentages together, Biden cannot compete. Once one of these progressive takes the lead in the group, and hires all the others as running mate, cabinet members etc, he or she will be unbeatable against both Biden and Trump. ..."
"... The latest of that polling features Sanders and Biden nearly neck and neck as far as approval goes. Funny you don't hear about that on CNN or MSNBC. ..."
"... American voters have spent so long being treated like idiots by politicians and to an even greater extent the press that Warren comes across as something new and interesting by comparison. ..."
"... This election won't be decided by defecting Trump voters. ..."
"... Those who would be swayed by Trump using "Pocahontas" as a slur or would even pay attention to it wouldn't vote for Warren anyway. He's not going to change any minds with it, just rile up his existing sheep. ..."
"... That's a very narrow view of her position on Israel. She also supported the Iran treaty, boycotting Netanyahu's speech to the Senate, called on Israel to stop colonizing the West Bank and to recognize the right of Palestinians in Gaza to peaceful protest – her comments about aggression toward Gaza were about Israeli response to missiles fired by Hamas. I don't mind her having a nuanced response to what is in fact a very complex situation. ..."
"... Nerd used to be just an insult, aimed at anyone more intelligent, thoughtful or better-informed than the speaker. But I think now, like 'queer' and other words, it has been reclaimed and repurposed in a much more positive light. ..."
Clinton said vote for me because I am a woman, Warren says vote for me because I am a potential leader who happens to be a woman.
Good luck to her and the US
Don't get me wrong. I would certainly vote for her, if needed. I believe she's quite green behind the ears on foreign policy and
how inequality is a global issue. Her backing of our entitled neoliberal wife of an ex-president & neocon dismayed me.
Sanders gets the bigger picture on poverty, race, and war/ neocolonialism:
if you wish: MLK Jr's take on "The Three Evils".
apples and oranges, Thomas and Herr, Would you care to defend her "posture" on NATO? Ditto, for her contributing to the "Evil
Vlad" narrative? Israel?? Wiki: Warren states she supports a two state solution, but she believes Palestinian application
for membership in the UN isn't helpful.[63]
In a town hall meeting in August 2014, Warren defended Israel's shelling of
schools and hospitals during that summer's Israel–Gaza conflict, stating that "when Hamas puts its rocket launchers next to hospitals,
next to schools, they're using their civilian population to protect their military assets. And I believe Israel has a right, at
that point, to defend itself". She also questioned whether future US aid to Israel should be contingent on the halting of Israeli
settlements in the West Bank.[64] In addition she defended her vote in favor of granting Israel $225 million to fund the Iron
Dome air defence system.[65]
While the 2020 election feels critical, the 2024 election will decide the future. Like Trump himself, his base is filled with
old people who are still loyal to Ronald Reagan's Republican Party. Old people watch FoxNews, old people vote, old people love
Trump and in 2016, old people decided the election.
Younger people do NOT vote. The younger someone is, the less likely they are to vote. However, young people voted for Obama,
twice, but when Hillary came along, they stayed home and let the old people choose the president.
And then, in 2018 the young voted again and we learned the next generation plans to take this country into the future. If the
young vote in 2020, Trump is toast. If the young stay home, Trump will see a second term.
However, by 2024 the young will assume their rightful place in history and the age of old white men running the country, and
the world will come to an end.
You are making assumptions that old people are idiots. Making assumptions that middle aged people do not exist or are small in
numbers. Trump gets 200 or so electoral votes. He loses. I don't see any case he wins. He is past his 'used by date' even for
Republicans. You loose Tx to the Ds its game over, add PA and OH to the list. It doesn't even matter what crazy FL man thinks.
Don't forget modern geriatric medicine, by which the dinosaurs in the senate and elsewhere in the hardening arteries of the US
body politic will live - and hold ofice - for even longer than Strom Thurmond. They can afford the private medical insurance to
pay for it.
By the way, MeRaffey , I hope you meant to omit to punctuate in your last phrase so that it would read: ... the age
of old white men running the country and the world will come to an end . Your comma has me worried.
Warren/Harris, said it before but it makes sense. I would've preferred Biden to Clinton but I can't see him getting the same turnout
as Warren. Opinions on Trump are now fixed, it's a red herring to worry about "firing up" Trump supporters, they are already as
fired up as they can get. Swing voters are probably going to vote by where the economy is which is out of our control. Ideally
Democrats will be just as fired up as Trumpists, the investigations will suppress their enthusiasm somewhat (though they wouldn't
care if he killed someone so...) and the coming Trump recession will be brought on by his trade wars and the blame will therefore
fall where it should.
Warren lied about her ancestry to circumvent diversity quotas. Why should anyone believe anything she has to say? Furthermore,
What exactly is she promising that is any different then any of the other radical leftists running right now? It's all "Free Stuff"
that she's going to make the rich pay for. Um..yeah, that always works out doesn't it? Who needs real math when fuzzy math makes
us believe the combined wealth of the richest Americans will finance all this "free" stuff to say nothing about why so many Americans
feel entitled to the earnings of others. Remember folks, if a politician says 2+2=6 then it must be true.
"Warren lied about her ancestry to circumvent diversity quotas. Why should anyone believe anything she has to say?" You are
going to be told this a million times before 11/20 but that's bullshit. It's been well established that she didn't get any job
because of that.
She claimed Native American ancestry on her application to Harvard, a job she got and it wasn't the first time she played this
card either. But hey, in a political party that loves to change races and genders and expects everyone else to go along with the
charade by all means go ahead and believe what you want to believe.
A lie, see Snopes, see any link you've been given each time you post this lie. She got it on merit.
"In the most exhaustive review undertaken of Elizabeth Warren's professional history, the Globe found clear evidence, in
documents and interviews, that her claim to Native American ethnicity was never considered by the Harvard Law faculty, which voted
resoundingly to hire her, or by those who hired her to four prior positions at other law schools. At every step of her remarkable
rise in the legal profession, the people responsible for hiring her saw her as a white woman."
With Warren and Sanders talking complete sense about our oligarchy, the electorate's expectations are going to improve. Nothing
could be better. We've been asked to settle for Republican-lite servants of mammon for too long in the Democratic Party and that's
going to change.
The danger, of course, is that in this transition period Biden gets nominated. However much centrists will clamor for voters
to hold their nose and vote for him, that's not an electoral strategy. Trump's best chance of winning is that Biden gets nominated
and the progressive base of the Democratic Party is totally demoralized and lacking energy by late 2020.
After the US public allowed themselves to be hypnotized by Trump's campaign of fatuous lies, empty promises and racist dog whistles,
I doubted the electorate possessed the wit to understand actual policies. Maybe they've finally woken up - time will tell.
Do you understand how elections work? The US public were hypnotized? He lost the popular vote. The fault lies with the Republican
establishment for letting him put the R after his name. Perot ran on essentially the same ticket back in 92 as a third party candidate.
He got 18% of the vote. Had he run as a Republican he could well have won.
Oh dear. The question is, do you know how US elections work? The popular vote is irrelevant. He's the 5th POTUS who lost
the popular vote. Almost 63 million hypnotized dolts voted for him, and he won - that's why he currently resides in the WH
Or neither "hypnotized" nor "dolts." The people I knew who voted for him in North Carolina thought he was an asshole. But they
wanted a conservative Supreme Court for the next two decades and he has delivered that for them. Why do you assume that people
on the right are idiots who don't know what they want? That essential presumption by the left is one of the reasons the left lost
last time.
As one who used to be a Warren supporter, I think she is both patronizing voters and pandering to them. These policies have some
detail, sure, but they don't deal with the consequences that Warren knows very well lurk in the wings and as a result they don't
necessarily make sense.
Her proposal for free college is one example – sounds great, while in reality it would benefit the better-off middle class
at the expense of the most vulnerable students and create a cascade of problems that she has no plans to fix.
Again, fining companies for data breaches? Surely we should fine them *if* they don't immediately report data breaches to their
customers– or maybe if they haven't maintained appropriate data security, although I'd love to see proving that one to a court.
Hell, if we're going to fine them for data breaches, do we start with the DNC?
PS To be clear, I'd still take her in a second over Fat Nixon, I just wish she would pander less and keep her plans to the sensible
and achievable, like her consumer protection bureau, which was a fantastic idea.
Yes, (politely) do you? The fines for HIPAA violation have to do with noncompliance with the act, not with an uncontrollable data
breach. The fines increase on a sliding scale if "willful neglect" has been found (the data were not properly secured) or if the
company delays in reporting a data breach/violation.
Yep - No more old white guys - just being disgusted by Trump is not enough - people want new ideas. EW all the way - with AOC
by her side as well hopefully.
There is nothing Trump fears more than the stigma of being a one term pres - his ego would implode.
Oh, I think he fears going to prison more. Michael Cohen was right – the minute Trump is no longer protected by the presidency
he is going to be facing charges, on tax evasion if nothing else. He will do anything to keep his protection for more years. He's
probably hoping to die in office. (I'd add something to that, but I don't want the Secret Service visiting me!)
The DNC is again placing it's foot on the scale in favor of Biden. I believe that they know Bernie is less likely to win because
of America's irrational fear of the word, "socialism." That's why they put Biden and Sanders on the stage together and pushed
out Elizabeth Warren to the other debate with lesser known and less popular candidates. They do not what her, with her solid plans,
to confront Biden, which would give her a greater boost in the polls and more recognition across the nation.
And who was watching the drawing? Who set up the drawing? Are you saying that there was independent oversight on its setup? Or
do you just take the DNC's word for it?
An inability to believe in coincidence will take you to some strange places. If Sanders and Warren drawn the same night you could
make an argument that Biden was getting set up to look good against the lightweight opponents. Or had Sanders drawn the undercard
that he was being marginalized. Warren will do fine either way. She's a great candidate. Biden isn't.
Biden rides high on President Obama's very long coat tails and Wall Street money even without detailed plans that actually help
the working class and the poor. Bernie is riding high on his honest fight for the working class and the poor.
Elizabeth Warren is rising fast because she not only agrees with Bernie on fighting for the working class and the poor,
but she has detailed plans that are holding up to independent economic scrutiny.
Both Warren and Sanders are honest in their fight for economic justice for all and recognize that the root cause of poverty
and lower middle class' struggle is corporate and wealthy-individual money in politics. They aim to stop it.
Biden claims he can negotiate with McConnell. Obama reached out to McConnell his entire term and drew back a nub. The same
will be true of Biden. For the Republicans and Trumpians, it's all about making Democrats fail no matter how much it hurts the
working class and the poor. Their propaganda network will always assist and sustain them by appealing to the emotions and prejudices
of millions of Americans.
Biden claims he can negotiate with McConnell. Obama reached out to McConnell his entire term and drew back a nub. The same
will be true of Biden.
The same will be true of any Democrat though. There is no way around it except by expanding the powers of the office
of the President, which is what has given Trump such a wide ability to repeal Obama-era policies.
Any Democrat coming up against a Republican Senate will have the same thing happen to them, although I can imagine the Republicans
will hate Biden marginally less than Obama given that he's not black.
There is no way around it except by expanding the powers of the office of the President, which is what has given Trump such
a wide ability to repeal Obama-era policies.
Not the first year of his presidency. His Republican Party controlled Congress and they mostly hated Obama as well. As long
as there was full control of congress, it was easy. It was not easy to remove the ACA because so many Americans liked it.
Now remember that the reasons Trump was appointed to office by the EC, was that enough far-right people voted, together with
the "conservative" media adding to Russia's concentration of propaganda in the key states (stats provided to the Russians by the
Trump campaign) and lifted him just enough to overcome the votes of ~3 million voters. Far more voters are now counting on voting
against him and for the best Democratic candidate.
Progressives do not want to expand the powers of the Oval Office. That is the wrong thing to do. True change for the better
can only come through the ballet box and by educating the voters to exactly why our government is dysfunctional and is replete
with corruption.
I think the most popular message to all voters (from farmers to all others in the working class) is that corporate and private
money in politics is the root cause of government corruption and dysfunction and why the collective wealth of the working class
is steadily redistributing to the uber-wealthy.
The only candidates who what to change the economy to a DEMAND-side economy is are those who actually and loudly advocate it.
But just voting for a progressive president while putting the "conservative" obstructionists (those who maintain the high capacity
money pipeline that runs from Wall Street to their pockets) back into Congress will mean the corruption and dysfunction will continue.
Voters must be replaced by a super-majority liberal/progressive Congress, and with that, Elizabeth Warren will make that change.
I think she also knows that she should've and easily could've been president right now. That strange piece yesterday, talking
about Biden and Sanders standing in front of good female candidates of today: leaving aside a keen Biden getting bullied out of
2016 by Clinton already having things sewn up, Sanders was notoriously late jumping into 2016 because he was waiting on Warren.
If Warren was going to run against the wretched Clinton, he wouldn't. Warren choked so Sanders had to do it himself. Warren must
know that she would have dismantled Crooked H and, seeing as Clinton was the only person who could've lost to el diablo naranja,
Warren would've hammered Trump too. Hence, Warren's got some making up to do and seems very determined.
She's always been my tip. If I was an American, I would vote for Tulsi Gabbard in a second but Warren is a strong candidate
and I always thought that her announcing on the last day of last year was going to give her licence to say to other candidates:
"I've been running since 2018!". Warren is the candidate that liars for Clinton tried to pretend that Clinton was. A note of caution,
though: someone posted a Republican survey of exactly four years ago yesterday. Bush was on 22%, Trump was polling 1%. Long time
to go yet.
In a poll last week of 2,312 registered voters in South Carolina, Warren gained nine points to reach 17% compared to
Biden's 37%. Among 18-34 year olds, Warren is leading 24% to Sanders' 19% and Biden's 17%.
I keep hearing from the mainstream media that Biden is leading in the polls. But we ought to note that Biden's up against
a group including Warren, Sanders, Harris etc who are pushing a progressive policies, and if you take their percentages together,
Biden cannot compete. Once one of these progressive takes the lead in the group, and hires all the others as running mate, cabinet
members etc, he or she will be unbeatable against both Biden and Trump.
There is no sure way of knowing how that would play out. You may be interested in looking at the Morning Consult Poll, which comes
out weekly. If you scroll down to Second Choices... it gives possible outcomes for where votes may fall. According to MC poll
the 2nd choice for Sanders voters is Biden, 2nd for Biden is Sanders, 2nd for Warren is Harris, 2nd for Buttigieg is Biden, and
2nd for Harris is Biden. The poll also shows results for early primary states, if you click on "Early Primary States". https://morningconsult.com/2020-democratic-primary
/
Only one question: are these the same polls that were running in ninth 2016? And if they are why do we give a crap what any of
them say since we know they are all horribly wrong?
The latest of that polling features Sanders and Biden nearly neck and neck as far as approval goes. Funny you don't hear about
that on CNN or MSNBC.
It's clear to me that the US public want action, and that means progressive policies. They were conned last time into thinking
Trump represented change. But a Hillary Mark II candidate such as Biden will lead to another Trump victory.
American voters have spent so long being treated like idiots by politicians and to an even greater extent the press that Warren
comes across as something new and interesting by comparison.
There is no doubt that Warren is the best policy brain in the Democratic Party. She also has some good ideas, and some not so
good ones.
Were I American, I would be tempted to vote for her. But her candidacy is hopeless. It may be unfair, but the Pocahontas issue
will kill her bid stone dead in the general election. Trump would be licking his chops over a Warren run.
Those who would be swayed by Trump using "Pocahontas" as a slur or would even pay attention to it wouldn't vote for Warren
anyway. He's not going to change any minds with it, just rile up his existing sheep.
That's a very narrow view of her position on Israel. She also supported the Iran treaty, boycotting Netanyahu's speech to
the Senate, called on Israel to stop colonizing the West Bank and to recognize the right of Palestinians in Gaza to peaceful protest
– her comments about aggression toward Gaza were about Israeli response to missiles fired by Hamas. I don't mind her having a
nuanced response to what is in fact a very complex situation.
Warren has treated voters as adults, smart enough to handle her wonky style of campaigning. Instead of spoon-feeding prospective
voters soundbites, Warren is giving them heaps to digest – and her polling surge shows that voters appreciate the nerdy policy
talk.
If talking sense and enunciating real policies is regarded as "wonky"and "nerdy"in the USA then Warren doesn't have a hope and
Trump is a shoe-in.
Nerd used to be just an insult, aimed at anyone more intelligent, thoughtful or better-informed than the speaker. But I think
now, like 'queer' and other words, it has been reclaimed and repurposed in a much more positive light.
"... There's a simple reason for Warren's sudden rise in the polls : the public has an appetite for policy. Of all the Democratic candidates, Warren's campaign has been by far the most ideas-driven and ambitious in its policy proposals. And voters love it. ..."
"... Week in and week out, she has been crisscrossing the country to tell receptive voters her ideas for an ultra-millionaire tax, student debt cancellation and breaking up big tech. She has also weighed in on reproductive rights, vaccines, the opioid crisis and algorithmic discrimination in automated loans. Her bevy of white papers demonstrates that there isn't a policy area Warren won't touch and she isn't worried about repelling anyone with hard-hitting proposals. ..."
"... Better than any other candidate, Warren has articulated a connection between her personal and professional struggles and her ideas, lending an air of authenticity to her campaign. Her backstory – teacher turned reluctant stay-at-home mom turned Harvard Law School professor – clearly resonates with voters in important states such as Iowa and South Carolina. ..."
"... Rule of thumb that is true for all politicians regardless of party. Most of what they promise they will do will never happen and much of does happen does not occur in the way they promised when they campaigned. ..."
n Friday, the Massachusetts senator
Elizabeth Warren co-sponsored a bill to impose mandatory fines on companies that have data
breaches. It was the kind of consumer welfare legislation that in the past would have been
unremarkable. But in an era when Congress has consistently shirked its duty to shield
consumers, the bill stood out.
The legislation capped a week in which Warren surged in the polls. Less than eight months
before the Iowa caucus, Warren is making strides in 2020 primary polls. According to an
NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey of 1,000 adults, 64% of Democratic primary voters in
June were enthusiastic or comfortable with Warren, compared with 57% in March. Fewer of these
voters were enthusiastic or comfortable with Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders, who have
lost 11 and six points, respectively, since March.
There's more. In a poll last week of 2,312 registered voters in South Carolina, Warren
gained nine points to reach 17% compared to Biden's 37%. Among 18-34 year olds, Warren is
leading 24% to Sanders' 19% and Biden's 17%.
There's a simple reason for Warren's sudden rise in the polls: the public has an appetite
for policy
There's a simple reason for
Warren's sudden rise in the polls : the public has an appetite for policy. Of all the
Democratic candidates, Warren's campaign has been by far the most ideas-driven and ambitious in
its policy proposals. And voters love it.
Rather than condescend to voters, like most politicians, Warren has treated voters as
adults, smart enough to handle her wonky style of campaigning. Instead of spoon-feeding
prospective voters soundbites, Warren is giving them heaps to digest – and her polling
surge shows that voters appreciate the nerdy policy talk.
Indeed, since Warren declared her candidacy for president, she has been offering policy
prescriptions for our country's most pressing ailments – and she hasn't been
brainstorming in a bubble.
Week in and week out, she has been crisscrossing the country to tell receptive voters her
ideas for an ultra-millionaire tax, student debt cancellation and breaking up big tech. She has
also weighed in on reproductive rights, vaccines, the opioid crisis and algorithmic
discrimination in automated loans. Her bevy of white papers demonstrates that there isn't a
policy area Warren won't touch and she isn't worried about repelling anyone with hard-hitting
proposals.
Better than any other candidate, Warren has articulated a connection between her personal
and professional struggles and her ideas, lending an air of authenticity to her campaign. Her
backstory – teacher turned reluctant stay-at-home mom turned Harvard Law School professor
– clearly resonates with voters in important states such as Iowa and South Carolina.
That sense of reciprocity has turned Warren into a populist rock star. Instead of appealing
to the lowest common denominator among the voting public, she's listening to and learning from
voters in an ideas-driven campaign that doesn't take voters for granted.
The strategy is paying off – and proving wrong the outdated political wisdom that
Americans don't care about the intricacies of government.
In May, Warren traveled to Kermit, West Virginia, the heart of Trump country, to pitch a
$2.7bn-a-year plan to combat opioid addiction.
"Her stance is decisive and bold," Nathan Casian-Lakes
told CBS News . "She has research and resources to back her ideas."
Jill Priluck's reporting and analysis has appeared in
the New Yorker, Slate, Reuters and elsewhere
I've decided that I want to see Warren as President. She is honest and has many good ideas
about the economy and offering a leg up to minorities and the poor. Her integrity is
unimpeachable. I have donated small sums to her campaign. Bernie has not spoken in detail the
way Warren has although his democratic socialism goes in a positive direction. There are many
voters who feel that he is too old. I hope that he will approve Warren as the best candidate
in the running. Biden's moment is long gone. For now I believe that another recession lurks
in the near future and Warren, as a wonk, is the best person to deal with it.
She also does not take a dime of PAC money, which helps keep her mind cleared of hidden
agendas. Because of that, she is the first candidate who campaign I've donated to.
Rule of thumb that is true for all politicians regardless of party. Most of what they promise
they will do will never happen and much of does happen does not occur in the way they
promised when they campaigned.
In the case of Sen Warren she talks a lot of wonderful stuff,
paid by rich people. Expect the same results. The courts will probably shoot down the wealth
tax as described by Warren anyway which means everything she promises just dies.
Technocratic, neoliberal, Clinton Democrat ideas which have already proven to fail.
She's for the working class, so long as that working class wears a white collar.
but she declared that she will take "the money" in the general election if she wins the nomination. Do you expect that money
to come with no strings attached. Clearly this video
implied that she knows differently.
This video shows that as a member of Congress she is cognizant of the "as Senator Clinton, the pressures are very different"
Warren knows EXACTLY what she is doing when she says she will take the money in the general if nominated.
Okay, Warren made a mistake in claiming Native American heritage, which enabled her to
advance professionally as a "diversity" candidate. But that would have to count as a venial
not mortal sin. She is doing considerable good on the campaign trail, and I believe that she
means to try to follow through on her detailed promises.
"... 780 billion per year on defense without a enemy in sight, and no nation spending a tenth that, seems to be a place one could get a dollar or two. ..."
"... As Chomsky notes in 'manufacturing consent', the mass media that is not 'Right' is 'Centrist' and will support a centrist candidate over one advocating more radical change. ..."
"... Here's an idea. If Warren was a true progressive she wouldn't have been a registered Republican for 5 years, and she would have endorsed Bernie over Hillary in the 2016 primaries. ..."
Her backstory – teacher turned reluctant stay-at-home mom turned Harvard Law
School professor – clearly resonates with voters in important states such as Iowa and
South Carolina.
Working people who are struggling in Iowa and South Carolina say: "She's just like
us!"
Please expand upon the "Constitutional issues of a wealth tax".
Looks pretty clear to me.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes,
Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general
Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout
the United States.
"Please expand upon the "Constitutional issues of a wealth tax".
"Looks pretty clear to me."
The point is that the question would go to a Republican Supreme Court which could indeed
find a wealth tax unconstitutional. If you want to know why, do a search. There's lots
written on it.
I don't know. Seems a lot more substance this go round than the last, near as I can tell.
Last go round climate change got one question and 45 seconds in response, by both candidates
in the general. The media certainly wants and will allow that to happen, but any dem who does
would be a idiot.
Seems last go round gender preference was a main thing. Warren will I think not fall into
that trap. White male midwestern industrial voters are at large, what lost HRC key states,
she took for granted. White male voters and usually their spouses, will not have a part of a
program that seems to leave them out of things.
Substance is the name of the game for warren, but to counter Trump one needs to throw out the barbs as well, as she did in
her twitter post on not being on his propaganda outlet Fox.
"I won't do a town hall with Fox News because I won't invite millions of Democratic primary
voters to tune in, inflate ratings, and help sell ads for an outlet that profits from racism
and hate. If you agree, sign our petition.
Yes that is Elizabeth Warren calling them racists and haters. A guy like Trump calls names
and it is par for the course. A woman who conducts herself as your local librarian or grade
school teacher, and you have to take pause and listen, is there substance to this? Seems
there is.
This new Elizabeth Warren, name calling and all, I find must more to my liking than that
before. Which is the why to her newfound popularity. Substance and calling a pig a pig not a
dog or some other thing.
I think you made a good case. she isn't my favorite but still acceptable.
In no particular order, for me it is Gabbard, Sanders, Williamson, Warren or Yang. the other
18 would be like voting for the GOP with some protection against the conservative slant on
social issues.
The right wingers that post here won't debate me because I'll expose them. They know how
the system works and they use it to their advantage. Socialism is about getting free stuff
but the issue here is who gets the free stuff. Supply side econ says that the rich are
entitled to the free stuff and the less fortunate aren't entitled to it. this is killing
upward mobility.
Iceland, Denmark and Sweden repealed their wealth taxes because they don't work. The
Scandinavian countries pay for their safety net by embracing capitalism and taxing the hell
out of everyone. Maybe we should embrace that model? Or does Warren's base simply all of the
benefits of that system without paying for it?
They're not similar countries to the USA, at all. US citizens are taxed no matter where they
choose to live on earth. This is not the case in most countries.
The Scandinavian countries pay for their safety net by embracing capitalism and taxing
the hell out of everyone. Maybe we should embrace that model?
It would be a hell of a lot better than the government acting as the paymaster for large
corporations - paying their workers with food stamps because the corporations don't pay them
sufficiently to live on.
You do know that is how the US works, right? Corporations don't pay their workers enough, so
the government (i.e. taxpayers) pick up the tab.
To add the average family of four, assuming one stays with the kids so they do not pay day
care costs, at Walmart earning a average salary , is eligible for federal food assistance and
in most states, Medicaid.
California for several decades paid for most of kids college education and even today, New
Mexico does the same. New Mexico is indeed one of the poorest states, and if they figured out
how to do that(under a republican governor years ago), most places could. The tax rate here
is about on average, no higher than most.
780 billion per year on defense without a enemy in sight, and no nation spending a tenth
that, seems to be a place one could get a dollar or two.
Smart and lucid. All the right ideas, without using the " S " word that people in the
USA do not really understand, and have a big fear of
I'd extent that from "The USA" to "The USA & the editorial staff of most papers in
England", and include some writers for this paper in that catchall.
'Socialist' Sanders and 'Left Wing' Labour as personified by Corbyn are all very well as
useful poles to beat the Right with in polemics, but when it looks like they might actually
gain access to the corridors of power, suddenly they become villains that have to be defeated
so that sensible 'moderates' can retain power....
Warren was receiving more support from this particular paper even before she announced her
candidacy than Sanders has or I suspect will even if he gains the nomination.
As Chomsky notes in 'manufacturing consent', the mass media that is not 'Right' is
'Centrist' and will support a centrist candidate over one advocating more radical change.
Those labels are totally irrelevant in the USA. Calling someone 'right' or 'left' or
'socialist' in the USA has nothing to do with dictionary definitions. They all mean to say
one thing: I disagree with them because they're wrong.
On Friday, the Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren co-sponsored a bill to impose
mandatory fines on companies that have data breaches.
Warren is the politician who operates like a blind-folded person desperately trying to hit
a pinata. In her political realm, such companies simply twist in the wind and make easy
targets. Her policy is equivalent to any store or home being burglarized and then being fined by
government for being a victim of crime. Complete mindlessness describes the policy.
Yes. Of course every politician should simply lie down and let the corporations get away with
every damn thing. I mean, that's worked really well for most Americans since Reagan.
Agreed that is a stupid policy.
If the company suffers a data breach owing to poor security or conceals or unduly delays
disclosure of the data breach, then it would make sense to fine the company or to hold the
company civilly liable to those injured by the data breach. But a blanket fine for any company that suffers a data breach is dumb.
The Labor party in Australia surprised me with the boldness and coherency of their plans and
it was a great thing to see a party running a campaign on ideas and principles.
They lost the election.
Here's an idea. If Warren was a true progressive she wouldn't have been a registered
Republican for 5 years, and she would have endorsed Bernie over Hillary in the 2016
primaries.
What a really stupid thing to write and think. Do you have any inkling of the history of the
Republican and Democratic parties? I was born in a Republican household (progressive) and it
took me living overseas for 20 years to realize what a nasty little insurgency had taken the
Republicans from what Teddy Roosevelt championed to what he described as swine; the
Dixiecrats. Ignorance is not bliss no matter how hard you try to pretend.
One thing that needs to be done involves an honest discussion about the costs of Warren's
proposals and the fact that the US already has a $22 TRILLION national debt with more than $1
TRILLION being added each year at a minimum. A former US Comptroller General stated in 2015
that even the official National Debt figure is a misrepresentation and that taking into
account an honest understanding of the nation's actual legal obligations the figure was
actually $65 TRILLION.
If anyone wants to see it even worse just look at economist Lawrence Kotlikoff's infinite horizon estimates that placed future already promised commitments at
$220 TRILLION. My point is that Warren and everyone else in the DC political establishment,
is "blowing smoke" and that the US is bankrupt and needs a serious strategy to mitigate that
fact rather than reckless proposals aimed to attract votes.
That is not going to happen and
the country is in a fundamental financial crisis.
Its repinlicans who increase your deficits. Reagan believed deficits don't matter.
The bush tax cuts...and now Trumps tax cuts and QE. He's expanding credit, which looks like
real growth, but is it? Only the US can do this, because it runs the global dollar. We should
have had the Bankor. But the yanks ensured that did not happen.
Nobody expects Congress to deliver on a president's campaign promises. That's not how
the system works.
True. We use to call it "obstructionist" when the other party in congress
unreasonably opposed a president's proposals. We no longer use that term, though. Now we call
it "resistance". I'm sure there are at least a few republicans who see being part of the
"resistance" exciting if Warren wins the White House.
At first I thought she must be mad, running for president. Then I started listening to her
ideas and looking at how they were being received.
There are millions of young people, youngish people, and parents whose lives would actually
be changed by her college loan plan. Even conservatives admit that "her math is correct" and
"it's doable."
Then I started watching her in town halls and found her to be VERY different from that
awkward lady in the kitchen having a beer. She's warm, direct, funny, casually
self-deprecating, and easily able to translate complex ideas into readily understood ones.
Free college and health care, and the rich pay. Who wouldn't get on board with that?
Well, since you asked. I don't have any student debt and I don't need any more
health care. If we are buying votes with "free" stuff, what do I get for free?
I do like a good brisket. Can we carve out some of that tax on those nasty millionaires
for my grocery fund?
Well, as a rock ribbed Republican, you only one choice.
Not applicable since I'm not a republican. I did vote for Trump, after voting
for Obama twice. I'm an independent, and we outnumber either republicans or democrats.
For me it's a toss-up between Warren and Sanders. When it comes to who will actually get to
run against Trump, if a dining room set and 4 chairs gets the Democratic nomination, they get
my vote in the general election.
The fix is already in I think. Your table and chairs name is Sleepy Joe Biden.
Of course, it's still a long time to the election and mortality rates may kick in.
Warren is rising fast because A) she stands for something and B) she does an excellent job of
explaining how America can make the journey from where it is (including rampant inequality)
to where it needs to be to offer a future to all its people, not just to those who are white,
rich and privileged! Plus, she is super smart & sassy!
"... Theresa May's immediate conclusion that the Russian government bears certain and sole responsibility for the nerve-agent poisoning of the Skripals is logically, scientifically, and forensically impossible. ..."
"... Teresa May is lying, everyone who seconds her assertion of false certainty is lying, they all know they are lying, and the Russians know that they know they are lying. ..."
"... "War" is what they seem to want it to be. For the past 18 to 24 months, we've also been inundated with Morgan Freeman and Rob Reiner's ominous "We have been attacked. We are at war," video, as well as the bipartisan ( Hillary Clinton , John McCain ) insistence that alleged Russian election meddling should be considered an "act of war" equivalent to Pearl Harbor . Indeed, Trump's new National Security advisor, the warmongering lunatic John Bolton, calls it , explicitly "a casus belli , a true act of war." ..."
"... Even the military is getting in on the act. The nerve-agent accusation has been followed up by General John Nicholson, the commander of U.S. Forces in Afghanistan, accusing Russia of arming the Taliban! It's noteworthy that this senior American military general casually refers to Russia as "the enemy": "We've had stories written by the Taliban that have appeared in the media about financial support provided by the enemy." ..."
"... The economic war against Russian is being waged through a series of sanctions that seem impossible to reverse, because their expressed goal is to extract confession, repentance, and restitution for crimes ascribed to Russia that Russia has not committed, or has not been proven to have committed, or are entirely fictional and have not been committed by anyone at all. We will only stop taking your bank accounts and consulates and let you play games with us if you confess and repent every crime we accuse you of. No questions permitted. ..."
It's a relentless economic, diplomatic, and ideological war, spiced with (so far) just a
dash of military war, and the strong scent of more to come.
I mean war with Russia, of course, although Russia is the point target for a constellation
of emerging adversaries the US is desperate to entame before any one or combination of them
becomes too strong to defeat. These include countries like Iran and China, which are developing
forces capable of resisting American military aggression against their own territory and on a
regional level, and have shown quite too much uppitiness about staying in their
previously-assigned geopolitical cages.
But Russia is the only country that has put its military forces in the way of a U.S. program
of regime change -- indirectly in Ukraine, where Russia would not get out of the way, and
directly in Syria, where Russia actively got in the way. So Russia is the focus of
attack, the prime target for an exemplary comeuppance.
Is it, then, a new Cold War, even more dangerous than the old one, as Stephen F. Cohen
says ?
That terminology was apt even a few months ago, but the speed, ferocity, and
coordination of the West/NATO's reaction to the alleged nerve-agent poisoning of the
Skripals, as well as the formation of a War Cabinet in Washington, indicates to me that we've
moved to another level of aggression.
It's beyond Cold. Call it the Warm War. And the temperature's rising.
The Nerve of Them
There are two underlying presumptions that, combined, make present situation more dangerous
than a Cold War.
One is the presumption of guilt -- or, more precisely, the presumption that the presumption
of Russian guilt can always be made, and made to stick in the Western mind.
The confected furor over the alleged nerve-agent poisoning of the Skripals demonstrates this
dramatically.
Theresa May's immediate conclusion that the Russian government bears certain and sole
responsibility for the nerve-agent poisoning of the Skripals is logically, scientifically, and
forensically impossible.
False certainty is the ultimate fake news. It is just not true that, as she says: "There is
no alternative conclusion other than the Russian state is culpable." This falsity of this
statement has been demonstrated by a slew of sources -- including the
developers of the alleged "Novichok" agent themselves, a thorough
analysis by a former UN inspector in Iraq who worked on the destruction of chemical
weapons, establishment Western scientific outlets like New Scientist ("
Other countries could have made 'Russian' nerve agent "), and the British government's own
mealy-mouthed, effective-but-unacknowledged disavowal
of that conclusion. In its own words, The British government found: "a nerve agent or
related compound," " of a type developed by Russia." So, it's absolutely,
positively, certainly, without a doubt, Russian-government-produced "Novichok" .or something
else.
Teresa May is lying, everyone who seconds her assertion of false certainty is lying, they
all know they are lying, and the Russians know that they know they are lying. It's a
It boggles the -- or at least, my -- mind how, in the face of all this, anyone could take
seriously her ultimatum, ignoring the procedures of the
Chemical Weapons Convention , gave Russia 24 hours to "explain" -- i.e., confess and beg
forgiveness for -- this alleged crime.
Indeed, it's noteworthy that France initially, and rather sharply, refused to assume Russian
guilt, with a government spokesman saying, "We don't do fantasy politics. Once the elements are
proven, then the time will come for decisions to be made." But the whip was cracked -- and
surely not by the weak hand of Whitehall -- demanding EU/NATO unity in the condemnation of
Russia. So, in an extraordinary show of discipline that could only be ordered and orchestrated
by the imperial center, France joined the United States and 20 other countries in the largest
mass expulsion of Russian diplomats ever.
Western governments and their compliant media have mandated that Russian government guilt
for the "
first offensive use of a nerve agent " in Europe since World War II is to be taken as flat
fact. Anyone -- like Jeremy Corbyn or Craig Murray -- who
dares to interrupt the "Sentence first! Verdict afterwards!" chorus to ask for, uh, evidence,
is treated to a storm of obloquy
.
At this point, Western accusers don't seem to care how blatantly unfounded, if not
ludicrous, an accusation is. The presumption of Russian guilt, along with the shaming of anyone
who questions it, has become an unquestionable standard of Western/American political and media
discourse.
Old Cold War McCarthyism has become new Warm War fantasy politics.
Helled in Contempt
This declaration of diplomatic war over the Skripal incident is the culmination of an
ongoing drumbeat of ideological warfare, demonizing Russia and Putin personally in the most
predictable and inflammatory terms.
For the past couple of years, we've been
told by Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Marco Rubio, and
Boris Johnson that Putin is the new Hitler. That's a particularly galling analogy for the
Russians. Soviet Russia, after all, was Hitler's main enemy, that defeated the Nazi army at the
cost of 20+ million of its people -- while the British Royal Family was not
un-smitten with the charms of
Hitlerian fascism , and British footballers had a poignant moment in 1938 Berlin
saluting the Fuhre.:
"War" is what they seem to want it to be. For the past 18 to 24 months, we've also been
inundated with Morgan Freeman and Rob Reiner's ominous "We have been attacked. We are at war,"
video, as well as the bipartisan (
Hillary Clinton ,
John McCain ) insistence that alleged Russian election meddling should be considered an
"act of war"
equivalent to Pearl Harbor . Indeed, Trump's new National Security advisor, the
warmongering lunatic John Bolton,
calls it , explicitly "a casus belli , a true act of war."
Even the military is getting in on the act. The nerve-agent accusation has been followed up
by General John Nicholson, the commander of U.S. Forces in Afghanistan, accusing Russia of arming the Taliban! It's
noteworthy that this senior American military general casually refers to Russia as "the enemy":
"We've had stories written by the Taliban that have appeared in the media about financial
support provided by the enemy."
Which is strange, because, since the Taliban emerged from the American-jihadi war against
Soviet forces in Afghanistan, and the Taliban and Russia have "enduring enmity" towards each
other, as Kate Clark of the Afghanistan Analysts Network puts it . Furthermore, the sixteen-year-long
American war against the Taliban has depended on Russia allowing the U.S. to move
supplies through its territory, and being "the principal source of
fuel for the alliance's needs in Afghanistan."
So the general has to admit that this alleged Russian "destabilising activity" is a new
thing: "This activity really picked up in the last 18 to 24 months When you look at the timing
it roughly correlates to when things started to heat up in Syria. So it's interesting to note
the timing of the whole thing."
Yes, it is.
The economic war against Russian is being waged through a series of sanctions that seem
impossible to reverse, because their expressed goal is to extract confession, repentance, and
restitution for crimes ascribed to Russia that Russia has not committed, or has not been proven
to have committed, or are entirely fictional and have not been committed by anyone at all.
We will only stop taking your bank accounts and consulates and let you play games with us if
you confess and repent every crime we accuse you of. No questions permitted.
This is not a serious framework for respectful international relations between two sovereign
nations. It's downright childish. It paints everyone, including the party trying to impose it,
into an impossible corner. Is Russia ever going to abandon Crimea, confess that it shot down
the Malaysian jet, tricked us into electing Donald Trump, murdered the Skripals, is secretly
arming the Taliban, et. al .? Is the U.S. ever going to say: "Never mind"? What's the
next step? It's the predicament of the bully.
This is not, either, an approach that really seeks to address any of the "crimes" charged.
As Victoria Nuland (a Clintonite John Bolton) put it on NPR, it's about, "sending a message" to
Russia. Well, as Russia's ambassador to Washington, Anatoly Antonov
said , with this latest mass expulsion of diplomats, the United States is, "Destroying what
little remained of US-Russian ties." He got the message.
All of this looks like a coordinated campaign that began in response to Russia's
interruption of American regime-change projects in Ukraine and especially Syria, that was
harmonized -- over the last 18 to 24 months -- with various elite and popular motifs of
discontent over the 2016 election, and that has reached a crescendo in the last few weeks with
ubiquitous and unconstrained " enemization " [1] of Russia.
It's hard to describe it as anything other than war propaganda -- manufacturing the
citizenry's consent for a military confrontation.
Destroying the possibility of normal, non-conflictual, state-to-state relations and
constituting Russia as "the enemy" is exactly what this campaign is about. That is its
"message" and its effect -- for the American people as much as for the Russia
government. The heightened danger, I think, is that Russia, which has for a long time been
reluctant to accept that America wasn't interested in "partnership", has now heard and
understood this message, while the American people have only heard but do not understand
it.
It's hard to see where this can go that doesn't involve military conflict. This is
especially the case with the appointments of Mike Pompeo, Gina Haspel, and John Bolton -- a
veritable murderers' row that many see as the core of a Trump War Cabinet. Bolton, who does not
need Senate confirmation, is a particularly dangerous fanatic, who tried to
get the Israelis to attack Iran before even they wanted to, and has
promised regime change in Iran by 2019. As mentioned, he considers that Russia has already
given him a " casus belli. " Even the staid New York Timeswarns
that, with these appointments, "the odds of taking military action will rise dramatically."
The second presumption in the American mindset today makes military confrontation more
likely than it was during the Cold War: Not only is there a presumption of guilt, there is a
presumption of weakness . The presumption of guilt is something the American imperial
managers are confident they can induce and maintain in the Western world; the presumption of
weakness is one they -- or, I fear, too many of them -- have all-too blithely
internalized.
This is an aspect of the American self-image among policymakers whose careers matured in a
post-Soviet world. During the Cold War, Americans held themselves in check by the assumption,
that, militarily, the Soviet Union was a peer adversary, a country that could and would defend
certain territories and interests against direct American military aggression -- "spheres of
interest" that should not be attacked. The fundamental antagonism was managed with grudging
mutual respect.
There was, after all, a shared recent history of alliance against fascism. And there was an
awareness that the Soviet Union, in however distorted a way, both represented the possibility
of a post-capitalist future and supported post-colonial national liberation movements, which
gave it considerable stature in the world.
American leadership might have hated the Soviet Union, but it was not contemptuous of it. No
American leader would have called the Soviet Union, as John McCain called Russia, just "a gas
station masquerading as a country." And no senior American or British leader would have told
the Soviet Union what British Defense Secretary Gavin Williamson told Russia last week: to "go
away and shut up."
This is a discourse that assumes its own righteousness, authority, and superior power, even
as it betrays its own weakness. It's the discourse of a frustrated child. Or bully. Russia
isn't shutting up and going away, and the British are not -- and know they're not -- going to
make it. But they may think the Big Daddy backing them up can and will. And daddy may think so
himself.
Like all bullies, the people enmeshed in this arrogant discourse don't seem to understand
that it is not frightening Russia. It's only insulting the country, and leading it to conclude
that there is indeed nothing remaining of productive, non-conflictual, US-Russian "partnership"
ties. The post-Skripal worldwide diplomatic expulsions, which seem deliberately and desperately
excessive, may have finally convinced Russia that there is no longer any use trying. Those who
should be frightened of this are the American people.
The enemy of my enemy is me.
The United States is only succeeding in turning itself into an enemy for Russians. Americans
would do well to understand how thoroughly their hypocritical and contemptuous stance has
alienated the Russian people and strengthened Vladimir Putin's leadership -- as many of Putin's
critics warned
them it would. The fantasy of stoking a "liberal" movement in Russia that will install some
nouveau-Yeltsin-ish figure is dissipated in the cold light of a 77% election day. Putin is
widely and firmly supported in Russia because he represents the resistance to any such
scheme.
Americans who want to understand that dynamic, and what America itself has wrought in
Russia, should heed the passion, anger, and disappointment in this statement about
Putin's election from a self-described "liberal" (using the word, I think, in the intellectual
tradition, not the American political, sense), Margarita Simonyan, editor-in-chief of RT TV
(errors in translation by another person):
Essentially, the West should be horrified not because 76% of Russians voted for Putin, but
because this elections have demonstrated that 95% of Russia's population supports
conservative-patriotic, communist and nationalist ideas. That means that liberal ideas are
barely surviving among measly 5% of population.
And that's your fault, my Western friends. It was you who pushed us into "Russians never
surrender" mode
[W]ith all your injustice and cruelty, inquisitorial hypocrisy and lies you forced us to
stop respecting you. You and your so called "values."
We don't want to live like you live, anymore. For fifty years, secretly and openly, we
wanted to live like you, but not any longer.
We have no more respect for you, and for those amongst us that you support, and for all
those people who support you.
For that you only have yourself to blame.
In meantime, you've pushed us to rally around your enemy. Immediately, after you declared
him an enemy, we united around him .
It was you who imposed an opposition between patriotism and liberalism. Although, they
shouldn't be mutually exclusive notions. This false dilemma, created by you, made us to chose
patriotism.
Even though, many of us are really liberals, myself included.
Get cleaned up, now. You don't have much time left.
In fact, the whole "uprising"/color revolution strategy throughout the world is over. It's
been fatally discredited by its own purported successes. Everybody in the Middle East has seen
how that worked out for Iraq, Libya, and Syria, and the Russians have seen how it worked out
for Ukraine and for Russia
itself . In neither Russia nor Iran (nor anywhere else of importance) are the Americans,
with their sanctions and their NGOs and their
cookies ,going to stoke a popular uprising that turns a country into a fractured client of
the Washington Consensus. More fantasy politics.
The old new world Washington wants won't be born without a military midwife. The U.S. wants
a compliant Russia ( and "international community") back, and it thinks it can force it
into being.
Fear Knot
Consider this quote from
The Saker , a defense analyst who was born in Switzerland to a Russian military family,
"studied Russian and Soviet military affairs all [his] life," and lived for 20 years in the
United States. He's been one of the sharpest analysts of Russia and Syria over the last few
years. This was his take a year ago, after Trump's cruise missile attack on Syria's Al Shayrat
airfield -- another instant punishment for an absolutely, positively, proven-in-a day, chemical
crime:
For one thing, there is no US policy on anything.
The Russians expressed their total disgust and outrage at this attack and openly began
saying that the Americans were
"недоговороспособны".
What that word means is literally "not-agreement-capable" or unable to make and then abide by
an agreement. While polite, this expression is also extremely strong as it implies not so
much a deliberate deception as the lack of the very ability to make a deal and abide by it.
But to say that a nuclear world superpower is "not-agreement-capable" is a terrible and
extreme diagnostic.
This means that the Russians have basically given up on the notion of having an adult,
sober and mentally sane partner to have a dialog with.
In all my years of training and work as a military analyst I have always had to assume
that everybody involved was what we called a "rational actor". The Soviets sure where. As
were the Americans.
Not only do I find the Trump administration "not agreement-capable", I find it completely
detached from reality. Delusional in other words.
Alas, just like Obama before him, Trump seems to think that he can win a game of nuclear
chicken against Russia. But he can't. Let me be clear here: if pushed into a corner the
Russian will fight, even if that means nuclear war.
There is a reason for this American delusion. The present generation of American leadership
was spoiled and addled by the blissful post-Soviet decades of American impunity.
The problem is not exactly that the U.S. wants full-on war with Russia, it's that
America does not fear it. [2]
Why should it? It hasn't had to for twenty years during which the US assumed it could bully
Russia to stay out of its imperial way anywhere it wanted to intervene.
After the Soviet Union broke up (and only because the Soviet Union disappeared) the
United States was free to use its military power with impunity. For some time, the U.S. had its
drunken stooge, Yeltsin, running Russia and keeping it out of America's military way. There was
nary a peep when Bill Clinton effectively conferred on NATO (meaning the U.S. itself) the
authority to decide what military interventions were necessary and legitimate. For about twenty
years -- from the Yugoslavia through the Libya intervention -- no nation had the military power
or politico-diplomatic will to resist this.
But that situation has changed. Even the Pentagon
recognizes that the American Empire is in a "post-primacy" phase -- certainly "fraying,"
and maybe even "collapsing." The world has seen America's social and economic strength
dissipate, and its pretense of legitimacy disappear entirely. The world has seen American
military overreach everywhere while winning nothing of stable value anywhere. Sixteen years,
and the mighty U.S. Army cannot defeat the Taliban. Now, that's Russia's fault!
Meanwhile, a number of countries in key areas have gained the military confidence and
political will to refuse the presumptions of American arrogance -- China in the Pacific, Iran
in the Middle East, and Russia in Europe and, surprisingly, the Middle East as well. In a
familiar pattern, America's resultant anxiety about waning power increases its
compensatory aggression. And, as mentioned, since it was Russia that most effectively
demonstrated that new military confidence, it's Russia that has to be dealt with first.
The incessant wave of sanctions and expulsions is the bully in the schoolyard clenching his
fist to scare the new kid away. OK, everyone's got the message now. Unclench or punch?
Let's be clear about who is the world's bully. As is evident to any half-conscious person,
Russia is not going to attack the United States or Europe. Russia doesn't have scores of
military bases, combat ships and aircraft up on America's borders. It doesn't have almost a
thousand military bases around the world. Russia does not have the military forces to rampage
around the world as America does, and it doesn't want or need to. That's not because of
Russia's or Vladimir Putin's pacifism, but because Russia, as presently situated in the
political economy of the world, has nothing to gain from it.
Nor does Russia need some huge troll-farm offensive to "destabilize" and sow division in
Western Europe and the United States. Inequality, austerity, waves of immigrants from
regime-change wars, and trigger-happy cops are doing a fine job of that. Russia isn't
responsible for American problems with Black Lives Matter or with the Taliban.
All of this is fantasy politics.
It's the United States, with its fraying empire, that has a problem requiring military
aggression. What other tools does the U.S. have left to put the upstarts, Russia first, back in
their places?
It must be hard for folks who have had their way with country after country for twenty years
not to think they can push Russia out of the way with some really, really scary threats, or
maybe one or two "bloody nose" punches. Some finite number of discrete little escalations.
There's already been some shoving -- that cruise missile attack, Turkey's downing of a Russian
jet, American attacks on Russian personnel (ostensibly private mercenaries) in Syria -- and,
look, Ma, no big war. But sometimes you learn the hard way the truth of the reverse Mike Tyson
rule: "Everyone has a game plan until they smack the other guy in the face."
Consider one concrete risk of escalation that every informed observer is, and every American
should be, aware of.
The place where the United States and Russia are literally, geographically, closest to
confrontation is Syria. As mentioned, the U.S. and its NATO ally, Turkey, have already attacked
and killed Russians in Syria, and the U.S. and its NATO allies have a far larger military force
than Russia in Syria and the surrounding area. On the other hand, Russia has made very
effective use of its forces, including what Reuters
calls "advanced cruise missiles" launched from planes,
ships , and
submarines that hit ISIS targets with high precision from 1000 kilometers.
Russia is also operating in accordance with international law, while the U.S. is not. Russia
is fighting with Syria for the defeat of jihadi forces and the unification of the Syrian state.
The United States is fighting with its jihadi clients for the overthrow of the Syrian
government and the division of the country. Russia intervened in Syria after Obama announced
that the U.S. would attack Syrian army troops, effectively declaring war. If neither side
accepts defeat and goes home, it is quite possible there will be some direct confrontation
over this. In fact, it's hard to imagine that there won't.
A couple of weeks ago Syria and Russia
said the U.S. was planning a major offensive against the Syrian government, including
bombing the government quarter in Damascus. Valery Gerasimov, head of Russia's General Staff,
warned: "In the event of a threat to the lives of our servicemen, Russia's armed forces will
take retaliatory measures against the missiles and launchers used." In this context,
"launchers" means American ships in the Mediterranean.
Also a couple of weeks ago, Russia announced a number of new, highly-advanced weapons
systems. There's discussion about whether some of the yet-to-be-deployed weapons announced
may or
may not
be a bluff, but one that has already been deployed, called Dagger ( Kinzhal, not the
missiles mentioned above), is an air-launched hypersonic cruise missile that files at 5-7,000
miles per hour, with a range of 1200 miles. Analyst Andrei Martyanov claims that: "no
modern or perspective air-defense system deployed today by any NATO fleet can intercept even a
single missile with such characteristics. A salvo of 5-6 such missiles guarantees the
destruction of any Carrier Battle Group or any other surface group, for that matter."
Air-launched. From anywhere.
The U.S. attack has not (yet) happened, for whatever reason (Sputnik reporter Suliman
Mulhem, citing "a military monitor," claims
that's because of the Russian warnings). Great. But given the current state of America's
anxiously aggressive "post-primacy" policy -- including the Russiamania, the Zionist-driven
need to destroy Syria and Iran, and the War Cabinet -- how unlikely is that the U.S. will, in
the near future, make some such attack on some such target that Russia considers crucial to
defend?
And Syria is just one theater where, unless one side accepts defeat and goes home, military
conflict with Russia is highly likely. Is Russia going to abandon the Russian-speaking people
of the Donbass if they're attacked by fascist Kiev forces backed by the U.S.? Is it going to
sit back and watch passively if American and Israeli forces attack Iran? Which one is going to
give up and accept a loss: John Bolton or Vladimir Putin?
Which brings us to the pointed question: What will the U.S. do if Russia sinks an American
ship? How many steps before that goes full-scale, even nuclear? Or maybe American planners (and
you, dear reader) are absolutely, positively sure that will never happen, because the U.S. has
cool weapons, too, and a lot more of them, and the Russians will probably lose all their ships
in the Mediterranean immediately, if not something worse, and they'll put up with anything
rather than go one more step. The Russians, like everybody, must know the Americans always
win.
Happy with that, are we? Snug in our homeland rug? 'Cause Russians won't fight, but the
Taliban will.
This is exactly what is meant by Americans not fearing war with Russia (or war in general
for that matter). Nothing but contempt.
The Skripal opera, directed by the United States, with the whole of Europe and the entire
Western media apparatus singing in harmony, makes it clear that the American producers have no
speaking role for Russia in their staging of the world. And that contempt makes war much more
likely. Here's The Saker again, on how
dangerous the isolation the U.S. and its European clients are so carelessly imposing on Russia
and themselves is for everybody:
Right now they are expelling Russian diplomats en mass e and they are feeling very
strong and manly.
The truth is that this is only the tip of a much bigger iceberg. In reality, crucial
expert-level consultations, which are so vitally important between nuclear superpowers, have
all but stopped a long time ago. We are down to top level telephone calls. That kind of stuff
happens when two sides are about to go to war. For many months now Russia and NATO have made
preparations for war in Europe. Very rapidly the real action will be left to the USA and
Russia. Thus any conflict will go nuclear very fast. And, for the first time in history, the
USA will be hit very, very hard, not only in Europe, the Middle-East or Asia, but also on the
continental US.
Mass diplomatic expulsions, economic warfare, lockstep propaganda, no interest whatsoever in
respectfully addressing or hearing from the other side. What we've been seeing over the past
few months is the "kind of stuff that happens when two sides are about to go to war."
The less Americans fear war, the less they respect the possibility of it, the more likely
they are to get it.
Ready or Not
The Saker makes a diptych of a point that gets to the heart of the matter. We'd do well to
read and think on it carefully:
1/ The Russians are afraid of war. The Americans are not.
2/ The Russians are ready for war. The Americans are not.
Russia is afraid of war. More than twenty million Soviet citizens were
killed in WWII, about half of them civilians. That was more than twenty times the number of
Americans and British casualties combined. The entire country was devastated. Millions died in
the 872-day siege of Leningrad alone, including Vladimir Putin's brother. The city's population
was decimated by disease and starvation, with some reduced to cannibalism. Wikileaks calls it "one of the
longest and most destructive sieges in history [and] possibly the
costliest
in casualties." Another million-plus died in the nine-month siege of Stalingrad.
Every Russian knows this history. Millions of Russian families have suffered from it. Of
course, there was mythification of the struggle and its heroes, but the Russians, viscerally,
know war and know it can happen to them . They do not want to go through it
again. They will do almost anything to avoid it. Russians are not flippant about war. They fear
it. They respect it.
The Americans are not (afraid of war). Americans have never experienced anything
remotely as devastating as this. About 620,000 Americans died in the Civil War, 150 years ago.
(And we're still entangled in that!) The American mainland has not been attacked by a
significant military force since the War of 1812. Since then, the worst attacks on American
territory are two one-off incidents (Pearl Harbor and 9/11), separated by seventy years,
totaling about six-thousand casualties. These are the iconic moments of America Under
Siege.
For the American populace, wars are "over there," fought by a small group of Americans who
go away and either come back or don't. The death, destruction, and aroma of warfare -- which
the United States visits on people around the world incessantly -- is unseen and unexperienced
at home. Americans do not, cannot, believe, in any but the most abstract intellectual sense,
that war can happen here , to them. For the general populace, talk of war is just more
political background noise, Morgan Freeman competing for attention with Stormy Daniels and the
Kardashians.
Americans are supremely insouciant about war: They threaten countries with it incessantly,
the government routinely sells it with lies, and the political parties promote it
opportunistically to defeat their opponents -- and nobody cares. For Americans, war is part of
a game. They do not fear it. They do not respect it.
The Russians are ready for war. The Nazi onslaught was defeated -- in Soviet Russia,
by Soviet Citizens and the Red Army -- because the mass of people stood and fought together for
a victory they understood was important. They could not have withstood horrific sieges and
defeated the Nazis any other way. Russians understand, in other words, that war is a crisis of
death and destruction visited on the whole of society, which can only be won by a massive and
difficult effort grounded in social solidarity. If the Russians feel they have to fight, if
they feel besieged, they know they will have to stand together, take the hits that come, and
fight to the finish. They will not again permit war to be brought to their cities while their
attacker stays snug. There will be a world of hurt. They will develop and use any weapon they
can. And their toughest weapon is not a hypersonic missile; it's that solidarity, implied by
that 77%. (Did you read that Simonyan statement?) They may not be seeking it, but, insofar as
anybody can be, they are ready to fight.
Americans are not (ready for war): Americans experience the horror of wars as a
series of discrete tragedies visited upon families of fallen soldiers, reported in
human-interest vignettes at the end of the nightly news. Individual tragedies, not a social
disaster.
It's hard to imagine the social devastation of war in any case, but American culture wants
no part of thinking about that concretely. The social imagination of war is deflected into
fantastic scenarios of a super-hero universe or a zombie apocalypse. The alien death-ray may
blow up the Empire State Building, but the hero and his family (now including his or her
gender-ambivalent teenager, and, of course, the dog) will survive and triumph. Cartoon
villains, cartoon heroes, and a cartoon society.
One reason for this, we have to recognize, is the victory of the
Thatcherite/libertarian-capitalist "no such thing as society" ideology. Congratulations, Ayn
Rand, there is no such thing as American society now. It's every incipient entrepreneur
for him or herself. This does not a comradely, fighting band of brothers and sisters make.
Furthermore, though America is constantly at war, nobody understands the purpose of it.
That's because the real purpose can never be explained, and must be hidden behind some facile
abstraction -- "democracy," "our freedoms," etc. This kind of discourse can get some of the
people motivated for some of the time, but it loses its charm the minute someone gets smacked
in the face.
Once they take a moment, everybody can see that there is nobody with an army threatening to
attack and destroy the United States, and if they take a few moments, everybody can see how
phony the "democracy and freedom" stuff is and remember how often they've been lied to before.
There's just too much information out there. (Which is why the Imperial High Command wants to
control the internet.) Why the hell am I fighting? What in hell are we fighting
for? These are questions everybody will ask after, and too many people are now asking
before, they get smacked in the face.
This lack of social understanding and lack of political support translates into the
impossibility of fighting a major, sustained war that requires taking heavy casualties -- even
"over there," but certainly in the snug. American culture might be all gung-ho about Seal Team
Six kicking ass, but the minute American homes start blowing up and American bodies start
falling, Hoo-hah becomes Uh-oh , and it's going to be Outta here .
Americans are ready for Hoo-hah and the Shark Tank and the Zombie Apocalypse. They
are not ready for war.
You Get What You Play For
"Russiagate," which started quite banally in the presidential campaign as a Democratic arrow
to take down Trump, is now Russiamania -- a battery of weapons wielded by various sectors of
the state, aimed at an array of targets deemed even potentially resistant to imperial
militarism. Trump himself -- still, and for as long as he's deemed unreliable -- is targeted by
a legal prosecution of infinite reach (whose likeliest threat is to take him down for something
that has nothing to do with Russia). Russia itself is now targeted in full force by economic,
diplomatic, ideological -- and, tentatively, military -- weapons of the state. Perhaps most
importantly, American and European people, especially dissidents, are targeted by a unified
media barrage that attacks any expression of radical critique, anything that "sows division" --
from Black Lives Matter, to the Sanders campaign, to "But other countries could have made it"
-- as Russian treachery.
The stunning success of that last offensive is crucial to making a war more likely, and must
be fought. To increase the risk of war with a nuclear power in order to score points against
Donald Trump or Jill Stein -- well, only those who neither respect, fear, nor are ready for war
would do such a stupid and dangerous thing.
It's impossible to predict with certainty whether, when, or with whom a major hot war will
be started. The same chaotic disarray and impulsiveness of the Trump administration that
increases the danger of war might also work to prevent it. John Bolton may be fired before he
trims his moustache. But it's a pressure-cooker, and the temperature has spiked
drastically.
In a previous
essay , I said that Venezuela was a likely first target for military attack, precisely
because it would make for an easy victory that didn't risk military confrontation with Russia.
That's still a good possibility. As we saw with Iraq Wars 1 (which helped to end the "Vietnam
Syndrome") and 2 (which somewhat resurrected it), the imperial high command needs to inure the
American public with a virtually American-casualty-free victory and in order to lure them into
taking on a war that's going to hurt.
But the new War Cabinet may be pumped for the main event -- an attack on Iran. Trump,
Pompeo, and Bolton are all rabid proponents of regime-change in Iran. We can be certain
that the Iran nuclear deal will be scrapped, and everyone will work hard to implement the
secret agreementthe Trump administration already has with Israel to "to deal
with Iran's nuclear drive, its missile programs and its other threatening activities" -- or, as
Trump himself expresses it: "cripple the [Iranian] regime and bring it to collapse." (That
agreement, by the way, was negotiated and signed by the previous, supposedly not-so-belligerent
National Security Advisor, H. R. McMaster.)
Still, as I also said in the previous essay, an attack on Iran means the Americans must
either make sure Russia doesn't get in the way or make clear that they don't care if it
does. So, threatening moves -- not excluding probing military moves -- against Russia will
increase, whether Russia is the preferred direct target or not.
The siege is on.
Americans who want to continue playing with this fire would do well to pay some respectful
attention to the target whose face they want to smack. Russia did not boast or brag or threaten
or Hoo-Hah about sending military forces to Syria. When it was deemed necessary -- when
the United States declared its intention to attack the Syrian Army -- it just did it. And
American10-dimensional-chess players have been squirming around trying to deal with the
implications of that ever since. They're working hard on finding the right mix of threats,
bluffs, sanctions, expulsions, "Shut up and go away!" insults, military forces on the border,
and "bloody nose" attacks to force a capitulation. They should be listening to their target,
who has not tired of asking for a "partnership," who has clearly stated what his country would
do in reaction to previous moves (e.g., the abrogation of the ABM Treaty and stationing of ABM
bases in Eastern Europe), whose country and family have suffered from wartime devastation
Americans cannot imagine, who therefore respects, fears, and is ready for war in ways Americans
are not, and who is not playing their game:
[2]
Though it's ridiculous that it needs to be said: I'm not talking here about the phony fear
engendered by the media presentation of the "strongman," "brutal dictator" Vladimir Putin. This
is part and parcel of comic-book politics -- conjuring a super-villain, who, we all know, is
destined to be defeated. Join the debate on
Facebook More articles by: Jim Kavanagh
"... Monochromatic simplifications of this type suit multiple purposes. In the present US-Iran crisis, they supposedly provide official "proof" of nefarious intent. They can be seen to justify escalatory US actions that might previously have appeared unreasonable and provocative. They place pressure on reluctant allies to fall in behind the advancing American columns. Most of all, since democratic consent apparently still counts for something, they are intended to rally public support. ..."
"... We have seen this badly made movie before. And today, as in 2003, it presents a shadowy, unconvincing picture that no amount of White House manipulation and rhetoric can clarify. The fact is, the current crisis was conceived, manufactured and magnified in Washington. It has been whipped up by a group of hawkish policymakers around Donald Trump whose loathing for the Tehran regime is exceeded only by their recklessness. ..."
"... Yet the problem for Pompeo, and fellow Iranophobe, national security adviser John Bolton, is that while most western governments probably believe that hardline elements within Iran, or Iranian-backed proxy forces, initiated last week's tanker attacks and similar incidents last month, they also believe gratuitous US provocations may have forced Iran's hand. They don't believe Trump when he says he merely wants Iran to act "normal" . But they do suspect the ultimate Bolton-Pompeo aim is a putsch. ..."
"... Iran is highlighting the unintended consequences of any conflagration, and the precedent-setting illegitimacy, both legal and moral, of threatened US actions. And then, more dangerously, there is its apparent, increasing willingness to employ a measure of physical resistance, be it through military proxies or, for example, hardliners in the Revolutionary Guards Corps. This is potentially explosive. ..."
"... Iran's is a society under extreme duress. Sanctions are undoubtedly biting deep and patience with the west is waning. ..."
"... Unnecessarily aggressive, ill-considered – and deceptively presented – US policies have once again brought the Middle East to the brink of an accidental war very few want. America's European friends, including Britain, have an urgent responsibility to talk it down – and drag it back from the abyss. ..."
President Trump claims he doesn't want conflict, but his actions could accidentally trigger another Middle East
war
Grainy video images can be seen to justify escalatory US actions that might previously have appeared unreasonable
and provocative.'
Washington, at times of stress, international
crises play out in black and white. As in a flickering newsreel from a former age, complex events are reduced to
symbolic emblems of right and wrong. Grainy video images of "evil-doers", George W Bush's favoured term, purport to
show faceless Iranians acting suspiciously around a burning oil tanker in the Gulf last week. As new
Middle East troop deployments
are announced, US battleships are pictured bravely patrolling freedom's frontline.
Monochromatic simplifications of this type suit multiple purposes. In the present US-Iran crisis, they supposedly
provide official "proof" of nefarious intent. They can be seen to justify escalatory US actions that might
previously have appeared unreasonable and provocative. They place pressure on reluctant allies to fall in behind the
advancing American columns. Most of all, since democratic consent apparently still counts for something, they are
intended to rally public support.
We have seen this badly made movie before. And today, as in 2003, it presents a shadowy, unconvincing picture
that no amount of White House manipulation and rhetoric can clarify. The fact is, the current crisis was conceived,
manufactured and magnified in Washington. It has been whipped up by a group of hawkish policymakers around Donald
Trump whose loathing for the Tehran regime is exceeded only by their recklessness.
That's not a risk most people or states are ready to countenance. And so far, at least, Washington's parallel,
virtual battle for consent and support is not going the way American hawks hoped.
Mike Pompeo
, the bully-boy evangelist who doubles as US secretary of state, rarely loses an opportunity to
demonise Iran. Aware of post-Iraq scepticism over US intelligence claims, he noisily insists, with a creeping tinge
of panic, on the accuracy and veracity of his "evidence".
Yet the problem for Pompeo, and fellow Iranophobe, national security adviser John Bolton, is that while most
western governments probably believe that hardline elements within Iran, or Iranian-backed proxy forces, initiated
last week's tanker attacks and similar incidents last month, they also believe gratuitous US provocations may have
forced Iran's hand. They don't believe Trump when he says he merely wants
Iran to act "normal"
. But they do suspect the ultimate Bolton-Pompeo aim is a putsch.
The foreign secretary
Jeremy Hunt, to Britain's shame
, has tamely applauded Washington's dodgy video dossier. But the Europeans,
rightly, don't buy it. The
EU backs diplomacy
, not sabre-rattling, and is still pursuing alternative barter arrangements to circumvent US
sanctions. Russia, naturally, opposes the US. But China, in an unusually outspoken rebuff, said Washington's
destabilising, unilateral behaviour "has no basis in international law".
Iran's neighbours have serious misgivings too. The impulsive and autocratic crown princes who run Saudi Arabia
and the United Arab Emirates, Mohammed bin Salman and Mohamed bin Zayed, are the local equivalent of Bolton and
Pompeo. Like them, Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu is egging the Americans on. But next-door Iraq has zero interest in a
renewed conflict, likewise Turkey and weaker Gulf states.
Nor is the US public, despite years of White House fearmongering, fully aboard the "Get Iran" bandwagon. A
Reuters/Ipsos survey
last month found that nearly half of Americans – 49% – disapprove of Trump's handling of
Iran. Just over half – 53% – saw Iran as a "serious" or "imminent" threat. But 60% said they wouldn't support a
pre-emptive US military strike on the Iranian military.
Resistance to the US hawks' pell-mell rush to confrontation is coming most strongly from within
Iran
itself. Its foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, cuts a cool and thoughtful figure in contrast to
Pompeo. He stresses how unilateral US sanctions, especially on oil exports, do unjustifiable harm to Iran's people
and the international economy. His is an effective pitch to global opinion.
Iran also points out that, unlike the US, it is in full compliance with the 2015 nuclear deal. This week's
warning from Tehran that it may soon breach enrichment limits is a calibrated response. It's unfortunate. But it
does not amount to "nuclear blackmail", as the US claims, since Iran has no bomb and, according to the UN,
is not seeking one
. What it does amount to is diplomatic leverage with third-party states fearful of more Middle
East chaos.
Iran is highlighting the unintended consequences of any conflagration, and the precedent-setting illegitimacy,
both legal and moral, of threatened US actions. And then, more dangerously, there is its apparent, increasing
willingness to employ a measure of physical resistance, be it through military proxies or, for example, hardliners
in the Revolutionary Guards Corps. This is potentially explosive.
It would be a mistake to think Iran is totally in control of its responses to this unfolding crisis any more than
the US. There are bellicose hawks in Iran's national security council, clerical establishment and the supreme
leader's office, just as there are in the White House. Hassan Rouhani's pragmatic presidency, the
majlis
(parliament), the merchant class and state-controlled media all represent rival power centres with differing views
on what to do next.
Iran's is a society under extreme duress. Sanctions are undoubtedly biting deep and patience with the west is
waning. The risk is growing that, in extremis, some regime elements will hit out forcefully – and there is no doubt
they have the ability to do so, in the Gulf, in Lebanon, in Gaza, and on the Israel-Syria and Saudi-Yemen borders.
US hawks would say that's exactly why Iran must be contained, and very possibly it should. But do they really
believe, after serial past failures, they have the power, the will, the backing and the mandate to do so?
Reducing conflict to black and white images of good and evil is not only misleading. It is also delusional. Some
now recall the Gulf "
tanker
war
" during the Iran-Iraq conflict that culminated, in 1988, with brief US "surgical strikes" on Iranian oil
rigs and ships. In US lore, those strikes taught Iran a swift lesson, obliging it to back off. In truth, Iran was
already on its knees after eight years of war with Saddam Hussein. That is absolutely not the situation now.
Unnecessarily aggressive, ill-considered – and deceptively presented – US policies have once again brought the
Middle East to the brink of an accidental war very few want. America's European friends, including Britain, have an
urgent responsibility to talk it down – and drag it back from the abyss.
"... The actual Deep State are always the aristocrats, themselves, the people who run the revolving door between 'the private sector' (the aristocracy's corporations) and the government. ..."
"... All of the well-financed candidates for the top offices are actually the Deep State's representatives, and virtually none are the representatives of the public, because the voters have been deceived, and were given choices between two or more candidates, none of whom will represent the public if and when elected. ..."
"... Is that Democratic Party initiative anything else than insincere political theater, lying to their own gullible voters, just being phonies who manipulate voters to vote for them instead of who are actually serving them? ..."
"... Is that what democracy is, now: insincere political theater? Is that "democracy"? America's voters are trapped, by liars, so it's instead mere 'democracy'. It's just the new form of dictatorship. But it's actually as ancient as is any empire. ..."
"... Trump's Democratic predecessor, Barack Obama, was just as evil, and just as insincere, as Trump, but only a far more skillful liar, who deceived his voters to think that he would fight corruption , work to improve relations with Russia , provide a public option in his health-insurance plan , and otherwise work to reduce economic inequality , to improve the economic situation for disadvantaged Americans , and to prosecute banksters . ..."
"... If the UK elect Jeremy Corbyn all bets are off, he will expose ALL corrupt politicians media and foreign powers. Why do you think there is such a concerted effort to prevent him gaining office, even Pompeo has said "the US will prevent him becoming PM" ..."
"... But they won't LET you decentralize, Annie. It doesn't suit them. Millions of others do indeed share your concern, but merely imagining a better system doesn't make it happen. It doesn't get through the layers and layers of entrenched investment in the current system, or through the layers and layers of ruthless militarism protecting it. Our enemy will never step aside and voluntarily make way for something worthy of the name, "society". ..."
"... By all measures: capitalism is due another crisis Taleb's Black Swan is in clear view we can expect the unexpected. No one can predict the timing or severity: but the debt hangover from GFC 1 makes GFC 2 look potentially worse. ..."
"... Trumps promises before the election about the trillions wasted in futile wars, and promising to redirect those trillions into US infrastructure etc, turned out to be outrageous lies. Here are some quotes from HL Mencken which in my opinion sum up the passengers in the out of control US clown car, Trump, Bolton, Pence and Pompeo. ..."
"... The men the American people admire most extravagantly are the most daring liars; the men they detest most violently are those who try to tell them the truth. ..."
Every empire is a dictatorship. No nation can be a democracy that's either heading an empire, or a vassal-state of one. Obviously,
in order to be a vassal-state within an empire, that nation is dictated-to by the nation of which it is a colony.
By contrast, 'enemy' nations are ones that the imperial power has placed onto its priority-list of nations that are yet to
become conquered. There are two main reasons to conquer a nation. One is in order to be enabled to extract, from the colony,
oil, or gold, or some other valuable commodity. The other is in order to control it so as to be enabled to use that land as a passageway
for exporting, from a vassal-nation, to other nations, that vassal-nation's products.
International trade is the basis for any empire, and the billionaires who own controlling blocs of stock in a nation's international
corporations are the actual rulers of it, the beneficiaries of empire, the recipients of the wealth that is being extracted from
the colonies and from the domestic subjects. The idea of an empire is that the imperial nation's rulers, its aristocracy, extract
from the colonies their products, and they impose upon their domestic subjects the financial and military burdens of imposing their
international dictatorship upon the foreign subjects.
Some authors say that there is a "Deep State" and that it consists of (some undefined elements within) the intelligence services,
and of the military, and of the diplomatic corps, of any given dictatorship; but, actually, those employees of the State are merely
employees, not the actual governing authority, over that dictatorship.
The actual Deep State are always the aristocrats, themselves, the people who run the revolving door between 'the private sector'
(the aristocracy's corporations) and the government. In former times, many of the aristocrats were themselves governing officials
(the titled 'nobility'), but this is no longer common. Nowadays, the aristocracy are the individuals who own controlling blocs of
stock in international corporations (especially weapons-making firms such as Lockheed Martin and BAE, because the only markets for
those corporations are the corporation's own government and its vassal states or 'allies'); and such individuals are usually the
nation's billionaires, and, perhaps, a few of the mere centi-millionaires.
A small number, typically less than 100, of these extremely wealthy individuals, are the biggest donors to politicians, and to
think tanks, and to other non-profits (these latter being also tax-write-offs to their donors, and so are tax-drains to the general
public) that are involved in the formation of the national government's policies.
Of course, they also are owners of and/or advertisers in the propaganda-media, which sell the aristocracy's core or most-essential
viewpoints to the nation's subjects in order to persuade those voters to vote only for the aristocracy's selected candidates and
not for any who oppose the aristocracy. These few, mainly billionaires, are the actual Deep State -- the bosses over the dictatorship,
the ultimate beneficiaries in any empire. In order to maintain this system, of international dictatorship or empire, the most essential
tool is deceit, of the electorate, by the aristocracy. The method of control is: the bought agents of the Deep State lie to the public
about what their polices will be if they win, in order to be able to win power; and, then, once they have won power, they do the
opposite, which is what they have always been paid by the Deep State (the aristocracy) to help them to do. Thereby, elections aren't
"democratic" but 'democratic': they are mere formalities of democracy, without the substance of democracy.
All of the well-financed candidates for the top offices are actually the Deep State's representatives, and virtually none
are the representatives of the public, because the voters have been deceived, and were given choices between two or more candidates,
none of whom will represent the public if and when elected. Here are some recent examples of this system -- the imperial system,
international dictatorship, in action: During Donald Trump's Presidential campaign,
he said :
The approach of fighting Assad and ISIS simultaneously was madness, and idiocy. They're fighting each other and yet we're fighting
both of them. You know, we were fighting both of them. I think that our far bigger problem than Assad is ISIS, I've always felt
that. Assad is, you know I'm not saying Assad is a good man, 'cause he's not, but our far greater problem is not Assad, it's ISIS.
I think, you can't be fighting two people that are fighting each other, and fighting them together. You have to pick one or the
other."
Assad is allied with Russia against the Saudis (who are the chief ally of the U.S. aristocracy), so the U.S. (in accord with a policy
that
George Herbert Walker Bush had initiated on 24 February 1990 and which has been carried out by all subsequent U.S. Presidents)
was determined to overthrow Assad, but Trump said that he was strongly opposed to that policy. Months before that,
Trump had said :
I think Assad is a bad guy, a very bad guy, all right? Lots of people killed. I think we are backing people we have no idea who
they are. The rebels, we call them the rebels, the patriotic rebels. We have no idea. A lot of people think, Hugh, that they are
ISIS. We have to do one thing at a time. We can't be fighting ISIS and fighting Assad. Assad is fighting ISIS. He is fighting
ISIS. Russia is fighting now ISIS. And Iran is fighting ISIS. We have to do one thing at a time. We can't go -- and I watched
Lindsey Graham, he said, I have been here for 10 years fighting. Well, he will be there with that thinking for another 50 years.
He won't be able to solve the problem. We have to get rid of ISIS first. After we get rid of ISIS, we'll start thinking about
it. But we can't be fighting Assad. And when you're fighting Assad, you are fighting Russia, you're fighting -- you're fighting
a lot of different groups. But we can't be fighting everybody at one time."
In that same debate (15 December 2015) he also said:
In my opinion, we've spent $4 trillion trying to topple various people that frankly, if they were there and if we could've spent
that $4 trillion in the United States to fix our roads, our bridges, and all of the other problems; our airports and all of the
other problems we've had, we would've been a lot better off. I can tell you that right now. We have done a tremendous disservice,
not only to Middle East, we've done a tremendous disservice to humanity. The people that have been killed, the people that have
wiped away, and for what? It's not like we had victory. It's a mess. The Middle East is totally destabilized. A total and complete
mess. I wish we had the $4 trillion or $5 trillion. I wish it were spent right here in the United States, on our schools, hospitals,
roads, airports, and everything else that are all falling apart."
Did he do that? No. Did he instead intensify what Obama had been trying to do in Syria -- overthrow Assad -- yes.
As the U.S. President, after having won the 2016 Presidential campaign, has Trump followed through on his criticism there, against
the super-hawk, neoconservative, Republican U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham? No. Did he instead encircle himself with precisely such
super-hawks, such neoconservatives? Yes.
Did he intensify the overthrow-Assad effort as Graham and those others had advocated? Yes.
Did America's war against Syria succeed? No.
Did he constantly lie to the voters? Yes, without a doubt.
Should that be grounds for impeaching him? A prior question to that one is actually: Would a President Mike Pence be any different
or maybe even worse than Trump? Yes.
So: what, then, would be achieved by removing Trump from office? Maybe it would actually make things a lot worse. But how likely
would the U.S. Senate be to remove Trump from office if the House did impeach Trump?
Two-thirds of the U.S. Senate would need to vote to remove the President in order for a President to be removed after being impeached
by the House. A majority of U.S. Senators, 53, are Republicans. If just 33 of them vote not to convict the President, then Trump
won't be removed. In order to remove him, not only would all 47 of the Democrats and Independents have to vote to convict, but 20
of the 53 Republicans would need to join them. That's nearly 40% of the Republican Senators.
How likely is that? Almost impossible.
What would their voters who had elected them back home think of their doing such a thing? How likely would such Senators face
successful re-election challenges that would remove those Senators from office? Would 20 of the 53 be likely to take that personal
risk?
Why, then, are so many Democrats in the House pressing for Trump's impeachment, since Trump's being forced out of the White House
this way is practically impossible and would only install a President Pence, even if it could succeed? Is that Democratic Party
initiative anything else than insincere political theater, lying to their own gullible voters, just being phonies who manipulate
voters to vote for them instead of who are actually serving them?
Is that what democracy is, now: insincere political theater? Is that "democracy"? America's voters are trapped, by liars,
so it's instead mere 'democracy'. It's just the new form of dictatorship. But it's actually as ancient as is any empire.
There's nothing new about this -- except one thing: the U.S. regime is aiming to be the ultimate, the last, the final, empire,
the ruler over the entire world; so, it is trying especially hard, 'to defend freedom, democracy and human rights throughout the
world', as Big Brother might say.
He abandoned each one of those stated objectives as soon as he won against John McCain, on 4 November 2008, and then yet more
when he defeated Mitt Romney in 2012.
And aren't some of those promises the same ones that candidate Trump had also advocated and then abandoned as soon as he too was
(s)elected ? THE THREAT
TO THE EMPIRE The heroic fighters for the freedom of everyone in the world are the whistleblowers, who report to the public the
corruption and evil that they see perpetrated by their superiors, their bosses, and perpetrated by people who are on the public payroll
or otherwise obtaining increased income by virtue of being selected by the government to become government contractors to serve an
allegedly public function.
All liars with power hate whistleblowers and want to make special examples of any part of the press that publishes their truths,
their facts, their stolen documents. These documents are stolen because that's the only way for them to become public and thereby
known to the voters so that the voters can vote on the basis of truths as in a democracy, instead of be deceived as in a dictatorship.
Even if the truth is stolen from the liars, instead of being kept private ("Confidential") for them, are the whistleblowers doing
wrong to steal the truth from the liars? Or, instead, are the whistleblowers heroes: are they the authentic guardians of democracy
and the precariously thin wall that separates democracy from dictatorship?
They are the latter: they are the heroes. Unfortunately, the vast majority of such heroes are also martyrs -- martyrs for truth,
against lies. Every dictatorship seeks to destroy its whistleblowers. That's because any whistleblower constitutes a threat to The
System -- the system of control. In all of U.S. history, the two Presidents who pursued whistleblowers and their publishers the most
relentlessly have been Trump and Obama.
The public are fooled to think that this is being done for 'national security' reasons instead of to hide the government's crimes
and criminality. However, not a single one of the Democratic Party's many U.S. Presidential candidates is bringing this issue, of
the U.S. government's many crimes and constant lying, forward as being the central thing that must be criminalized above all else,
as constituting "treason."
None of them is proposing legislation saying that it is treason, against the public -- against the nation. Every aristocracy tries
to deceive its public in order to control its public; and every aristocracy uses divide-and-rule in order to do this. But it's not
only to divide the public against each other (such as between Republicans versus Democrats, both of which are actually controlled
by the aristocracy), but also to divide between nations, such as between 'allies' versus 'enemies' -- even when a given 'enemy' (such
as Iraq in 2003) has never threatened, nor invaded, the United States (or whatever the given imperial 'us' may happen to be), and
thus clearly this was aggressive war and an international war-crime, though unpunished as such.
The public need to fear and hate some 'enemy' which is the 'other' or 'alien', in order not to fear and loathe the aristocracy
itself -- the actual source of (and winner from) the systemic exploitation, of the public, by the aristocracy.
The pinnacle of the U.S. regime's totalitarianism is its ceaseless assault against Julian Assange, who is the uber-whistleblower,
the strongest protector for whistleblowers, the safest publisher for the evidence that they steal from their employers and from their
employers' government. He hides the identity of the whistleblowers even at the risk of his own continued existence.
... ... ...
On 20 May 2019, former British Ambassador Craig Murray (who had quit so that he could blow the whistle) headlined
"The Missing Step" and argued that
the only chance that Assange now has is if Sweden refuses to extradite Assange to the US in the event that Britain honors the Swedish
request to extradite him to Sweden instead of to the US (The decision on that will now probably be made by the
US agent Boris Johnson instead of by the regular Tory Theresa
May.)
How can it reasonably be denied that the US is, in fact (though not nominally) a
dictatorship ?
All of its allies are thus vassal-nations in its empire. This means acquiescence (if not joining) in some of the US regime's frequent
foreign coups and invasions; and this means their assisting in the spread of the US regime's control beyond themselves, to include
additional other countries.
It reduces the freedom, and the democracy, throughout the world; it spreads the US dictatorship internationally. That is what
is evil about what in America is called "neoconservatism" and in other countries is called simply "imperialism." Under American reign,
it is now a spreading curse, a political plague, to peoples throughout the world. Even an American whistleblower
about Ukraine who lives in the
former Ukraine is being targeted by
the US regime .
This is how the freedom of everyone is severely threatened, by the US empire -- the most deceitful empire that the world has ever
experienced. The martyrs to its lies are the canaries in its coal mine. They are the first to be eliminated.
Looking again at that rank-ordered list of 23 countries, one sees the US and eight of its main allies (or vassal-nations), in
order: US, UK, Canada, Poland, Belgium, Saudi Arabia, Japan, France, Indonesia. These are countries where the subjects are already
well-controlled by the empire. They already are vassals, and so are ordained as being 'allies'.
At the opposite end, starting with the most anti-US-regime, are: S. Africa, India, Russia, Spain, Argentina, Mexico, S. Korea,
Turkey. These are countries where the subjects are not yet well-controlled by the empire, even though the current government in some
of them is trying to change its subjects' minds so that the country will accept US rule.
Wherever the subjects reject US rule, there exists a strong possibility that the nation will become placed on the US regime's
list of 'enemies'. Consequently, wherever the residents are the most opposed to US rule, the likelihood of an American coup or invasion
is real. The
first step
toward a coup or invasion is the imposition of sanctions against the nation. Any such nation that is already subject to them
is therefore already in danger.
Any such nation that refuses to cooperate with the US regime's existing sanctions -- such as against trading with Russia, China,
Iran, or Venezuela -- is in danger of becoming itself a US-sanctioned nation, and therefore officially an 'enemy'. And this is why
freedom and democracy are ending. Unless and until the US regime itself becomes conquered -- either domestically by a second successful
American Revolution (this one to eliminate the domestic aristocracy instead of to eliminate a foreign one), or else by a World War
III in which the US regime becomes destroyed even worse than the opposing alliance will -- the existing insatiable empire will continue
to be on the war-path to impose its dictatorship to everyone on this planet.
ANDREW CLEMENTS
This should be taught in schools'
I will get my coat
Ramdan
"Our only hope is to organize the overthrow of the corporate state that vomited up Trump. Our democratic institutions, including
the legislative bodies, the courts and the media, are hostage to corporate power. They are no longer democratic. We must, like
liberation movements of the past, engage in acts of sustained mass civil disobedience and non-cooperation. By turning our ire
on the corporate state, we name the true sources of power and abuse. We expose the absurdity of blaming our demise on demonized
groups such as undocumented workers, Muslims, African-Americans, Latinos, liberals, feminists, gays and others. We give people
an alternative to a Democratic Party that refuses to confront the corporate forces of oppression and cannot be rehabilitated.
We make possible the restoration of an open society. If we fail to embrace this militancy, which alone has the ability to destroy
cult leaders, we will continue the march toward tyranny." Chris Hedges
Andrew Paul
Surely, as well as some billionaires and centi-millionaires, there are other perhaps more institutionalised individuals with power
to dispose of much even more clandestine wealth hidden in black budgets operated by and for the interests of unaccountable military
and intelligence services in the putative empire, and there is also 'organised crime' and there are wealthy religious organisations,
and these too can strongly influence politicians and the public opinion-forming 'narrative' shaping this false 'democracy' in
the name of an elitist, highly hierarchical, socially as well as environmentally destructive global empire under full spectrum
dominance.
At the global level the most viable alternative to this, I suggest, and barring destructive world war (but perhaps following
a US and even a UK civil war, unfortunately), will be a world federation or confederation with a high council at which all cultures
and social interest-groups, great and small, of this world are properly, and preferably directly democratically, represented.
Many thanks for the food for thought here.
Yarkob
"So: what, then, would be achieved by removing Trump from office? Maybe it would actually make things a lot worse."
See: Saddam Hussein
mark
We could get President Pocahontas or President Buttplug instead.
ANDREW CLEMENTS
President silence of the pestilent
Wilmers31
We see a merger today between Raytheon and United Technologies. Here one para from 0hedge:
"Of course, there is a simpler way to boost profit margins that avoids cutting costs – just boost revenue, which of course
would require war. Luckily, the Trump admin's neocon hawks are doing everything in their power to make sure that that's precisely
what happens as the stock of the combined company will continue its relentless levitation."
Don't let them use you – don't enlist. Freedom might still be ended, but less profitable for them.
mark
As another man at another time asked, "What is to be done?"
The power of the billionaires, their bought and paid for politicians, and their servile media need to be broken.
In living memory, tax rates in the UK and US reached 98% and 91% respectively. There's no need to go back anywhere near those
confiscatory levels, just ensure those people do actually pay SOME taxes. Last year, Amazon and Netflix should have paid over
$16 billion in taxes. They paid nothing – they were actually given rebates of over $4 billion. Boeing hasn't paid a cent in taxes
for 15 years. The same applies to a rogues' gallery of all the big boys, Google, Starbucks, General Electric, Boots, to name but
a few. Profits are made to disappear and turned into losses by financial sleight of hand. An inflated level of debt is incurred
to finance share buy backs instead of R&D, reinvestment and training. Trillions are salted away illegally in tax havens. The working
and middle classes, 99.9% of the population, endure decades of austerity, declining wages, salaries and benefits, disappearing
pensions, endemic insecurity. Rocketing house prices, £500,000 for a crappy one bed London flat. Children unable to leave home.
Education and health privatised or becoming so. All public services or formerly public services declining to third world standards.
A level of inequality not seen since Dickensian times. A financialised, spiv and shyster economy. A parasitic financial elite
bleeding productive businesses dry, committing crime with impunity, and looting the public Treasury of untold trillions. Criminal
wars of aggression abroad, taking the lives and destroying the future of tens of millions.
All this and much more needs to be changed.
But how?
Easier said than done. But is it?
We have seen what happens when anger and outrage are mobilised into an irresistible force.
This can happen surprisingly easily.
Things like the MPs expenses scandal, the Gilets Jaunes in France, Brexit in the UK, Trump in the US, political chaos in the EU.
whatever you think of those developments, one way or another. The elites have a very tenuous grip on power, which can be broken
quite easily.
All of the above characteristics of our present system can be changed by public pressure. It can be done.
Tax avoidance and tax havens can be closed down. If the big boys can't see which way the wind is blowing, they will do after a
few of them are jailed. Anything that works against the public interest targeted for radical change. Public utilities and rail
companies that fail to clean up their act properly regulated and if necessary nationalised. Housing and health treated as human
needs and human rights. The NHS and a massive post war social housing programme went ahead though the country was completely bankrupt.
It is a question of will and priorities. All this can be done. It is doable. All it needs is the mobilisation of sufficient outrage.
And there are many recent examples of this.
Frank Poster
"The elites have a very tenuous grip on power, which can be broken quite easily.
All of the above characteristics of our present system can be changed by public pressure. It can be done."
Easily? Sorry Mark, I agree with your sentiments but there's nothing easy about it whatsoever, and you must be living on a
different planet to me, sorry to say – let's examine each of your examples –
MPs expenses scandal : minimal effect, the buggers carry on, and with a self-appointed overseer.
Gilets Jaunes : smashed, sadly.
Brexit : this is not democracy, it's a US / neocon hijack of Britain.
Trump : Enriching the rich even more.
Political chaos in the EU : it's a US tactic to "shake the tree" and knock the confidence in the EU, it became too strong
a competitor for the US. Divide and conquer is their game with the EU. Tariffs will follow, and they are doing exactly the same
to China, and indeed Russia.
It's sad that the most common social purpose in European modern history is being attacked not only by the right wing nutters,
but also the blinkered Trotskyists on the left.
mark
You're right about some of the outcomes. The point I was trying to make is that it's not possible to paper over the cracks any
more. People realise that they have been lied to and the system does not work for them, if it ever did. This may sound nebulous,
but it has an effect. The credibility and influence of the MSM has been shredded by its own mendacity and lack of integrity. This
has far reaching consequences which may not be readily apparent on a day to day basis. But it is important. The same applies to
all the institutions and organs of the state. The world is becoming increasingly turbulent and unstable, and support for elites
and the systems they represent is dwindling rapidly. The whole economic and financial system is like a house of cards. At such
times, change that had previously been inconceivable becomes inevitable. Of course, there is no guarantee that these changes will
be positive, like Russia in 1917 or Germany in 1933.
Frank Poster
Pfff, what happened to the new OffG function to be able to edit one's posts, it's disappeared!
OffG
It vanished during our DoS attack – we haven't managed to get it back yet. Infuriating, I know.
Clearly explained analysis of the deep shit we're all in. Unfortunately tho I don't see a second American revolution breaking
out anytime soon. I think the large majority have been too crushed by the system; many working 2 or 3 jobs just to survive, many
a couple paychecks away from being homeless, many living in cars or under bridges, and sadly, the large large majority lap up
the propaganda spewed out by the stenographers. And believe it. Which leaves us with the next option for stopping this evil blood
drenched Empire. And that is probably where we're heading. Scary times Eric.
mark
You may be right, GP. When I lived in America I was quite shocked by the low standard of living of very many people. Working 2
or 3 jobs, unable to run a car, health care completely out of their reach, living in houses like wooden shacks. Even buying food
a problem. Completely ignorant of the outside world.
Half a million are now homeless, with third world shanty towns next to the gated developments of the rich, the streets covered
with human faeces, TB, typhoid and tapeworm becoming major problems.
What I see is this becoming worse and forming a critical mass, when it can no longer be ignored. As such, there are grounds
for optimism. Things becoming so bad that they can no longer be tolerated. Perhaps that is unrealistic, I don't know.
George
"Working 2 or 3 jobs, unable to run a car, health care completely out of their reach, living in houses like wooden shacks. Even
buying food a problem. Completely ignorant of the outside world."
Appreciate both your comments Mark, and yes, the Gilets Jaunes are probably the best current example of people fighting back against
the system and saying Enough. I've never been to the UK so can't really judge from first hand experience, know the situation in
United States by a fair bit of reading on the levels of poverty and precariousness state many live in, tho here in Australia the
levels of cognitive dissonance, apathy and groupthink (derived from mainstream media) seem very high, and I speak to lots of people
while out selling The Big Issue mag. About the angriest people get here is griping about Aussie politicians. I don't get any sense
of anger or disgust at the Actual economic system.
wardropper
"Things becoming so bad that they can no longer be tolerated" ?
Nothing a couple more wars couldn't fix, Mark
mark
You may be right, but the outcome of any wars that are currently being threatened, Iran, Venezuela, DPRK, Russia, China, would
be the final nail in the coffin of the AngloZionist Empire.
wardropper
My greatest worry is that this AngloZionist Empire doesn't care about anything at all – not even the nails in their own coffin.
They fondly imagine some kind of capitalistic "rapture" is going to whisk them off to "Money Heaven" and we will be left with
their crap and their puke all over our planet.
I no longer think it's exaggerated to talk of demonic beings here, and if they are not demonic, then why are they acting
as if they were?
nwwoods
FWIW, Tulsi Gabbard uttered a full-throated defense of both Assange and Manning.
Steve
It has to be remembered that Assange is an Australian and Manning was born in West Wales to a UK mother. These countries must
stand up for their citizens.
nwwoods
Given the recent federal police raids on Australian journalists, it seems unlikely that Australia will be coming to the aid of
Julian Assange any time soon.
Yes this is true. Tulsi Gabbard is the real deal and a bellwether of the current corrupt system and its stupefying echo chambers.
She has no chance at the moment, but that's not the point. She exposes the corruption of the aristocracies and their corrupt system
and shills.
As we are here. Take the Fruadian Tulsi ticks all their supposed PC boxes and yet their is no mention of her anywhere. But
"Creepy Joe" Biden who epitomises the corrupt entitlement the system offers is reported on add nauseum.
As the Fraud, can't attack her it appears they can't report on her either. So her good campaign work is reported on the alt
media, you know where the fake stuff is!
So there you have it, a perfect example of a faux feedback loop
Oh, and excellent article by Eric as well.
Frank Poster
She won't last long then, unfortunately.
nwwoods
No, I am hoping that the DNC doesn't change the rules in order to block her from at least the first round of televised debate.
But I'm not holding my breath.
BTW, I read somewhere that DNC intends to split the first (D) debate into two groups, ostensibly because of the ridiculous
number of candidates, which stands at 24, last I looked.
DNC is going to make certain that only centrist liberals are on the same debate stage with Joe Biden, "the only real progressive
in the race" (in his own words).
Bernie and Tulsi will probably be dining at the kids table, if at all.
Of course, they also are owners of and/or advertisers in the propaganda-media, which sell the aristocracy's core or most-essential
viewpoints to the nation's subjects in order to persuade those voters to vote only for the aristocracy's selected candidates
and not for any who oppose the aristocracy.
These few, mainly billionaires, are the actual Deep State -- the bosses over the dictatorship, the ultimate beneficiaries
in any empire.
the rest of Assange is a lie
What Mr. Mossange did in these media which promoted him? Who he worked for? for Arab Springs? for Rothschilds? What he did
on tea in The Economics, Guardian, NYT, The Bild etc.? What?
Einstein
Excellent piece.
DunGroanin
JA is a thorn in their side.
JC is a stake through their heart.
The v'empires fear is palpable.
Neither the throwing of the book or the kitchen sinks full of shit at their nemesises is working, as these polls demonstrate.
Hillarious. Bring on the much delayed GE.
wardropper
Sorry to be a wet blanket, but, frankly, it's been a long time since a GE fixed anything
Elections, as I think George Carlin said, are only there to make us think we have a voice.
Steve
If the UK elect Jeremy Corbyn all bets are off, he will expose ALL corrupt politicians media and foreign powers. Why do you
think there is such a concerted effort to prevent him gaining office, even Pompeo has said "the US will prevent him becoming PM"
wardropper
I think there is a misunderstanding here, Steve. I couldn't agree with you more, especially about the concerted efforts (which
I noticed a long time ago) to prevent Corbyn from gaining office.
My "wet-blanket" point is really only connected with your last quote from Pompeo, "The US will prevent him becoming PM". Surely
no one today is under any illusions as to whether Pompeo means what he says, much as I would love to throw a spanner in his works.
Nothing would please me more, either, than to learn that I had been overly pessimistic. But I still have no doubts that Pompeo
could and would fix any election that suited him. He has already admitted, in another context, to lying, cheating, stealing and
killing.
Rhisiart Gwilym
Pompous Hippo, TIGW – The Insane Geriatric Walrus, Donny Les Tweets, Elliott Demon, Veryfew Pence and the rest of the delusional
criminal inadequates of the DCSwamp may be against JC and wish to stop him, but – judging by their steadily-increasing ineffectualness
on the world stage (how're those regime changes in Syria and Venezuela going? how's the bankrupting-Russia-with-sanctions going?)
– they may not be too effective at preventing his entry to Downing Street.
wardropper
I pray you're right. Those dull-witted thugs may indeed be increasingly ineffectual, but the fact that they are still committed
to their insane agenda continues to cost the world a great deal of suffering.
different frank
People will be the good sheeple that the establishment want them to be.
They will vote who they are told to vote for.
Hate who they are told to hate.
Fear who they are told to fear.
Devoid of all independent thought. Forever sleeping. Always conforming. Always consuming. The sheeple serve their establishment
masters well. maybe a crumb will fall from the big table. They can fight each other for that. good sheep. baaa
kevin morris
We're all sheeple!
wardropper
Assange isn't.
Annie Besant
I will first quote the final passage from your tract which reads "Unless and until the US regime itself becomes conquered -- either
domestically by a second successful American Revolution (this one to eliminate the domestic aristocracy instead of to eliminate
a foreign one), or else by a World War III in which the US regime becomes destroyed even worse than the opposing alliance will
-- the existing insatiable empire will continue to be on the war-path to impose its dictatorship to everyone on this planet."
Whist it has not yet sunk in to the heads of the faceless perpetrators within the Hegemon, it is true to say that a much greater
proportion, the greater percentage of humanity are now enlightened to the truth that should a global nuclear conflict break out,
either by accident or design, there would be no living person remaining to gloat over the spoils.
This is where "American Exceptionalism" meets its nemesis, for at that moment all their power, influence, wealth, and vanity
would evanesce as the towers of Mammon are reduced to rubble. Even their nuclear bunkers would provide no safe haven and there
would be even less time for them to come to their senses, for we are contemplating the total extinction of the human species here.
Even in the face of an almost overwhelming resignation to fate, I am well aware that I am not alone in the belief that our
planet will survive until that time when our sun ceases to exist. Perhaps we can share Mr Zuess's suggestion that the key to our
survival here is by "domestic revolution" whereby within national limits, any country can create a groundswell of solidarity working
to find a humane fix for the broken socio-economic system which thrives on the incompetence of dysfunctional leaders. This can
be brought about by de-centralisation in matters of how our citizens are governed, rather than the current situation where our
citizens are controlled and monitored, both in public and in private.
Localised government, informed by local people, can address all the issues in respect of which there are many who currently
feel disempowered and thereby render themselves vulnerable to the general apathy and malaise that is fertile ground for the mischief
of authority. This is a matter of systemic transformation and it is taking place right now with innumerable (largely unreported)
peace, education, economic and apolitical bodies. Working together on a global basis, realising the interconnectedness of our
lives, we will replicate the chain reaction of an atomic device. However, in our case it will be the gradual acceleration of our
energies, all directed towards the betterment of all our mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters on this planet who ask for one
thing, and one thing only – that being an end to all this narcissism, cowardice, arrogance and greed, that are the dramatic personae
for this litany of misery which has been inflicted by devilish forces upon the masses of humanity over centuries. No matter how
small or insignificant my personal effort is here, I am now convinced that there are millions of others who feel the same. This
is why the movement is growing at such a pace. When all our creative, and positively directed energies eventually coalesce we
will approach the point of critical mass. At that time we will see the brainwashed troops of the military hegemon suddenly attain
enlightenment and throw down their weapons – and the cowards who have previously been in control will flee to exile on some nice
sunny beach. This is going to happen because I have already seen it.
wardropper
But they won't LET you decentralize, Annie. It doesn't suit them. Millions of others do indeed share your concern, but
merely imagining a better system doesn't make it happen. It doesn't get through the layers and layers of entrenched investment
in the current system, or through the layers and layers of ruthless militarism protecting it. Our enemy will never step
aside and voluntarily make way for something worthy of the name, "society".
Somebody, somewhere, sometime, is going to have to insist.
BigB
Annie is absolutely right: I think we need to start looking ahead. Neoliberal capitalism is dead: it cannot be revived because
there are neither the mineral or energy primary resource assets left for permanent expansionism. Monetizing debt is short term
firefighting – fighting fire with fire, debt with debt. We need to stop thinking like capitalists: assessing consciousness and
wellbeing against fake GDP and monetized debt prosperity and start thinking as humanists. Like Annie.
By all measures: capitalism is due another crisis Taleb's Black Swan is in clear view we can expect the unexpected. No
one can predict the timing or severity: but the debt hangover from GFC 1 makes GFC 2 look potentially worse.
Then capitalism has one more shot of adrenaline (more easing; ZIRPS; savings 'haircuts'; going cashless; potentially a change
in reserve) then what? Fascism or socialism. Angry people make for fascism. Peaceful people make for socialism. Materialism won't
be that much of an option: apart from the grotesque levels of conspicuous ersatz wealth that will build up in the meantime.
Capitalism is time-limited and finite: humanism is time-independent and limitless. We chose to measure our wealth and happiness
in terms of finite resources that were bound to run short. Perhaps now we can turn to the one non-finite resource we have overlooked
– ourselves?
wardropper
Philosophically, I'm with you 100%, BigB.
But it's also the crux of your own matter as to where the mechanisms for choosing either fascism or socialism really are in
our current system.
Many of us here want to know what to DO, rather than merely pass judgment on what is wrong.
For example, by nature, I am very inclined to follow Annie's path, but we have to know exactly what is the nature of the colossal
resistance we will definitely encounter. Will we be stuck in jail, or even "permanently disappeared", because we can think for
ourselves?
Or will the media simply keep up their current assault on our intelligence and education until, after a decade or two, nobody
is left who could rub two coherent sentences together?
harry law
Trumps promises before the election about the trillions wasted in futile wars, and promising to redirect those trillions into
US infrastructure etc, turned out to be outrageous lies. Here are some quotes from HL Mencken which in my opinion sum up the passengers
in the out of control US clown car, Trump, Bolton, Pence and Pompeo.
The men the American people admire most extravagantly are the most daring liars; the men they detest most violently
are those who try to tell them the truth.
The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it.
The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out for himself, without regard to the
prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest,
insane, and intolerable.
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.
Navient, spun off from Sallie Mae, has thrived as student loan debt spirals across the US.
Its story reveals how, instead of fighting inequality, the education industry is reinforcing
it
Nathan Hornes: 'Navient hasn't done a thing to help me. They just want their money. And
they want it now.' Photograph: Fusion
A mong the 44 million Americans who have amassed our nation's
whopping $1.4tn in student loan debt, a call from Navient can produce shivers of dread.
Navient is the primary point of contact, or the "servicer", for more student loans in the
United States than any other company, handling 12 million borrowers and $300bn in debt. The
company flourished as student loan debt exploded under the Obama administration, and its stock
rose sharply after the election of Donald Trump.
But Navient also has more complaints per borrower than any other servicer, according to a
Fusion analysis of data. And these mounting complaints repeatedly allege that
the company has failed to live up to the terms of its federal contracts, and that it
illegally harasses consumers . Navient says most of the ire stems from structural issues
surrounding college finance – like the terms of the loans, which the federal government
and private banks are responsible for – not about Navient customer service.
Navient has positioned itself to dominate the lucrative student loan industry in the midst
of this crisis, flexing its muscles in Washington and increasingly across the states. The story
of Navient's emerging power is also the story of how an industry built around the idea that
education can break down inequities is reinforcing them.The tension at the center of the
current controversy around student loans is simple: should borrowers be treated like any other
consumers, or do they merit special service because education is considered a public good?
Often, the
most vulnerable borrowers are not those with the largest debt, but low-income students,
first-generation students, and students of color – especially those who may attend less
prestigious schools and are less likely to quickly earn enough
to repay their loans, if they graduate at all.
Last year, Navient received 23 complaints per 100,000 borrowers, more than twice that of the
nearest competitor, according to Fusion's analysis. And from January 2014 to December 2016,
Navient was named as a defendant in 530 federal lawsuits. The vast majority were aimed at the
company's student loans servicing operations. (Nelnet and Great Lakes, the two other biggest
companies in the student loans market, were sued 32 and 14 times over the same period,
respectively.)
Many of the complaints and lawsuits aimed at the company relate to its standard practice of
auto-dialing borrowers to solicit payments.
Shelby Hubbard says she has long been on the receiving end of these calls as she has
struggled to pay down her debt. Hubbard racked up over $60,000 in public and private student
loans by the time she graduated from Eastern Kentucky University with a basic
healthcare-related degree.
"It consumes my every day," Hubbard said of the constant calls. "Every day, every hour,
starting at 8 o'clock in the morning." Unlike mortgages, and most other debt, student loans
can't be wiped away with bankruptcy.
These days, Hubbard, 26, works in Ohio as a logistics coordinator for traveling nurses.
She's made some loan payments, but her take-home pay is about $850 every two weeks. With her
monthly student loan bill at about $700, roughly half her income would go to paying the loans
back, forcing her to lean more heavily on her fiancé. "He pays for all of our utilities,
all of our bills. Because at the end of the day, I don't have anything else to give him," she
said. The shadow of her debt hangs over every discussion about their wedding, mortgage
payments, and becoming parents.
The power and reach of the student loan industry stacks the odds against borrowers. Navient
doesn't just service federal loans, it has a hand in nearly every aspect of the student loan
system. It has bought up private student loans, both servicing them and earning interest off of
them. And it has purchased billions of dollars worth of the older taxpayer-backed loans, again
earning interest, as well as servicing that debt. The company also owns controversial
subsidiary companies such as Pioneer Credit Recovery that
stand to profit from collecting the debt of loans that go into default.
label="How the Trump administration is undermining students of color | Mark Huelsman and
Vijay Das"
href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/15/trump-administration-students-color-debt">
And just as banks have done with mortgages, Navient packages many of the private and
pre-2010 federal loans and sells them on Wall Street as asset-backed securities. Meanwhile,
it's in the running to oversee the Department of Education's entire student debt web portal,
which would open even more avenues for the company to profit from – and expand its
influence over – Americans' access to higher education.
The federal government is the biggest lender of American student loans, meaning that
taxpayers are currently on the hook for more than
$1tn . For years, much of this money was managed by private banks and loan companies like
Sallie Mae. Then in 2010, Congress cut out the middlemen and their lending fees, and Sallie Mae
spun off its servicing arm into the publicly traded company Navient.
Led by former Sallie Mae executives, Navient describes itself as "a leading provider of
asset management and business processing solutions for education, healthcare, and government
clients." But it is best known for being among a handful of companies that have won coveted
federal contracts to make sure students repay their loans. And critics say that in pursuit of
getting that money back, the Department of Education has allowed these companies to all but run
free at the expense of borrowers.
"The problem is that these servicers are too big to fail," said Persis Yu, director of the
National Consumer Law Center's Student Loan Borrower Assistance Project. "We have no place to
put the millions of borrowers whom they are servicing, even if they are not doing the servicing
job that we want them to do."
In its last years, the Obama administration tried to rein in the student loan industry and
promoted more options for reduced repayment plans for federal loans. Since then, Donald Trump's
education secretary, Betsy
DeVos , has reversed or
put on hold changes the former education secretary John B King's office proposed
and appears bent on further loosening the reins on the student loan
industry , leaving individual students little recourse amid bad service.
In late August, DeVos's office announced
that it would stop sharing information about student loan servicer oversight with the federal
consumer watchdog agency known as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, or CFPB.
Earlier this year, as complaints grew, the CFPB
sued Navient for allegedly misleading borrowers about the repayment options it is legally
obligated to provide.
A central allegation is that Navient, rather than offering income-based repayment plans,
pushed some people into a temporary payment freeze called forbearance. Getting placed into
forbearance is a good Band-Aid but can be a terrible longer-term plan. When an account gets
placed in forbearance, its interest keeps accumulating, and that interest can be added to the
principal, meaning the loans only grow.
Lynn Sabulski, who worked in Navient's Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, call center for five
months starting in 2012, said she experienced first-hand the pressure to drive borrowers into
forbearance.
"Performing well meant keeping calls to seven minutes or under," said Sabulski. "If you only
have seven minutes, the easiest option to put a borrower in, first and foremost, is a
forbearance." Sabulski said if she didn't keep the call times short, she could be written up or
lose her job.
Navient denies the allegations, and a spokeswoman told Fusion via email seven and a half
minutes was the average call time, not a target. The company maintains "caller satisfaction and
customer experience" are a significant part of call center representatives' ratings.
But in a 24 March motion it filed in federal court for the CFPB's lawsuit, the company also
said: "There is no expectation that the servicer will act in the interest of the consumer."
Rather, it argued, Navient's job was to look out for the interest of the federal government and
taxpayers.
Navient does get more per account when the servicer is up to date on payments, but getting
borrowers into a repayment plan also has a cost because of the time required to go over the
complex options.
The same day the CFPB filed its lawsuit, Illinois and Washington filed suits in state
courts. The offices of attorneys general in nine other states confirmed to Fusion that they are
investigating the company.
At a recent hearing in the Washington state case, the company defended its service: "The
State's claim is not, you didn't help at all, which is what you said you would do. It's that,
you could've helped them more." Navient insists it has forcefully advocated in Washington to
streamline the federal loan system and make the repayment process easier to navigate for
borrowers.
And it's true, Navient, and the broader industry, have stepped up efforts in recent years to
influence decision makers. Since 2014, Navient executives have given nearly $75,000 to the
company's political action committee, which has pumped money mostly into Republican campaigns,
but also some Democratic ones. Over the same timespan, the company has spent more than $10.1m
lobbying Congress, with $4.2m of that spending coming since 2016. About $400,000 of it targeted
the CFPB, which many Republican lawmakers want to do away with.
Among the 22 former federal officials who lobby for Navient is the former US representative
Denny Rehberg, a Republican, who once criticized
federal aid for students as the welfare of the 21st century. His fellow lobbyist and former GOP
representative Vin Weber sits on a board that has aired attack ads against the CFPB, as well as
on the board of the
for-profit college ITT Tech , which shuttered its
campuses in 2016 after Barack Obama's Department of Education accused it of predatory
recruitment and lending.
In response to what they see as a lack of federal oversight, California, Connecticut,
Massachusetts, and the District of Columbia recently required student loan servicers to get
licenses in their states. Not surprisingly, Fusion found a sharp increase in Navient's spending
in states considering such regulations, with the majority of the $300,000 in Navient state
lobbying allocated since 2016.
In Maine and Illinois, the legislatures were flooded with Navient and other industry
lobbyists earlier this year, after lawmakers proposed their own versions of the license bills.
The Maine proposal failed after Navient argued the issue should be left to the federal
government. The Illinois bill passed the legislature, but the Republican governor, Bruce
Rauner, vetoed it in August following lobbying from an
industry trade group . Rauner
said the bill encroached on the federal government's authority.
Researchers argue more data would help them understand how to improve the student loan
process and prevent more people from being overwhelmed by debt. In 2008, Congress made it
illegal for the Department of Education to make the data public, arguing that it was a risk for
student privacy. Private colleges and universities
lobbied to restrict the data. So, too,
did Navient's predecessor, Sallie Mae, and other student loan servicing companies.
Today, companies like Navient have compiled mountains of data about graduations, debt and
financial outcomes – which they consider proprietary information. The lack of
school-specific data about student outcomes can be life-altering, leading students to pick
schools they never would have picked. Nathan Hornes, a 27-year-old Missouri native, racked up
$70,000 in student loans going to Everest College, an unaccredited school, before he
graduated.
"Navient hasn't done a thing to help me," Hornes told Fusion. "They just want their money.
And they want it now."
label="The US cities luring millennials with promises to pay off their student debts"
href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/10/the-us-cities-luring-millennials-with-promises-to-pay-off-their-student-debts">
Hornes' loans were recently forgiven following state investigations into Everest's parent
company Corinthian. But many other borrowers still await relief.
Better educating teens about financial literacy before they apply to college will help
reduce their dependence on student loans, but that doesn't change how the deck is stacked for
those who need them. A few states have made
community colleges free , reducing the need for student loan servicers.
But until the Department of Education holds industry leaders like Navient more accountable,
individual states can fix only so much, insists Senator Elizabeth Warren, one of the industry's
most outspoken critics on Capitol Hill.
"Navient's view is, hey, I'm just going to take this money from the Department of Education
and maximize Navient's profits, rather than serving the students," Warren said. "I hold Navient
responsible for that. But I also hold the Department of Education responsible for that. They
act as our agent, the agent of the US taxpayers, the agent of the people of the United States.
And they should demand that Navient does better."
Laura Juncadella, a production assistant for The Naked Truth also contributed to this
article
The Naked Truth: Debt Trap airs on Fusion TV 10 September at 9pm ET. Find out where to
watch here
Leda Cosmides at the University of California, Santa Barbara, points to her work with her colleague
John Tooby on the use of outrage to mobilize people: "The campaign was more about outrage than
about policies," she says. And when a politician can create a sense of moral outrage, truth
ceases to matter. People will go along with the emotion, support the cause and retrench into
their own core group identities. The actual substance stops being of any relevance.
Brendan Nyhan, a political scientist at Dartmouth University who studies false beliefs,
has found that
when false information is specifically political in nature, part of our political identity, it
becomes almost impossible to correct lies.
... ... ...
As the 19th-century Scottish philosopher Alexander Bain
put it, “The great master fallacy of the
human mind is believing too much.” False beliefs, once established, are incredibly tricky to correct. A leader who lies
constantly creates a new landscape, and a citizenry whose sense of reality may end up swaying far more than they think possible.
What's new about news that people anticipate? Polarized societies feature politicized
media hammering their agenda into people's heads like they are banging on war drums.
"News outlets are supposed to report the facts." Fine. However, if news reports are not
about "the new" but about "the facts," why not call "news stations" "fact-stations"? Maybe
because facts are old and therefore not sexy?
Media stations "sexify" facts to avoid being seen as arbiters of "old news." If it's about
new facts on the news, remember: People anticipate the news. Why include facts on the news
then? Is it to educate the public with selected content?
The term "content" is neutral, not sexy, unsuitable for political or media campaigns. Media
outlets abandon objectivity when sensationalizing content to entertain, calling convenient
content "facts" and "truth" versus "lies" and "fake" (non-opportune content).
It's a media-politics nexus, when media and politics collude: Politicians campaign on social
media plus established "old media." Politicized media propagating "facts" sacrifice objectivity
on the altar of politics (knowledge sociology describes "sluice gates": information,
selection, utilization – watergates of ideology compromising perspective) when
tendentiously "the facts" selected tackle "the usual suspects," the political enemy?
Declared "truth," "fact," and "objective content" outsell. Old media expect the people to
buy "the facts" propagated as "reality," but "the facts" are a selection of facts ideally. The
world is full of facts like science, but perspective, motive, intention are deciding which of
the facts are relevant.
"Fact checkers review the facts!" Not so fast, please: Again, what are considered "facts" in
the first place depends on selectors, the fact checkers' perspective picking "the facts" from
all the facts, let alone those accepting the facts mindlessly, as already approved. Politicized
media select convenient facts and comment issues that are ideologically opportune. Scientific
findings of knowledge sociology and criticism of ideology potentially disclosing politicized
media hardly become news. Why convincing, standardizing people's perspectives to rally behind
pushed facts? For political reasons?
"Truth does not become more true by virtue of the fact that the entire world agrees with
it, nor less so even if the whole world disagrees with it." (Maimonides, Sephardic Jewish
philosopher)
Broadcasting "the truth" doesn't make it more true, only multiplied. Politicized old media
recruit via propagation (ideologically selected convenient content), red-flagging "fake news"
etc to retain the people as customers. Unsurprisingly, the facts on the news spare established
media's "fact-selectors." But: "There's a major media station's consensus on the facts!" Right,
but media proponents agreeing on "the facts" don't necessarily indicate objectivity, rather a
bubble they are marooned by.
After millennia of human civilization, here we are: Old-media proponents fighting for
interpretational sovereignty call one another "liars," "fake news" challenged by the new kid on
the block: Social media. How anti-democratic of old media, as defaming social media is akin to
a crusade against the people.
Old media were stabilizers of societal order as long uncontestedly educating the public at
will. Now old media as interpreters-in-chief of politicians communicating directly to the
people are dethroned by social media, a game changer in the media world.
Social media appear as mouthpieces of the people, while old media act as mouthpieces of the
establishment. Social media give a voice to all the people, unlike politicized old media
selecting political interest groups while commenting dissidents negatively ad nauseam.
Do old media really want to educate people thinking for themselves or to create human
copies, "useful idiots" backing the pushed "facts"?
"The public has the right to know the truth." Right, but educated people are hard to govern,
knowing the truth beyond the noise of politicized media.
Media proponents antagonizing certain politicians they feel extremely annoyed by don't show
objectivity but influence. Media proponents fighting extremism with extremism undermine
professional journalism.
We, the public, deserve better than journalist market criers pushing the convenient truth
(preferred facts), inviting conformist "experts" (experts in conformism) to panels reminding of
kangaroo courts, condemning political dissidents and rallying the people behind opportune
ideology. The public has the right not to be manipulated but to be taken seriously, to know the
different angles neutrally displayed.
How objective are media proponents who advocate for persecuted political dissidents afar
while combating domestic dissidents' perspectives?
Objectivity demands: Inviting different opinions equally represented, not highlighting one
while discriminating against dissidents. Professional journalism distinguishes between
"describing" and "judging." Media proponents lost professionalism by taking the easy way out,
calling dissidents they dislike "liars," "fake," "conspiracy theorists" etc.
In an overheating media world, please note: Not every theory you dislike is a conspiracy
theory. Not every person who says something you dislike is a liar.
Remember George Orwell's remark, " The further a society drifts from the truth, the
more it will hate those that speak it." We're in the thick of it. Politicized media stoke
societal hatred making money by age-old friend-foe schemes combating political foes. Good vs
Evil creates winners and losers. Media proponents appearing as "the good guys," "custodians of
truth" provoke resistance.
In times of democratization, billions using social media build public pressure against an
exclusive old media regime on a crusade to standardize perspectives.
Bygone are the times when people followed leaders blindly. Efforts of persuasion
skyrocketed. People strive for self-determination. Yet politicians and politicized media with
foam at the mouth consider themselves spearheading a pluralized public, democratized, empowered
by social media, which are combated by old media and politicians claiming to represent
emancipated people, who want to represent themselves.
The more "20th century" old media appear politicized, one-sided, top-down and detached from
the people, the more social media flourish bottom-up. Social media apps on old media cannot
sugarcoat old media's archaic structures. The more CNN, Fox etc politicize, the more society
falls apart.
Today a paradigm shift is unfolding: Old media seem uber-politicized, driven by the left and the right fighting for message
control, "recruiting-mobilizing-rallying" as ever. But this fight has entered the social-media arena: People speak up, voice
their opinions. When the media monitor politics and social media, then who monitors old media? Social media – we, the people.
Asia Times is not responsible for the opinions, facts or any media content presented by contributors.
Dr. Phil. Immanuel Fruhmann is an Austrian philosopher and educationist specialized in
philosophy of science and language, cultural and social philosophy, as well as adult education,
with years of experience in analysis of geopolitics and giving philosophical and educational
insights to the public. He is psychotherapist in training and works as coach and consultant as
well as writer. Fruhmann is a Knight of the Order of St George, a European Order of the
Imperial House of Habsburg-Lorraine, as well as member of the board of the Austrian Education
Alliance, associated member of the Kinderbüro (political lobby for the United Nations
Convention on the Rights of the Child), and the Austrian Economic League.
Comments published by NYT draw a very sad picture of paranoid, brainwashed society. Very few critical comments (less then
a dozen), while number of jingoistic and otherwise stupid comments is in the hundreds). This is very sad, if not tragic.
Petty CIA-controlled provocateurs from Grey Prostitute. Hacking national grid means war.. Bolton needs to be fired for jingoism
and stupidity.
Do those two presstitutes and their handlers accurately calculated possible reaction from Moscow on such "revelations"?
From comments: "It is horrible to think that we have our of control counterintelligence agencies with their own agenda
operating as independent forces capable of dragging the country into international conflict "
From comments: "Aggressive malware intrusions into foreign countries' sensitive (and sovereign) computer systems is now seen as
a standard security procedure. "Gunboat diplomacy" is not an apt metaphor, as gunboats remained at discreet distances from borders.
Our cyber policy is more akin to placing bombs in the public squares of foreign cities with threats to detonate. "
Notable quotes:
"... But in a public appearance on Tuesday, President Trump's national security adviser, John R. Bolton, said the United States was now taking a broader view of potential digital targets as part of an effort "to say to Russia, or anybody else that's engaged in cyberoperations against us, 'You will pay a price.'" ..."
"... Two administration officials said they believed Mr. Trump had not been briefed in any detail about the steps to place "implants" -- software code that can be used for surveillance or attack -- inside the Russian grid. ..."
"... Pentagon and intelligence officials described broad hesitation to go into detail with Mr. Trump about operations against Russia for concern over his reaction -- and the possibility that he might countermand it or discuss it with foreign officials, as he did in 2017 when he mentioned a sensitive operation in Syria to the Russian foreign minister. ..."
"... The intent of the operations was described in different ways by several current and former national security officials. Some called it "signaling" Russia, a sort of digital shot across the bow. Others said the moves were intended to position the United States to respond if Mr. Putin became more aggressive. ..."
"... Already, such attacks figure in the military plans of many nations. In a previous post, General Nakasone had been deeply involved in designing an operation code-named Nitro Zeus that amounted to a war plan to unplug Iran if the United States entered into hostilities with the country. ..."
"... How Mr. Putin's government is reacting to the more aggressive American posture described by Mr. Bolton is still unclear. "It's 21st-century gunboat diplomacy," said Robert M. Chesney, a law professor at the University of Texas, who has written extensively about the shifting legal basis for digital operations. "We're showing the adversary we can inflict serious costs without actually doing much. We used to park ships within sight of the shore. Now, perhaps, we get access to key systems like the electric grid." ..."
"... successful attack on Iranian centrifuges as one example ..."
"... Not willing to discuss it with the President but happy to chat about it with reporters..? ..."
"... This scenario sounds like something straight out of Dr, Strangelove. All sides and all actors need to realize that this is a no win game, with the very real possibility of serious harm to the lives and livelihoods of millions of people hanging in the balance. ..."
"... It's a macho power game that can easily escalate into unintended and out-of-control consequences. As with prior successful nuclear test ban negotiations & treaties we need to step back and consider what's truly in the long-term national interests of all concerned. The citizens of all the countries involved are not pawns to be played with like disposable chess pieces, in a power game with no real winners. ..."
"... This turn of events is truly disturbing, as it presents the seriousness, now, of how cyberwar is more likely a prelude to actual war ..."
"... Restated, the Commander In Chief is not briefed on military operations for fear of betrayal. I feel like I'm going nuts. Someone please tell me what is going on in this country! ..."
WASHINGTON -- The United States is stepping up digital incursions into Russia's electric power grid in a warning to President
Vladimir V. Putin and a demonstration of how the Trump administration is using new authorities to deploy cybertools more aggressively,
current and former government officials said.
In interviews over the past three months, the officials described the previously unreported deployment of American computer code
inside Russia's grid and other targets as a classified companion to more publicly discussed action directed at Moscow's disinformation
and hacking units around the 2018 midterm elections.
Advocates of the more aggressive strategy said it was long overdue, after years of
public warnings from
the Department of Homeland Security and the F.B.I. that Russia has inserted malware that could sabotage American power plants,
oil and gas pipelines, or water supplies in any future conflict with the United States.
But it also carries significant risk of escalating the daily digital Cold War between Washington and Moscow. Advertisement
The administration declined to describe specific actions it was taking under the new authorities, which were granted separately
by the White House and Congress last year to United States Cyber Command, the arm of the Pentagon that runs the military's offensive
and defensive operations in the online world.
But in a public appearance on Tuesday, President Trump's national security adviser, John R. Bolton, said the United States
was now taking a broader view of potential digital targets as part of an effort "to say to Russia, or anybody else that's engaged
in cyberoperations against us, 'You will pay a price.'"
Power grids have been a low-intensity battleground for years. Since at least 2012, current and former officials say, the United
States has put reconnaissance probes into the control systems of the Russian electric grid. But now the American strategy has shifted
more toward offense, officials say, with the placement of potentially crippling malware inside the Russian system at a depth and
with an aggressiveness that had never been tried before. It is intended partly as a warning, and partly to be poised to conduct cyberstrikes
if a major conflict broke out between Washington and Moscow.
The commander of United States Cyber Command, Gen. Paul M. Nakasone, has been outspoken about the need to "defend forward" deep
in an adversary's networks to demonstrate that the United States will respond to the barrage of online attacks aimed at it. President
Trump's national security adviser, John R. Bolton, said the United States was taking a broader view of potential digital targets
as part of an effort to warn anybody "engaged in cyberoperations against us." Credit Doug Mills/The New York Times
Image
President Trump's national security adviser, John R. Bolton, said the United States was taking a broader view
of potential digital targets as part of an effort to warn anybody "engaged in cyberoperations against us." Credit Doug Mills/The
New York Times
"They don't fear us," he told the Senate a year ago during his confirmation hearings.
But finding ways to calibrate those responses so that they deter attacks without inciting a dangerous escalation has been the
source of constant debate.
Mr. Trump issued new authorities to Cyber Command last summer, in a still-classified document known as National Security Presidential
Memoranda 13, giving General Nakasone far more leeway to conduct offensive online operations without receiving presidential approval.
But the action inside the Russian electric grid appears to have been conducted under little-noticed new legal authorities, slipped
into the military authorization bill
passed by Congress last summer. The measure approved the routine conduct of "clandestine military activity" in cyberspace, to
"deter, safeguard or defend against attacks or malicious cyberactivities against the United States."
Under the law, those actions can now be authorized by the defense secretary without special presidential approval.
"It has gotten far, far more aggressive over the past year," one senior intelligence official said, speaking on the condition
of anonymity but declining to discuss any specific classified programs. "We are doing things at a scale that we never contemplated
a few years ago."
The critical question -- impossible to know without access to the classified details of the operation -- is how deep into the
Russian grid the United States has bored. Only then will it be clear whether it would be possible to plunge Russia into darkness
or cripple its military -- a question that may not be answerable until the code is activated. Sign Up for On Politics With Lisa
Lerer
A spotlight on the people reshaping our politics. A conversation with voters across the country. And a guiding hand through the
endless news cycle, telling you what you really need to know.
Sign Up
* Captcha is incomplete. Please try again. Thank you for subscribing
Both General Nakasone and Mr. Bolton, through spokesmen, declined to answer questions about the incursions into Russia's grid.
Officials at the National Security Council also declined to comment but said they had no national security concerns about the details
of The New York Times's reporting about the targeting of the Russian grid, perhaps an indication that some of the intrusions were
intended to be noticed by the Russians.
Speaking on Tuesday at a conference sponsored by The Wall Street Journal, Mr. Bolton said: "We thought the response in cyberspace
against electoral meddling was the highest priority last year, and so that's what we focused on. But we're now opening the aperture,
broadening the areas we're prepared to act in."
He added, referring to nations targeted by American digital operations, "We will impose costs on you until you get the point."
Gen. Paul Nakasone, the commander of United States Cyber Command, was given more leeway to conduct offensive online operations
without obtaining presidential approval.
Gen. Paul Nakasone, the commander of United States Cyber Command, was given more leeway to conduct offensive
online operations without obtaining presidential approval. Credit Erin Schaff for The New York Times
Two administration officials said they believed Mr. Trump had not been briefed in any detail about the steps to place "implants"
-- software code that can be used for surveillance or attack -- inside the Russian grid.
Pentagon and intelligence officials described broad hesitation to go into detail with Mr. Trump about operations against Russia
for concern over his reaction -- and the possibility that he might countermand it or discuss it with foreign officials, as
he did in 2017 when he mentioned a sensitive operation in Syria to the Russian foreign minister.
Because the new law defines the actions in cyberspace as akin to traditional military activity on the ground, in the air or at
sea, no such briefing would be necessary, they added.
The intent of the operations was described in different ways by several current and former national security officials. Some called
it "signaling" Russia, a sort of digital shot across the bow. Others said the moves were intended to position the United States to
respond if Mr. Putin became more aggressive.
So far, there is no evidence that the United States has actually turned off the power in any of the efforts to establish what
American officials call a "persistent presence" inside Russian networks, just as the Russians have not turned off power in the United
States. But the placement of malicious code inside both systems revives the question of whether a nation's power grid -- or other
critical infrastructure that keeps homes, factories, and hospitals running -- constitutes a legitimate target for online attack.
How Mr. Putin's government is reacting to the more aggressive American posture described by Mr. Bolton is still unclear. "It's 21st-century gunboat diplomacy," said Robert M. Chesney, a law professor at the University of Texas, who has written extensively
about the shifting legal basis for digital operations. "We're showing the adversary we can inflict serious costs without actually
doing much. We used to park ships within sight of the shore. Now, perhaps, we get access to key systems like the electric grid."
Russian intrusion on American infrastructure has been the background noise of superpower competition for more than a decade.
A successful Russian breach of the Pentagon's classified communications networks in 2008 prompted the creation of what has become
Cyber Command. Under President Barack Obama, the attacks accelerated. But Mr. Obama was reluctant to respond to such aggression by Russia with counterattacks, partly for fear that the United States'
infrastructure was more vulnerable than Moscow's and partly because intelligence officials worried that by responding in kind, the
Pentagon would expose some of its best weaponry.
At the end of Mr. Obama's first term, government officials began uncovering a Russian hacking group, alternately known to private
security researchers as Energetic Bear or Dragonfly. But the assumption was that the Russians were conducting surveillance, and would
stop well short of actual disruption.
That assumption evaporated in 2014, two former officials said, when the same Russian hacking outfit
compromised the software updates that reached into hundreds of systems that have access to the power switches.
"It was the first stage in long-term preparation for an attack," said John Hultquist, the director of intelligence analysis at
FireEye, a security company that has tracked the group.
In December 2015, a Russian intelligence unit
shut off power to hundreds of thousands of people in western Ukraine. The attack lasted only a few hours, but it was enough to
sound alarms at the White House.
A team of American experts was dispatched to examine the damage, and concluded that one of the same Russian intelligence units
that wreaked havoc in Ukraine had made significant inroads into the United States energy grid,
according to officials and a homeland security
advisory that was not published until December 2016. Advertisement
"That was the crossing of the Rubicon," said David J. Weinstein, who previously served at Cyber Command and is now chief security
officer at Claroty, a security company that specializes in protecting critical infrastructure.
In late 2015, just as
the breaches
of the Democratic National Committee began, yet another Russian hacking unit began targeting critical American infrastructure,
including the electricity grid and nuclear power plants. By 2016, the hackers were scrutinizing the systems that control the power
switches at the plants. In 2012, the defense secretary at the time, Leon E. Panetta, was warned of Russia's online intrusions, but
President Barack Obama was reluctant to respond to such aggression by Moscow with counterattacks. Credit Luke Sharrett for The New
York Times
Image
In 2012, the defense secretary at the time, Leon E. Panetta, was warned of Russia's online intrusions, but President
Barack Obama was reluctant to respond to such aggression by Moscow with counterattacks. Credit Luke Sharrett for The New York Times
Until the last few months of the Obama administration, Cyber Command was largely limited to conducting surveillance operations
inside Russia's networks. At a conference this year held by the Hewlett Foundation, Eric Rosenbach, a former chief of staff to the
defense secretary and who is now at Harvard,
cautioned that when it came to offensive operations "we don't do them that often." He added, "I can count on one hand, literally,
the number of offensive operations that we did at the Department of Defense."
But after the election breaches and the power grid incursions, the Obama administration decided it had been too passive.
Mr. Obama secretly ordered some kind of message-sending action inside the Russian grid, the specifics of which have never become
public. It is unclear whether much was accomplished.
"Offensive cyber is not this, like, magic cybernuke where you say, 'O.K., send in the aircraft and we drop the cybernuke over
Russia tomorrow,'" Mr. Rosenbach said at the conference, declining to discuss specific operations.
After Mr. Trump's inauguration, Russian hackers kept escalating attacks.
Mr. Trump's initial cyberteam decided to be far more public in calling out Russian activity. In early 2018, it named Russia as
the country responsible for "
the most destructive
cyberattack in human history ," which paralyzed much of Ukraine and affected American companies including Merck and FedEx.
When General Nakasone took over both Cyber Command and the N.S.A. a year ago, his staff was assessing Russian hackings on targets
that included
the Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation , which runs a nuclear power plant near Burlington, Kan., as well as previously
unreported attempts to infiltrate Nebraska Public Power District's Cooper Nuclear Station, near Brownville. The hackers got into
communications networks, but never took over control systems.
In August, General Nakasone used the new authority granted to Cyber Command by the secret presidential directive to overwhelm
the computer systems at Russia's Internet Research Agency -- the group at the heart of the hacking during the 2016 election in the
United States. It was one of four operations his so-called Russia Small Group organized around the midterm elections. Officials have
talked publicly about those, though they have provided few details.
But the recent actions by the United States against the Russian power grids, whether as signals or potential offensive weapons,
appear to have been conducted under the new congressional authorities.
As it games out the 2020 elections, Cyber Command has looked at the possibility that Russia might try selective power blackouts
in key states, some officials said. For that, they said, they need a deterrent.
In the past few months, Cyber Command's resolve has been tested. For the past year, energy companies in the United States and
oil and gas operators across North America discovered their networks had been examined by the same Russian hackers who successfully
dismantled the safety systems in 2017 at Petro Rabigh, a Saudi petrochemical plant and oil refinery.
The question now is whether placing the equivalent of land mines in a foreign power network is the right way to deter Russia.
While it parallels Cold War nuclear strategy, it also enshrines power grids as a legitimate target.
"We might have to risk taking some broken bones of our own from a counterresponse, just to show the world we're not lying down
and taking it," said Robert P. Silvers, a partner at the law firm Paul Hastings and former Obama administration official. "Sometimes
you have to take a bloody nose to not take a bullet in the head down the road." David E. Sanger reported from Washington, and Nicole
Perlroth from San Francisco
See the Zero Days documentary, available on several streaming services, if you want to better understand this issue and its origins
and early applications (successful attack on Iranian centrifuges as one example). This cat has been out of the bag for some time.
Not willing to discuss it with the President but happy to chat about it with reporters..? If the President didn't know about it
he does now, so it's hardly a successful strategy. I would presume this is more a way to convince the public that something is
being done. Whether there is reality behind it is a different issue.
This scenario sounds like something straight out of Dr, Strangelove. All sides and all actors need to realize that this is a no
win game, with the very real possibility of serious harm to the lives and livelihoods of millions of people hanging in the balance.
It's a macho power game that can easily escalate into unintended and out-of-control consequences. As with prior successful nuclear
test ban negotiations & treaties we need to step back and consider what's truly in the long-term national interests of all concerned.
The citizens of all the countries involved are not pawns to be played with like disposable chess pieces, in a power game with
no real winners.
On the cyber playing field, the U.S. has so far shown itself still in the minor leagues against other nations. If the U.S. is
so bold as to reveal action against Russia's power grid, we'd be best advised to stock up on candles and batteries.
And here is yet another reason for the US to get off the use of public utilities alone for the production of electricity. A big
goal for national security ought to be the decentralization of electrical production. Businesses and many individual households
could do this and create a manufacturing boom at the same time. Too bad the guys in charge are so fixated on making energy money
in way only.
What's most disturbing about this article is that Trump hasn't been told much about it, out of concern he could screw it up. It
raises the question of how much the president is actually The President or just an obstacle to be managed while parts of the federal
government are haring off on their own into uncharted waters.
The US Military revealing that they have done this means that they believe that they have established superiority with this malware,
and also the ability to re-establish it if needed. Else, why would they reveal it. If you think what a patchwork the controls
on US Power systems, dams, and other key infrastructure are, Russia's must be in much worse shape. Their national systems are
likely made up largely of outdated infrastructure, with controls that are a patchwork. Their economy is the size of Italy's, yet
they funnel inordinate amounts of money to their armed forces, starving other areas. Their economy is based on petroleum and natural
gas, using technology and expertise from European and American companies --just imagine what opportunities that provides.
We are extremely vulnerable here. The US power grid is made up of a series of local systems that are tied together with high voltage
interconnects that allow power to be sent from one system to another to balance loads. Those interconnects are powered by a few,
very few, specialized transformers.
These transformers are huge, expensive, and take a long time to build. Disruption of these
transformers would have devastating consequences. Several years ago we got a taste of this in SoCal. There was a region wide power
outage. The back up generators for business's promptly kicked in, no problem. The power outage lasted longer than their fuel supply,
you could not drive to the gas station to get more fuel, all of SoCal was without power. One by one these businesses and other
critical operations shutdown. Now try to imagine you life with no power at all for just a short time, say a week. . . .
This turn of events is truly disturbing, as it presents the seriousness, now, of how cyberwar is more likely a prelude to actual
war. But what it most alarming is that we have a President who cannot be trusted to honor the institutional frameworks around
National Security and our own Intelligence Institutions and organization. It is the height of incredulity to know that his narcissism,
coupled with his sense of authoritarian marriage to wealth and delusions of Royalty, is the weakest point, now, in our security
as a nation. So--given these new developments: what about all those earlier attempt to create "back channels" with Russia???
Does
Trump feign arrogance and disinterest in reading and keeping up on Security and Intelligence briefings--so that he can assimilate
what he chooses to "hear/grasp" and then operate on such information as it might fit is grifter family's greed and faux aristocratic
delusions? There is much to worry us--and it is worse than daily lies...
William Romp, Vermont | June 15
It is telling that the language of military "defense" has become indistinguishable from that of military offense.
Aggressive malware intrusions into foreign countries' sensitive (and sovereign) computer systems is now seen as a standard
security procedure. "Gunboat diplomacy" is not an apt metaphor, as gunboats remained at discreet distances from borders. Our
cyber policy is more akin to placing bombs in the public squares of foreign cities with threats to detonate.
Absent in this discussion is the distinction between military targets of cyber warfare and civilian targets, if such
distinctions remain. America prepares to unplug millions of Russian citizens, including the elderly and children, plus
hospitals and other sensitive civilian infrastructure targets, in order to "inflict pain" (on foreign citizens) and "send a
message" (to foreign politicians). The abandonment of moral principles formerly displayed by American institutions is
striking.
The failure of leadership on all sides is even more striking. Having spent many months in Russia and China I can tell you (as
can anyone who has travelled beyond the tourist destinations) that the people there hold largely positive feelings toward
Americans and other foreigners. A small minority of xenophobes and racists dominate the leadership, as in America, and form
foreign policies that are at odds with the citizenship, at odds with moral justice, and at odds with humanity.
Viv, .|10h ago
@William Romp
In the abstract, of course people hold positive views of their "enemy" nations. In practice, it is not at all true.
You don't need to travel to Russia to find Russians who have been victims of American xenophobia and bigotry. They're right
there in America.
Americans has never really held to "moral" standards of war.
To this day you have people believing that dropping atomic bombs on civilians was the right thing to do because it
"minimized" loss of life. This is absurd.
To this day you have people believing that it was okay to not only finance the mujahadeen in Afghanistan, but indoctrinate
their children to be war fighters.
There's nothing to be proud about this "moral" leadership.
Tim Rutledge, California | June 15
Won't they just do the same to us? This is the strategy?
DaWill, 11 hours ago
"Pentagon and intelligence officials described broad hesitation to go into detail with Mr. Trump about operations
against Russia for concern over his reaction - and the possibility that he might countermand it or discuss it with foreign
officials, as he did in 2017 when he mentioned a sensitive operation in Syria to the Russian foreign minister."
Restated, the Commander In Chief is not briefed on military operations for fear of betrayal. I feel like I'm going
nuts. Someone please tell me what is going on in this country!
Carlos Fiancé
Oak Park, Il | June 15
I appreciate this article. The US media breathlessly report on Russia spending a few hundred thousand on Facebook, but rarely do they recount all the ways the US meddles with Russia, as well as a host of other countries.
"Let him who is without sin cast the first stone", as Jesus (doubtfully) said.
Pete, CA|11h ago, @HonorB14U
Actually, everything you could think of in American 'technology' is the result of government, usually military, development
projects. The internet and everything associated with it came out of DARPA. American advances in solid state integrated
circuitry are the results of satellite, rocketry, i.e. military development.
Castanet, MD-DC-VA | June 15
Another theatre of war where Pandora's unintended consequences plays a major role. We hope the better angels will be able
to keep the balance. And put the lid back on the box, and put the box away forever.
Norman,
NYC|9h ago
@TMah
Outdated infrastructure is less vulnerable to cyberattacks. It's not connected to the internet.
It's like the railroads in Atlas Shrugged. When the latest technology is left dysfunctional, you can go back to the manual
controls.
If I was designing digital equipment that's so complicated it's essentially a black box and you can't understand what's going on
inside, I'd design it with a fallback to simpler controls, even manual controls.
C.O., Germany|11h ago
For me it is really amazing that so many believe in the meddling of Russia in the US-election in 2016. I at least have
never seen or read about concrete evidence that they did. What was apparent, however, was the misuse of social media like
Facebook and Co in the election. They are open to everyone who can speak English, and everyone can use fake names. I am sure
there were indeed waves of misinformation among voters in the US. But every reasonable person could have read American
newspapers or watched American television to correct fake news if they pop up. In addition, I think that FoxNews, Trump's and
Steve Bannon's disruptive and manipulative ideology and the massive campaign funds have been much more effective for Trump's
victory. To blame it all on Russia is really too simple and in the end rather dangerous. To call for "persistent presence"
inside Russian and its digital systems, as Bolton does, moreover shows that the US is not an innocent victim but up to the
state of art. Frightening.
N. Smith, New York City|6h ago
It speaks volumes that Donald Trump was not informed and purposely kept out of the loop about these cyber operations
against Russia's power grid.
But it's not surprising.
Especially when only a few days ago before walking it back, this President said that he'd have no problem taking advantage
of any available information to undercut his opponent, obviously forgetting that Russia already took him up this invitation in
the 2016 elections.
No doubt they're primed to do it again. Sooner or later Americans will come to the realization that Vladimir Putin is an
ex-KGB operative who plans to restore Russia to its former Soviet glory. And the Cold War never ended.
Phil, Brooklyn | 4h ago
So your argument is that it's a good thing that the military is staging attacks against a nuclear power, basically
without any oversight from any branch of government?
Paul, Virginia | June 15
The use of cyber attacks is another slippery road to actual shooting war. Some says that cyber warfare would deter or
prevent nations from actually going to war with each other. This is wishful thinking for the national survival instinct would
force a nation on the verge of being plunged into darkness and thus cyber defeat to resort to nuclear weapons or maximum
conventional warfare which could easily lead to the use of nuclear weapons.
The world's leading powers should come together, discuss, and agree to a treaty outlawing the use of cyber attacks against
other nations' power grids and other online systems essential for human welfare. The world cannot afford another arm race
similar to the nuclear arm race after WW II that has since placed the survival of the human race on the vagaries of a few men.
Michael, Evanston, IL|June 15
@M. Casey Yes, and we have been doing it to them (and others) for some time. So it is a perfectly reasonable response to
wonder if this won't simply escalate. And I hardly assume that this is a transparent process in which we will even know what
is going on.
TPH, Colorado|11h ago
@David Henderson Actually, the US has been deeply involved in cyber-warfare for over nine years. In June 2010, the US
attacked Iran with a cyber-attack and, together with Israel, completely took out the Iranian military nuclear facility in
Natanz with the cyber-worm 'Stuxnet'. That attack destroyed over 1,000 nuclear centrifuges and pushed the Iranian nuclear
program back by at least two years. The type of attacks on civilian power plants now being discussed would be a cakewalk in
comparison. Nearly ten years of continuing development has taken place since -- not just in the US -- and the tech people
working for and with the US government are some of the best in the world.
If the US has decided to start implanting the latest 2019 malware in the Russian power grid, they have a real reason for
concern. It will be far more damaging and difficult to stop than anything the Russians have yet to develop.
The idea that NonPetya was developed using NSA exploit EternalBlu
is most probably false
Notable quotes:
"... Some F.B.I. and Homeland Security officials, speaking privately, said more accountability at the N.S.A. was needed. A former F.B.I. official likened the situation to a government failing to lock up a warehouse of automatic weapons. ..."
"... "I disagree completely," said Tom Burt, the corporate vice president of consumer trust, insisting that cyberweapons could not be compared to pickup trucks. "These exploits are developed and kept secret by governments for the express purpose of using them as weapons or espionage tools. They're inherently dangerous. When someone takes that, they're not strapping a bomb to it. It's already a bomb." ..."
"... Brad Smith, Microsoft's president, has called for a "Digital Geneva Convention" to govern cyberspace, including a pledge by governments to report vulnerabilities to vendors, rather than keeping them secret to exploit for espionage or attacks. ..."
For nearly three weeks, Baltimore has struggled with a cyberattack by digital extortionists that has frozen thousands of computers,
shut down email and disrupted real estate sales, water bills, health alerts and many other services.
But here is what frustrated city employees and residents do not know: A key component of the malware that cybercriminals used
in the attack was developed at taxpayer expense a short drive down the Baltimore-Washington Parkway at the National Security Agency,
according to security experts briefed on the case.
Since 2017, when the N.S.A.
lost control of the tool , EternalBlue, it has been picked up by state hackers in North Korea, Russia and, more recently, China,
to cut a path of destruction around the world, leaving billions of dollars in damage. But over the past year, the cyberweapon has
boomeranged back and is now showing up in the N.S.A.'s own backyard.
It is not just in Baltimore. Security experts say EternalBlue attacks
have reached a high
, and cybercriminals are zeroing in on vulnerable American towns and cities, from Pennsylvania to Texas, paralyzing local governments
and driving up costs. Advertisement
The N.S.A. connection to the attacks on American cities has not been previously reported, in part because the agency has refused
to discuss or even acknowledge the loss of its cyberweapon, dumped online in April 2017 by a still-unidentified group calling itself
the Shadow
Brokers . Years later, the agency and the Federal Bureau of Investigation still do not know whether the Shadow Brokers are foreign
spies or disgruntled insiders.
Thomas Rid, a cybersecurity expert at Johns Hopkins University, called the Shadow Brokers episode "the most destructive and costly
N.S.A. breach in history," more damaging than the better-known leak in 2013 from Edward Snowden, the former N.S.A. contractor.
"The government has refused to take responsibility, or even to answer the most basic questions," Mr. Rid said. "Congressional
oversight appears to be failing. The American people deserve an answer."
The N.S.A. and F.B.I. declined to comment.
Since that leak, foreign intelligence agencies and rogue actors have used EternalBlue to spread malware that has paralyzed hospitals,
airports, rail and shipping operators, A.T.M.s and factories that produce critical vaccines. Now the tool is hitting the United States
where it is most vulnerable, in local governments with aging digital infrastructure and fewer resources to defend themselves.
On May 7, city workers in Baltimore had their computers frozen by hackers. Officials have refused to pay the $100,000 ransom.
Credit .
Image
On May 7, city workers in Baltimore had their computers frozen by hackers. Officials have refused to pay the
$100,000 ransom. Credit .
Before it leaked, EternalBlue was one of the most useful exploits in the N.S.A.'s cyberarsenal. According to three former N.S.A.
operators who spoke on the condition of anonymity, analysts spent almost a year finding a flaw in Microsoft's software and writing
the code to target it. Initially, they referred to it as EternalBluescreen because it often crashed computers -- a risk that could
tip off their targets. But it went on to become a reliable tool used in countless intelligence-gathering and counterterrorism missions.
Advertisement
EternalBlue was so valuable, former N.S.A. employees said, that the agency never seriously considered alerting Microsoft about
the vulnerabilities, and held on to it for more than five years before the breach forced its hand.
The Baltimore attack
, on May 7, was a
classic ransomware
assault. City workers' screens suddenly locked, and a message in flawed English demanded about $100,000 in Bitcoin to free their
files: "We've watching you for days," said the message,
obtained by
The Baltimore Sun . "We won't talk more, all we know is MONEY! Hurry up!"
Today, Baltimore remains handicapped as city officials refuse to pay, though workarounds have restored some services. Without
EternalBlue, the damage would not have been so vast, experts said. The tool exploits a vulnerability in unpatched software that allows
hackers to spread their malware faster and farther than they otherwise could.
North Korea was the first nation to co-opt the tool, for an attack in 2017 -- called WannaCry -- that paralyzed the British health
care system, German railroads and some 200,000 organizations around the world. Next was Russia, which used the weapon in an attack
-- called NotPetya -- that was aimed at Ukraine but spread across major companies doing business in the country. The assault cost
FedEx more than $400 million and Merck, the pharmaceutical giant, $670 million.
The damage didn't stop there. In the past year, the same Russian hackers who targeted the 2016 American presidential election
used EternalBlue to compromise hotel Wi-Fi networks. Iranian hackers have used it to spread ransomware and hack airlines in the Middle
East, according to researchers at the security firms Symantec and FireEye.
"It's incredible that a tool which was used by intelligence services is now publicly available and so widely used," said Vikram
Thakur, Symantec's director of security response. Sign Up for The Daily Newsletter
Every Friday, get an exclusive look at how one of the week's biggest news stories on "The Daily" podcast came together.
One month before the Shadow Brokers began dumping the agency's tools online in 2017, the N.S.A. -- aware of the breach -- reached
out to Microsoft and other tech companies to inform them of their software flaws. Microsoft released a patch, but hundreds of thousands
of computers worldwide remain unprotected. Microsoft employees reviewing malware data at the company's offices in Redmond, Wash.
EternalBlue exploits a flaw in unpatched Microsoft software.
Hackers seem to have found a sweet spot in Baltimore, Allentown, Pa., San Antonio and other local, American governments, where
public employees oversee tangled networks that often use out-of-date software. Last July, the
Department of Homeland Security issued a dire warning
that state and local governments were getting hit by particularly destructive malware that now, security researchers say, has started
relying on EternalBlue to spread.
Microsoft, which tracks the use of EternalBlue, would not name the cities and towns affected, citing customer privacy. But other
experts briefed on the attacks in Baltimore, Allentown and San Antonio confirmed the hackers used EternalBlue. Security responders
said they were seeing EternalBlue pop up in attacks almost every day.
Amit Serper, head of security research at Cybereason, said his firm had responded to EternalBlue attacks at three different American
universities, and found vulnerable servers in major cities like Dallas, Los Angeles and New York.
The costs can be hard for local governments to bear. The Allentown attack, in February last year, disrupted city services for
weeks and cost about $1 million to remedy -- plus another $420,000 a year for new defenses, said Matthew Leibert, the city's chief
information officer.
He described the package of dangerous computer code that hit Allentown as "commodity malware," sold on the dark web and used by
criminals who don't have specific targets in mind. "There are warehouses of kids overseas firing off phishing emails," Mr. Leibert
said, like thugs shooting military-grade weapons at random targets. Advertisement
The malware that hit San Antonio last September infected a computer inside Bexar County sheriff's office and tried to spread across
the network using EternalBlue, according to two people briefed on the attack.
This past week, researchers at the security firm Palo Alto Networks discovered that a Chinese state group, Emissary Panda, had
hacked into Middle Eastern governments using EternalBlue.
"You can't hope that once the initial wave of attacks is over, it will go away," said Jen Miller-Osborn, a deputy director of
threat intelligence at Palo Alto Networks. "We expect EternalBlue will be used almost forever, because if attackers find a system
that isn't patched, it is so useful." Adm. Michael S. Rogers, who led the N.S.A. during the leak, has said the agency should not
be blamed for the trail of damage. Credit Erin Schaff for The New York Times
Image
Until a decade or so ago, the most powerful cyberweapons belonged almost exclusively to intelligence agencies -- N.S.A. officials
used the term "NOBUS," for "nobody but us," for vulnerabilities only the agency had the sophistication to exploit. But that advantage
has hugely eroded, not only because of the leaks, but because anyone can grab a cyberweapon's code once it's used in the wild.
Some F.B.I. and Homeland Security officials, speaking privately, said more accountability at the N.S.A. was needed. A former
F.B.I. official likened the situation to a government failing to lock up a warehouse of automatic weapons.
In an interview in March, Adm. Michael S. Rogers, who was director of the N.S.A. during the Shadow Brokers leak, suggested in
unusually candid remarks that the agency should not be blamed for the long trail of damage. Advertisement
"If Toyota makes pickup trucks and someone takes a pickup truck, welds an explosive device onto the front, crashes it through
a perimeter and into a crowd of people, is that Toyota's responsibility?" he asked. "The N.S.A. wrote an exploit that was never designed
to do what was done."
At Microsoft's headquarters in Redmond, Wash., where thousands of security engineers have found themselves on the front lines
of these attacks, executives reject that analogy.
"I disagree completely," said Tom Burt, the corporate vice president of consumer trust, insisting that cyberweapons could
not be compared to pickup trucks. "These exploits are developed and kept secret by governments for the express purpose of using them
as weapons or espionage tools. They're inherently dangerous. When someone takes that, they're not strapping a bomb to it. It's already
a bomb."
Brad Smith, Microsoft's president, has called for a
"Digital Geneva Convention" to govern cyberspace, including a pledge by governments to report vulnerabilities to vendors, rather
than keeping them secret to exploit for espionage or attacks.
Last year, Microsoft, along with Google and Facebook, joined 50 countries in signing on to a similar call by French President
Emmanuel Macron -- the Paris Call for Trust and Security in Cyberspace -- to end "malicious cyber activities in peacetime."
Notably absent from the signatories were the world's most aggressive cyberactors: China, Iran, Israel, North Korea, Russia --
and the United States.
Looks like NYT provocation. Coordinated with whom? With Brennan and his cabal?
I wonder what will be reaction of Russian authorities and military intelligence on reading
this stupid provocation. Hopefully they will not overreact.
Notable quotes:
"... I think they're revealing it because it may be for Russian ears, but not necessarily true or as good as stated. Misinformation abounds, especially when they're letting the press in. Mass destruction anyone? In Reply to Socrates ..."
"... While Obama and Trump are obviously different in some ways, this article reveals yet another continuity between their administrations. Burgeoning attacks on a foreign country's power grid, and little need for prior approval and oversight. ..."
"... Given the timing and the decision to talk about something so classified just now, I take this to be a threat aimed at Iran. "General Nakasone had been deeply involved in designing an operation code-named Nitro Zeus that amounted to a war plan to unplug Iran if the United States entered into hostilities with the country." The leak is an escalation, a threat. ..."
"... This will not end well. The unspoken assumption behind this issue is that the US assumes it must have dominance in all relations to other countries, and that moral outrage for such acts do not apply to us, because we are the "good guys" of course. ..."
"... It's always the big-mouth in the bar that starts the bar fight, then he sneaks out the side door while the rest of us get hit with beer bottles. ..."
"... What about attaching a price to the US's misdeeds, there are plenty of them, Iraq, and all the other US forced regime changes or attempted regime change as in Syria and Venezuela. ..."
"... Giving the military the authority to decide if and when a cyber attack occurs seems unconstitutional. And it seems very dangerous. Just because the actions originate on computer networks doesn't mean it's not violence against a foreign power. Even though everyone is dancing around the issue, a cyber attack is an act of war. Congress is supposed to make decisions on attacks by the military. It seems very Dr. Strangelove-like to me. Very risky giving a military commander the authority to start a war. ..."
"... Of course, the problem with all these "implants" and zero-day exploits is that once they are out there, they are readily deconstructed, repurposed, and turned back to bite us in new form, as has already happened on numerous occasions. ..."
"... To this day you have people believing that it was okay to not only finance the mujahadeen in Afghanistan, but indoctrinate their children to be war fighters. There's nothing to be proud about this "moral" leadership. ..."
"... Sure, the US can install malware deep inside Russia's grid. But that doesn't mean that the American cyberwar gambit is effective. And it doesn't mean that the US has the capacity to prevent Russia from using malware to inflict even deeper damage on the American grid. ..."
"... To understand exactly who is probably getting the better of who in this conflict, we need to ask ourselves what motivates Russia and America to fight this conflict. The answer doesn't bode well for Americans. Russia, which has been on the defensive since the fall of the USSR three decades ago, is fighting to protect its sovereignty against American encroachment. ..."
"... We could have mandated IPV6 with its better security model twenty years ago. We could encourage end-to-end encryption to secure networks. We could have directed the NSA and other security agencies to search out and fix bugs in software libraries instead of building backdoors that are now open to everyone. Instead everything gets converted to a weapon. Fear reigns supreme. Then we go to war and the merchants of death make huge profits ..."
"... The U.S. escalates cyber attacks on Russia's power grid. However, the Pentagon [and NSA] will not brief Trump because he might "countermand it or discuss it with foreign officials" as he did before with the Russians. Folks, we're running an unchecked cyber war against a global nuclear power without the involvement of POTUS who isn't interested, doesn't care, and is too busy complaining about CNN on Twitter. We are a banana republic and no one is minding the store ..."
"... I just don't get it. The New York Times publishing what surely must be classified information about a secret incursion by the U.S. government into the Russian power grid! And Julian Assange is criminally charged for doing the same thing? ..."
"... The US is certainly a very offensive country. The US Is considered The Exceptional World Leader. I don't know if the world can survive such leadership. The US is going to drown in its military superiority, and settle into a state of violent mediocrity with a poorly educated, somewhat unhealthy citizenry with loads of of weaponry, poor mental health and lots of drug addiction and a country with the world's highest rate of incarceration and lousy infrastructure. ..."
"... And for all of those who are blaming Russia, kindly remember how the U.S. started all this with the creation and deployment of Stuxnet against Iran. ..."
"... This reminds me of the Cold War. We were sold a bill of goods about Russia's capacity to harm us when, we the US was actually the aggressor, JFK sold this under the brand of "Missile Gap". The United States is, as usual, the aggressor here. The US Empire wants to control the world. Any independent nation will be considered a threat and not be tolerated. This demonization of Russia is an embarrassment and worse, is extremely dangerous, The Russian bear is not to be trifled with, despite American fantasies. ..."
"... The world needs a Cyber Geneva Convention. Immediately if not years ago. All the tunnel vision patriotic cheering in these comments is very alarming. Think about where Cyber War could go, what it could do, who it would harm. ..."
"... This is the path to the military itself becoming a danger to the state through ill-considered unilateral action. ..."
"... "Defend forward?" A new entry in the Newspeak dictionary... We are partying like it's 1984. ..."
"... "Pentagon and intelligence officials described broad hesitation to go into detail with Mr. Trump about operations against Russia for concern over his reaction..." So the commander of United States Cyber Command, Gen. Paul M. Nakasone, decided to undertake an overt act of war and not tell his Commander in Chief because he thought he might disagree? If true, Trump should fire this guy tomorrow, if not court-martial him for insubordination. ..."
"... Something's wrong with this article. A newspaper is telling the world that the US is messing around with Russia's power grid? Shouldn't this be super confidential? Basically now Russians are allowed to re tagliate in any way for what the USA is doing. What would be the reaction of the US if the situation was reversed? A bunch of blackouts in NYC, Chicago, San Francisco and the Russians saying "we did it"? Our military would bomb them right away! ..."
"... GREAT ! A military junta within the Trump regime...what could go wrong. ..."
"... There is a real danger in deploying cyber-mines in adversary systems. All code can be broken and used in retaliation. Even so-called "encapsulated" code can be disassembled. STUXNET was disassembled and repurposed as ransom-ware. ..."
This is very disturbing and it threatens the security of the entire planet. Cyber warfare is
cheap. As this technology continues to develop, no nation, no industry, no utility will be
safe. Just as many nations want the bomb, many will want this capability and they don't have
to spend much to have it. The economic and human costs of disrupting power flows could be
huge. This isn't a video game. It is real warfare. We should be extremely cautious with the
application of these cyber tools. Do we want to live in a world where nation states are
actively trying to cripple any infrastructure they can get at? Talk about the war of all
against all. It is also very troubling that organizations within our government can carry out
these incursions without specific orders from the top of our command structures. We can't
have the dept. of this or that conducting assaults on other nations on their own. Everyone
can see where that aircraft carrier is, but no one can see that malware hiding in a water
treatment center. These weapons cause us to lose our ability of command and control. That's
the real danger here, loss of command and control. We already have president who has command
but no control. We don't need a dozen agencies with the same problem.
I think they're revealing it because it may be for Russian ears, but not necessarily
true or as good as stated. Misinformation abounds, especially when they're letting the press
in. Mass destruction anyone? In Reply to Socrates
"the action inside the Russian electric grid appears to have been conducted under little-noticed new
legal authorities, slipped into the military authorization bill passed by Congress last summer. " That bipartisan bill, now
law, is known as "H.R.5515 - The John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019", was reluctantly
signed by Donald Trump; he hated the law because it was named after an American patriot and hero that he hated.
While Obama and Trump are obviously different in some ways, this article reveals yet another
continuity between their administrations. Burgeoning attacks on a foreign country's power
grid, and little need for prior approval and oversight.
How did we ever survive for half a century without putting our power grid on the internet?
Get our power back off the internet, create some extra jobs to do what computers do now,
raise prices a couple of percent to cover the new employees, and avoid the worry about
hacking the grid. 2 Replies
Given the timing and the decision to talk about something so classified just now, I take this
to be a threat aimed at Iran. "General Nakasone had been deeply involved in designing an
operation code-named Nitro Zeus that amounted to a war plan to unplug Iran if the United
States entered into hostilities with the country." The leak is an escalation, a threat.
It seems to be common knowledge that our country's electric grid has been infiltrated by the
Russians. What I don't understand, given this situation, is why the compromised systems can't
be purged of any malware that might be present and the security holes that allowed it to be
installed in the first place patched.
Retail software companies (e.g., Microsoft) are finding
security vulnerabilities in and releasing updates to their products all the time. What's so
different about industrial software systems?
This will not end well. The unspoken assumption behind this issue is that the US assumes it
must have dominance in all relations to other countries, and that moral outrage for such acts
do not apply to us, because we are the "good guys" of course. Almost anything that another
country can be accused of (interfering in elections, cyber-espionage, stealing trade secrets
and technology) is something almost surely done by the US first to others. I applaud the NYT
for reporting this, but reporters should question the reasoning behind it a bit more. 1 Reply
It's always the big-mouth in the bar that starts the bar fight, then he sneaks out the side
door while the rest of us get hit with beer bottles. Sure wish the bouncer had stopped DJT
and his entourage at the door.
They're what? My son graduated in 2002 and we've been at war or trying to start one ever
since. Can we not do anything but build weapons of death and destruction and look for ways to
put them to use? This war thing is getting out of control.
What about attaching a price to the US's misdeeds, there are plenty of them, Iraq, and
all the other US forced regime changes or attempted regime change as in Syria and Venezuela.
The US has wrecked lots of countries with its superior military and awesome financial clout.
The US is going to drown in its military superiority, and settle into a state of violent
mediocrity with a poorly educated, somewhat unhealthy citizenry with loads of of weaponry,
poor mental health and lots of drug addiction and a country with the world's highest rate of
incarceration and lousy infrastructure.
If the US would just drown quickly, before it destroys the livability of the world, perhaps Europe, Russia and China could
cooperate enough to save the world.
Giving the military the authority to decide if and when a cyber attack occurs seems
unconstitutional. And it seems very dangerous. Just because the actions originate on computer
networks doesn't mean it's not violence against a foreign power. Even though everyone is
dancing around the issue, a cyber attack is an act of war. Congress is supposed to make
decisions on attacks by the military. It seems very Dr. Strangelove-like to me. Very risky
giving a military commander the authority to start a war. 1 Reply
Of course, the problem with all these "implants" and zero-day exploits is that once they are
out there, they are readily deconstructed, repurposed, and turned back to bite us in new
form, as has already happened on numerous occasions.
Those of us in the cybersecurity
community have been sounding the alarm for more than a decade, whether in professional
papers, the general press, or in fictionalized accounts. With escalation, we are virtually
inviting the Russians to mount counterattacks, the cost of which could be incalculable. Our
natural gas transmission network may be even more vulnerable than our power grid, as an
industry insider confessed to me prompting the writing of Gasline in 2013. Of course, now we
have Trump on the trigger and...
I can't wait until this US president is gone so that our future Executive branch can directly
and positively (not out of self interest or hind-covering denial) get back to the the table
with Russia and bring about real change on both sides. If we don't, one has to assume that
all types of cold war warfare can lead to a thermonuclear exchange.
That has always been the
potential endgame since 1948. Did you think that was no longer possible after 1991? You, like
myself, were being naive. I think it's more possible now than ever before. For we have two
authoritarians, each carrying a football named, Doom. 1 Reply
@William Romp In the abstract, of course people hold positive views of their "enemy" nations.
In practice, it is not at all true. You don't need to travel to Russia to find Russians who
have been victims of American xenophobia and bigotry. They're right there in America.
Americans has never really held to "moral" standards of war. To this day you have people
believing that dropping atomic bombs on civilians was the right thing to do because it
"minimized" loss of life. This is absurd.
To this day you have people believing that it was
okay to not only finance the mujahadeen in Afghanistan, but indoctrinate their children to be
war fighters. There's nothing to be proud about this "moral" leadership. In Reply to Viv
Sure, the US can install malware deep inside Russia's grid. But that doesn't mean that the
American cyberwar gambit is effective. And it doesn't mean that the US has the capacity to
prevent Russia from using malware to inflict even deeper damage on the American grid.
To
understand exactly who is probably getting the better of who in this conflict, we need to ask
ourselves what motivates Russia and America to fight this conflict. The answer doesn't bode
well for Americans. Russia, which has been on the defensive since the fall of the USSR three
decades ago, is fighting to protect its sovereignty against American encroachment.
The US,
meanwhile, isn't fighting because it has to. America is fighting Russia simply to aggrandize
its own power, and to expand its influence over world affairs. In my opinion, Russia is the
power that has greater motivation to win this fight. For this reason, any American effort to
defeat Russia by using cyberwarfare is likely to trigger a devastating Russian response. The
US should quit while it's ahead. 1 Reply
Reagan talked about a missile shield, a Star Wars defense, that would make nuclear weapons
obsolete. Almost 40 years later we know that was a pipe dream. But we can be safe in
cyberspace. Many of the tools are there. A few more might need to be invented. What stands in
the way? A U.S. government that wants, claims to need, to spy on everyone including its
citizens stands in the way. Businesses that want to vacuum up and sell everyone's information
stand in the way. Hardware companies that want to lease you a networked service instead of a
stand alone device stand in the way.
We could have mandated IPV6 with its better security model twenty years ago. We could encourage end-to-end encryption
to secure networks. We could have directed the NSA and other security agencies to search out and fix bugs in software
libraries instead of building backdoors that are now open to everyone. Instead everything gets converted to a weapon. Fear
reigns supreme. Then we go to war and the merchants of death make huge profits.
@B. Rothman Micro grids would be helpful, yes, but what about large businesses? Say the ones
who make the fuel for your home furnace, or that power the compressors for your natural gas?
Or that power the giant freezers at the plant that makes your french fries? My point is that
we are really interconnected, and vulnerable to attacks as described in this article. This is
the kind of thing that gives the cyber security pro at you local utility nightmares. We are
balanced on a ball. In Reply to Eric Peterson
@M. Casey - Here we go with "timidity" and Obama. At the time, and in keeping with the
strategy to withhold knowledge of our cyber reach into their systems, Obama's decision
probably made sense. Such a thoughtful approach would have benefited us in the phony,
"Weapons of Mass Destruction" war against Iraq, which cost thousands of American lives and
hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives. Such a thoughtful approach, which is anathema to
chest-pounding chickenhawks, would have also been useful in Vietnam. And the Falklands. And
Beirut. And Cuba and... In Reply to JM
Electricity generation and reticulation worked perfectly satisfactorily before the internet,
so why does it need to be connected to the internet? The obvious solution to attacks on
systems is to cut the internet out of the equation. 2 Replies
@Bruce1253 I have lived through hurricanes that caused power outages for a week or more.
Puerto Ricans can tell us just what it's like right now, given the damage they experienced
recently. Our forebears lived without power for centuries. We would survive, but we wouldn't
enjoy it. In Reply to Larry L
Some thoughts from an obsolete old power engineer:
(1) For the most part our power grid can
be run by people at the substations and generating plants. There are always manual
overrides--to wit: big levers with handles that actuate big switches. This is not a new
development, for the systems were initially designed for manual operation. The digital relays
were added later.
(2) The whole business makes power guys cringe, for they've been trained to
keep the system going. But if necessary, every section of the power grid can be brought back
to life by the employees.
(3) No public utility can operate reliably in a war or anywhere
else that's lacking basic civil behavior. I'm surprised that cell phones have done so well in
combat zones, for they rely on cables to link the towers.
The U.S. escalates cyber attacks on Russia's power grid. However, the Pentagon [and NSA] will
not brief Trump because he might "countermand it or discuss it with foreign officials" as he
did before with the Russians. Folks, we're running an unchecked cyber war against a global
nuclear power without the involvement of POTUS who isn't interested, doesn't care, and is too
busy complaining about CNN on Twitter. We are a banana republic and no one is minding the
store
@Mark. Ok, but it is inconceivable that either the national security apparatus or his own
advisors would have conspired to keep Obama in the dark because they didn't trust him. In
Reply to Mark
It's clear that most American, including many Times' readers don't understand Putin's
strategy toward the U.S. and other democracies of western Europe. The real danger is his
attack on our political system and democratic values. While an aggressive cyber defense and
hardening of targets is important, cyber operations also need to undermine Russians'
confidence in Putin and his government. There are plenty of ways to spread fake news and
paranoia in Russia social and political media. The sanctions are our best "weapon". They hurt
Russian economy and threaten wealthy oligarchs. If they didn't, why would Putin try so hard
to squash them. Unfortunately, the President fails to enforce or expand them. Any guesses why
he undermines sanctions?
that's not nice of the US.---disrupting Russia's power [grid]. They will not be happy about this.
Donald can expect a phone call from Vladimir, expressing his displeasure!
The problem, as usual is management. It is not possible underestimate management. Those of us
on Long Island were without power after Sandy. In portions of The Rockaways, some 20' or more
above sea level, National Grid turned off the power for 15 days. So we know what it is like
to have no power. Having solar cells on the roof is no solution because LIPA / PSEG-LI
REQUIRES the system to shut down if grid power drops!
But the real question must be, why is
the electrical grid vulnerable? Do the control systems use PCs, or rock solid IBM z/OS
architecture? Has any z/OS system ever been compromised? Why aren't individual electric
systems designed to operate off the regional and therefore national grid in the event of a
failure? And whatever happened to synchronous encrypted communication over secure leased
lines? These problems are not difficult to solve. They only require a desire. Mr. Cuomo, are
you listening?
I just don't get it. The New York Times publishing what surely must be classified information
about a secret incursion by the U.S. government into the Russian power grid! And Julian
Assange is criminally charged for doing the same thing? 2 Replies
The US is certainly a very offensive country. The US Is considered The Exceptional World
Leader. I don't know if the world can survive such leadership. The US is going to drown in
its military superiority, and settle into a state of violent mediocrity with a poorly
educated, somewhat unhealthy citizenry with loads of of weaponry, poor mental health and lots
of drug addiction and a country with the world's highest rate of incarceration and lousy
infrastructure.
If the US would just drown quickly, before it destroys the livability of the
world, perhaps Europe, Russia and China could cooperate enough to save the world. Or, if
enough citizens vote for Senator Bernie Sanders for President, the US could refresh its world
leadership with a sane, even wise foreign policy and provide citizens with quality education
for all, health care for all, better infrastructure, and, mostly, A FUTURE TO BELIEVE IN. 1
Reply
It's been pointed out for years that our much higher level of internet control of our systems
makes us more vulnerable to cyber attacks that Russia or China or Iran and certainly N.
Korea. If this story is getting out, and based on the thesis that nothing happens by accident
in the political world, the source must think that our defenses are strong enough to more
than offset our inherent vulnerabilities. I hope that's true.
The fact that we have implanted code is well-known, or at least should be. To say there has
been only a handful of offensive operations is either purposely deceitful or shows the lack
of access by the person quoted.
"Pentagon and intelligence officials described broad hesitation to go into detail with Mr.
Trump about operations against Russia for concern over his reaction -- and the possibility
that he might countermand it or discuss it with foreign officials, as he did in 2017 when he
mentioned a sensitive operation in Syria to the Russian foreign minister." Sigh.... our prez.
Our number one threat to National Security.
@HonorB14U Always? Who went first into space? If you were a trained technical person in
control systems you'd know the names of lots of Russians who made fundamental break-throughs
in understanding - more Russian names than I can recall American names. In Reply to HonorB14U
This mutual insanity results from the disease people all around the world suffer from: the
nation-state. Nation-states, in their modern form only four hundred years old, have taken the
world hostage through feverish calls to nationalism and patriotism, deliberately confusing in
our minds cultural identity with the nation-state. But cultural identity is not dependent on
the nation-state! Either we find a way to free our cultural identities from those in power
or, if and when this insane posturing leads to war, we pay the ultimate price of losing our
lives.
Upgrading the grid to be more resilient to hacking and also to better accommodate wind and
solar would be a significant, smart, long term investment. It would improve something we all
use that really needs improving. It would help reduce our carbon footprint. It would generate
good jobs here in America. So instead the GOP spent a trillion dollars on tax breaks for very
wealthy people which the corporate kind used mostly for stock buy backs.
If both countries didn't have stable geniuses in charge, I would be pretty worried. If the
stability of one of the leaders was not the case, I would be even more worried.
So all these attacks we're trading have all gone through proper quality control procedures to
make sure they don't disrupt anything by accident? Not likely. And with the UK, China, North
Korea and others all doing the same, both the large controlling computers and the small
embedded control system components are going to start failing due to all the malware they're
being asked to hold. Malware will attack expecting it is attacking clean manufacturer
supplied software/firmware, but if someone else has already modified it, how will these
systems react? This seems like a mutual game of Russian Roulette. Any time an opponent makes
a mistake something will break somewhere.
The scariest thing about this escalation is that nobody really knows which country--the U.S.,
Russia, or China--has the best cyber-weapons and cyber-defenses until the cyber-war actually
begins. And for all of those who are blaming Russia, kindly remember how the U.S. started all
this with the creation and deployment of Stuxnet against Iran. 2 Replies
This reminds me of the Cold War. We were sold a bill of goods about Russia's capacity to harm
us when, we the US was actually the aggressor, JFK sold this under the brand of "Missile
Gap". The United States is, as usual, the aggressor here. The US Empire wants to control the
world. Any independent nation will be considered a threat and not be tolerated. This
demonization of Russia is an embarrassment and worse, is extremely dangerous, The Russian
bear is not to be trifled with, despite American fantasies.
The world needs a Cyber Geneva Convention. Immediately if not years ago. All the tunnel
vision patriotic cheering in these comments is very alarming. Think about where Cyber War
could go, what it could do, who it would harm.
@M Congress should be at the helm of formulating an overall policy. The power to make war has
moved from Congress to the President, and some Presidents have had an attitude of leave it up
to the generals. So, the departments have gained power in some cases. Rightfully, Congress
should create defensive and offensive policy which the President should endorse and the
Cabinet should carry out. In Reply to TJ
John Bolton has a long history as a Russia hawk. It seems he's now in involved in ramping up
cyber attacks on Russia's power grid, sending the message "You will pay a price" for
cyberoperations – like election interference – against the US. ...
I can understand why the U.S. would want to have this capability and to let the Russians know
about it for the purposes of deterrence, but still, the news fills me with dread. The U.S.
power infrastructure is far from perfect, but as anyone who has lived and worked in Russia
knows, their system is much less reliable and far more prone to breakdowns. In addition, for
anyone who watched the recent HBO series "Chernobyl," the idea of messing with the power grid
in Russia is a little alarming. Russia still operates several RBMK reactors, and although
there are repeated assurances that they are safe now, I wouldn't want to put that theory to
the test by fiddling with the system. I'm sure our guys are all well aware of this, but, just
sayin'...
And we'd be the first to complain if they did this to us. How about if humans finally stopped
behaving like vindictive petulant 8 year olds. We're all stuck on this rock, so get along!
Perhaps the most disturbing reveal in this article is that Trump has delegated an undisclosed
amount of authority to engage in offensive military action by launching a cyber attack,
potentially amounting to an act of war, without direct presidential oversight and approval.
Trump issued "National Security Presidential Memoranda 13, giving General Nakasone far more
leeway to conduct offensive online operations without receiving presidential approval." 9
Replies
@B. Rothman Individual decentralization of your home or business or a factory when the grid
power goes out would be a wise move for many. This would most likely be solar or wind and
possibly a generator as well, all backed by a battery. The interesting part comes in when
your system is connected with the power companies grid. Will it be interactive? If it is then
if the power company is hacked you are also hacked. If your system only comes on when the
grid power goes off you would not be connected to the power companies grid communication and
therefor you would not be hacked. An independent distributed system would keep your power on.
Only used when the grid power was off. You would not be able to send excess power to the grid
or get paid for excess power from solar or wind. Think military base or critical
infrastructure. If all critical systems are isolated they stand alone and cannot be taken
down by cyber war fare. This is a redundant system but it does keep the power on when
everything else goes down. The only way I can see around this is to be connected to the power
grid on a two way communication that is secured and verified to be hack free at all times.
Not likely in this day of cyber war. It may be possible to shut down communication to the
grid as soon as power goes down, thus isolating the location from any further attack or
control by the outside. Then get conformation that it was not an attack, just an ordinary
power outage and then reconnect. Simple. In Reply to Eric Peterson
Power grids as legitimate targets. Affecting hospitals, schools, civilian homes. After 9/11
there was discussion as to whether the Geneva Conventions on war should be modified, and also
discussions on designating captured terrorists as POWs or....enemy combatants. A follow up
article on how these ...agreements on war....might cover cyber attacks, would be helpful.
Shutting off the power to a hospital- or all the hospitals, doctor's offices, clinics in a
major city- how many die? Nuclear power plants as targets? If its war, call it war. At least
we possible victims will know we aren't just disposable pawns in cyber gamesmanship.
Until recently I would be concerned if our military was acting independently of presidential
direction or oversight and if the president or presidential advisors were not kept informed
of initiatives our military and security forces were undertaking against other nations. Now I
am thankful for it. As for the U.S. embedding malware and other malicious software in
Russian, Chinese, North Korean, Iranian, Saudi, Israeli, and other potentially hostile nation
infrastructure systems, we should be prepared to send them all back to campfires and candles
at a moment's notice.
The article reveals that the military is withholding information from the president about
actions it's taking against another country, because it doesn't trust him. Predictably in the
current political climate, everyone focuses on what it says about President Trump and fails
to consider what it says about the military; i.e., that it feels it has a mandate to decide,
at its own discretion, what military action against other nations is in the country's best
interests. The military didn't trust President Obama either -- to the extraordinary extent of
public insubordination by its top leadership.
How do we know that it obeyed his directive not
to wage cyberwarfare against Russia, or any other country? We now have no reason to believe
that it did. It doesn't matter that the military distrusts the current and previous president
for different reasons. It will defy a strong, competent president as easily as it will
sideline a weak, incompetent president. This is the path to the military itself becoming a
danger to the state through ill-considered unilateral action.
@Andrzej Warminski...they'd call it 'un-American' to freeze US oligarchs out of ill gotten
assets. Russia has its oligarchs, we have ours. Ours get protection for spiraling profits and
power by mega donations to the lawmakers we elect, and our own Supreme Court legalized this
Constitutional 1st A -Free Speech. This obvious collusion of big money and politics is
avoided in our news media, famous for it's 1st Amendment protections from censorship. Russia
has it's state media, and we have ours. FOX news functions as the GOP state media, consulting
with Trump, and broadcasting his messages daily. Then social media further amplifies this
across the country. 16 Replies
@David G. Generally increased use of the internet in any industry is a way to cut labor
costs. In the pre-internet days, grid workers were likely paid more in today's dollars and
jobs were more plentiful. In Reply to R. Fenwick
@JohnW13 It bothers me the Most that Mr Bolton is in the line of command there, for some
ungodly reason. He is the type that would have flown drones, himself, to do a false flag
attack like that. That they were above waterline is telling. I wonder what Iran found when
they took whatever it was that attached itself to that tanker. I am sure that will be
interesting indeed. 9 Replies
"Pentagon and intelligence officials described broad hesitation to go into detail with Mr.
Trump about operations against Russia for concern over his reaction..." So the commander of
United States Cyber Command, Gen. Paul M. Nakasone, decided to undertake an overt act of war
and not tell his Commander in Chief because he thought he might disagree? If true, Trump
should fire this guy tomorrow, if not court-martial him for insubordination.
The Chinese! The Russians! They started it! Anyone who believes fairy tales from the Pentagon
or Washington about this is a fool. Let's see at the end of the 'Cold War' Washington
promised not expand NATO if the Russians et al handed over much of their nukes. They handed
them over and Clinton, etc. marched NATO right up to the Russian border. George Kennan warned
it was the greatest strategic error post WWII.
Who knows what nasty things Washington is
really up to. Like the mysterious Venezuelan blackouts right at the height of their coup
operation. Washington's unending saber-rattling and war mongering can never be trusted. What
a horrifying thought that they would cut off heat and power to millions of Russian people in
the winter. It will be ordinary people who pay the price on all sides.
I have found that nobody listens to my critique of technology by which I state that 1) we no
longer possess the skills that technology does for us, 2) our division of labor has become so
extreme due to technological advancements that nobody really knows how to do anything but
their one job, shopping and driving, and 3) should we lose power, we lose petroleum too, and
without both we lose our society in just a few days. Food goes bad immediately, water
pressure drops in cities precipitously, and people can't go to work, school or entertainment
-- they can't do anything but wait for the power to come back on. But they don't wait, they
loot, they attack, they scavenge, they make trouble. Anybody with a personal supply of food
and water are targets. None of this is hyperbole or paranoia, yet those who make such
slanders are driven by fearsome possibilities they NEVER want to face. Power outages would be
akin to full-scale bombing of whole cities. The Defense Department knows this, but the
citizenry does not.
Something's wrong with this article. A newspaper is telling the world that the US is messing
around with Russia's power grid? Shouldn't this be super confidential? Basically now Russians
are allowed to re tagliate in any way for what the USA is doing. What would be the reaction
of the US if the situation was reversed? A bunch of blackouts in NYC, Chicago, San Francisco
and the Russians saying "we did it"? Our military would bomb them right away!
@Bruce1253, fragmented systems are inherently more resilient because one system going down
does not mean everything else goes down. But having fragmented CONTROLS over INTERCONNECTED
systems is more problematic. Lack of coordination will mean that if a problem occurs, there
will be lack of oversight and will not be able to react quickly enough to contain the
situation. As someone else also mentioned: old pre-Internet systems are actually far more
secure because they are off the grid. Attempts by companies to make things more efficient
(and profitable) actually makes them less secure. 9 Replies
"As Washington's strategy shifts to offense ..." What does the word "Washington" mean? It
*used* to mean the U.S. gov't -- when it used to speak with more or less one voice. But it
doesn't speak with one voice anymore. So, what does it mean now?
Here's the thing - if electricity goes out for any protracted time in the U.S., people will
die. Many people, and quickly. The fragile veneer of social cohesion will be the first, and
fatal, casualty.
If you are going to start covert operations that attack Russia's essential power grid, why
brag about it? American geeks conducting cyber war can't keep a secret is one answer. Its
certainly the wrong thing to do; it gives Putin more ammunition in his propaganda war against
the West, and ensures he remain the 'savior' of mother Russia for the people.
GREAT ! A military junta within the Trump regime...what could go wrong. I'm sure these
attacks are devastating to Russian citizens, but how will it compare when the Russians are
finally successful with similar attacks on us? They've already shown us what happens when
they blow up and election.
@GV and, I suppose the way the game is played, Putin, and any other leader of a country who
has suffered because of the US actions, and that list is long, should attach a price to our
misdeeds. The word "price" always reminds me of Secretary of State Madeleine Albright saying,
when asked about the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children due to US sanctions, "The price was
worth it". With the US has The Exceptional World Leader, the world may not survive in a
livable state. We need more Nelson Mandelas and Mikhail Gorbachevs. GV, do you know much
Russian history? Putin's misdeeds are so minor compared to the killing of hundreds of
thousands and wrecking of countries by the US... Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Somalia 14
Replies
What is wrong with this law system? Open demand on attacking energy sources which could lead
to casualties, property and environmental damage is an international criminal case and such
officials must be investigated and charged immediately to avoid subsequent collateral
effects.
There is a real danger in deploying cyber-mines in adversary systems. All code can be broken
and used in retaliation. Even so-called "encapsulated" code can be disassembled. STUXNET was
disassembled and repurposed as ransom-ware. To be effective in Internet-connected systems,
any attack-code must emulate "normal" behavior. To do this, publicly available programming
code, such as, Java, Perl, etc., is used as components of the attack-code. Once the
encapsulation of the code is broken, and it will be, the code can be reverse-engineered,
defended against, and repurposed to use against us. CYBERCOM, tread lightly.
Is it just me or shouldn't this kind of program be, you know, black? Eyes only, top secret.
The US would have a lot more to lose than Russia if we lost the East Coast for a few weeks.
We don't stockpile transformers which are the backbones of the grid so if Russia overloaded a
few thousand of them we'd be down for months. We shouldn't "overbound our steps" as Stan
Laurel used to say. 1 Reply
@Bruce1253 exactly. We experienced the giant blackout of 2003. You really can't imagine how
damaging this can be until you experience it. We lived somewhat near the interstate and
hundreds of people had to pull off at our exit - they were low on gas, and there was no way
to get gas. In the city, we know someone who was stuck in a subway under the East River for
hours not even knowing what had happened, then had to crawl through dirty tunnels to get up
to the streets. These are just the relatively minor things that happen in the first few
hours. People were generally helpful, but I can't imagine that lasting over a few days. we
don't need to be tested like this. We need to be protected. 9 Replies
Think on this for just a bit... These authorities were delegated downwards and the plans are
largely being kept from Trump because the military and other national security authorities
don't trust him not to tell Russia about them. That's right, the military does not trust
Trump not to tell Russia or "put Russia first." The good news is that as long as this story
stays in the newspapers and not on TV, Trump will never know about it.
Yes but is a useful narrative created by the Clinton campaign to justify their electoral
debacle. It also serves as a useful tool to seek to deligitimize Trump (like the Republicans
with Whitewater and 'birther' angles-- both parties equally rotten liars). What is most
dangerous is the Democrats resurrection of McCarthyite and jingoistic denunciations of
'foreign' influences (like BLM), and calls for greater and greater censorship of the media
and social media. While that seems attractive when applied to rightists, they are fools not
to understand it will be enforced against the left first and foremost. In Reply to Dan K
Oh great, American politicians who think power originates in the plug on the wall making
decisions about things that neither their IQ nor their training allow them to understand. I
can hear our President saying, "we just turned off power to the bad guys' houses and crime
dens". Meanwhile, our top leaders will never report how many die in the hospitals or
accidents that their messing with the power grids in other countries have caused. Just
like... bombing Iraq. Collateral damage: out of sight, out of mind.
@Socrates As usual, the article read in its entirety tells a different story about what the
President's involvement actually was and why presidential briefing wasn't required. "Mr.
Trump issued new authorities to Cyber Command last summer, in a still-classified document
known as National Security Presidential Memoranda 13, giving General Nakasone far more leeway
to conduct offensive online operations without receiving presidential approval." And as to
what the -- again, as usual, "anonymous") officials purportedly aside: "Because the new law
defines the actions in cyberspace as akin to traditional military activity on the ground, in
the air or at sea, no such briefing would be necessary, they added." In Reply to Mauichuck
@jrinsc Wisely our military and intelligence 'leaders' restrict information flow to
Individual-1. He is very Kirkland Russian asset. Remember that he passed Top Secret
information to Russians in the Oval Office as a Russian press entourage looked on. 16 Replies
This is a new definition of war in the 21st century, cyber-war, and I suspect that most
Americans, especially Trump supporters are nearly clueless about what is at stake. With Putin
and other authoritarian rulers, we must put on display our capabilities in more than nuclear
warheads and naval powers. I trust the U.S. intelligence agencies and military much more than
the executive branch of government. This is not my preference but it reflects the
unprecedented time in which we are living.
From yesterdays article on US doing trying to start a war with Iran. That was regarding oil
tankers that were attacked in the Gulf of Oman. Your editorial on that yesterday stated that
we need to stay on top of this tanker violence because of: "American objectives in Syria,
Iraq and elsewhere across the region." Those tankers are not American and the serial lying
about the middle east and Russia and of course Venezuela are pathetic. All of this combined
with climate change, world population growth and a news media that is only doing the
"Manufacturing Consent" thing for the corporations including military industrial complex can
only lead to world disaster. It is existential. Russia has been interfering with our military
recently and that is another horrid example of why Donald Trump is the worst president we
have ever had. A very dangerous man who surrounds himself with the most ignorant, hysterical,
people who support the military industrial complex over anything else. Billions and billions
of money is given to the military by the congress whenever they ask. We do not look for
peace; we look to support the MIC at all costs and those COSTS ARE VERY, VERY HIGH AND
GLOOMY. Attacking Russian power plants? Faking news for Venezuela and Iran? "American
objectives in Syria, Iraq and elsewhere across the region?" Wake up folks. It's up to you; no
one else can save us!
Imagine a world where one country tried to tell every other country in the world who to be
friends with, who to trade with, who their rulers should be, what products they should buy
and from whom, what laws they should pass, what meetings they should attend, how to live,
etc, etc. And imagine this same world where the people who lived in this bully of a country
thought they and their country had the God-given right to tell other people in other
countries how to live. Sounds like some future dystopian hellscape, right? Surprise! It's
not. This is 'Murica! in the 21st century on planet Earth.
How can we aggress in this manner and then be so indignant when it is done to us?? I hate
this!! I don't want to be a citizen of a country that attacks others. I want peace! Defense
is understandable; attack is not.
The newer and more digital a system is, the more vulnerable it is to hacking. The older and
less digital it is, the less vulnerable. That probably makes us more vulnerable than Russia,
but our somewhat obsolete infrastructure (the one we need to spend $1 trillion on) may be
less vulnerable than expected due to its obsolescence. The inherent immorality of going after
power plants, refineries, and other non-military targets is that the effects target
civilians. The fact that one nation may have done so (Russia, to Ukraine's electricity during
a winter) does not justify another nation doing the same.
This entire notification is a message for one person... Trump. This is the intelligence
agencies using their newfound powers that lack White House oversight, to signal to the White
House that the intelligence agencies are DEEP inside Russia's systems and that they will know
if Trump shows up inside those systems during the next election cycle. They can't stop Russia
from waging cyber war... and they can't stop Trump from welcoming help from or siding with
Russia... but they can send a message that they will know if this administration "goes
there"... again...
@Stan Chaz MAD [mutual assured destruction] between Russia and the United States prevented
nuclear devastation because both sides knew they couldn't win. We are in a different universe
now. Russia, with its poor economy one fifth of the US is no longer a superpower, although it
is rebuilding its network of client states [with some like Cuba and Venezuela dying on the
vine, and other former satellites like Ukraine and Georgia resisting their reacquisition by
Russia.] China is also a growing player, expanding its wealth an political and economic
strength. Various quasi stateless terrorist groups can damage the US and not experience
appropriate retaliation because they have no official governments or homelands to hold
accountable. In Reply to Ron
@David Henderson I would suggest going back and reading some of the material Edward Snowden
revealed about the NSA. Those capabilities will be oriented toward this objective now rather
than just conventional espionage. The expertise is second to none. For that matter, read the
DOJ indictment of the 12 GRU officers who hacked the DNC. The amount of detail described
there will make you understand their capabilities. It's as if they were in the room with
them. 7 Replies
This is very concerning on why the Trump administration would disclose this to the public.
What's their motive? More concerning is that Trump in his infinite wisdom had the idea of
setting up a joint cyber security task force with none other than Russia. Weird.
@Telly55 And this from the article. Pentagon and intelligence officials described broad
hesitation to go into detail with Mr. Trump about operations against Russia for concern over
his reaction -- and the possibility that he might countermand it or discuss it with foreign
officials, as he did in 2017 when he mentioned a sensitive operation in Syria to the Russian
foreign minister. 4 Replies
I am not so sure I believe much in this. Bragging about such a program would be
counterproductive. Meanwhile, our Republican president and Senate continue to deny Russian
interference in our elections and do nothing about it.
Anyone who thinks that our military is not constantly fighting our enemies doesn't know
anything about the military. Some version of this kind of thing has been ongoing throughout
history. They are very good at it, often the best in the world. That the US officials would
reveal this information can be nothing but part of a strategy related to global objectives,
including but not limited to Russia. The revelation itself can be considered a kind of
weapon, though, of course, the general public is not privy to it's purpose. I trust the
competence of our military almost completely, but I do not trust their ability to set
national policy. They control some enormous hammers, and there are many things in the world
that could look like a nail. The erosion of civilian oversight described in this article is
terrifying. Unfortunately we're all getting used to that.
All of which begs the question, why on earth do we spend about $750 billion a year on
military hardware and personnel, when our adversaries have learned to do as much damage as
they want without firing a shell, torpedo or missile? And, it would appear -- and one would
hope -- so can we. It cost Russia next to nothing to commence the unraveling of America's
political system - a few hackers sitting in cubicles, each with a laptop and an internet
connection accomplished that, with the help of Fox News, facebook, instagram, you tube and,
above all, an uneducated, bible-thumping American populace uninterested in facts and
seemingly incapable of rational thought.
To whom it may concern: This article would be far more credible if it listed the names of the
companies that make and sell the vulnerable power plant operating systems, transmission line
management systems, and the power distribution systems. Which systems are vulnerable?
Emerson's? ABB's? Siemens? Who's switch gear is vulnerable? Are they infiltrating the
operating systems, the sensors, communications, the actuators, or maybe even the metering?
Even the US electric grid is, for the most part, very unsophisticated. Grid operators have
very limited visibility into what is happening on the grid. In most of the US, when there is
a power outage, linemen are dispatched in trucks to visually look for downed wires with their
eyes!!! No computers needed. Combine the fact that Trump shows no interest in fighting
election interference with the improbability of vast penetration into the electric grid and
all you have left is a paper tiger named John Bolton. This article is likely fake news. Mike
I don't quite understand this, if US know that Russia is illegally hacking in to US power
grids you either remove the malware or lodge a complaint with with the UN or whatever
international authorities involved. If you hack back then you are no better then Russia.
HOW TO WIN AN ELECTION WITHOUT STEALING ANY EMAILS 1 Restrict early voting in key swing
states 2 Pass laws discouraging absentee ballots in those same states 3 On election day, turn
off the power in the core of every large city where democrats usually win by large margins,
heavily suppressing turnout 4 Count the ballots: Trump wins the state and is re-elected
President.
My concern with US cyber warfare is the possibility the same code is turned around and used
against us or our allies (I think we still have those outside outside our favored Sunni and
right wing autocracies). The possibility of boomerang cyber mischief isn't confined to
governments either. Remember the stolen NSA hacking tools that ended up on the dark web?
Those have been turned against municipal governments and individuals in the form of ransom
ware. Perhaps we can limit such risks by forming the most sophisticated cyber weapons as
binary tools. Ones where the full capability isn't effective without two secret parts, only
one part of which is installed in an adversary's infrastructure. But once fully deployed,
there's still the risk the weapon is identified, preserved, and later redeployed against us.
I think there are also ways for our adversaries to guard against erasure protocols within
cyber weapons. Lastly, we still don't know if our president is a Russian asset. Maybe he just
really likes murderous kleptocrats and autocrats like Putin, Kim, MBS, MBZ, and Duterte.
Maybe he just has to talk privately with no one else from our side listening. Either way,
none of our current top secrets or foreign intelligence assets may be safe while he's in
office, or even after he leaves (unless he's in jail).
@maureen f. Israel released Stuxnet, just a minor correction there. That is actually more
problem than had we done it, Israel is more unstable than we are, and that says something. In
Reply to B. Honest
What was published here is not classified and if you read the article, you will know that
administration officials had no problem with the publication of this work. Assange, on the
other hand, definitely published stolen classified information and may have solicited and
facilitated its acquisition -- a crime. In Reply to Jim
I thought that Trump is a stooge of Putin, so, he won't take any action against Russia. This
is the misinformation NY Times and other fake news have been telling Americans and the world.
Now by releasing this classified information they are jeopardizing American National
security. No wonder they are called enemies of the people. 2 Replies
Escalating attacks? Or informing Russia of their weaknesses? Cyber assault is inherently
centered around stealth. Sounds to me like Trump is intentionally tipping our hand. A
submarine isn't much use if you teach your enemy how to find it. The description presented
here more closely resembles a joint exercise. However, the US is the only one providing
intelligence. Surprise, surprise. Unilaterally providing intelligence to Putin no less.
US taxpayers still paying for government officials to create new malware that will eventually
be turned against US taxpayers. Thanks "public servants".
@M Trump has made unpresented changes much like a fascist dictator, which he wants to be.
It's just a wing and a prayer that our government hasn't ceased to function effectively, due
to long-standing norms and those who would resist his worst impulses. All Russia would need
is another cosy private meeting with Trump to have him bragging about this new secret weapon
to deliver all this for Comrad Putin to use on us. Flattery is the way to his heart and there
goes everything that should be kept under wraps for security. 8 Replies
@GV Couldn't agree more! And it would make the Straits of Hormuz attach a much different
issue. What's it going to take to get this oil addicted country to switch to renewables? I
guess we'll find out. 14 Replies
This doesn't bode well for Putin's next job performance appraisal of the POTUS he worked so
hard to put into power. Trump's been kept in the dark by Americans who aren't subservient to
Putin.
I keep 14 days worth of water, food, and candles in my apt. I live on the 12th floor and
twice a week I use the stairs to get up to my apt. I also keep a shotgun and cash
You see how Donald Trump's Iran claims were eaten up by the mainstream media. Now you see how
Trump is playing both sides. He claims he wants to be lenient with Russia (which is a fool's
errand) but his administration is getting tougher with Russia. Trump is easy to manipulate
because he is so beholden to so many interests. Sorry to say it, but this makes him an
attractive candidate to powerful interests.
The best defense is a good offense, and a vital part of this American offensive capability is
to keep the details out of the hands of this president. I have long waited to hear of how we
are actively and effectively responding to Russian aggression, but in this age of Trump I
have feared his ability to undermine any steps on our part. Of course he is beholden to the
regime that got him elected. It is essential to counter the aggression of authoritarian
regimes like Putin's and just as important to rid America in 2020 of the authoritarian menace
that is Donald Trump.
I thought America was the country that always played by the rules, and we're upset because
we've been taken advantage of for too long. But apparently we're attacking another nation's
power grid. Hypocrites we are. It's better if we're just honest with ourselves. Admit that we
spin facts to feed our narrative, to justify the damage we cause to other nations. Next
nation to justify going to war with? China. Cause only we can be #1.
Finally something presidential about Trump. They say there's a lot of symbolism to the
presidency and this piece reflects an instance where he's president in name only.
GOOD! About time we started punching back. Russia is mistaken if it thinks it can wantonly
interfere in other countries (Salisbury, 2016, etc.) without repercussion. Good job boys.
Well, if the US decides to engage in some covert cyber-warfare then we should be safe,
because the NSA has some really powerful hacking tools. So I'm sleeping easy tonight. Oh,
wait, you say those tools got misplaced and lost? Never mind then, just buy some candles for
light and a Coleman stove to cook on. You'll be fine; it'll be fun, just like camping out. In
your own kitchen.
Its obvious that we need to protect our online infrastructure in ways we have never done
before, which a majority of the US economy uses. If this is not the case I get nervous if we
start kicking the hornets next and we are not fully prepared for the response. As a consumer
I am very wary of buying and using " smart" products in my home. It is obvious that the
private sector has not even fortified their own firewalls to protect themselves. Do you think
that Alexsa or that new refrigerator will have the level of encryption and protection guess
against even the most basic cyber attack. I think a parallel approach is to fortify our own
network in ways that have not occurred before, but sadly too much of these illegal breaches
are based on human error and when it comes to that one you will never be fully secure. It is
clear the rules of engagement for cyber warfare need to be discussed and treaties need to be
put in play to protect civilians, who sadly in warfare always pay the highest prices when our
maligned leaders, like the one currently holding office, go off the deep end.
@Bruce1253 Agree. However, imagine your life without any power, for good? Everyone involved,
whether they be American, Russian, Chinese, Korean, etc. is playing a deadly chess game, and
humanity are the pawns. 9 Replies
So now we are going to attack other countries power grids , to hurt citizens like it seems we
did to Venezuela to try and install our puppet Gaido, because we want to control their oil
the largest in the world. We did not like their election of President Maduro so we tried to
overthrow him because he wasn't willing to be controlled, like the 73% of dictators around
the world that are our allies that we sell arms too. We have never cared about other
countries elections, I also wonder if our elections are rigged, with our electronic machines
supplied by questionable corporations. Now we are blaming the Russian government for what a
troll farm company did in Russia buying election ads for clickbait so they could profit. This
sounds like the 1950's red scare. Russia should be our friend just like Iran, except we ally
with countries like Saudi Arabia the largest financier of terrorist groups like Al Qaeda and
that spreads Wahhabism. This is all so our Military Industrial Complex can profit needing
ever larger weapons systems. Peace is not profitable it seems for our Oligarchy.
If the US is openly pursuing this course, and succeeds, I would expect Putin to hit back in
kind, by shutting down the power grids of America's less prepared allies. Like Canada, where
our aging power grid is already struggling, without being attacked. 1 Reply
I'm not sure we want to perpetuate this tactic as fair game in war. Do we want our power grid
hacked? This puts regular people at risk of have no electricity, no heat, no AC. Our war is
not with regular people. Our war is with oligarchs.
"Under the law, those actions [cyber espionage against U.S. adversaries] can now be
authorized by the defense secretary without special presidential approval." Because Donny
would pick up the phone to tattle to his BFF Vlad.
I thought the stable genius did not reveal what he was doing in terms of attacking another
country. And if his good bro, Putin, said nothing was going on, why is the US attacking
Russia? (sarcasm).
What an absurd, clearly unprecedented, and highly dangerous state this country is in when the
Commander-in-Chief, as reported herein, cannot be trusted by our own military and
intelligence leaders with probably compartmentalized, top secret classified information about
our cyber warfare capabilities and plans against Russia for fear that he could very well
compromise the operation. Isn't this yet another reason why Trump should be removed from
office by impeachment? What his own Administration's national security people are saying is
that their leader cannot be trusted with the most sensitive information held by the
government. If this Fake President is a threat to the nation on a scale of that profound
magnitude, he cannot and must not be allowed to remain in office. Congress, are you
listening???
"Two administration officials said they believed Mr. Trump had not been briefed in any
detail..." Um, isn't it normal procedure to brief the president of the United States about
major changes in military strategy like this? I mean, the president is supposedly "commander
in chief." How about Congress, or at least the relevant Congressional committees? Are they
being kept in the loop? Or are Bolton and Co. just winging it on their own? If so, that's
quite disturbing.
So if a Russian nuclear plant has a meltdown or other catastrophe, will they be justified in
wondering if the US caused it? Also, the malware against Iran spread to other countries even
thought that was not intended to do so.
Wasn't their just an excellent show on HBO that shows what happens when you mess with
controlling power? No, not Game of Thrones. Chernobyl. Nuclear comprises 20% of Russia's
electricity generation. Do we really want our fingerprints all over the crime scene should
something go wrong? Can't we mess with computer controlled vodka distillation instead?
Let me understand this. The same USA that is outraged by Russian election hacking is
simultaneously conducting cyber-attacks on Russian infrastructure? This situation would be
merely ironic if it weren't so callously hypocritical.
It would be nice to think that the self proclaimed 'genius Trump knows something about the
cyber war we are fighting or at least trust the experts on the front lines of this war. As it
is he looks into Putin's eyes and declares him without sin and denies that Russia used cyber
space to hack our 2016 elections and even declares that this information can be used to help
his campaign. He prevaricates a little, but we heard you the first time, Mr.Trump. Our
intelligence agencies may be planting these bugs in the Russian electric grid, but what we
need is a leader who has the intelligence and wisdom to guide its use.
So CyberCommand doesn't brief the President because (1) they don't think the law requires
them to do so, (2) and they don't trust him with important information? This is deeply
disturbing on multiple fronts.
@Barbara, in the past, before urbanism, it was possible to survive because you could live off
the land. This is not a possibility in the middle of NYC, DC or SF. 9 Replies
Interesting that this Israeli-First traitor Clawson mentions Lincoln and Ft. Sumter. He finally admits what genuine historians
of the Civil War long knew: Lincoln was a warmonger and tyrant, not an emancipator. The Civil war was fought to eliminate true
freedom and equality in this country and it has been downhill ever since. The working class and soldier-class in America today
are slaves in every sense of the word. Slaves to Zion. No wonder the certified warmonger and racist Lincoln is worshiped equally
by Left and Right today, whilst genuine American patriots like Robert E. Lee have their legacy torn down. Lincoln was the proto-Neocon.
Tom Dilorenzo summed up the real Lincoln when he wrote in Lincoln Unmasked:
"Imagine that California seceded from the union and an American president responded with the carpet bombing of Los Angeles,
San Diego, and San Francisco that destroyed 90 percent of those cities. Such was the case with General Sherman's bombardment of
Atlanta; a naval blockade; a blocking off of virtually all trade; the eviction of thousands of residents from their homes (as
occurred in Atlanta in 1864); the destruction of most industries and farms; massive looting of private property by a marauding
army; and the killing of one out of four males of military age while maiming for life more than double that number. Would such
an American president be considered a 'great statesman' or a war criminal? The answer is obvious.
A statesman would have recognized the state's right to secede, as enshrined in the Tenth Amendment, among other places, and
then worked diligently to persuade the seceded state that a reunion was in its best interest. Agreat statesman, or even a modest
one, would not have impulsively plunged the entire nation into a bloody war.
Lincoln's warmongering belligerence and his invasion of all the Southern states in response to Fort Sumter (where no one was
harmed or killed) caused the upper South -- Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas -- to secede after originally voting
to remain in the Union. He refused to meet with Confederate commissioners to discuss peace and even declined a meeting with Napoleon
III of France, who offered to broker a peace agreement. No genuine statesman would have behaved in such a way.
After Fort Sumter, Lincoln thanked naval commander Gustavus Fox for assisting him in manipulating the South Carolinians into
firing at Fort Sumter. A great statesman does not manipulate his own people into starting one of the bloodiest wars in human history."
mathias alexand
Here's a man who holds a press conference to announce a secret plan. Only in America.
False flags here, false flags there, false flags everywhere. All too further the aims of the 'masters of the universe'. We know
who was responsible for the tanker attacks. Who are the 3 countries absolutely desperate to take Iran down and install a completely
pliant puppet regime answerable to Washington, Tel Aviv and to a lesser extent Riyadh. And creatures like Clawson, and all the
other vermin can only see $$$$. Thats all they care about. Opening up more markets to further enrich themselves. I echo the other
commenters also. The evil men stoop to for greed, power and control. Psychopaths.
harry law
The Foreign Office issued a statement saying: "It is almost certain that a branch of the Iranian military – the Islamic Revolutionary
Guard Corps – attacked the two tankers on 13 June. No other state or non-state actor could plausibly have been responsible."
Unbelievable, The UK vassal will use this to as one more reason to evade their responsibilities in implementing the JCPOA.
Well they would say that, wouldn't they. The UK vassal state will spout any peice of crap in their assigned role as vassal state.
Australia is just as gushingly sycophantic and cravenly jellified.
Er . just a rough guess Bill going on the belligerent foaming at the mouth by people in those places along with the likes of Bolton
and Pompeo. In fact, you can probably go all the way back to about 1980 or so.
mark
I think the real giveaway was when all three rogue states openly stated their intention of doing this 1,000 times over the past
10 years. That was the crucial clue Sherlock Holmes was looking for.
Wilmers31
And who funds the Washington Institute? Last time I looked the International Crisis Group existed thanks to Soros and is usually
treated like a serious organisation.
Many Europeans are not in love with the idea of war with Iran, just to achieve obedience to the US. 90 million people is bigger
than Germany.
wardropper
These are the shysters, the spivs and the con men of bygone times. They are the ones who lurked at street corners, waiting for
someone to come along who was gullible enough to buy the Moon from them.
But, for some reason, they are all in politics today.
Now how could that be?
Only because there are people whom it currently suits to use shysters, spivs and con men in order to create enough chaos for
us to want to give up and just let those people have their way.
I agree with Rhys below. There is no more disgusting example of sub-humanity to be found on earth than these warmongers.
To deal with them, however, we will have to realize that their "philosophy", if you can call it that, runs very deep. It didn't
just enter their heads last week.
They are reared and trained in it.
It will be a tough battle.
wardropper
I should add that, in bygone times, the police and the law were usually able to deal with the shysters, spivs and con men, since
their lack of conscience often gave them away.
The modern version, however, which has moved into politics, was shrewd enough to use a few decades of bribery and threats in order
to build around itself a nice little shell, through which the law simply cannot penetrate, except on special occasions, mainly
for show.
Rhys Jaggar
There is a big cabal of warmongers who stoke the fuel but never see action. I find those people more disgusting than anyone on
earth.
Draft dodgers, academics, 'historians' etc etc.
Ball-less pricks is what I call them .
mark
All fully paid up members of the Bill Clinton Light Infantry.
William HBonney
Yeah, well I'm not a great fan of those who would appease Assad, Putin, Hussein, Gaddafi
You must be so proud.
andyoldlabour
The appeasers would include the US who fully supported Saddam Hussein in his war against Iran, who provided him with chemical
weapons and logistical help in using those weapons, which killed around 50,000 Iranian troops and Kurdish civilians.
The same appeasers armed and funded the Taliban (Mujahideen) against the Soviets.
The US are the single largest force for terrorism the World has ever seen.
William HBonney
The easiest, and perhaps best metric by which to judge a country, is 'do people aspire to live there? '.
I see you admire the Soviet Union, but at its dissolution, people were queuing to leave. And yet the US, and the UK, according
to you, iniquitous places of tyranny, are oversubscribed. Could it be, that for all your implied erudition, you are merely a bellend?
axisofoil
You must be a big fan of CNN and the NYT. Ignorance is bliss, isn't it?
BigB
Well, even as a pacifist: if that is his sentiment – I hope he has sons or daughters in the military stationed in CENTCOM in Qatar.
I bet he hasn't, though.
Rhisiart Gwilym
He should be right there on the frontline himself. That would straighten the disgusting creep's ideas out about the 'usefulness'
of deliberately provoking war
"... The appeasers would include the US who fully supported Saddam Hussein in his war against Iran, who provided him with chemical weapons and logistical help in using those weapons, which killed around 50,000 Iranian troops and Kurdish civilians. The same appeasers armed and funded the Taliban (Mujahideen) against the Soviets. The US are the single largest force for terrorism the World has ever seen. ..."
WATCH: US economist urges covert violence to provoke war with Iran "I mean look people, Iranian submarines periodically
go down – someday one of them might not come up." Admin
Many believe war with the Islamic Republic of Iran has been the dream of some hardcore neocons in Washington since at least 2001.
Back in 2012 former employee of the IMF and current economist for the World Bank,
Patrick Clawson , provided fuel for this belief when
he was videoed obliquely advocating using covert violence so that the US president "can get to war with Iran."
In a startlingly frank speech, Clawson makes it clear he believes (and apparently approves) that the US has a history of seeking
war for profit, and of using provocations to goad its perceived enemies into starting such wars. Clawson highlights in particular
the Confederate attack on Fort Sumter in 1861
, which, he says, was deliberately engineered by president Lincoln in pursuit of an excuse to launch a war on the Southern secessionist
states.
In light of the recent alleged attacks on two tankers in the Gulf of Oman, timed to coincide with the visit of the Japanese prime
minister to Iran, and in light of Secretary of State Capone Pompeo's precipitate and predictable claim the attacks were
likely perpetrated by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, this is an apposite time to recall this telling little incident.
Below see the transcript of Mr Clawson's remarks
Transcript
"I frankly think that crisis initiation is really tough and it's very hard for me to see how the United States president can get
us to war with Iran which leads me to conclude that if in fact compromise is not coming that the traditional way of America gets
to war is what would be best for US interests
Some people might think that mr. Roosevelt wanted to get us in to the World War two as David mentioned. You may recall we had
to wait for Pearl Harbor.
Some people might think mr. Wilson wanted to get us into World War One. You may recall he had to wait for the Lusitania episode
Some people might think that mr. Johnson wanted to send troops to Vietnam. You may recall they had to wait for the Gulf of Tonkin
episode.
We didn't go to war with Spain until the USS Maine exploded, and may I point out that mr. Lincoln did not feel he could call off
the federal army until Fort Sumter was attacked which is why he ordered the commander at Fort Sumter to do exactly that thing which
the South Carolinians had said would cause an attack.
So if in fact the Iranians aren't going to compromise it would be best if somebody else started the war
But I would just like to suggest that one can combine other means of pressure with sanctions. I mentioned that explosion on August
17th. We could step up the pressure. I mean look people, Iranian submarines periodically go down – someday one of them
might not come up.
Who would know why?
We can do a variety of things if we wish to increase the pressure. I'm not advocating that but I'm just suggesting that a it's
this is not a either-or proposition of, you know, it's just sanctions has to be has to succeed or other things.
DunGroanin
Always follow the money they made lots instantly from the firework display, it aint rocket science!
What do you expect from a Zionist Front like WINEP? They've been inciting wars for Israel for decades. "Getting the stupid goys
to fight Israel's wars for decades."
Jen
If Patrick Clawson is typical of the kind of economist employed at the IMF and then promoted to a leading position at the World
Bank, I dread to think of the calibre of people who also applied for his job in the past and were rejected. His speech is so garbled
and full of unconscious slip-ups.
andyoldlabour
The US has convinced itself of its own so called "exceptionalism", where they can say anything out in the open, reveal their greatest
desires, their unholy plans. There must be some "good" Americans who can stop this madness, or have they all become inflicted/infected
with some hate virus?
Milton
Interesting that this Israeli-First traitor Clawson mentions Lincoln and Ft. Sumter. He finally admits what genuine historians
of the Civil War long knew: Lincoln was a warmonger and tyrant, not an emancipator. The Civil war was fought to eliminate true
freedom and equality in this country and it has been downhill ever since. The working class and soldier-class in America today
are slaves in every sense of the word. Slaves to Zion. No wonder the certified warmonger and racist Lincoln is worshiped equally
by Left and Right today, whilst genuine American patriots like Robert E. Lee have their legacy torn down. Lincoln was the proto-Neocon.
Tom Dilorenzo summed up the real Lincoln when he wrote in Lincoln Unmasked:
"Imagine that California seceded from the union and an American president responded with the carpet bombing of Los Angeles,
San Diego, and San Francisco that destroyed 90 percent of those cities. Such was the case with General Sherman's bombardment of
Atlanta; a naval blockade; a blocking off of virtually all trade; the eviction of thousands of residents from their homes (as
occurred in Atlanta in 1864); the destruction of most industries and farms; massive looting of private property by a marauding
army; and the killing of one out of four males of military age while maiming for life more than double that number. Would such
an American president be considered a 'great statesman' or a war criminal? The answer is obvious.
A statesman would have recognized the state's right to secede, as enshrined in the Tenth Amendment, among other places, and
then worked diligently to persuade the seceded state that a reunion was in its best interest. Agreat statesman, or even a modest
one, would not have impulsively plunged the entire nation into a bloody war.
Lincoln's warmongering belligerence and his invasion of all the Southern states in response to Fort Sumter (where no one was
harmed or killed) caused the upper South -- Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas -- to secede after originally voting
to remain in the Union. He refused to meet with Confederate commissioners to discuss peace and even declined a meeting with Napoleon
III of France, who offered to broker a peace agreement. No genuine statesman would have behaved in such a way.
After Fort Sumter, Lincoln thanked naval commander Gustavus Fox for assisting him in manipulating the South Carolinians into
firing at Fort Sumter. A great statesman does not manipulate his own people into starting one of the bloodiest wars in human history."
mathias alexand
Here's a man who holds a press conference to announce a secret plan. Only in America.
False flags here, false flags there, false flags everywhere. All too further the aims of the 'masters of the universe'. We know
who was responsible for the tanker attacks. Who are the 3 countries absolutely desperate to take Iran down and install a completely
pliant puppet regime answerable to Washington, Tel Aviv and to a lesser extent Riyadh. And creatures like Clawson, and all the
other vermin can only see $$$$. Thats all they care about. Opening up more markets to further enrich themselves. I echo the other
commenters also. The evil men stoop to for greed, power and control. Psychopaths.
harry law
The Foreign Office issued a statement saying: "It is almost certain that a branch of the Iranian military – the Islamic Revolutionary
Guard Corps – attacked the two tankers on 13 June. No other state or non-state actor could plausibly have been responsible."
Unbelievable, The UK vassal will use this to as one more reason to evade their responsibilities in implementing the JCPOA.
Er . just a rough guess Bill going on the belligerent foaming at the mouth by people in those places along with the likes of Bolton
and Pompeo. In fact, you can probably go all the way back to about 1980 or so.
mark
I think the real giveaway was when all three rogue states openly stated their intention of doing this 1,000 times over the past
10 years. That was the crucial clue Sherlock Holmes was looking for.
Wilmers31
And who funds the Washington Institute? Last time I looked the International Crisis Group existed thanks to Soros and is usually
treated like a serious organisation.
Many Europeans are not in love with the idea of war with Iran, just to achieve obedience to the US. 90 million people is bigger
than Germany.
wardropper
These are the shysters, the spivs and the con men of bygone times. They are the ones who lurked at street corners, waiting for
someone to come along who was gullible enough to buy the Moon from them.
But, for some reason, they are all in politics today.
Now how could that be?
Only because there are people whom it currently suits to use shysters, spivs and con men in order to create enough chaos for
us to want to give up and just let those people have their way.
I agree with Rhys below. There is no more disgusting example of sub-humanity to be found on earth than these warmongers.
To deal with them, however, we will have to realize that their "philosophy", if you can call it that, runs very deep. It didn't
just enter their heads last week.
They are reared and trained in it.
It will be a tough battle.
wardropper
I should add that, in bygone times, the police and the law were usually able to deal with the shysters, spivs and con men, since
their lack of conscience often gave them away.
The modern version, however, which has moved into politics, was shrewd enough to use a few decades of bribery and threats in order
to build around itself a nice little shell, through which the law simply cannot penetrate, except on special occasions, mainly
for show.
Rhys Jaggar
There is a big cabal of warmongers who stoke the fuel but never see action. I find those people more disgusting than anyone on
earth.
Draft dodgers, academics, 'historians' etc etc.
Ball-less pricks is what I call them .
mark
All fully paid up members of the Bill Clinton Light Infantry.
andyoldlabour
The appeasers would include the US who fully supported Saddam Hussein in his war against Iran, who provided him with chemical
weapons and logistical help in using those weapons, which killed around 50,000 Iranian troops and Kurdish civilians.
The same appeasers armed and funded the Taliban (Mujahideen) against the Soviets.
The US are the single largest force for terrorism the World has ever seen.
William HBonney
The easiest, and perhaps best metric by which to judge a country, is 'do people aspire to live there? '.
I see you admire the Soviet Union, but at its dissolution, people were queuing to leave. And yet the US, and the UK, according
to you, iniquitous places of tyranny, are oversubscribed. Could it be, that for all your implied erudition, you are merely a bellend?
BigB
Well, even as a pacifist: if that is his sentiment – I hope he has sons or daughters in the military stationed in CENTCOM in Qatar.
I bet he hasn't, though.
Rhisiart Gwilym
He should be right there on the frontline himself. That would straighten the disgusting creep's ideas out about the 'usefulness'
of deliberately provoking war
All these newspapers used to have foreign bureaus. Now they don't. They call us to explain
to them what's happening in Moscow and Cairo.
Most of the outlets are reporting on world events from Washington. The average reporter we
talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around
political campaigns.
That's a sea change. They literally know nothing.
-Ben Rhodes, Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications under Obama
"Real journalism" is propaganda from Washington DC.
The news simply quotes the politicians, believes the names of bills will become reality, and
buys hook, line, and sinker what the spy-masters in the Pentagon tell them.
And here we are again, being sold a justification for yet another war in the middle
east.
The US government claims that Iran attacked a Japanese shipping vessel with mines. Iran
claims this is a lie.
The events just seem too perfect, justifying what America already wanted: to go to war.
It doesn't even have to be an American-orchestrated false flag. It could simply be a
misrepresentation, like the Gulf of Tonkin incidents which escalated the Vietnam War.
The US said that North Vietnam attacked its ship, but the truth was that the American ship
fired the first "warning shots." In the end, the American ship sustained one bullet hole and no
casualties, while four North Vietnamese soldiers were killed.
But most Americans would never even hear about the Gulf of Tonkin if it wasn't for fake news
sites like Babylon Bee.
The headline reads : John Bolton: 'When Has The Government Ever Lied About Attacks On Ships
In A Gulf Somewhere Just To Provoke War?'
Then it offers a fake quote from Trump's National Security Advisor John Bolton:
"When has the government ever lied about ships being attacked, say in a gulf somewhere,
for the purpose of getting involved in another foreign conflict?" he asked. "Can you point to
a single time a lie about a minor attack resulted in a major unnecessary war? No, I didn't
think so," he said.
"These attacks in the Gulf of Tonk -- er, I mean, the Gulf of Oman, excuse me -- were
definitely carried out by Iran, and we need to invade immediately before people start
doubting the narrative."
Most Americans might not know who notorious warmonger John Bolton is.
Bolton's been creeping around DC since the Nixon administration. He was involved in the
Iran-Contra scandal and was instrumental in spreading the lies about weapons of mass
destruction in Iraq.
In 2002, he gave a speech revealing his war wish list which, surprise surprise , included
Iraq, Iran, Libya, and Syria (as well as North Korea and Cuba).
What else could fake news websites help us learn about John Bolton and the American policies
he has contributed to?
"If I like war as much as you all say I do, wouldn't I have jumped at the chance to take
part in one, instead of joining the reserves to avoid being deployed?" Bolton challenged
reporters during a press conference on Tuesday.
Bolton went on to reference his distinguished record of not going to war, sources said. He
presented reporters with a copy of his Yale 25th Reunion Book, in which he wrote that he
avoided service in Vietnam because he "had no desire to die in a Southeast Asian rice
paddy."
That last quote from the yearbook, is actually 100% true, by the way.
"... "The Times has run neck-and-neck with the Washington Post in stirring up fears of the Russian information war and illicit involvement with Trump. The Times now easily conflates fake news with any criticism of established institutions, as in Mark Scott and Melissa Eddy's 'Europe Combats a New Foe of Political Stability: Fake News,' February 20, 2017. But what is more extraordinary is the uniformity with which the paper's regular columnists accept as a given the CIA's assessment of the Russian hacking and transmission to WikiLeaks, the possibility or likelihood that Trump is a Putin puppet, and the urgent need of a congressional and 'non-partisan' investigation of these claims. This swallowing of a new war-party line has extended widely in the liberal media. Both the Times and Washington Post have lent tacit support to the idea that this 'fake news' threat needs to be curbed, possibly by some form of voluntary media-organized censorship or government intervention that would at least expose the fakery. ..."
"... "The most remarkable media episode in this anti-influence-campaign was the Post's piece by Craig Timberg, 'Russian propaganda effort helped spread 'fake news' during election, experts say,' which featured a report by a group of anonymous "experts" entity called PropOrNot that claimed to have identified two hundred websites that, wittingly or not, were 'routine peddlers of Russian propaganda.' While smearing these websites, many of them independent news outlets whose only shared trait was their critical stance toward U.S. foreign policy, the 'experts' refused to identify themselves, allegedly out of fear of being 'targeted by legions of skilled hackers.' As journalist Matt Taibbi wrote, 'You want to blacklist hundreds of people, but you won't put your name to your claims? Take a hike.' ..."
"... But the Post welcomed and promoted this McCarthyite effort, which might well be a product of Pentagon or CIA information warfare. (And these entities are themselves well-funded and heavily into the propaganda business.) ..."
"... "The success of the war party's campaign to contain or reverse any tendency to ease tensions with Russia was made dramatically clear in the Trump administration's speedy bombing response to the April 4, 2017, Syrian chemical weapons deaths. The Times and other mainstream media editors and journalists greeted this aggressive move with almost uniform enthusiasm, and once again did not require evidence of Assad's guilt beyond their government's claims. The action was damaging to Assad and Russia, but served the rebels well. ..."
"It has been amusing to watch the New York Times and other mainstream media outlets express their dismay over the rise and
spread of 'fake news.' These publications take it as an obvious truth that what they provide is straightforward, unbiased, fact-based
reporting. They do offer such news, but they also provide a steady flow of their own varied forms of fake news, often by disseminating
false or misleading information supplied to them by the national security state, other branches of government, and sites of corporate
power.
"An important form of mainstream media fake news is that which is presented while suppressing information that calls the preferred
news into question. [ ]
"The Times has run neck-and-neck with the Washington Post in stirring up fears of the Russian information war and illicit involvement
with Trump. The Times now easily conflates fake news with any criticism of established institutions, as in Mark Scott and Melissa
Eddy's 'Europe Combats a New Foe of Political Stability: Fake News,' February 20, 2017. But what is more extraordinary is the
uniformity with which the paper's regular columnists accept as a given the CIA's assessment of the Russian hacking and transmission
to WikiLeaks, the possibility or likelihood that Trump is a Putin puppet, and the urgent need of a congressional and 'non-partisan'
investigation of these claims. This swallowing of a new war-party line has extended widely in the liberal media. Both the Times
and Washington Post have lent tacit support to the idea that this 'fake news' threat needs to be curbed, possibly by some form
of voluntary media-organized censorship or government intervention that would at least expose the fakery.
"The most remarkable media episode in this anti-influence-campaign was the Post's piece by Craig Timberg, 'Russian propaganda
effort helped spread 'fake news' during election, experts say,' which featured a report by a group of anonymous "experts" entity
called PropOrNot that claimed to have identified two hundred websites that, wittingly or not, were 'routine peddlers of Russian
propaganda.' While smearing these websites, many of them independent news outlets whose only shared trait was their critical stance
toward U.S. foreign policy, the 'experts' refused to identify themselves, allegedly out of fear of being 'targeted by legions
of skilled hackers.' As journalist Matt Taibbi wrote, 'You want to blacklist hundreds of people, but you won't put your name to
your claims? Take a hike.'
But the Post welcomed and promoted this McCarthyite effort, which might well be a product of Pentagon
or CIA information warfare. (And these entities are themselves well-funded and heavily into the propaganda business.)
"On December 23, 2016, President Obama signed the Portman-Murphy Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act, which will supposedly
allow the United States to more effectively combat foreign (namely Russian and Chinese) propaganda and disinformation. It will
encourage more government counter-propaganda efforts, and provide funding to non-government entities to help in this enterprise.
It is clearly a follow-on to the claims of Russian hacking and propaganda, and shares the spirit of the listing of two hundred
tools of Moscow featured in the Washington Post. (Perhaps PropOrNot will qualify for a subsidy and be able to enlarge its list.)
Liberals have been quiet on this new threat to freedom of speech, undoubtedly influenced by their fears of Russian-based fake
news and propaganda. But they may yet take notice, even if belatedly, when Trump or one of his successors puts it to work on their
own notions of fake news and propaganda.
"The success of the war party's campaign to contain or reverse any tendency to ease tensions with Russia was made dramatically
clear in the Trump administration's speedy bombing response to the April 4, 2017, Syrian chemical weapons deaths. The Times and
other mainstream media editors and journalists greeted this aggressive move with almost uniform enthusiasm, and once again did
not require evidence of Assad's guilt beyond their government's claims. The action was damaging to Assad and Russia, but served
the rebels well.
"But the mainstream media never ask cui bono? in cases like this. In 2013, a similar charge against Assad, which brought the
United States to the brink of a full-scale bombing war in Syria, turned out to be a false flag operation, and some authorities
believe the current case is equally problematic. Nevertheless, Trump moved quickly (and illegally), dealing a blow to any further
rapprochement between the United States and Russia. The CIA, the Pentagon, leading Democrats, and the rest of the war party had
won an important skirmish in the struggle over permanent war."
Fake News on Russia and Other Official Enemies: The New York Times, 1917–2017
By this stage I wonder if all the neighbours aren't all "ex" spooks from hither and yon.
Who else would tolerate the nonsense they've been subjected to without reaching out to their
learned friends? Good luck with putting a house on the market with that circus going on.
Such stringent measures would surely not be taken by HM govt and British security if they had
no evidence that those evil Russians had attempted to kill the Skripals with Novichok.
The whole premise just becomes more and more ridiculous – the house is now completely
shrouded in tarpaulins, the roof has been removed, it has undergone extensive
'decontamination' – all, all of it obviously for show, for the yokels, because for
weeks afterward police personnel guarded the residence while standing just feet away from the
door handle which was supposedly the locus of infection. No chemical-warfare protection
whatsoever was apparent; they didn't even wear gloves unless it was cold.
They might at least have made up some story that the Deadly Door Handle had been replaced,
or even the entire door. Because everyone who went in or out of that house, and there must
have been many, touched that door handle, at least some of them with their bare hand. And
what ever became of the intrepid detective, Nick what's-his-name? Wasn't the state going to
buy his home as well, even though he had scarcely been in it and had gone more or less
straight to the hospital after being 'infected'? Only to make a miraculous and complete
recovery in days, and then drop off the public radar?
Stupidity abounds. Yet the press just can't let it go, and let it mercifully drop out of
sight. It would just be too embarrassing to tacitly admit the British government made it up
from start to finish, the entire operation. If the Skripals actually were poisoned with
something, and not just acting a role for the British government, then that part must have
been HM-government-supplied as well, because nobody who has any experience with police
procedure is going to believe they had a culprit and a complete history of the crime in only
a couple of hours after its discovery, and a foreign state was responsible.
I don't want to be an alarmist but if I had to guess I would say our good friend Officer Nick
is probably partying it up with Sergei, Yulia, and their pets in Hades.
You never know. He sort of dropped out of the public eye, and of all of them he seemed to be
the one whose story would be picked apart first, although all of them were improbable. And
I'm sure many, many were interested in interviewing him and questioning him further.
He was released from hospital with no apparent ill effects more than a year ago, on March
23rd, 2018. According to the Telegraph , here,
he returned to active duty the beginning of 2019, but the story has his Chief confirming
this, it is not Bailey himself. That same story remembers that Dawn Sturgess "fell ill in
Amesbury months after the incident and died in hospital in July after coming into contact
with a perfume bottle believed to have been used in the attack on the Skripals and then
discarded." But the perfume bottle described as having been 'used in the attack on the
Skripals' was brand-new and still in its store packaging, not to any appearance unusual
except for that weird plastic aerator fastened to the bottle. Which, now that I think of it,
was supposed to have been not attached to the bottle at all; Charlie Rowley's tale was that
he broke the bottle trying to get the applicator on it, which is how he was exposed. But he
still gave it to his paramour as a gift, and she was still apparently able to use it to spray
herself.
Anyway, so far as I can make out, DS Nick Bailey returned to duty with his former police
department last winter, and since then not a peep has been heard from him. The Skripals are
still incognito, and Sergei has never been seen again since going into hospital.
Bailey's parents apparently threw a wobbler when the Beeb decided to run a two-part
television drama on the attacks, which would doubtless reinforce and reconfirm the government
line although it is meant to showcase the quiet courage and resourcefulness of 'ordinary
heroes'.
Looks like firms like 23andMe opened
the can of worms... Use of genetics to substantiate racist stereotypes
For almost two decades, Farber and his colleagues have advocated for this immigrant
community in the face of what they see as targeted discrimination. In cases of marriage, Farber
acts as a type of rabbinical lawyer, pulling together documentation and making a case for his
clients in front of a board of rabbinical judges. He fears that DNA testing will place even
more power in the hands of the Rabbinate and further marginalize the Russian speaking
community. "It's as if the rabbis have become technocrats," he told me. "They are using
genetics to give validity to their discriminatory practices."
Despite public outrage and
protests in central Tel Aviv, the Rabbinate have not indicated any intention of ending DNA
testing, and reports continue to circulate in the Israeli media of how the test is being used.
One woman allegedly had to ask her mother and aunt for
genetic material to prove that she was not adopted. Another man was asked to have his
grandmother, sick with dementia, take
a test.
Boris Shindler, a political activist and active member of the Russian speaking community,
told me that he believes that the full extent of the practice remains unknown, because many of
those who have been tested are unwilling to share their stories publicly out of a sense of
shame. "I was approached by someone who was married in a Jewish ceremony maybe 15, 20 years
ago, who recently received an official demand saying if you want to continue to be Jewish, we'd
like you to do a DNA test," Shindler said. "They said if she doesn't do it then she has to sign
papers saying she is not Jewish. But she is too humiliated to go to the press with this."
What offends Shindler most is that the technique is being used to single out his community,
which he sees as part of a broader stigmatization of Russian speaking immigrants in Israeli
society as unassimilated outsiders and second-class citizens. "It is sad because in the Soviet
Union we were persecuted for being Jewish and now in Israel we're being discriminated against
for not being Jewish enough," he said.
As well as being deeply humiliating, Shindler told me that there is confusion around what
being genetically Jewish means. "How do they decide when someone becomes Jewish," he asked. "If
I have 51% Jewish DNA does that mean I'm Jewish, but if I'm 49% I'm not?"
Did the U.S. really "save the world" in World War II? Should black athletes stop protesting
and show more gratitude for what America has done for them? Are wars fought to spread freedom
and democracy? Or is this all fake news?
American Exceptionalism and American Innocence examines the stories we're told that
lead us to think that the U.S. is a force for good in the world, regardless of slavery, the
genocide of indigenous people, and the more than a century's worth of imperialist war that the
U.S. has wrought on the planet.
Sirvent and Haiphong detail just what Captain America's shield tells us about the
pretensions of U.S. foreign policy, how Angelina Jolie and Bill Gates engage in humanitarian
imperialism, and why the Broadway musical Hamilton is a monument to white supremacy.
====
Like a thunderbolt that penetrates the dark fog of ideological confusion, American Exceptionalism and American Innocence: A People's History of Fake News -- From
the Revolutionary War to the War on Terror , illuminates the hidden spaces of the official
story of the territory that came to be known as the United States of America.
Meticulously researched, American Exceptionalism and American
Innocence utilizes a de-colonial lens that debunks the distorted, mythological liberal
framework that rationalized the U.S. settler-colonial project. The de-colonized frame allows
them to critically root their analysis in the psychosocial history, culture, political economy,
and evolving institutions of the United States of America without falling prey to the
unrecognized and unacknowledged liberalism and national chauvinism that seeps through so much
of what is advanced as radical analysis today.
That is what makes this work so "exceptional" and so valuable at this moment of
institutional and ideological crisis in the U.S. This crisis is indeed more severe and
potentially more transformative than at any other moment in this nation's history.
With unflinching clarity, Sirvent and Haiphong go right to the heart of the current social,
political, economic, and ideological crisis. They strip away the obscurantist nonsense pushed
by liberal and state propagandists that the Trump phenomenon represents a fundamental departure
from traditional "American values" by demonstrating that "Trumpism" is no departure at all, but
only the unfiltered contemporary and particular expression of the core values that the nation
was "founded" on.
What Sirvent and Haiphong expose in their work is that American exceptionalism and its
corollary American innocence are the interconnected frames that not only explain why the crude
white nationalism of a Donald Trump is consistent with the violence and white supremacy of the
American experience, but also why that violence has been largely supported by large sections of
the U.S. population repeatedly.
As the exceptional nation, the indispensable nation, the term President Obama liked to evoke
to give humanitarian cover to the multiple interventions,
destabilization campaigns, and unilateral global policing operations on behalf of U.S. and
international capital, it is expected and largely accepted by the citizens of the U.S. that
their nation-state has a right and, actually, a moral duty to do whatever it deems appropriate
to uphold the international order. It can do that because this cause is noble and righteous.
Lest we forget the words of Theodore Roosevelt, considered a great architect of American
progressiveness, "If given the choice between righteousness and peace, I choose
righteousness."
In a succinct and penetrating observation, Sirvent and Haiphong point out:
American exceptionalism has always presumed national innocence despite imposing centuries of
war and plunder. The American nation-state has been at war for over ninety percent of its
existence. These wars have all been justified as necessary ventures meant to defend or expand
America's so-called founding values and beliefs. A consequence of centuries of endless war has
been the historical tendency of the U.S. to erase from consciousness the realities that
surround American domestic and international policy, not to mention the system of imperialism
that governs both.
But the acceptance of state violence in the form of economic sanctions and direct and
indirect military interventions is not the only consequence of the cultural conditioning
process informed by the arrogance of white privilege, white rights, and the protection of white
Western civilization. The racist xenophobia, impunity for killer-cops, mass incarceration, ICE
raids and checkpoints, left-right ideological convergence to erase "blackness," are all part of
the racial management process that still enjoys majoritarian support in the U.S.
American Exceptionalism and American Innocence 's focus on the
insidious and corrosive impact of white supremacy throughout the book is a necessary and
valuable corrective to the growing tendency toward marginalizing the issue of race, even among
left forces under the guise of being opposed to so-called identity politics.
Centering the role of white supremacist ideologies and its connection to American
exceptionalism and innocence, Sirvent and Haiphong argue that "communities and activists will
be better positioned to dismantle them." American exceptionalism and notions of U.S. innocence
not only provide
ideological rationalizations for colonialism, capitalism, empire, and white supremacy, but
also a normalized theoretical framework for how the world is and should be structured that
inevitably makes criminals out of the people opposing U.S. dominance, within the nation and
abroad.
Paul Krugman, a leading liberal within the context of the U.S. articulates this normalized
framework that is shared across the ideological spectrum from liberal to conservative and even
among some left forces. I have previously referred to this view of the world as representative
of the psychopathology of white supremacy:
"We emerged from World War II with a level of both economic and military dominance not seen
since the heyday of ancient Rome. But our role in the world was always about more than money
and guns. It was also about ideals: America stood for something larger than itself -- for
freedom, human rights and the rule of law as universal principles . . . By the end of World War
II, we and our British allies had in effect conquered a large part of the world. We could have
become permanent occupiers, and/or installed subservient puppet governments, the way the Soviet
Union did in Eastern Europe. And yes, we did do that in some developing countries; our history
with, say, Iran is not at all pretty. But what we mainly did instead was help defeated enemies
get back on their feet, establishing democratic regimes that shared our core values and became
allies in protecting those values. The Pax Americana was a sort of empire; certainly America
was for a long time very much first among equals. But it was by historical standards a
remarkably benign empire, held together by soft power and respect rather than force."
1
American Exceptionalism and American Innocence refutes this
pathological view of the U.S. and demonstrates that this view is a luxury that the colonized
peoples of the world cannot afford.
The bullet and the bomb -- the American military occupation and the police occupation -- are
the bonds that link the condition of Black Americans to oppressed nations around the world.
This is the urgency in which the authors approached their task. The physical and ideological
war being waged against the victims of the colonial/capitalist white supremacist patriarchy is
resulting in real suffering. Authentic solidarity with the oppressed requires a
rejection of obfuscation. The state intends to secure itself and the ruling elite by legal
or illegal means, by manipulating or completely jettisoning human freedom and democratic
rights. Sirvent and Haiphong know that time is running out. They demonstrate the intricate
collaboration between the state and the corporate and financial elite to create the conditions
in which ideological and political opposition would be rendered criminal as the state grapples
with the legitimacy crisis it finds itself in. They know that Trump's "make America great
again" is the Republican version of Obama's heralding of U.S. exceptionalism, and that both are
laying the ideological foundation for a cross-class white neofascist solution to the crisis of
neoliberal capitalism.
The U.S. is well on its way toward a new form of totalitarianism that is more widespread
than the forms of neofascist rule that was the norm in the Southern states of the U.S. from
1878 to 1965. Chris Hedges refers to it as "corporate totalitarianism." And unlike the sheer
social terror experienced by the African American population as a result of the corporatist
alignment of the new Democratic party and national and regional capital in the South, this
"new" form of totalitarianism is more benign but perhaps even more insidious because the
control rests on the ability to control thought. And here lies the challenge. Marxist thinker
Fredrick Jamison shares a very simple lesson, "The lesson is this, and it is a lesson about
system: one cannot change anything without changing everything." This simple theory of system
change argues that when you change one part of a system you by necessity must change all parts
of the system, because all parts are interrelated.
The failure of the Western left in general and the U.S. left in particular to understand the
inextricable, structural connection between empire, colonization, capitalism, and white
supremacy -- and that all elements of that oppressive structure must be confronted, dismantled,
and defeated -- continues to give lifeblood to a system that is ready to sweep into the
dustbins of history. This is why American Exceptionalism and American
Innocence is nothing more than an abject subversion. It destabilizes the hegemonic
assumptions and imposed conceptual frameworks of bourgeois liberalism and points the reader
toward the inevitable conclusion that U.S. society in its present form poses an existential
threat to global humanity.
Challenging the reader to rethink the history of the U.S. and to imagine a future,
decolonial nation in whatever form it might take, Sirvent and Haiphong include a quote from
Indigenous rights supporter Andrea Smith
that captures both the subversive and optimistic character of their book. Smith is quoted
saying:
Rather than a pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness that depends on the deaths of others .
. . we can imagine new forms of governance based on the principles of mutuality,
interdependence, and equality. When we do not presume that the United States should or will
continue to exist, we can begin to imagine more than a kinder, gentler settler state founded on
genocide and slavery.
American Exceptionalism and American Innocence gives us a weapon to
reimagine a transformed U.S. nation, but it also surfaces the ideological minefields that we
must avoid if we are to realize a new possibility and a new people.
I thought the book was great. However, key events were not discussed. One of the first
deployed American expeditionary forces to bless the world was the establishment of treaty
ports in China. These new American foreign beachheads in the Middle Kingdom came about as a
result of Western ambitions to take them over as new colonial owners and led to one of the
most ruinous periods in world history. Europe and the U.S. saturated the country with opium,
leaving many Chinese stoned. This resulted in the destabilization of China, invasion of the
brutal Japanese and the rise of Mao. Result- millions upon millions of people died because of
American exceptionalism. It has taken China the last thirty years to recover from the
disasters. Naturally, Trump & Co are not aware of this history or are unconcerned.
However, the Chinese have not forgotten and routinely warn Team Trump they will not be
bullied by foreigners again. Washington elites are ignorant at everyone's peril who want
peace. Footnote - American exceptionalists Roosevelt, Kerry, Forbes, etc., got their wealth
the old fashion way - by becoming drug kingpins to China.
The other big omission was World War I and especially its aftermath. Lauded by the French
and saving European imperialism, returning African-American soldiers found themselves being
singled out for extra harsh Jim Crow treatment -- they were too uppity & refused to
follow old social norms. Several Black vets were tortured and hung while in uniform because
they were bringing back a new message from European trenches - equal treatment. They were
also exemplary in defending other Black citizens from White mob ambushes.
Had the authors covered the WWI aftermath, they would have also had to critique in greater
detail the media. What they would have had to expose the media was never a friend to
African-Americans, which holds to this day. The media was and is consistent with aligning
with white elite interests. When Blacks rose up against bad treatment, the media always
presented the white point of view. In fact, every white institution was engaged in this
biased practice.
The Espionage Act also put a chill on labor organizing post WWI. Indeed, elites were quick
to call any Black unrest as seditious and labelled some leaders such as W.E.B Dubois,
Bolshevik inspired and should have been brought up on charges. This was the beginning of the
linking of Black activism to the Kremlin, long before McCarthyism, COINTELPRO and Black
Identity Extremist government labels.
Leaked documents reveal Russian effort to exert influence in Africa Exclusive: Kremlin ally Yevgeny Prigozhin leading push to turn continent into strategic
hub, documents show
by Luke Harding and Jason Burke
The only thing you really need to know about the exposé:
The leaked documents were obtained by the Dossier Center, an investigative unit based in
London. The centre is funded by Mikhail Khodorkovsky, the Russian businessman and exiled
Kremlin critic.
The Guardian obviously has no shame for publishing such an article but then it has never
explained the claims of Manafort meeting with Assange in the Ecuadorean embassy. As for the
article, my reaction was "so fucking what?".
The British French and Americans have fucked up
large parts of Africa while the Soviet Union/Russia was indirectly responsible for
eradicating that cancerous growth, the apartheid state of South Africa, a single act that was
better than all the good things that the United Kingdom, France and the United States have
ever done in Africa
"... "I feel duped," said the voter, Renee Elliott, who was laid off from her job at the Indianapolis Carrier plant. "I don't have a lot of faith in political candidates much anymore. They make promises. They make them and break them." ..."
"... Warren rose to her feet. "The thing is, you can't just wave your arms," the she said, gesturing energetically. "You've really got to have a plan – and I do have a plan." ..."
"... But despite the burst of momentum, Warren's path to the nomination has two major roadblocks: Sanders and Biden. Her success will depend on whether she can deliver a one-two punch: replacing Sanders as the progressive standard bearer while building a coalition broad enough to rival Biden. ..."
"... "She sounds like Donald Trump at his best," conservative Fox News commentator Tucker Carlson told his largely Republican audience as he read from Warren's proposal during the opening monologue of his show this week. The plan calls for "aggressive intervention on behalf of American workers" to boost the economy and create new jobs, including a $2tn investment in federal funding in clean energy programs. ..."
"... His praise was all the more surprising because Warren has vowed not to participate in town halls on Fox News, calling the network a "hate-for-profit racket that gives a megaphone to racists and conspiracists" ..."
The senator's 'I have a plan' mantra has become a rallying cry as she edges her way to the
top – but is it enough to get past the roadblocks of Biden and Sanders?
Elizabeth Warren at a campaign rally in Fairfax, Virginia, on 16 May. Photograph: Cliff
Owen/AP Plan by plan, Elizabeth Warren is making inroads
and gaining on her rivals in the 2020 Democratic race to take on Donald Trump.
This week a Morning Consult poll saw Warren break
into the double digits at 10%, putting her in third place behind Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden.
A recent
Economist/YouGov poll found Warren was making gains among liberal voters, with Democrats
considering the Massachusetts senator for the Democratic presidential nomination in nearly
equal measure with Sanders.
Her intense campaigning on a vast swathe of specific issues has achieved viral moments on
the internet – even including one woman whom
Warren advised on her love life – as well as playing well during recent television
events.
At a televised town hall in Indiana this week, Warren listened intently as a woman who voted
for Trump in 2016 described her disillusionment – not only with a president who failed to
bring back manufacturing jobs as he said he promised but with an entire political system
stymied by dysfunction.
"I feel duped," said the voter, Renee Elliott, who was laid off from her job at the
Indianapolis Carrier plant. "I don't have a lot of faith in political candidates much anymore.
They make promises. They make them and break them."
Warren rose to her feet. "The thing is, you can't just wave your arms," the she said,
gesturing energetically. "You've really got to have a plan – and I do have a plan."
That mantra – a nod to the steady churn of policy blueprints Warren's campaign has
released – has become a rallying cry for Warren as she edges her way to the top of the
crowded Democratic presidential primary field.
But despite the burst of momentum, Warren's path to the nomination has two major roadblocks:
Sanders and Biden. Her success will depend on whether she can deliver a one-two punch:
replacing Sanders as the progressive standard bearer while building a coalition broad enough to
rival Biden.
Warren began that work this week with a multi-stop tour of the midwest designed to show her
strength among working class voters who supported Trump. Ahead of the visit, Warren unveiled a
plan she described as "economic patriotism", which earned startling praise from one of Trump's
most loyal supporters.
"She sounds like Donald Trump at his best," conservative Fox News commentator Tucker Carlson
told his largely Republican audience as he read from Warren's proposal during the opening
monologue of his show this week. The plan calls for "aggressive intervention on behalf of
American workers" to boost the economy and create new jobs, including a $2tn investment in
federal funding in clean energy programs.
His praise was all the more surprising because Warren has vowed not to participate in town
halls on Fox News, calling the network a "hate-for-profit racket that gives a megaphone to
racists and conspiracists".
The debate over whether
Democrats should appear on Fox News for a town hall has divided the field. Sanders, whose
televised Fox News town hall generated the highest viewership of any such event, argued
that it is important to speak to the network's massive and heavily Republican audience.
As Warren courts working-class voters in the midwest, she continues to focus heavily on the
early states of Iowa and New Hampshire. After jumping into the race on New Year's Eve 2018,
Warren
immediately set to work , scooping up talent and building a massive
operation in Iowa. Her campaign is betting a strong showing in the first in the nation
caucuses will propel her in New Hampshire, which neighbors Massachusetts, and then boost her in
Nevada and South Carolina.
But as Warren gains momentum, moderate candidates are becoming more vocal about their
concern that choosing a nominee from the party's populist wing will hand Trump the
election.
"If we want to beat Donald Trump and achieve big progressive goals, socialism is not the
answer," former Colorado governor John Hickenlooper told Democrats in California last weekend.
Though his comments were met with boos and jeers among the convention's liberal crowd, his
warning is at the heart of the debate over who should be the Democratic presidential
nominee.
Warren has pointedly distinguished herself as a capitalist as opposed to a socialist or a
democratic socialist, but she has not backed away from a populist platform that embraces
sweeping economic reforms.
In her address to the California Democratic party, Warren rejected appeals for
moderation.
"Some say if we all calm down, the Republicans will come to their senses," she said. "But
our country is in a time of crisis. The time for small ideas is over."
"... America has shown itself to be so implacably hostile to both countries that Divide And Rule will never work. It is clearly intent on the destruction of both. ..."
"... BigB . Am certainly no fan of China or Russia (or pretty much anyone actually) but for now; I don't see them rampaging round the world overthrowing Govts, endlessly threatening countries with war, throwing sanctions against any country that dosn't get on its knees, maintaining over 800 military bases around the planet and behaving like demented psychopaths. ..."
"... Russia and China are not deranged and arrogant enough to want to rule the world, or spend trillions on a series of crazy wars for the Zionist Apartheid Regime. Unlike certain other people. ..."
"... To argue that both Russia and China are capitalist economies is true enough, but to say that they are imperialist stretches credulity to breaking point. It was I think Condoleeza Rice who opined that "Russia's interests end at Russia's borders"- pretty much a flat fact, no value-judgement implied. If Russia was ever an empire it has long been stripped of its dominions and economies. Same goes for China whose invasions against neighbouring countries – India 1962, and Vietnam in 1978 – followed by quick withdrawal was about the limits of its imperial ambitions. ..."
"... Russia was forced into a semi-peripheral economic status relying on the extractive commodities of oil and case; some recovery has taken place but this is a slow process given the outflow of capital resulting from the actions of the oligarchic cliques still in evidence despite Putin's efforts at reform. ..."
"... Russia may be a capitalist country, it may not fully democratic in the full sense of the word (who in this benighted age is?) but it must have the right to be sovereign, self-governing and free to follow its own economic and political policies, and not to be surrounded and threatened by real imperialist powers who seem determined not to let it. ..."
"... the main purpose of US imperial might is in the 'global policeman' role: keeping the neoliberal capitalist core, semi-periphery, periphery, and excluded/exploited hierarchical tiers exactly as they are. ..."
"... But Russia is the exception that breaks the rule. I'm sure you are aware Russia is owned offshore – estimated usually at 80% – much of it in Londongrad. Shaxson even uses this as a creation myth for the genesis of the euro$ markets. Russia is still bleeding from capital flight, even though it slowed recently. Michael Hudson puts the figure at $25bn a year since the early 90s – over $1tn total funding Chelsea FC instead of Russian recovery. ..."
"... The world is a rich man's paradise: unionised labour and democracies have been smashed; the world totally re-ordered by class racism and financial imperialism; we have been de-politicised and de-sovereigntised – our rights and freedoms 'offshored'; what labour is left is about to be lost to AI; wages have been stagnabt for decades; the poor are getting poorer, the underdeveoloped more underdeveloped; the extractivism, expansionism, and hyper-exploitation of today and tomorrow is perhaps at its zenith: and the globalist model is killing the host. ..."
"... Modernity is murder by debt money East and West. ..."
"... you can not be manipulated or make to buy "humanitarian interventions", defense of human rights through bombings and coupe de etat. Nor with being free because you can wear Prada or have access to so call "advance" gadgets . ..."
"... 'International rules based order' Such quaint language to disguise the real meaning: blood drenched Imperialism, blatant thuggery, the theft of other countries resources, invading and bombing and overthrowing Govts, the ever increasing use of sanctions against those countries that refuse to be puppets; like Iran and Syria, the portrayal of resistance movements as 'terrorists' such as Hezbollah for example. ..."
"... It isn't "fake news" to report on geopolitical realities, or the undeniable fact that since WW2, the US has been effecting coups, regime change, wars all around the globe and has been responsible for millions of deaths, not to mention its use of chemical weapons – Iran Iraq War, Vietnam, Desert Storm, Iraq 2003. ..."
On June 4th the Chinese government issued a travel alert for Chinese tourists thinking of
visiting the United States, a day after it issued a similar advisory to Chinese students thinking of studying in
the US over concerns for their safety and security.
Chinese in the US are reporting harassment and interrogations by US immigration authorities and many now have
the impression they are not welcome in the US.
The Global Times
, speaking on behalf of the government stated:
The Chinese people find it difficult to accept the fact that they are being taken as thieves. The US boasts
too much superiority and has been indulged by the world. Due to its short history, it lacks understanding of and
respect for the rules of countries and laws of the market. The Americans of the early generations accumulated
prosperity and prestige for the US, while the current US administration behaves like a wastrel generation by
ruining the world's respect for the US."
It seems to me they are being generous to the US since the "early prosperity" of the US was built on the backs
of slave labour, extermination of the indigenous peoples and theft of their lands, colonization and exploitation of
other countries, including China, and two hundred years of continual warfare to secure the resources and markets of
first the western hemisphere, then the world.
Their "prestige" comes out of the barrel of a gun. The US economic and military aggression against those nations
that refuse to obey American demands to serve their interests ever increases and never abates.
A few days ago Mike Pompeo stated, with feigned innocence, that the US was willing to talk to Iran "without
preconditions" when the real conditions Iran faces include an almost total embargo of its trade and threats of
immediate attack by US forces, including nuclear attack. The Iranians quickly rejected this hypocrisy.
In the Balkans the US and its NATO war machine have again stirred up problems in Serbia where, in the NATO
occupied province of Kosovo-Metohija, Serbs and Russians were detained and beaten up by Albanian security forces
designed to put further pressure on Serbia to fall into the NATO camp so that the NATO machine will have complete
control of the Balkans to complete the encirclement of Russia.
The war goes on in Syria, goes on in Ukraine, goes on in Afghanistan. The terrible situation of the Palestinians
becomes even worse as the US plans the final solution for them-their disappearance as a people to be absorbed as
citizens of other states, while Israel continues its aggressive expansion and acts as agent of the US bully in the
region; the threats against Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea continue.
But the principle preoccupation of the US is still China and Russia.
On May 30th the US Department of Defense released its strategy paper for the Indo-Pacific region in which, after
several pages of lies about its role in the world as savior and benefactor, set out America's intentions to
dominate China and Russia.
It is another item of evidence that the United States government and its allies are conspiring to commit crimes
against peace by planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression against those nations.
These designs by the American leadership reflect not only the desire of the owners of capital in the US to
dominate the world. They also reflect the Americans' preoccupation with themselves as "exceptional" people, as the
"exceptional" nation, above all others, answerable to none, which has been a characteristic of their culture since
its foundation.
The aggressive objectives of the successive American governments were and are not accidents or mistakes arising
out of immediate political circumstances but are a deliberate and necessary part of American foreign policy.
From its inception the American political leadership has claimed to unite the American people with a
consciousness of their mission and destiny to dominate the world. War is seen as inevitable or highly probable to
accomplish these objectives where intimidation and bribery fail.
To accomplish its objectives the United States has done all it can to disrupt the world order established after
World War Two when world nations joined together for world peace in the United Nations Charter in 1946.
Within 3 years the US set up the NATO military alliance to threaten the Soviet Union, soon waged wars across
south east Asia and overthrew governments the world over.
The rise to power of President Trump has resulted in the United States withdrawing from a series of treaties
designed to reduce the threat of war and of nuclear armaments, or promote free trade, in order to free the United
States from its obligations under the treaties involved to allow it to pursue its objectives using any means
necessary. They have rejected international law and diplomacy in interstate relationships and now rely on threats
and violence.
The
Indo-Pacific Strategy Report
, of June 1, 2019 begins with the claim that:
Inter-state strategic competition, defined by geopolitical rivalry between free and repressive world order
visions, is the primary concern for U.S. national security. In particular, the People's Republic of China, under
the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party, seeks to reorder the region to its advantage by leveraging
military modernization, influence operations, and predatory economics to coerce other nations."
Time and again the Report ascribes to China the actual behavior of the United States for is it not the United
States that has sought to reorder the world since it became a world power; has it not used all these methods and
more to coerce other nations? The world knows it. Yet once again their sense of being exceptional makes them blind
to their stupefying arrogance and hypocrisy.
The Report then warns that,
We will not accept policies or actions that threaten or undermine the rules-based international order – an
order that benefits all nations. We are committed to defending and enhancing these shared values".
What they mean by "rules based international order" is not the order of international law as accepted by the
world governments in the United Nations Charter and other international agreements but a US imposed international
order, – an order that does not yet exist except in the fantasies of these gangsters-but which they never stop
trying to impose on the world, an order of militarism, fear, and tyranny for the rest of the world.
The balance of the Report sets out their strategy of building up a "networked region" that is, a US controlled
system of vassal states to prepare for war with China by prepositioning ammunition, equipment, logistics supplies,
transportation networks, intelligence sharing and rapid deployment of forces to threaten China.
The vassal states; Japan, South Korea, Australia New Zealand, Canada, Indonesia, The Philippines, Thailand,
Singapore, Taiwan, are all patted on the head for assisting the United States and promised they will be rewarded
with peace and prosperity so long as they accept their subservient role to the saintly United States.
Other southeast Asia nations are referred to as potential "partners" for the future as they try to brag that
they have Vietnam, India, Malaysia, Bangladesh, Laos and Cambodia on their side when all they have are courtesy
arrangements and cooperation on a low level that all nations have with each other. Their vision of their influence
is greater than the reality.
But the three targets remain the same for according to the Report, China is a
"Revisionist Power"
,
Russia is a
"Revitalized Malign Actor,"
while the DPRK, keeps its status as a "Rogue State,"
all
of which the Americans claim are intent on challenging their fictional
"rules based order."
There then follows, in each case, paragraph after paragraph of distortions of the facts about the nature and
behavior of these three nations so that one feels compelled to break into laughter when reading these ludicrous
labels that seem to come from a very bad 1950's Hollywood film script.
But finally, after all the verbiage, they get down to it and set out their real objectives by referencing the US
Defense Strategy of 2018 which sets out the four pillars of their hegemonic designs:
1. Defend the Homeland;
This is a curious phrase we have been seeing the past number of years in American parlance, this concept of
'homeland," but in contradistinction to what is never stated. Well, the to the rest of the world, of course, which
they now consider their lands as well, their outlands, and so the need for a phrase to identify the US as the
"homeland". What could more display their colonial mindset than the use of this phrase?
2. Remain the preeminent military power in the world;
This is a threat to the world, to humankind, and can only be maintained by the pauperization of its own people.
3. Ensure the balances of power in key regions remain in our favour;
Meaning that they intend to keep playing one nation off against another and create chaos where necessary, to
play both sides against the middle, whatever it takes so that the United States maintains the ruling hand,
4. Advance an international order that is most conducive to our security and prosperity
And here we have their principle objective, meaning that, despite all the rhetoric about shared values, shared
goals and friendships with its vassal allies, the world is meant to enrich and serve the United States.
To make sure the world knows of their power and what they are willing to do with it the Report states:
In the region, US INDOPACOM currently has more than 2,000 aircraft; 200 ships and submarines; and more than
370,000 Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, Airmen, DoD civilians, and contractors assigned within its area of
responsibility. The largest concentration of forces in the region are in Japan and the ROK. A sizable contingent
of forces (more than 5,000 on a day-to-day basis) are also based in the U.S. territory of Guam, which serves as
a strategic hub supporting crucial operations and logistics for all U.S. forces operating in the Indo-Pacific
region. Other allies and partners that routinely host U.S. forces on a smaller scale include the Philippines,
Australia, Singapore, and the United Kingdom through the island of Diego Garcia".
Other bases are planned in Australia and New Guinea.
In describing its relations and military cooperation with its vassal allies it places special emphasis on Taiwan
and uses language that in direct terms violates the One China Policy of China, which the US pays lip service to. It
is tantamount to a declaration that Taiwan is a US protectorate instead of an integral part of China.
They state:
The objective of our defense engagement with Taiwan is to ensure that Taiwan remains secure, confident, free
from coercion, and able to peacefully and productively engage the mainland on its own terms."
So when US, Australian, French, or British naval forces claim they are traversing the Straight of Taiwan as an
exercise in "freedom of navigation" we know that what they are really doing is using force to divide China, to
treat it as if it were still the weak China of the 19th century when American gunboats until as late as 1949 ran up
and down the Yangtze River as if they owned it; to slap it in the face, to dare it with insults.
The situation has become so tense that the Global Times on June 6,th in an op ed by Wei Jianguo, said:
China is able to withstand US maximum pressure, due to the country's economic resilience, and Chinese
people's resolute determination. Suffering from a century of humiliation, the Chinese nation has been accustomed
to such pressure, as shown in the War of Resistance against Japanese Aggression, as well as the Korean War or
the War to Resist US Aggression and Aid Korea. The unity of Chinese people is a vital reason for the country's
fundamental victory in history."
The Peoples' Daily stated,
"America is the enemy of the world."
Russia and China, in their defence, are intensifying their economic and military cooperation but the threat
remains and is increasing. The answer may lie in the fact that the US strategy is ultimately self-defeating. The
more they try to dominate the world, the more intense the resistance becomes.
Even their alliances are coming apart at the seams as the thieves bicker about their share of the loot. But the
question remains, what to do about this enemy of the world, this outlaw power.
Christopher Black is an international criminal lawyer based in Toronto. He is known for a number
of high-profile war crimes cases and recently published his novel
Beneath the Clouds
. He writes essays on international law, politics and world events, especially for the
online magazine
New Eastern
Outlook
.
OffGuardian does not accept advertising or sponsored content. We have no large financial backers. We
are not funded by any government or NGO. Donations from our readers is our only means of income. Even the
smallest amount of support is hugely appreciated.
Frank Speaker
I really don't understand the apparent logic of only criticising our own western totalitarian
supra-national state and then either keeping quiet, or possibly glorifying, the other totalitarian states
dominating much of the other two tri-spheres of our planet.
Totalitarian regimes in each of the world's
tri-spheres are pretty much the same, ultimately, and all are displaying the failings of humanity across
millenia. Suggesting that our NATO-centered one is worse than the Russian or Chinese one is rather
academic, after all, they are all evil bastards and happy to kill those who disagree with them.
Especially if we measure their inhumanity across the last 105 years, each group has probably killed as
many innocents as the other, more or less.
Harry Law
Trump spoke today about the forthcoming G20 meeting, stressing that if Chinese President Xi Jinping does
not meet the US leader at the event, tariffs on $300 billion worth of Chinese goods will become
immediately effective.
Trump also mentioned Asian tech giant Huawei, emphasising that it could be part of a trade agreement
between Washington and Beijing. The remark comes at a time when the White House has been lobbying its
European allies against granting Huawei access to its networks
https://sputniknews.com/us/201906101075775522-trump-china-devalues-its-currency/
Can Trump never cease to be such an arrogant fool, can anyone imagine European countries and others
severing trade with Huawei because Trump told them Huawei were a national security risk just last week,
then having done so, and having to withstand all the negative blow back from China, for the US to turn
around a week later and declare Huawei could be part of a US/China deal. The man is a genuine moron.
Antonym
Am I the only one finding that China and Russia are
not
natural allies? Two totally different
cultures, as different as Germany and Russia or Japan and China.
The US Cabal is presently driving them
in each others arms: stupidity, dumb or clever planned?
mark
They are complementary in every way. Their differences create a multiplier effect in their strengths
through their informal alliance, which is an entirely logical and natural development that will only
grow stronger with time.
China is short of energy and raw materials. Russia can supply these in
spades, easily and efficiently as a neighbouring country, for their mutual benefit. Russia is a
reliable supplier, China is a reliable customer and partner. This can render any US maritime blockade
of China ineffective. It also renders US economic warfare against Russia's energy sector and trade
ineffective.
China benefits from Russian high technology products and military equipment that it currently
lacks, though it is making rapid progress in these areas. China can supply the investment Russia
requires, and all the products previously imported from western countries, consumer goods of all
kinds.
Both countries are threatened by US military aggression, economic and financial boycotts, political
subversion and terrorism, and propaganda vilification. Washington has provided ample evidence that it
cannot and never will be a friend and partner to either. If they stand together, they can neutralise
US hostility and aggression. By cooperating in the new Silk Road, they can if necessary completely
insulate themselves from the US and its EU satellites.
America has shown itself to be so implacably hostile to both countries that Divide And Rule will
never work. It is clearly intent on the destruction of both.
Jen
The cultures of the US, Japan and South Korea are very different, as different as Russia and China are
from each other, yet the US is allies with both Japan and South Korea. What point are you trying to make?
Indeed, some totalitarianism is preferred by some 'enlightened' western 'intelligensia' than other
totalitarianism: they appear to want to be shafted by a panda or a bear rather than shafted by a
neoliberal politician in their own country which they can vote in or out of office every 4-5 years,
unlike the panda or the bear.
andyoldlabour
This is a superb article, which IMHO sums up the feelings of enlightened people around the World.
The "unenlightened" would be those who hang on every sperge of lies and propaganda from the MSM, and
implicitly believe all that our politicians (from all parties) tell us.
I have today read quite a disturbing article by Peter Brookes (of the Heritage Foundation – I urge you to
read up about this organisation founded in the Reagan years), where he rants about the dangers of WMD's
in the Middle East and the threats posed by Iran and Syria.
We know that the three main threats in the Middle East are US, Saudi Arabia and Israel, who all use
"terrorist groups" – radical Islam, to sow chaos, death and destruction in the region.
Among ground nesting birds: a basic survival adaptation is common. The mother feigns a broken wing, to
draw attention away from the nest. It seems to me an analogously similar theme is developing on this
site: America bad = China good? OK as a superficial analysis: but is actually eventually obfuscatory of
the neoliberalsised fully integrated global economy. One that seems to have developed over the last half
century without anyone ever noticing.
Criticism of China is taboo here: and a blind eye is turned to
China's sub-imperial position in the neoliberal global economy. Just some of the facts I have posted to
support this empirical position are: China's finance is a sub-imperial extension of the post-BW
Washington Consensus; China manipulates its currency daily (despite official denials) to stay 'in band';
the currency differential supports the USD – keeping it over-valued and the CNY (yuan) under-valued – to
aid China's export trade-driven economy;
China/Russia are fully committed to the WTO/IMF/WB "rules based
global order" – a re-commitment they state on every joint communique (including the recent BRI Forum);
the so-called 'BRICS alternative' financial institutions – NDB, AIIB, and CRA – are all dollarised for
loans (this is easily verifiable or refutable) [This means sub-imperial loans force poor countries into
dollar vassalship and export led production – aka the resource curse];
the BRICS countries refinanced the
IMF – easily verifiable; the CRA loans are neoliberal 'strings attached' loans – 30% from the CRA plus a
Structural Adjustment Plan from the IMF; the AIIB and IMF co-fund many projects together (11, I think –
without checking); the IMF, UNSC, and WB all endorse the BRI as a business opportunity for the neoliberal
global economy.
Last but not least, BRIC was a Goldman Sachs alternative globalisation ploy dreamt up by
'Lord Jim' O'Neil – Baron Gatley and ex-Tory Minister all facts that I have linked to multiple times.
So, in fact: I'm just messin' with you. It becomes a lesson in epistemology to see how long people can
refuse to accept the facts of the alternative globalisations of the world economy. Intra-neoliberal
capitalist squabbles aside: the world economy globalised decades ago. The TNCs have been building up a
trans-national powerbase for 70 years. One that is very well established, if not complete. Offshore is
where the real global hegemon resides. Check out their BRICS communiques: China/Russsia are committed to
'Global Governance'. One of the tenets of which is Multi-Stakeholder Governance – the TNCs; international
CSOs; and local NGOs taking corporate control of global issues – particularly climate change. Anyone who
thinks this is desirable is either already on, or is in urgent need of medication.
The US/China Trade War – despite this article – is largely phoney. If it gets real: expect the
shortest currency war in history precipitating financial crisis. The yuan and dollar are joined at the
hip by the euro$ – they share the same fate. This is all about 'tech transfers' – AI, 5G, cybersecurity,
fintech; etc – where China is way ahead of the US and they will not share or budge on US demands to do
so. Why should they? But they are not about to go to war over it: and a real trade war would be
internecine for the systemically fragile global neoliberal economy [see Jack Rasmus, for instance].
Everyone gets the dollar is toilet paper: the same everyone will argue the yuan is not. This amuses me
no end – the fact that people think they are separate. Debts matter. Debts are unrepayable. Paying down
debt counter-intuitively reduces economic activity. The size of the debt does not matter: the
serviceability – debt management – is all that counts. China – like every other country – subsidises the
US national debt and US imperialism: as a sub-imperial vassal. They have to support the euro$ – the
world's reserve currency – to support world trade. Whether they like it or not. The fact that they have
gone to considerable lengths to jump through Lagarde's hoops to place the yuan in the SDR basket shows
they do not like it. But the alternative: the SDR as world reserve with a new centralised reserve bank
is the globalists mastubatory dream of TNC self-financing self-governance with a 'Corporate
Self-Responsibility' 'voluntarist' ethic aka the NWO. Anyone who thinks this is desirable needs
medication and a long holiday in an asylum.
All this Vltchek/Escobar/Korybko crypto-globalism that has colonised the 'progressive' imaginary is,
wittingly or unwittingly, globalist NWO propaganda. Yes, Americanism's exceptionalist imperialism is as
great an evil as you can find but it is built on sub-imperialism, peripheralisation, and exclusionary
tiers of the neoliberal globalised world system. The real powerbase is offshore and trans-national (the
TNS = Trans-National Suprastate) – financed by Black Market euro$. I haven't even mentioned the City or
the ecological murder by debt money aspect but obsessive focus on America Bad/China Better is
proto-globalist and crypto-capitalist in its lack of any real analysis as to why the US can sustain its
imperialism. Because the world economy supports the 'exorbitant privilege' afforded by the euro$. To
which the globalists of all countries – including China and Russia – want to replace with an even more
anti-humanitarian biocidal alternative – the centralised control of the SDR.
Anyone who thinks this is desirable needs medication and a long holiday in an asylum and
lobotomising
mark
This is just the standard Washington Hymn Sheet.
Repeat after me:
US investment good, Chinese investment bad!
US investment good, Chinese investment bad!
Four legs good, two legs bad!
Baa! Baa!! Baa!!!
Frank Poster
Eloquent and excellent riposte BigB. It's a refreshing viewpoint which cuts through the rose tinted
perspective of may here, and elsewhere. You might want to consider starting your own blog.
BigB . Am certainly no fan of China or Russia (or pretty much anyone actually) but for now; I don't
see them rampaging round the world overthrowing Govts, endlessly threatening countries with war,
throwing sanctions against any country that dosn't get on its knees, maintaining over 800 military
bases around the planet and behaving like demented psychopaths.
I also am uneasy about Andre Vltchek's
rose tinted views about countries like China, especially his use of the word 'socialist' to describe
them when clearly they're not. Under the Neoliberal economic system, we are well down the path of a
corporate fascist dystopia. In fact, we're pretty much there already. And its been integrated right
thruout the World's economy for decades, as you point out, along with the relentless propaganda.
Ramdan
I agree with you Gezza. Is not much of China-Russia support as is the fact that at this moment in history when people
has started to realize US (+ all other colonial powers) mendacious behaviour and all the lies, manslaughter, destruction, etc
then the reaction is sort of 'anything but US' and as you said, China and Russia are not threatening global war and death
every other minute.
People go with 'best option' at hand.
BigB is right, that China-Russia alternative might be a kind of same dog different collar but . All in all, the real
options are not even US, China, Russia or Timbuktu .but a deeper personal transformation that moves away from egocentric,
materialistic perspective and make room for a new, non-materialistic and really enlightened consciousness.
Thanks Ramdan, agree with your sentiments, especially your last paragraph. Try to live as simply
as possible, without screwing people over or grasping for more and more possessions, and simply
treating others how you'd like to be treated yourself. Its tough tho in this Neoliberalist
society when all around its just rampant narcissism and hedonism and being bombarded with ads
24/7 to buy your new 'lifestyle'. I try to be like a stone in a pond – the ripple effect.
mark
Russia and China are not deranged and arrogant enough to want to rule the world, or spend
trillions on a series of crazy wars for the Zionist Apartheid Regime. Unlike certain other
people.
Frank Speaker
China are doing a great job of buying up countries around the world for their mineral and
other resources. Can't blame them really.
Francis Lee
"BigB is right, that China-Russia alternative might be a kind of same dog different collar but "
Glad that you mentioned the "but" But this sort of imagined symmetry touted as existing between
different nation states, in this instance, between the Eurasian bloc, and the Anglo-Zionist bloc
does not come near to the actually existing asymmetry. The first cold war was not just a war
against communism but a war against the right of countries to pursue their own economic goals
that might not serve US interests. Communist states were merely the strongest offenders.
To argue that both Russia and China are capitalist economies is true enough, but to say that
they are imperialist stretches credulity to breaking point. It was I think Condoleeza Rice who
opined that "Russia's interests end at Russia's borders"- pretty much a flat fact, no
value-judgement implied. If Russia was ever an empire it has long been stripped of its dominions
and economies. Same goes for China whose invasions against neighbouring countries – India 1962,
and Vietnam in 1978 – followed by quick withdrawal was about the limits of its imperial
ambitions.
Self-evidently, imperial nations have large military machines and a penchant for using them.
The sheer asymmetry Russia's military capacity between Russia on the one hand and NATOs on the
other is vast. NATOs 28 members operate military bases in 80 countries spanning the world from
the South Atlantic to the north Pacific, whilst Russia maintains military facilities, mostly
nominal and defensive, in precisely 10 countries. The combined population which adds up to much
the same levels as Russia itself, who share borders with it. Does this sound like an imperialist
country?
Moreover, in economic terms Russia's GPD is smaller than that of Italy or Brazil and barely
bigger than Australia or Spain. This came about due to the loss or productive power which took
place during the Yeltsin catastrophe. Russia was forced into a semi-peripheral economic status
relying on the extractive commodities of oil and case; some recovery has taken place but this is
a slow process given the outflow of capital resulting from the actions of the oligarchic cliques
still in evidence despite Putin's efforts at reform. Again, does this sound like an imperialist
country? A strong case could be made out for Russia being a semi-peripheral economy, at least in
economic terms.
Turning the the bona fide imperialist bloc In order to subordinate any recalcitrant states
the empire constructed various institutions -IMF, World Bank and WTO which are under its direct
and indirect control. This has been instantiated on more than one occasion. But let's stick to
the Russian Loan to the Ukraine which refused to pay back given the support of the IMF.
The IMF broke four of its rules by lending to Ukraine:
(1) Not to lend to a country that has no visible means to pay back the loan (the "No More
Argentinas" rule, adopted after the IMF's disastrous 2001 loan to that country). (2) Not to lend
to a country that repudiates its debt to official creditors (the rule originally intended to
enforce payment to U.S.-based institutions). (3) Not to lend to a country at war – and indeed,
destroying its export capacity and hence its balance-of-payments ability to pay back the loan.
Finally (4), not to lend to a country unlikely to impose the IMF's austerity "conditionalities.
" Ukraine did agree to override democratic opposition and cut back pensions, but its junta
proved too unstable to impose the austerity terms on which the IMF insisted. Nevertheless IMF
head Christine Lagarde made a new loan to Ukraine in spring 2015, she merely expressed a verbal
hope for peace. Ukrainian President Porochenko announced the next day that he would step.
The IMF is now willing to countenance countries repudiating their official
debts to Russia or China. Thus changing its rules to clear a path for making loans to Ukraine,
or any other NATO-friendly countries being the latest development in the escalation of the new
cold war.
If Russia had been an Imperialist power no doubt a gunboat would have been on its way to
recover its pound of flesh.
Russia may be a capitalist country, it may not fully democratic in the full sense of the word
(who in this benighted age is?) but it must have the right to be sovereign, self-governing and
free to follow its own economic and political policies, and not to be surrounded and threatened
by real imperialist powers who seem determined not to let it.
This is an old (rather tedious) debate on the left, particularly the Trotskyist left. as to
whether or not the Soviet Union was capitalist and/or imperialist state. The 'state-caps'as they
were called, decided that the USSR was capitalist, and not just capitalist, but a particularly
pernicious form of capitalism, actually worse than US capitalist-imperialism. Some quite clever
polemicists like Sidney Hook. But sadly they many ended up in the neo-con camp. Irving Kristol,
Christopher Hitchens, and our own lovely Guardian polemicist, 'Let's bomb Russia' Paul Mason.
harry law
Francis Lee, never took much notice of Paul Mason so looked him up, could go no further than
this paragraph from an article in the New Statesman .
"To bring the perpetrators of the war crime in Douma to justice means unblocking the
multilateral system at the UN and the International Criminal Court. That in turn means
persuading the Russian people to elect a government that does not sanction torture, chemical
weapons attack, the assassination of opponents and the conquest of territory by brute force".
He should stop running away from the orderlies, they are only trying to help him.
BigB
Francis:
I respect your economic knowledge and really appreciate your detailed response.
With respect, the state-structuralist view you put forward is exactly the model that needs
revision: ecologically and economically – in light of entropy; modern market theory; and the
existence of the euro$ markets – that mediate as much as 90% of world trade according to
Shaxson. Including extractivism.
Indeed, you reviewed his latest book: so perhaps I should bring the City into
consideration as the core of the tributary accumulation of the global neoliberal market
fundamentalism?
First: I should make clear that I use the broadest definition of imperialism – of
lifestyle; credit; technological, resource, and financialisational and not just military
imperialism. Though the main purpose of US imperial might is in the 'global policeman' role:
keeping the neoliberal capitalist core, semi-periphery, periphery, and excluded/exploited
hierarchical tiers exactly as they are.
So, Russia and China are not traditionally imperialistic: which is why I would prescribe
Marini's term 'sub-imperial' terminology extending the credit and financialisation
imperialism of the core over the periphery. As academics like Professor Patrick Bond and
William I Robinson have detailed.
Above even the core: the Trans-National Suprastate (TNS) – of the uber-capitalist
billionaires; the top 140 TNCs (including the worst polluting extractivist corporations); and
the trans-national financial institutions (banks; shadow banks; hedge funds; etc) – would
rank as ultra-imperialist even though, strictly speaking, they do not even have any guns.
Second: I should include the hegemonic neoliberal extractivist, expansionist, and
super-exploitation model the current global world system follows. In line with numerous other
comments I have made: I view this materialistic model as lifestyle imperialism – not just for
today – but as commodifying and consuming the future. I'd like to keep hope alive, but must
nevertheless note that is if the current extractivist oil fueled materialistic paradigm
leaves much of a future. Is it not an imperialism to live profligate consumer lifestyles now
– expecting the coming 'Z generation' and their unborn children to socialise and foot the
bill? I would say it is.
I did not draw any symmetries – or assymetries – I said the world system is falsely
conceived of as such. The current world system is not easily bifurcated into neat East or
West assemblies: and is best considered as a whole. Elsewhere, I maintain I would much rather
focus on world system ecology and economy – and dispose of nation state analysis in general.
This makes diagnosis of the world system economy as imperialist and omnicidal all the more
easy. And I would say, irrefutably so.
In fact: the whole misconception of two hemispheres, or two contrasting ways of life is
generally to refute the irrefutability as when Vltchek builds the imaginary conception of an
'Ecological Civilisation' rising through Eurasian integration into the 'supercontinent' or
Mackinder's 'World Island'. Which, as I am sure you know, would peripheralise the US/UK (just
the City – extended to 'ZUSUK' to include Zurich and the lowland 'offshore' secrecy
jurisdictions – such as Luxembourg, Belgium, Holland, etc in the City's financial sphere).
Which would overturn the current hegemonic order. Which is why both countries are ringed by
bases: to keep them in their sub-imperial place. As the Atlanticist integration takes place
in parallel.
Indeed: Russia is the one country seeking seccession from the current imperial euro$
order. As VVP recently said: "We are not abandoning the dollar: the dollar is abandoning us".
Russia dumped the bulk of its Treasuries (USTs) without fuss: the markets did not collapse;
the dollar got stronger, in fact. Now they are using yuan as reserves – fearing sanctions –
trading in currency swaps. But this is a drop in the ocean of the reserve markets (>2% as far
as I am aware). Above the euro and yen – the dollar reigns supreme for a worthless Fiat.
[There are smaller 'euro-euro' and 'euro-yen' unregulated markets too: but let's not
complicate it].
But Russia is the exception that breaks the rule. I'm sure you are aware Russia is owned
offshore – estimated usually at 80% – much of it in Londongrad. Shaxson even uses this as a
creation myth for the genesis of the euro$ markets. Russia is still bleeding from capital
flight, even though it slowed recently. Michael Hudson puts the figure at $25bn a year since
the early 90s – over $1tn total funding Chelsea FC instead of Russian recovery.
As you raised the question – what is the answer? Just who is sovereign? When fealty has to
be paid to the dollar; when trade is mediated in a foreign currency – enforcing vassalship
and export driven econometrics; when there is a huge unregulated offshore pool of petro- and
illicit capital offshore challenging regulated banking onshore; whenthis has given rise to
'casino capitalism' shadow banking; when FTAs, RTAs, customs unions, and regional trading
blocs facilitate the borderless flows of goods, services, labour, and capital; when the
neoliberal WTO rules in favour of TNCs; when the IMF/WB development loans come with
neoliberalising strings attached; when resources are a curse; and financialisation is
expanding with fintech to make us all poorer? It is not the people, is it Francis? The
offshore TNCs have become highly influential "Shadow Sovereigns" – to coin Susan Georges
phrase. And their influence is extending into 'Global Governance'. Where will that leave us?
The world is a rich man's paradise: unionised labour and democracies have been smashed;
the world totally re-ordered by class racism and financial imperialism; we have been
de-politicised and de-sovereigntised – our rights and freedoms 'offshored'; what labour is
left is about to be lost to AI; wages have been stagnabt for decades; the poor are getting
poorer, the underdeveoloped more underdeveloped; the extractivism, expansionism, and
hyper-exploitation of today and tomorrow is perhaps at its zenith: and the globalist model is
killing the host.
I know we realise this: perhaps that makes the 'grass is greener' syndrome explicable?
Even though 'over there' is exactly the same model of extractivism, expansionism, and
hyper-exploitation. Add in entropic ecological analysis: and that 'greener' is a
pseudo-ecological civilisation.
As the global markets – except the magic stock market – invert and implode; the G7 central
banks prepare to 'ease' with rate cuts. The extractivist model is broken: capitalism died
between 07-09 to be replaced with perpetual debt monetisation and cosmetic 'Global
Destruction Protocol' growth. One final point: surely it must have crossed the mind that the
assembling armies may not be going to fight each other? Or possibly the parallel
globalisations might not be parallel and alternative at all ?
There is nothing I can do, but lament the lack of anti-capitalist, anti-globalist,
critique. But I do not have to cheer on the extractivist, expansionist, materialistic
oppressors as they debt-fund the anti-future. Making the case that China/Russia's neoliberal
extractivist methodology is slightly more humane and humanitarian when, in the
meta-analysis, it is just as quickly killing the planet seems somewhat unnecessary, don't you
think? It is all part of the lifestyle imperialism we are witnessing over today and tomorrow.
Modernity is murder by debt money East and West.
Frank Speaker
I'd love to read more of your excellent insights. As I said it would be great if you were
to ever find inclination and time to start your own blog. I'm intrigued as to your
background, you have a wide and deep knowledge of the physical and metaphysical.
Ramdan
Francis, thanks for your reply and clearly explaining your point.
For me the choice is
simple: Peace and no-violence, no plaundering and respect for life in all its forms. With
that inside, you can not be manipulated or make to buy "humanitarian interventions", defense
of human rights through bombings and coupe de etat. Nor with being free because you can wear
Prada or have access to so call "advance" gadgets .
Ultimately, the actual revolution, change, has to happened within ourselves, inside a
change from self-centered, materialistic, idiotic consumption to a more spiritual-based
conception that sees reality beyond any and all man-created categories.
We are all one and the same. This life is not a possibility to achieve anything material but
just a learning path, a liberating path.
Norcal
Was this moment America's turning point? I think so, and it got JFK Assassinated
I think the US will eventually break up into five or six balkanized states which can only be a good thing
for the world. The thirteen deep south Confederate States can export tobacco and cotton for example,
while Oregon and Washington State might export timber and the mid-west exports grain. New England could
attract tourists while California, a large state on its own, could continue developing technology.
Americans should be made to bicker with each other and left unable to unite to attack the world again.
Frank Speaker
That would be karma if that ever were to occur, since that's exactly what the Neocons are planning for
Russia.
Harry Stotle
People who tell the truth about the Washington concensus tend end up in a maximum security prison (or on
the run) while the media manipulate the public into being suspicious about the motives of whistleblowers
rather than the terrible crimes they unearth.
Israel can turn Gaza into an open air prison camp while
murdering Palestinian children in front of the cameras yet the vast majority of those in the west simply
haven't got a clue what is going on there (because of an orchestrated news blackout).
Or if we turn back the clock the US can drop atom bombs on defenseless citizens and it isn't regard as
a crime, or even as an immoral thing to do.
It goes without saying they will keep getting away with it until the first western leader is hung from
a lampost but as it stands they are more likely to be given regular columns in the Guardian or invited to
prestigious speaking events while being paid handsomely for inane homilies about world peace.
Capricornia Man
If you look at things that are happening on every inhabited continent today, you could be excused for
thinking we face the prospect of a world-wide fascist dictatorship.
The MSM play an important part in
promoting this lurch away from democracy – except, of course, when the state turns around and bites THEM
(whereupon they expect our support for "freedom of the press").
'International rules based order' Such quaint language to disguise the real meaning: blood drenched
Imperialism, blatant thuggery, the theft of other countries resources, invading and bombing and
overthrowing Govts, the ever increasing use of sanctions against those countries that refuse to be
puppets; like Iran and Syria, the portrayal of resistance movements as 'terrorists' such as Hezbollah for
example.
What pure evil resides in the United States. All for us and a few crumbs for you as long as you
follow orders. Living in Australia, its shameful how low the Australian Govt will bow and grovel to their
masters in Washington. And the total mind numbing hypocrisy .
Antonym
Surely Bolton US is the no.1 bully but Xi China is no damsel in distress; just ask the neighboring
countries about the border changes demanded by Beijing, or their very one sided financial contracts.
By only highlighting US aggression the whole article becomes a kind of fake news, and we have had enough
of that.
China just blocked On-Guardian and would not blink an eye to do cut of Off-Guardian too; self censorship
is deadly in the long run.
andyoldlabour
It isn't "fake news" to report on geopolitical realities, or the undeniable fact that since WW2, the
US has been effecting coups, regime change, wars all around the globe and has been responsible for
millions of deaths, not to mention its use of chemical weapons – Iran Iraq War, Vietnam, Desert Storm,
Iraq 2003.
No other country/empire in the history of the World has come anywhere near the crimes committed by the
US.
Francis Lee
Okay, but small beer really and actually irrelevant. In a global poll conducted by Pew regarding who
was the most dangerous country to world peace guess who came out on top? Who is the rampaging bull
elephant and threat to world peace and order? Who wants to create a world empire? When asked what he
thought of western (i.e., British) civilization Ganhdi replied, 'I think that it would be a very good
idea'. The Anglo-zionist empire want's to interfere in the internal affairs of sovereign states, the
Anglo-zionist empire wants to start a war, the Eurasian bloc doesn't – that the alpha and omega of
things. As for the rest, 'manifest destiny' 'spreading democracy' 'humanitarian intervention' – this
is just grade one BS.
The now discarded Westphalian principles about non-interference in the internal affairs of
sovereign nations is now unfortunately defunct. This means that war becomes inevitable if this path
continues to be pursued by the AZ empire. Russia and China are obliged to defend themselves and are
doing so.
eddie
Most of us in China use a vpn, so yes, the Guardian is accessible for those wishing to read the latest
GCHQ / CIA propaganda.
BTW, how are your 16 spy agencies working out for you, there in the 'land of the free' ?
Purgatory
Surely Bolton US is a bully, but don't paint Xi China as a fragile damsel in distress: just ask its
neighboring countries about its aggression and border change claims.
Why try to counter balance biased Western MSM with pro "poor" China stuff? That comes close to fake news
and too many have had enough of that. Show
both
side of this coin.
harry law
The shining city on a hill, the exceptional and indispensible nation and also the nation that wants
hegemony over the whole world, good luck with achieving that. Bolton, Pompeo and Pence are Neocons who
think the United States should have a military and economic advantage over the whole world, therefore
because Trump appointed them he is responsible for all the bellicose noise coming from them, the idea
that war against either Russia or China could be won without destroying all combatants is preposterous.
It is true that the US could destroy both Russia and China 10 times over because of its greater number of
nuclear weapons, whereas Russia/China could only destroy the US 4 times over. There are probably some
leaders in the US that think they are good odds, rather like the General in the film Dr Strangelove
General Turgidson: "Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed, but I do say no more
than 10 to 20 million killed, tops! Uh, depending on the breaks". The notion that a country which has
spent the last two decades fighting a losing battle against the sandal wearing Taliban thinking a war
against Russia, China or even Iran could be a winning proposition is lunacy on steroids. Even considering
the mine shaft gap. Maybe the Pentagon planners are writing a script for a sequel to Dr Strangelove, because the characters
today are far more convincing, both funnier and scarier than Peter Sellers et al 55 years ago. Pompeo and
Pence are 'end time' believers who think that Trump might be on a mission from God. Thankfully we have
two first class cowards in Commander- in -Chief Donald 'bone spurs' Trump and his advisor John Bolton,
the former said that his reasons for avoiding service in Vietnam were his feet, and that his personal
Vietnam at the time was his ability to avoid sexually Transmitted diseases. John Bolton said "I confess I
had no desire to die in a southeast paddy" "I considered the war in Vietnam already lost", what he
probably omitted to say was I am at ease with others going to die in Vietnam, just so long as it is not
me. Must not forget Elliot Abrams struggling to get a part in this new production a convicted war
criminal who presided over the 1980s 'dirty war' era, when US-backed death squads murdered hundreds of
thousands in Latin America. You could not make it up.
Trump is acting like a mafia boss, the problem is when one nation big or small decides not to pay
'protection money', Germany is continuing with the Nord Stream 2 gas Pipe line despite threats of
sanctions, it is not buying the F35 lemon, nor is it contributing 2% of GDP [Trump wants 4%] to NATO.
Trump is going ape shit about this, but what can he do?
Turkey are withstanding the threats [so far] by buying Russia's S400 anti aircraft system, same with
India, how long can the Empires credibility be tested before those states get more than a severed horses
head placed in their beds? Russia/China and most of the world seem to have the measure of the beast, the
US empire is still powerful and can do a lot of harm, what is at stake is the independent sovereignty of
and self respect of nations, if that is lost, all is lost. My advice to nations who want to keep their
self respect, is when they are told to 'follow the leader of the free world' and told to do something
that damages the interests of their own country, is to say Go Fuck Yourselves. Diplomatically of course.
wardropper
Surely Peter Sellers was scary enough ?
Admittedly, as with most Sellers movies, things do get funny, but Kubrick's message is, to me, 100%
prophetic and shows us more than half a century later exactly what we should be scared of.
Yet the thugs in today's Washington have probably never even seen the movie, let alone understood its
excoriating satire.
wardropper
I agree that the damning Chinese criticism quoted above is pretty euphemistic and, yes, generous to the
U.S., but the Chinese have, as they say themselves, a long history, and with that come some refinements,
like basic diplomacy.
And it's still a damning criticism.
Frankly, it's a relief to read amidst our daily rations of American
exceptionalism.
Michael Leigh
All thanks to lawyer/writer Christopher Black for this " Global Times " citation here which surely
deserves the " exceptionally widest " circulation as it should be published, somehow worldwide throughout
every corner of the Globe in whatsoever language and mode is appropiuate, and certainly being filed
firstly with the Secretariat of the totality of the UNO General Assembly State membership.
Fair dinkum
After the crescendo comes the silence.
Forever.
Hug your loved ones now.
alt media-verse is currently on fire with the news that the US State Dept's answer to Al Capone, Mike Pompeo, has been caught
promising "Jewish leaders" to send the boys round to Jeremy Corbyn if he should get elected and subsequently prove to be uppity and
out of line. According to the
WaPo , who broke the story:
The remarks, which are contained in audio of a private meeting leaked to The Washington Post, make Pompeo the second senior U.S.
official to comment on Britain's turbulent leadership succession in the past week.
During his meeting with Jewish leaders in New York, Pompeo was asked if Corbyn "is elected, would you be willing to work with
us to take on actions if life becomes very difficult for Jews in the U.K.?"
In response, Pompeo said, "It could be that Mr. Corbyn manages to run the gantlet and get elected. It's possible. You should
know, we won't wait for him to do those things to begin to push back. We will do our level best," he said to fervent applause
from attendees.
"It's too risky and too important and too hard once it's already happened," he said.
Of course the idea the "Jewish leaders" harbor any real fear that Jeremy Corbyn (Jeremy Corbyn!) is going to make life "difficult"
for British Jews if elected is simply risible. They know, just as every moderately informed person knows, that that's absurd. They
know Corbyn has no wish to make life difficult for anybody – except possibly the uber wealthy and the profiteer class.
They know the "antisemitism" fear is just a cover for the very very real fear that a Corbyn government will break the unwritten
rules of modern western governance and reject the agenda of austerity, exploitation and perpetual war that has been creating huge
profits and ideological thrills for the blessed few over the last twenty years.
They know that what Pompeo is promising is action to prevent this possibility coming about.
People are up in arms about this, and some seem quite shocked. Apparently the idea the neoliberal elites would try regime change
or regime-control on a relatively prosperous western country was something they didn't previously think possible.
Unfortunately it's more than possible. The state apparatus of the different western nations are a tight bond of mutual regard
and interest, just as likely to foment regime change on their own or their allies' elected representatives as on those of impoverished
or "developing" countries, if they believe those representatives threaten the perceived interests of the state. Of course it
isn't too often necessary, since the same western state apparatus also works to ensure that only governments that don't threaten
perceived state interests manage to get elected. But, when the unthinkable happens, MI5 and the CIA are quite happy to step up
to the plate and throw their own or their allies' democratic governments out the window. It's happened – or nearly happened –
at least twice in the last fifty years.
In the 1960s the UK security agencies, senior military and members of the royal family were apparently
contemplating
a fullblown coup against Labour prime minister Harold Wilson.
In 1975 it was
Australia's turn , when democratically elected reforming prime minister Gough Whitlam was overthrown in a bloodless constitutional
coup organised jointly by the US and UK .
The old empire and the new have form in this regard, and this means no one should take Pompeo's words (spoken in private let's
not forget) lightly.
It's also interesting to look at how the WaPo frames the revelation. There's no sense of outrage or surprise there. In fact it's
an almost matter-of-fact piece, written with no awareness of its potential impact. Even those in the comments who object in some
form are mostly doing it within the permissible current language of dissent – blaming Trump , because in these identity politics-saturated
times, your morality resides in who or what you are NOT in what you do.
To the WaPo – and many of its readers – there's nothing intrinsically either wrong or surprising in the idea a US secretary of
state should be overtly promising to interfere in the democratic governance of another country.
While the continued mental assault on what is left of
public consciousness still features the idiot fiction of Russiagate, or how the evil Putin
arranged to trash our great American democracy and defeat holy mother Hillary on behalf of
cursed father Donald, the month of June offered not one but two major fictional treatments of
historic reality to further reduce innocent minds to enslaved mentalities. The fables of D-Day,
celebrated every year in glorification of a war actually won by the Soviet Union but taught as
America's gift to the global marketplace, and the unholy terror alleged by evil China in the
infamous Tiananmen uprising treated here as a story worthy of creation by Disney, Spielberg,
Mother Goose and Ronald Reagan combined.
While American troops paid a heavy price and contributed mightily to the victory over
Germany in WW2 with the attack on the French coast memorialized as D-Day, that beachhead of
some 50 miles was dwarfed by the 1500 mile wide eastern front where Russia absorbed more death
and destruction than any other nation in that massive bloodbath. D-Day was a much belated
response from America and Britain to endless pleas that an attack be conducted in the west to
spare some of the terrible toll on Russia. That nation suffered as many as 20 million dead,
entire cities and villages reduced to giant cemeteries and rubble while a post war fairy tale
was spread of American GIs rescuing Europe, giving candy bars to children, creating fictional
democracy and real pregnancy wherever they went.
French brutality towards its women who allegedly fraternized with the German enemy, many
doing so to help their families survive, was covered somewhat in newsreels released here. But
American troops impregnating hordes of French women, reducing many to prostitution under
conditions of wartime poverty and hardship, was hardly mentioned. The entire history of that
so-called "great" war is as smothered in propaganda and fiction as any story of American
conflict and we still pay a price of belief in alleged glory participating in an orgy of mass
murder that may have taken the lives of far more than fifty million and was deemed totally
unnecessary by many critics at the time. They, of course, were quickly labeled as fascists,
communists or non-sectarian free thinkers and dismissed from any hearing by the public.
Critical thinking about ruling propaganda has no place in a democracy. And boiled excrement
makes for a nutritious meal.
While that war put America, untouched by any of its horror on our mainland while Europe and
the Pacific were nearly destroyed, at the top of the industrial pyramid of capital by its end,
its controlling global position has lasted until the present historic moment. This finds the
world reeling under a series of political, economic and environmental breakdowns all due to the
reduction of humanity to commodity consumers in a vast shopping mall that is reducing the
planet to a garbage dump, and an ever growing ghetto of multitudes reduced to poverty while a
small group enjoy riches beyond the wildest fantasies of past or present royalty.
That reality has produced many conditions of revolutionary aspirations among people
disgusted with the status quo, none of those having succeeded yet but some coming closer to
ideals growing more necessary as more of humanity sees the potential horror of continued
operation as an anti-human system of alleged democracy passing for a market place in which the
rich and poor enjoy supposed equal access to the fruits of life. This political economic
religious fanaticism is coming face to face with the political economic science that finds
anti-social reality reducing humanity to a future that threatens to be much shorter than its
past. The controlling mindset that perpetuates the madness plays a further role in the second
June historic moment treated as myth by western mind management. What is called the Tiananmen
"massacre" has destroyed more western consciousness than any eastern bodies allegedly taken in
that event.
When Chinese seekers of more democracy and less corruption rose in protest against their
government much of the organization came from outside China, in the tradition of so-called
"color revolutions" of the present promoted by western capital's agents both in and outside the
country supposedly experiencing the call for freedom. More recently the events in the Ukraine
were similar when an elected government was overthrown with open American involvement in league
with some former Ukrainian fascists, but the 1989 demonstrations in China were not only given
great coverage then but memorialized with still unsubstantiated death tolls and alleged horrors
claimed which rarely if ever mention Chinese troops attacked and beaten to death by mobs of
supposedly peaceful demonstrators. While originally claiming thousands killed, more recently
the toll has been carefully lowered by some to hundreds, but others still shriek that thousands
were murdered by the bloody monsters in China. There is as much evidence for this number of
deaths as there is for Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction, Israel's great
suffering at the hands of murderous Palestinians, and the injustice experienced by American
women when Trump leaves the toilet seat up.
Widespread belief in these two summer fantasies of history would not last ten minutes in a
nation with a truly free press able to widely distribute the stories of what actually took
place, what behind the scenes activities played a role in both, and what the outcomes have
actually produced. The duplicity and disinformation of much that passes for reality in the
hands of stenographers and paid agents for power has led to some not believing anything they
are told about anything, which is understandable but only leads to acceptance in often almost
as maniacal and far fetched conclusions reached by far too many of us. But at least doubt may
cause many to try to look further and find out more of what has really been kept from us and
not simply relying on new fables and follies to explain old ones. A place to begin might be
these two giant creations of mass mythology that could help us all learn more about the real
world rather than the one presented to us by the owners and operators of our supposed
democracy.
On June 4th the Chinese government issued a travel alert for Chinese tourists thinking of
visiting the United States, a day after it issued a similar advisory to Chinese students
thinking of studying in the US over concerns for their safety and security.
Chinese in the US are reporting harassment and interrogations by US immigration authorities
and many now have the impression they are not welcome in the US.
The Global Times , speaking on behalf of the government stated:
The Chinese people find it difficult to accept the fact that they are being taken as
thieves. The US boasts too much superiority and has been indulged by the world. Due to its
short history, it lacks understanding of and respect for the rules of countries and laws of
the market.
The Americans of the early generations accumulated prosperity and prestige for the US,
while the current US administration behaves like a wastrel generation by ruining the world's
respect for the US."
... ... ...
The situation has become so tense that the Global Times on June 6,th in an op ed by Wei
Jianguo, said:
China is able to withstand US maximum pressure, due to the country's economic resilience,
and Chinese people's resolute determination. Suffering from a century of humiliation, the
Chinese nation has been accustomed to such pressure, as shown in the War of Resistance
against Japanese Aggression, as well as the Korean War or the War to Resist US Aggression and
Aid Korea. The unity of Chinese people is a vital reason for the country's fundamental
victory in history."
The Peoples' Daily stated, "America is the enemy of the world."
Scandal?
JFK went against the flow of the good old boys and their networks.
'Bay of Pigs' was a disaster but did JFK really have that much input into the planning of
that mess?
He stopped it, eventually, probably because he thought it might escalate into a full blown
war with Russia.
He did some amazing stuff during the Cuban crises.
He kept his rabid war hawks at bay until a resolution was worked out with Russia.
Khrushchev did should be thanked too by keeping his military maniacs leashed too.
What's with the tea baggers redefining history?
You guys have started burning books over there yet? and
Citizens can be appalled by outside of rare moment of social upheaval that does not matter:
iron law of oligarchy suggests that the state in ruled in the interests of oligarchy not common
citizens. It was as true fro the USSR as is the USA now.
Notable quotes:
"... We are appalled by these actions of the military and government officials. You are being unfair, totally inaccurate and perpetuating a false notion, as to how the great majority of citizens feel about all that is happening around the world, with those who are involved with the pathos that is being experienced by other human beings. ..."
You are very wrong when you assert that most American citizens want this and are as blood
lust as these agencies and other government and military leaders.
We are appalled by these actions of the military and government officials. You are being
unfair, totally inaccurate and perpetuating a false notion, as to how the great majority of
citizens feel about all that is happening around the world, with those who are involved with
the pathos that is being experienced by other human beings.
It is a constant never ending source of pain, frustration, rage and disbelief that our
nations leaders are acting the way that we are now all very aware of, thanks to those who
have exposed the travesty.
What in God's name do you expect from the citizens who are also suffering extremely dire
circumstances because of how the greedy criminals have left many homeless, hungry and dying
because of not having enough money for healthcare. We are also being abused, abandoned, and
marginalized into oblivion.
Many who are well off enough, are trying to appeal to the government to take control of
their part of any global and national crises. It is all everyone is capable of doing to bring
about change.
We are not " them, " so stop making such reprehensible comments about an entire
nation of mostly good people who care very deeply, and are effected very grievously.
These people should all be in prison. The preposterous theory that government officials have
immunity from prosecution is absolute B.S. How do they get away with these treasonous
acts!!?? When "commoners" (average Americans) break the law we go to prison. This "too big to
fail" and individuals "too important" to prosecute mentality of Erich Holder just proves
beyond a shadow of a doubt that "the United States Government has become an entity by itself,
for itself and of itself and could care less about the American people"
(the quotations are mine).
The USG spends close to a TRILLOIN DOLLAS A YEAR on the so called "Black Budget" so they
can fund private armies that act outside the law to go around the globe and kill anyone that
disagrees. This is an ongoing criminal enterprise, and the taxpaying citizens are footing the
bill.
I reality think that the RICO. (racketeer influenced corrupt organization act) law fits
them perfectly: 1) they are organized in subverting the Constitution, committing crimes
around the world breaking international law, 2) they are definitely corrupt, 3) they just
happen to run the country and think they are "immune" to prosecution. If they do get caught
they spend a couple years in a "club-fed" prison, then go on the talk show circuit and make
millions of dollars like Ollie North.
How do "We the people" prevail against this rampant evil? Where are we to go to get
justice when the ones entrusted to be the champions of the people, are the perpetrators of
the problem?
"... Other than it is against the law for CIA to spy in the US. It is FBI's job. And Brennan lied to Congress under oath, a crime for which Clinton was impeached. And the fact that if they are coneding this crime, they must've been caught on something even bigger. ..."
"... They are way out of control. They need to take a step back and reevaluate their reason for being and their goals. You can't protect the people if you see them as the enemy. ..."
"... The intelligence agencies are civil servants who need to be reigned in whenever they exceed the instructions given to them by their civilian bosses. ..."
"... And the CIA torture? ..."
"... Who ever was over the hacking of the Senator's computer and the Senator's staffers computers should be invited to leave. If that extends all the way up to Brennan, so be it. ..."
"... Unfortunately, that corrective action has to come from those who are perpetrating these crimes in order for it to be legal. It's the classic Catch-22 of political corruption. ..."
"... "They have plundered the world, stripping naked the land in their hunger they are driven by greed, if their enemy be rich; by ambition, if poor They ravage, they slaughter, they seize by false pretences, and all of this they hail as the construction of empire. And when in their wake nothing remains but a desert, they call that peace." ― Tacitus (AD56 to after AD117) The Agricola and the Germania ..."
"... The problem with political power is that it proves to be a magnet to those with sociopathic/psychopathic tendencies and they are easily corrupted. ..."
"... Back in the day, the people of Russia knew that what they were being fed was propaganda, in the US and the UK we thought it was news. ..."
"... Intelligence Agencies have their own Agenda. The CIA spy on everyone including the Senate it seems. Meanwhile the Israeli Intelligence Agencies spy on many people Including the USA,the very people who give them the money... ..."
"... If the CIA are Spying on the Senate you have to ask the Question who are they working for ? ..."
There should be no discussion about this! However just like Mockingbird, National Students Ass., Tailwind, PBSUCCESS,and so many
others, they will stall until they get it dropped from the media and we will forget again.
John Brennan's next job should be in a orange jump suit earning pennies and hour.
But we all know that this will never happen. Brennan is the right hand of the commander and chief of death, destruction and torture.
and has been for a long time. This is the work of evil, plain and simple.
How can you have any faith or trust in a government like this? It's one damn thing after another. The Executive branch, the Congress,
the high courts, the Justice Dept. are all corrupt. Laws are broken, constitutional protections are laughed at, we are constantly
being spied on. No charges are brought. Nobody goes to jail.
A minor detail?
The CIA and security services have every right to know who is who on all and every politician and their staff.
That's why we are safe. :-)
Other than it is against the law for CIA to spy in the US. It is FBI's job.
And Brennan lied to Congress under oath, a crime for which Clinton was impeached. And the fact that if they are coneding this
crime, they must've been caught on something even bigger.
Sure, everything else is just fine. As far as we know, that is.
They are way out of control. They need to take a step back and reevaluate their reason for being and their goals.
You can't protect the people if you see them as the enemy.
So it appears that some in Congress will get upset if a Executive agency misuses its powers? Are these the same folks who seem
to be okay with the IRS focus on Conservative 501(c)(3) applicants?
Who ever was over the hacking of the Senator's computer and the Senator's staffers computers should be invited to leave. If that
extends all the way up to Brennan, so be it.
Unfortunately, that corrective action has to come from those who are perpetrating these crimes in order for it to be legal. It's
the classic Catch-22 of political corruption.
Don't fire Brennan. Arrest him and charge him violating the prohibition against domestic surveillance, lying under oath and,
arguably, treason. Maybe there is space in Guantanamo for him to reflect upon the meaning of the Constitution and the rule of
law.
And the reason that we never hear of these supposed 'facts' is what? That we're all too dumb to know? Dumbing down America is
getting mighty costly of late, n'est-pas?
Just because they say you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you. Remember: America is not a democracy. That's a
sideshow. It's an oligarchy and don't you forget it.
You can always trust some govts/agencies/people to always take the wrong path/back door. It would simply never occur to them to
take the right one. This is who they are.
Staffs carry out directives. I'm not buying that staff had cause to go looking otherwise.
Feinstein has problems with being spied on, yet heads the Intelligence Committee who for several years has been authorizing
spying on - well, everybody.
Feinstein shouldn't worry about spying, unless she's doing something wrong. Isn't that the proposition?
So why is it scandalous for public officials in our supposed western liberal democracies to spy on officials in other agencies,
and deserving of an apology, but it's Okay for officials to spy on fellow citizens?
What might a government of the people that does not trust the people it governs be properly called?
I would like to point out that beyond what is touted in the press as "the story" the nature of these sorts of things can remain
hidden for many years. Recent events in Germany and in Washington, if viewed from a different perspective may be connected. In
the past when such revelations come to light it is resultant from security issues that are of such magnitude that those tasked
with intelligence responsibilities remain in power because they are simply doing their job and are doing so at the command of
elected officials, who when made aware of covert matters go all quiet and allow the chips to fall as they may. Seldom does the
public ever hear of the actual facts in a timely way, and by the time that does happens they have long since moved on to more
pressing matters.
Has any politician asked them to explain why they spied, in terms of their motivations ? It seems the 'why' is surely more damaging
than the act of spying itself?
What else is new!...Corruption / deceit / fraud / theft, at the highest level of tax payers money is being conducted..War criminals
being sponsored by their own corrupt government ministers / agencies, to create carnage, by divide & rule tactics...Its a fatal
backfiring failure / disaster which is causing their downfall.
Not surprising...All these out of control "rogue agencies" I.E. CIA / NSA / MI5 / MI6 / GCHG / MOSAD, must be brought to book
for their corrupt / deceitful / fraudulent workings...Their most senior officers are involved in a worldwide cover up into illegal
involvement of creating criminal wars around the world, by using spying techniques upon government institutions & citizens...The
recent scandal of phone tapping / voice mail / email interception, goes to show the lengths they are prepared to conduct / cover
up their own war criminality acts. They are the REAL terrorists !!
"They have plundered the world, stripping naked the land in their hunger they are driven by greed, if their enemy be rich; by
ambition, if poor They ravage, they slaughter, they seize by false pretences, and all of this they hail as the construction of
empire. And when in their wake nothing remains but a desert, they call that peace."
― Tacitus (AD56 to after AD117) The Agricola and the Germania
They'll even eat their own... How this behaviour doesn't equate to criminal actions is part of the disgrace. The US government
have morphed in to a dystopian movement.
9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA by Webster Griffin Tarpley (ISBN: 9780930852375) another good read and makes a plausible case
for a coup carried out on America.
In the reign of Elizabeth 1st a blacksmith was executed for treason because he was overhead saying that he believed the uncrowned
King Edward V was still alive.
A quick search on Sir Francis Walsingham, Elizabeth's Secretary of State will reveal for just how long and how sophisticated
state spying on state has been.
Yes, they don't like others to be in a position to know of their venality, their sexual deviances and assorted other human failings.
Else that knowledge be used to control them...............
The problem of how the rest of the world views the actions of the US is exacerbated by the seeming inability or disinterest of
its citizens in doing anything about it.
Admittedly, a frustration shared by many citizens/subjects in Western countries, that pretend to be functioning democracies but
are in fact anything but.
The problem with political power is that it proves to be a magnet to those with sociopathic/psychopathic tendencies and they
are easily corrupted.
We are politically and economically very poorly educated and are daily fed propaganda and mind filling mush by media that are
'on message'.
The media ownership needs to be broken up but politicians, corporations and the media are one self serving body and would resist
that and have the power to do so.
Back in the day, the people of Russia knew that what they were being fed was propaganda, in the US and the UK we thought it
was news.
Intelligence Agencies have their own Agenda.
The CIA spy on everyone including the Senate it seems.
Meanwhile the Israeli Intelligence Agencies spy on many people Including the USA,the very people who give them the money...
(Out of Control is the thought that springs to mind)
If the CIA are Spying on the Senate you have to ask the Question who are they working for ? Is it the American Government ? Is
it the American Military? Is it The American Citizen ? Or are we seeing the henchmen of the illuminati in action here !
Their fingers seem to be in every pie and no one seems to be able to control them .
"... A sincere question: who is running the CIA and on whose behalf? ..."
"... They consider us the people, their enemy. We are the 'enemy within', because as we become increasingly aware of our politicians' criminality any action we take may threaten the status quo. ..."
"... Just because Americans don't tend to care about anything that happens beyond their own borders doesn't mean the rest of the world can live with the same blissful ignorance. ..."
"... The NSA scandal has made us realize that the US regards us as second-rated citizens who are nondeserving of the 'special protections' that Anglo-speaking countries do. ..."
"... This is extremely telling about Obama's continued failure to discern good character in his aides and cabinet. His administration has been a shambles largely due to his inability to surround himself with good people. ..."
"... I guess so, as we all know that the CIA always tried to silent war opponents. This had been largely documented about Vietnam opponents to the War on US soil. ..."
"... The CIA is now a discredited organization run by proven liars. When will Congress do something about it? Answer -- never. They are all being blackmailed. ..."
"... The CIA is completely out of control. This begs the question, as to why do, or should, American citizen vote for candidates when those candidates are effectively being 'managed' and spied on by people in the CIA. Senators in both houses are not making 'decisions' the CIA is. ..."
"... Yes and the only politician who has called for the abolition of the CIA is Ron Paul. ..."
"... The NSA isn't hindering your movements as you are not a danger to the status quo. You can keep getting blasted at your BBQ's and coming online to defend the indefensible, you're not a threat. But it's not about you. It's about the people who are in a position to challenge the system. This can include anti-war activists, judges, politicians and journalists. ..."
They consider us the people, their enemy. We are the 'enemy within', because as we become increasingly aware of our politicians'
criminality any action we take may threaten the status quo.
leaders haven't been voted into office for a while now - they're rigged into office - from the lowly dog catcher to the president
- and its happening all over the world.
If you take the easy way now, you will take the easy way in the future. This not a sandlot baseball game here. These are high-
powered people , who are responsible for matters extremely operant to the people of our country, and it must be admitted, the
world.
To simply brush off these serious breaches of Government procedure (law) would serve to perpetuate the Executive Branch intrusions
into the business of the Legislative Branch.
Separation of the powers is a time-honored method of setting up a government that has kept us 'moving along' for quite
awhile now. Most of its problems stem from the populace placing too much trust in their elected officials .
It is everyone's responsibility to collectively maintain our government. It was never the intention of our founders that our
leaders become reclusive despots: from today's vantage point, we can see this. It is a short walk to realize where the blame should
be laid. Up and on your way to no future.
Just because Americans don't tend to care about anything that happens beyond their own borders doesn't mean the rest of the
world can live with the same blissful ignorance.
The NSA scandal has made us realize that the US regards us as second-rated citizens who are nondeserving of the 'special
protections' that Anglo-speaking countries do.
I find it absolutely shocking that this guy's dismissal is still debatable. Should be a no-brainer is any democracy
In the UK and USA these spooks backed by politicians and civil servants are getting way out of hand. Having the technology to
do things doesn't provide the need or right to do such things. They are getting to the point where they are "protecting" us from
the very people and system they have become.
although the White House indicated its support for a man who has been one of Barack Obama's most trusted security aides.
This is extremely telling about Obama's continued failure to discern good character in his aides and cabinet. His administration
has been a shambles largely due to his inability to surround himself with good people.
I guess so, as we all know that the CIA always tried to silent war opponents. This had been largely documented about Vietnam
opponents to the War on US soil.
They're all fuc@#$g rogue. Power corrupts but absolute power corrupts absolutely. Who polices the police? No one apparently. They
and all their UK counterparts will walk away from this unscathed. If the heat gets a little too warm just play your joker, 'Terrorism'.
The CIA is now a discredited organization run by proven liars. When will Congress do something about it? Answer -- never.
They are all being blackmailed.
Your state can imprison anyone it wants, for as long as it wants, without having to justify it in any way... hell they are not
even required to let relatives know. That is a police state. The US is operating what effectively are concentration camps all
over the place, Guantanamo being the flagship.
The CIA is completely out of control. This begs the question, as to why do, or should, American citizen vote for candidates when
those candidates are effectively being 'managed' and spied on by people in the CIA. Senators in both houses are not making 'decisions'
the CIA is.
Quite how the CIA, White House or any other government body think that they have any credibility regarding any matter, is amazing.
I JUST PUT A LIST OF QUESTIONS ON MY TIME LINE THIS SHOULD KEEP THE SPY NETWORK BUSY FOR A WHILE ! BUT THEY NEVER DO ANYTHING
THAT MAKES SENSE ANYWAY ; THEY ONLY HAVE A 30 BILLION DOLLAR BUDGET ; BUT CANNOT TELL US WHAT HAPPENED TO MH370 MALAYSIAN AIRPLANE
! WOW ! SOME SPY NETWORK ! IT 'S EASY FOR THEM TO SCREW WITH US ; BECAUSE WE ARE EVERYDAY MARKS !
If the United States government doesn't even govern by popular mandate, it certainly won't give a fuck about anyone's respect,
dear fellow internet commentator.
The penalties for lying under oath are quite strict and can include up to 5 years of prison time. But nobody is willing to go
after these guys, they have too much information on too many people. The day the US congress voted for the patriot act was the
last day of their democracy.
What exactly does a CIA member have to do to get arrested, prosecuted and convicted for an action inside the USA?
It is not spying on Congress. It it spying on the Supreme court, or killing a Senator? Do they walk away free after assassinating
their own president? Do they need to do more?
The NSA isn't hindering your movements as you are not a danger to the status quo. You can keep getting blasted at your BBQ's and
coming online to defend the indefensible, you're not a threat. But it's not about you. It's about the people who are in a position
to challenge the system. This can include anti-war activists, judges, politicians and journalists.
Everyone who matters can be
kept inline with blackmail and for public figures it can be the smallest thing. Recently, during a primary, a candidate lost as
questions were raised about the fact he had checked in the a mental care facility. He probably had a breakdown and needed to be
observed for a couple of days. This piece of information would be easy to pick up with the various NSA programmes.
If this candidate
had the same views as you, this little fact would not have been released but I believe he was a defender of your constitution
and that could cause problems for the criminal regime you now live under.
Snooping is poison in a democracy. Your system was built so that it had self correction and could hence adapt to new situations
and constantly improve. This served Americans well for many years, but it has ended.
Feinstein and the word "hope" do not belong in one and the same sentence. She along with her fellow conspirators in the intelligence
committee are the ones that have been green-lighting this fascism for years. It's like expecting John McCain to repeal the Patriot
Act.
People like Feinstein are chosen to oversee mass surveillance for the simple reason that they are old, completely technologically
illiterates who can be easily fooled or if need be blackmailed through their extensive business empires
.
Yeah and let's take a look at the CIA's backing for Operation Gladio in post WW2 Europe. Yeah, you Americans were there but you
certainly weren't saving lives or making the aftermath bearable for the victims.
Notable quotes:
"... Don't fire Brennan. Arrest him and charge him violating the prohibition against domestic surveillance, lying under oath and, arguably, treason. Maybe there is space in Guantanamo for him to reflect upon the meaning of the Constitution and the rule of law. ..."
"... "What might a government of the people that does not trust the people it governs be properly called?" ..."
There should be no discussion about this! However just like Mockingbird, National Students Ass., Tailwind, PBSUCCESS,and so many
others, they will stall until they get it dropped from the media and we will forget again.
Get Smart Amarica
How can you have any faith or trust in a government like this? It's one damn thing after another. The Executive branch, the Congress,
the high courts, the Justice Dept. are all corrupt. Laws are broken, constitutional protections are laughed at, we are constantly
being spied on. No charges are brought. Nobody goes to jail. But Snowden is a traitor for revealing the truth.
A minor detail? The CIA and security services have every right to know who is who on all and every politician and their
staff.
That's why we are safe. :-)
Other than it is against the law for CIA to spy in the US. It is FBI's job. And Brennan lied to Congress under oath, a crime for
which Clinton was impeached. And the fact that if they are coneding this crime, they must've been caught on something even bigger.
Sure, everything else is just fine. As far as we know, that is.
They are way out of control. They need to take a step back and reevaluate their reason for being and their goals. You can't protect
the people if you see them as the enemy.
So it appears that some in Congress will get upset if a Executive agency misuses its powers? Are these the same folks who seem
to be okay with the IRS focus on Conservative 501(c)(3) applicants?
Um, no, Trevor Alfred, "the REAL terrorists" are still the folks who deliberately bomb civilians in areas where peace is supposed
to exist. The intelligence agencies are civil servants who need to be reigned in whenever they exceed the instructions given to
them by their civilian bosses.
Who ever was over the hacking of the Senator's computer and the Senator's staffers computers should be invited to leave. If that
extends all the way up to Brennan, so be it.
Unfortunately, that corrective action has to come from those who are perpetrating these crimes in order for it to be legal. It's
the classic Catch-22 of political corruption.
Don't fire Brennan. Arrest him and charge him violating the prohibition against domestic surveillance, lying under oath and,
arguably, treason. Maybe there is space in Guantanamo for him to reflect upon the meaning of the Constitution and the rule of
law.
And the reason that we never hear of these supposed 'facts' is what? That we're all too dumb to know? Dumbing down America is
getting mighty costly of late, n'est-pas?
Just because they say you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you. Remember: America is not a democracy. That's a
sideshow. It's an oligarchy and don't you forget it.
You can always trust some govts/agencies/people to always take the wrong path/back door. It would simply never occur to them to
take the right one. This is who they are.
Staffs carry out directives. I'm not buying that staff had cause to go looking otherwise.
Feinstein has problems with being spied on, yet heads the Intelligence Committee who for several years has been authorizing
spying on - well, everybody.
Feinstein shouldn't worry about spying, unless she's doing something wrong. Isn't that the proposition?
So why is it scandalous for public officials in our supposed western liberal democracies to spy on officials in other agencies,
and deserving of an apology, but it's Okay for officials to spy on fellow citizens?
What might a government of the people that does not trust the people it governs be properly called?
I would like to point out that beyond what is touted in the press as "the story" the nature of these sorts of things can remain
hidden for many years. Recent events in Germany and in Washington, if viewed from a different perspective may be connected. In
the past when such revelations come to light it is resultant from security issues that are of such magnitude that those tasked
with intelligence responsibilities remain in power because they are simply doing their job and are doing so at the command of
elected officials, who when made aware of covert matters go all quiet and allow the chips to fall as they may. Seldom does the
public ever hear of the actual facts in a timely way, and by the time that does happens they have long since moved on to more
pressing matters.
Has any politician asked them to explain why they spied, in terms of their motivations ? It seems the 'why' is surely more damaging
than the act of spying itself?
What else is new!...Corruption / deceit / fraud / theft, at the highest level of tax payers money is being conducted..War criminals
being sponsored by their own corrupt government ministers / agencies, to create carnage, by divide & rule tactics...Its a fatal
backfiring failure / disaster which is causing their downfall.
Not surprising...All these out of control "rogue agencies" I.E. CIA / NSA / MI5 / MI6 / GCHG / MOSAD, must be brought to book
for their corrupt / deceitful / fraudulent workings...Their most senior officers are involved in a worldwide cover up into illegal
involvement of creating criminal wars around the world, by using spying techniques upon government institutions & citizens...The
recent scandal of phone tapping / voice mail / email interception, goes to show the lengths they are prepared to conduct / cover
up their own war criminality acts. They are the REAL terrorists !!
"They have plundered the world, stripping naked the land in their hunger they are driven by greed, if their enemy be rich; by
ambition, if poor They ravage, they slaughter, they seize by false pretences, and all of this they hail as the construction of
empire. And when in their wake nothing remains but a desert, they call that peace."
― Tacitus (AD56 to after AD117) The Agricola and the Germania
They'll even eat their own... How this behaviour doesn't equate to criminal actions is part of the disgrace. The US government
have morphed in to a dystopian movement.
9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA by Webster Griffin Tarpley (ISBN: 9780930852375) another good read and makes a plausible case
for a coup carried out on America.
In the reign of Elizabeth 1st a blacksmith was executed for treason because he was overhead saying that he believed the uncrowned
King Edward V was still alive.
A quick search on Sir Francis Walsingham, Elizabeth's Secretary of State will reveal for just how long and how sophisticated
state spying on state has been.
The problem of how the rest of the world views the actions of the US is exacerbated by the seeming inability or disinterest of
its citizens in doing anything about it. Admittedly, a frustration shared by many citizens/subjects in Western countries,
that pretend to be functioning democracies but are in fact anything but.
The problem with political power is that it proves to be a magnet to those with sociopathic/psychopathic tendencies and they
are easily corrupted.
We are politically and economically very poorly educated and are daily fed propaganda and mind filling mush by media that are
'on message'.
The media ownership needs to be broken up but politicians, corporations and the media are one self serving body and would resist
that and have the power to do so.
Back in the day, the people of Russia knew that what they were being fed was propaganda, in the US and the UK we thought it
was news.
Intelligence Agencies have their own Agenda. The CIA spy on everyone including the Senate it seems. Meanwhile the
Israeli Intelligence Agencies spy on many people Including the USA, the very people who give them the money... (Out of Control
is the thought that springs to mind)
If the CIA are Spying on the Senate you have to ask the Question who are they working for ? Is it the American Government ? Is
it the American Military? Is it The American Citizen ? Or are we seeing the henchmen of the illuminati in action here !
Their fingers seem to be in every pie and no one seems to be able to control them .
"... The director of the Central Intelligence Agency, John Brennan, issued an extraordinary apology to leaders of the US Senate intelligence committee on Thursday, conceding that the agency employees spied on committee staff and reversing months of furious and public denials. ..."
"... Brennan acknowledged that an internal investigation had found agency security personnel transgressed a firewall set up on a CIA network, which allowed Senate committee investigators to review agency documents for their landmark inquiry into CIA torture. ..."
"... CIA spokesman Dean Boyd acknowledged that agency staff had improperly monitored the computers of committee staff members, who were using a network the agency had set up, called RDINet. "Some CIA employees acted in a manner inconsistent with the common understanding reached between [the committee] and the CIA in 2009 regarding access to the RDINet," he said. ..."
"... If its considered 'extraordinary' that a man apologize for his actions, then that man is either a sociopath, a criminal, or both. ..."
"... The CIA has now clearly suborned the executive. Obama now works for the CIA. He's spineless, Obama. He is craven, before the very same intelligence agencies that are supposed to work for him. ..."
"... You people are so deluded. You think it matter who you vote for. Newsflash - the CIA killed JFK. The CIA runs America. ..."
"... American foreign policy is the same no matter which party is in power. They are all screwing you six ways from Sunday. ..."
"... If America was a just state, that would happen. But America is a neo-fascist - or more properly, corporatist - state. ..."
"... The NSA/CIA in recent hearings forcefully explained to the Judiciary Committee in Congress that they only spy on foreigners and not US citizens. I guess Congressmen/women are not US citizens and must be terrorists. ..."
"... 'The CIA spying on the people supposedly in charge of the CIA' sounds as if they are reaping what they sowed... ..."
CIA director apologises for improper conduct of agency staff One senator calls on John Brennan to resign in wake of scandal
The director of the Central Intelligence Agency, John Brennan, issued an extraordinary apology to leaders of the US Senate
intelligence committee on Thursday, conceding that the agency employees spied on committee staff and reversing months of furious
and public denials.
Brennan acknowledged that an internal investigation had found agency security personnel transgressed a firewall set up on
a CIA network, which allowed Senate committee investigators to review agency documents for their landmark inquiry into CIA torture.
Among other things, it was revealed that agency officials conducted keyword searches and email searches on committee staff while
they used the network.
The admission brings Brennan's already rocky tenure at the head of the CIA under renewed question. One senator on the panel said
he had lost confidence in the director, although the White House indicated its support for a man who has been one of Barack Obama's
most trusted security aides.
CIA spokesman Dean Boyd acknowledged that agency staff had improperly monitored the computers of committee staff members,
who were using a network the agency had set up, called RDINet. "Some CIA employees acted in a manner inconsistent with the common
understanding reached between [the committee] and the CIA in 2009 regarding access to the RDINet," he said.
Asked if Brennan had or would offer his resignation, a different CIA spokesman, Ryan Trapani, replied: "No."
Feinstein said the vindication, from CIA inspector general David Buckley, and Brennan's apology were "positive first steps," suggesting
that the director had further work to do before she would consider the matter closed.
She stopped short of calling for Brennan's resignation. But her committee colleague, Democrat Mark Udall of Colorado, said Brennan
should go. "I have no choice but to call for the resignation of CIA director John Brennan," Udall said after a briefing on the inspector
general's findings.
"The CIA unconstitutionally spied on Congress by hacking into Senate intelligence committee computers. This grave misconduct is
not only illegal, but it violates the US constitution's requirement of separation of powers. These offenses, along with other errors
in judgment by some at the CIA, demonstrate a tremendous failure of leadership, and there must be consequences.
Mark Udall (@MarkUdall)
. @CIA IG rprt shows John Brennan misled public, whose interests I have
championed. I will fight for change at the CIA: http://t.co/uQVsvV43nB
Boyd, the CIA spokesman, said Brennan has asked a former committee member, Evan Bayh, a former Indiana Democratic senator, to
lead an "accountability board" reviewing Buckley's report and to advise Brennan on next steps.
That advice, Boyd said, "could include potential disciplinary measures and/or steps to address systemic issues."
Steve Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists, a longtime observer of the CIA, called its Thursday statement a "conciliatory
gesture" to the committee's leaders. "If Senator Feinstein is satisfied with the apology then the affair is effectively over. If
she contends there was a fundamental breach that cannot be corrected with a mere apology then some further action might be needed,"
Aftergood said.
Feinstein, in her dramatic speech on the Senate floor in March, said the agency breached the firewall to obstruct the committee's
investigation of the agency's torture of post-9/11 terrorism detainees, a years-long effort expected to be partially declassified
in the coming days or weeks. That investigation was itself prompted by a different coverup: the destruction of videotapes of brutal
interrogations by a senior official, Jose Rodriguez.
"In March, the committee chairwoman, Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, accused the agency of violating constitutional boundaries
by spying on the Senate."
Aahahahhahhhhahaaa. What a hypocrite hag. She must have something to hide if she doesn't like being spied on. I think that
there should be a full investigation into what Dianne...if that is even her real name, has been hiding and bring it to the light
of day.
Good point, but wrong way round imho. The CIA has now clearly suborned the executive. Obama now works for the CIA. He's spineless, Obama. He is craven, before the very same intelligence agencies that are supposed to work for him.
Just imagine how the laugh at him, speak about him, behind his back. No wonder Putin treats him like a fool.
It is time to put all the DemPublicanCFR basterds in prison for life. From the BUSH II (The torturer) to bill clinton who initiated
the covert torture operation. The clearest signal that we are not living in a self governing democracy is that; excluding Watergate,
the DemPublicanCFR ruling elite do not go to prison, there is rarely any real investigation of their crimes; as in the recent
largest public swindle in human history....the DemPublicanCFR, Wall st/Rating Company Swindle that was orchestrated by the "boys"
from the bohemian grove.The level of corruption in this Country exceeds that of ancient Rome.The best way to combat "terrorism"
is to get the hell out of other peoples countries.and imprison the DemPublicanCFR members who intentionally mislead this Country
into a fossil fuel War in Iraq. George Bush II ( the coward draft dodger) is a moron on an epic scale comparable to the Roman
Emperor who named his horse a general. We are confronted with a monumental environmental emergency and these idiot myopic assholes
debate carbon emission controls instead of leading the way to a fossil fuel nuclear free world.by initiating the largest public
works program in human history....a massive energy conversion program funded by cutting the military budget in half.The conversion
program will also be funded by the profits made by all the fossil fuel and nuclear power companies. Just imagine all the AMERICAN
JOBS WILL BE CREATED. We need leaders who put the interests of the Americam people first and who do not march to the drumb beat
of the Rockefucker internationalist DemPublicanCFR elite. It is time to send David Rockyfucker to Iran to stand trial for the
crimes he has committed against the Iranian people....We are living in a state of environmental crisis and it is time for true
American patriots to rise and confront our Enemy within who, thanks to the great American patriot Edward Snowden, we now know
for certain has all or electronic communications under 24 hour surveillance. The DemPublicanCFR ruling elite must be held to pay
for their crimes or I fear the planet that our childen, grand children and great grandchildren will be living in is doomed to
cataclysmic events that we have yet to even imagine...
Boy, once you spy on a Democrat it becomes an issue. Lying seems to be what Obama and his appointees due best as there are no
consequences for lying, even under oath as Eric Holder has done several times. So let's just move along here as this is just another
day under Obama.
Agency security personnel had transgressed? And just what is that some kind of creepy code for? We, the bigwigs, did it, but we
have language that allows us to blame it on our innocent underlings...of course. This is the height of mental illness and corruption!
Just a simple excuse used to placate a supposedly mind dead public already hypnotized by their main stream media and under their
almost absolute control. That's you and I, of course...sound familiar? Well, I will be totally under their control when they come
and kill me, and not before that! "Agency staff had improperly monitored the computers of committee staff members", well who in
the hell is agency staff if not Brennan? Considering how far Obama has fallen since he stated how good he was at killing, I do
not see how any of us in a sound state of mind can see Mr. Brennan as anything other than a criminal and a traitor to the American
people. Same as our present president, supreme court, congress, and many more.
As long as you persist in your long held delusion that there are differences between democrats and republicans - differences that
matter - nothing will change.
Open you eyes. American foreign policy is the same no matter which party is in power. They are all screwing you six ways from
Sunday.
If America was a just state, that would happen. But America is a neo-fascist - or more properly, corporatist - state.
Democrats and republicans are two sides of the same coin. Political theater for the plebs to fight over while the real power
brokers hide in the shadows.
The free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last lose their grip
on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse
has begun its rapid slide into despotism.
Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
The NSA/CIA in recent hearings forcefully explained to the Judiciary Committee in Congress that they only spy on foreigners and
not US citizens. I guess Congressmen/women are not US citizens and must be terrorists.
Nothing will change in America until someone actually starts losing their job, being forced to resign or go to jail - both politicians
and so called "leaders" in the agencies committing these horrific crimes.
You've won the HITS THE NAIL ON THE HEAD award.
But you did forget the DHS who also has a Prius type
program for surveillance. The name starts with a C
but I cannot remember off the top of my head. I do
recall that Boeing's employees were involved in doing
training of technicians.
Things are "out of hand". I fear the US government will
be using contracted mercenaries to keep us in line before
too much longer. Those guys will be coming home and
taking jobs in our local police departments.
Follow the Blackwater money. Erik Prince, and cohorts.
Names may change many times, but it is still all there.
It does not seem to be doing the US any good. Their army would seem to be a complete failure. Their so called intelligence seems
to know nothing about anything that matters. Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan many trillions of dollars and abject failure and we see
a nation that brakes every law of decency.
Example,
The CIA agent who shot in the back 2 Pakistani men, and then
after reloading once, he fired 10 times. This occurred during the
day on a busy street in Lahore, Pakistan. He claimed first to be
a US Embassy Staff Member. He was ransomed by Kerry, who
was not yet Secretary of State, but was sent by Obama to do so.
2 other CIA agents, the killer's roommates, who the killer had called
for help, ran over a Pakistani bystander with their jeep on the way
to aid the killer, and killed the poor man. They were immediately airlifted out of Pakistan and returned to the United States,
never to
be heard of since, nor reported by the media.
But, this CIA killer just couldn't stop there. He has been arrested by Sheriff's Deputies, inside a Colorado bar for being
involved in a knife fight. This CIA killer and his wife own a United States contracted spy agency in Las Vegas.
These are the Agents who represent our United States of America.
Who can forget Obama's Secret Servicemen, one of which, while
a guest of a South American city, tried to rip off a Whore by short-
changing her. That hit the newspapers around the world.
These are the Agents who represent our United States of America.
Don't forget this is the same agency that enabled the capture and imprisonment of Mandela, and that only scratches the surface
of some of the stuff they've been up to.
The CIA is beyond reform now, it's no longer a matter of changing who heads it.
There are places in the world where these people would
be put on a wall and quickly dispensed with.
Spies and Surveillers hide the truth from us all, and the
United States Congress pays them to do so.
Voters need to Turn Out the Incumbents. Everyone of them.
Along with their Staffers. 100,000 lobbyists need to be
stripped of their licenses, and their political connections.
It is long past time for revolution or revolt.
It is time to clean house.
Susan, thank you. Seeing is believing.
In the US Intelligence Agencies, including the Military,
there are 850,000 men and women employees who
hold Top Secret clearances and more. That is a lot of
Secrets to hide. Only a few come freely forward to report
corruption to the public at large. Only a couple have had
the guts to paper the world with these corrupt agency's
offal.
Cut off the heads, and the tails.
The United States Intelligence Agencies are corrupted.
They are killers of innocent human beings.
Will Erik Holder send any of them to Prison? He did not prosecute
any of the people responsible for our nation's debacle. Not a one of
them went to prison. He and his boss Obama are also corrupted.
They both are killers of innocent human beings.
Every man of integrity who works for the United States government
should, when he sees corruption, report it to the media 1st, and to
his superior officers 2nd. Not to do so, is a criminal act itself.
We have to wonder if there are any besides Edward Snowden, who
work for the United States government, and have the guts to let us
know when they see corruption.
Great to see truth coming out in the wash.. Also brilliant to hear on the radio,whistleblowers in the UK are going to be protected,
there's progress now....
It seems to appear the spying business is a new democratic industry where money, power, and control are prime. Words like decency
and morality are flying out the windows. The head of a spy ring can retire to form a new enterprise to charge half million to
one million dollars for spy protection...
Flagrant Violations of U.S. Constitution & International Law Continue Unabated as CIA/Feinstein Row Over Senate Spying Lands on
Front Page and Elite Politely Decline to Prosecute Peers' Crimes
I don't know if the 9/11 panic has caused the relaxation of the LAW
The law was relaxed as soon as the Church Committee wrapped up. The CIA was offended at the very idea of having to obey the
law, and their allies in Congress, and the White House after Reagan was elected, obliged them.
Who cares about what they admit to that we all already suspected. Who is getting charged and going to jail? Of course the answer
is nobody because they are either all complicit or congress is intimidated by what other information they may know about them.
Time to purge the whole system.
one has to wonder how many politicians across the Five Eyes nations (US, UK, Canada, Australia and Canada), are being blackmailed,
co-erced and manipulated, by big business/government.
Many of the decisions (and statements from some politicians) that I witness in first world government, make no sense.
for example, is there even one investigatory committee in Westminster or Washington, that has/is not been hacked and controlled
by outsiders (big business often in cahoots with senior govt/intelligence people).
look at the antics of the disgraced News of the Wooorld, deliberately targetting members of the sub-committee investigating
their hacking.
For all the abuses by powerful men in history there are those, including American Presidents, who have demonstrated both leadership
and courage in the face of obstruction, opposition.
But hey, thanks for adding bluster and hot air to the debate. I guess you'd have us all pack up and go home.
The CIA spying on the people supposedly in charge of the CIA has nothing to do with fighting 'terrorism' and everything to do
with the CIA protecting itself from any such namby-pamby libtard delusions such as integrity, accountability, congressional oversight,
responsibility, and other such pesky nuisances.
But isn't spying what the CIA is supposed to do? And isn't this what we supported for so many years during the Cold War because
of "the threat of communism"?
There are certainly still threats out there (Al Queda and Boko Haram come to mind) but is the CIA geared to handle intelligence
in terrorist organizations or are they still fighting the Communists? Revamp the Agency to make it more adapted to the new reality
of terrorist threats world wide but don't fault somebody if they're just trying to do their job. Give them some direction or don't
complain when things go awry. Maybe they're just looking for something to do. Let's be sure to keep them busy fighting terrorists
not the US Senate.
"... Julian E. Barnes is obviously a long-term intelligence asset and his stories are not based on independent research but are just a repetition of the yarn that the CIA want to spin. Julian E. Barnes and the CIA obviously think Americans and other westerners are DAF. ..."
"... And should we be surprised that such false information about Gina Haspel and Donald Trump puts Trump in a bad light and somehow humanises a CIA director with a reputation for torturing prisoners? ..."
"... A week or 3 ago, a Barnes co-reported "article" flat out stated that Iran has a nuclear weapons program. This was done by pretending to quote someone in the the US Defense establishment as saying "we believe Iran will redouble its work on nuclear weapons". ..."
"... Julian Barnes is a well established liar. Sort of akin to Judith Miller and Michael Gordon. ..."
"... Now the Washington post's narrative is quite colorful too. So Trump really was concerned how many Russians Germany or France expelled? Why was he angry? The vassals did not follow his example as they should have? ..."
"... The CIA and MI6 boys must have blanked out to let this one slip through the cracks. We pay them billions to run false flag and cover-up operations. This makes those of us that believe their lying narratives look stupid. I guess we need to add more billions to their annual budgets. ..."
"... More believable that Julian Barnes performs no cross-referencing and zero research. Investigative reporting (or asking questions) is not the job of the modern MSM stenographer. His job - pushing the war machine agenda. He simply writes that which he is instructed to write. Probably emails all of his articles to his CIA liason for approval prior to publication. ..."
"... In the Skripnal psyop one can readily assess that the only truly "dead ducks" are the MSM journalists and the Western politicians who peddled this incredible slapstick nonsense story in order to further the "demonization of Russia" narrative of Western oligarchy. That these same media "dead ducks" appear to have not even the very slightest interest whatsoever in the current whereabouts or safety of said Skripnals speaks volumes about the true nature of this intelligence operation. ..."
"... both versions of the story expose Gina as a untrustworthy ratfucker ..."
"... At the moment the UK is run by MI6 which sees itself as the real political directorate of the CIA and the Deep State in the US. It seriously believes that it is on the verge of establishing global hegemony. ..."
"... Please note, everyone, that not all of these sad excuses for "journalists" are on the CIA payroll. In fact, very few of them are. Most work with the CIA out of warped senses of patriotism and duty to the empire. Most would never think of themselves as intelligence agency assets, and no small number of them probably think their relationships with the CIA are unique. They think that they are special and that their contacts on the inside at the CIA are unusual. Few would guess that they are just another propaganda mule in the CIA's stable, and that friendly guy who "leaks" to them is actually their handler; their "operator" in spook-speak. ..."
"... CIA did not control many of the Vietnam era journalists that had their pieces printed in mainstream media of the day. Not many left now and perhaps since the nineties they could no longer get their articles published. Regan brought in perception management which eventually brought all MSM 100% under US -CIA control. ..."
"... If you're a CIA guy, you get the editor and the ombudsman on the payroll and he will make certain that the desired propaganda gets published. If he's a Zionist, he's on the same page from the start, anyway. ..."
"... What a strange construction. Doesn't the CIA have PR staff? A decent PR team would review every item referencing their boss and issue clarifications and/or demand corrections immediately. There should have been no need for Julian E. Barnes to figure anything out as the CIA should have pointed out his mistake very quickly. This explanation/exculpation is utter bullshit! ..."
"... I doubt that Trump asked questions about how those ducks and kids were doing. More likely that MI5 was annoyed that they were exposed as the providers of the duck snuff pictures, and put pressure on the NY Times. ..."
"... Those who advocated the strong response to Russia are the intellectual authors of "Russia Gate" to thwart detente with Russia. ..."
A piece in the New York Times showed how in March 2018 Trump was manipulated by the
CIA and MI6 into expelling 60 Russian diplomats. Eight weeks after it was published the New
York Times 'corrects' that narrative and exculpates the CIA and MI6 of that manipulation.
Its explanation for the correction makes little sense.
On April 16 the New York Times published a report by Julian E. Barnes and Adam
Goldman about the relation between CIA Director Gina Haspal and President Donald Trump.
The piece described a scene in the White House shortly after the
contentious Skripal/Novichok incident in Britain. It originally said (emphasis added):
During the discussion, Ms. Haspel, then deputy C.I.A. director, turned toward Mr. Trump. She
outlined possible responses in a quiet but firm voice, then leaned forward and told the
president that the "strong option" was to expel 60 diplomats.
To persuade Mr. Trump, according to people briefed on the conversation, officials
including Ms. Haspel also tried to show him that Mr. Skripal and his daughter were not the
only victims of Russia's attack.
Ms. Haspel showed pictures the British government had supplied her of young children
hospitalized after being sickened by the Novichok nerve agent that poisoned the Skripals. She
then showed a photograph of ducks that British officials said were inadvertently killed by
the sloppy work of the Russian operatives.
The 60 Russian diplomats were
expelled on March 26 2018. Other countries only expelled a handful of diplomats over the
Skripal incident. On April 15 2018 the Washington Post
reported that Trump was furious about this:
The next day, when the expulsions were announced publicly, Trump erupted, officials said. To
his shock and dismay, France and Germany were each expelling only four Russian officials --
far fewer than the 60 his administration had decided on. The President, who seemed to believe
that other individual countries would largely equal the United States, was furious that his
administration was being portrayed in the media as taking by far the toughest stance on
Russia.
...
Growing angrier, Trump insisted that his aides had misled him about the magnitude of the
expulsions. 'There were curse words,' the official said, 'a lot of curse words.
In that context the 2019 NYT report about Haspel showing Trump dead duck pictures
provided by the Brits made sense. Trump was, as he himself claimed, manipulated into the large
expulsion.
The NYT report created some waves. On April 18 2019 the Guardian
headlined:
The report of the dead duck pictures in the New York Times was a problem for the CIA
and the British government. Not only did it say that they manipulated Trump by providing him
with false pictures, but the non-dead ducks also demonstrated that the official narrative of
the allegedly poisoning of the Skripals has some huge holes. As Rob Slane of the
BlogMirenoted
:
In addition to the extraordinary nature of this revelation, there is also a huge irony
here. Along with many others, I have long felt that the duck feed is one of the many achilles
heels of the whole story we've been presented with about what happened in Salisbury on 4th
March 2018. And the reason for this is precisely because if it were true, there would
indeed have been dead ducks and sick children .
According to the official story, Mr Skripal and his daughter became contaminated with
"Novichok" by touching the handle of his front door at some point between 13:00 and 13:30
that afternoon. A few minutes later (13:45), they were filmed on CCTV camera feeding
ducks, and handing bread to three local boys, one of whom ate a piece . After this they
went to Zizzis, where they apparently so contaminated the table they sat at, that it had to
be incinerated.
You see the problem? According to the official story, ducks should have died. According to
the official story children should have become contaminated and ended up in hospital. Yet as
it happens, no ducks died, and no boys got sick (all that happened was that the boys' parents
were contacted two weeks later by police, the boys were sent for tests, and they were given
the all clear).
After the NYT story was published the CIA and the British government had to remove
the problematic narrative from the record. Yesterday they finally succeeded. Nearly eight weeks
after the original publishing of the White House scene the NYT recanted and issued
a correction
(emphasis. added):
Correction: June 5, 2019
An earlier version of this article incorrectly described the photos that Gina Haspel
showed to President Trump during a discussion about responding to the nerve agent attack in
Britain on a former Russian intelligence officer. Ms. Haspel displayed pictures illustrating
the consequences of nerve agent attacks, not images specific to the chemical attack in
Britain. This correction was delayed because of the time needed for research.
The original paragraphs quoted above were changed into this:
During the discussion, Ms. Haspel, then deputy C.I.A. director, turned toward Mr. Trump. She
outlined possible responses in a quiet but firm voice, then leaned forward and told the
president that the "strong option" was to expel 60 diplomats.
To persuade Mr. Trump, according to people briefed on the conversation, officials
including Ms. Haspel tried to demonstrate the dangers of using a nerve agent like Novichok in
a populated area. Ms. Haspel showed pictures from other nerve agent attacks that showed their
effects on people.
The British government had told Trump administration officials about early intelligence
reports that said children were sickened and ducks were inadvertently killed by the sloppy
work of the Russian operatives.
The information was based on early reporting, and Trump administration officials had
requested more details about the children and ducks, a person familiar with the intelligence
said, though Ms. Haspel did not present that information to the president. After this article
was published, local health officials in Britain said that no children were harmed.
So instead of pictures of dead ducks in Salisbury the CIA director showed pictures of some
random dead ducks or hospitalized children or whatever to illustrate the effects consequences
of nerve agent incidents?
That the children were taken to hospital but unharmed was already reported in Britishmedia on
March 24 2018, before the Russian diplomats were expelled, not only after the NYT piece
was published in April 2019.
Yesterday the author of the NYT piece, Julian E. Barnes, turned to Twitter to
issue a lengthy 'apology':
I made a significant error in my April 16 profile of Gina Haspel. It took a while to
figure out where I went wrong. Here is the correction: 1/9
[...]
The intelligence about the ducks and children were based on an early intelligence report,
according to people familiar with the matter. The intelligence was presented to the US in an
effort to share all that was known, not to deceive the Trump administration. 7/9
This correction was delayed because conducting the research to figure out what I got
wrong, how I got it wrong and what was the correct information took time. 8/9
I regret the error and offer my apology. I strive to get information right the first time.
That is what subscribers pay for. But when I get something wrong, I fix it. 9/9
Barnes covers national security and intelligence issues for the Times Washington
bureau. His job depends on good access to 'sources' in those circles.
It is remarkable that the CIA spokesperson never came out to deny the original NYT
report. There was zero visible push back against its narrative. It is also remarkable that the
correction comes just as Trump is on a state visit in Britain.
The original report was sourced on 'people briefed on the conversation'. The
corrected version is also based on 'people briefed on the conversation' but adds 'a
person familiar with the intelligence'. Do the originally cited 'people' now tell a different
story? Are we to trust a single 'person familiar with the intelligence' more than those
multiple 'people'? What kind of 'research' did the reporter do to correct what he then and now
claims was told to him by 'people'? Why did this 'research' take eight weeks?
That the 'paper of the record' now corrects said 'record' solves a big problem for Gina
Haspel, the CIA/MI6 and the British government. They can no longer be accused of manipulating
Trump (even as we can be quite sure that such manipulations happen all the time).
In the end it is for the reader to decide if the original report makes more sense than the
corrected one.
---
This is a Moon of Alabama fundraising week. Please consider to support
our work .
Posted by b on June 6, 2019 at 06:12 AM |
Permalink
Julian E. Barnes is obviously a long-term intelligence asset and his stories are not based on
independent research but are just a repetition of the yarn that the CIA want to spin. Julian
E. Barnes and the CIA obviously think Americans and other westerners are DAF.
Surely the time and effort Julian Barnes needed to check what information he had got wrong
and how he got it wrong should not have been as major as he makes out. Animals dying and
children falling sick to a toxin that could have killed them are incidents that should have
stuck out like sore thumbs and warranted careful checks with different and independent
sources before reporting that Gina Haspel apparently showed the US President pictures of dead
ducks and sick boys in Salisbury.
No wonder Barnes got such a roasting on Twitter after making his abject apology.
And should we be surprised that such false information about Gina Haspel and Donald Trump
puts Trump in a bad light and somehow humanises a CIA director with a reputation for
torturing prisoners?
During years I researched articles published in @nytimes we fact-checked BEFORE publication. Here it comes
AFTER bloggers, officials et al point out fatal flaws. That no children were poisoned, and no
ducks killed, by #novichok
in #Salisbury + was known
in Spring 2018. #propaganda
A week or 3 ago, a Barnes co-reported "article" flat out stated that Iran has a nuclear
weapons program. This was done by pretending to quote someone in the the US Defense
establishment as saying "we believe Iran will redouble its work on nuclear weapons".
Except in the Barnes construction it wasn't a quotation, or anything like a phrasing that
made clear that the Pentagon source was guessing, not stating, that Iran has a nuclear
weapons program.
This was NOT corrected.
Eric Schmitt was the other NY Times "reporter" who signed the article.
And here's what the two liars reported, pretending that an Iranian nuclear weapons program is
a real thing, first paragraph:
"Acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan presented an updated military plan that envisions sending as many as 120,000 troops to the Middle East should Iran attack American forces or accelerate work on nuclear weapons, administration officials said."
So Julian Barnes is a well established liar. Sort of akin to Judith Miller and Michael
Gordon.
Barnes provides the truth then provides a lie about the truth....par for the course at
NYT.
(Remember Judith Miller?) A fake news organization spreading fake news with revised fake
news.
can't really get excited by the fact that not everything in this type of creative writing is
taken serious. Did anyone expect otherwise?
During the discussion, Ms. Haspel, then deputy C.I.A. director, turned toward Mr.
Trump. She outlined possible responses in a quiet but firm voice, then leaned forward and
told the president that the "strong option" was to expel 60 diplomats.
To persuade Mr. Trump, according to people briefed on the conversation, officials
including Ms. Haspel also tried to show him that Mr. Skripal and his daughter were not the
only victims of Russia's attack.
It's pretty obvious that his/their narrative necessarily must be cobbled together by a lot
of sources. Some by phone. Those may not even share the same idea what image of the president
or Haspel they should convey. I always wonder with this type of newspaper reporting. Maybe
both writers should write novels.
Now the Washington post's narrative is quite colorful too. So Trump really was concerned
how many Russians Germany or France expelled? Why was he angry? The vassals did not follow
his example as they should have?
Superb analysis! Been coming here for 11 years now, and I just have to say that "b" is the
best propaganda analyst in the English language. He is the sturdiest anchor in these stormy
seas:)
The CIA and MI6 boys must have blanked out to let this one slip through the cracks. We pay
them billions to run false flag and cover-up operations. This makes those of us that believe
their lying narratives look stupid. I guess we need to add more billions to their annual
budgets.
Sarcasm is just about the last pleasure one can get from watching the horrific antics of
these morons.
More believable that Julian Barnes performs no cross-referencing and zero research.
Investigative reporting (or asking questions) is not the job of the modern MSM stenographer.
His job - pushing the war machine agenda.
He simply writes that which he is instructed to write. Probably emails all of his articles
to his CIA liason for approval prior to publication.
Perhaps, the liason can see what this fool types in real time. Who knows?
As the story of the dead ducks and sick children unraveled and fell apart, a sloppy patch
up had to be made. Now its fixed. Like a Boeing 737 MAX.
BoTh vErSioNs of the story (I checked with the "Wayback Machine") still include this
paragraph (6th paragraph of story):
Unusually for a president, Mr. Trump has publicly rejected not
only intelligence agencies' analysis, but also the facts they have gathered.
And that has created a perilous situation for the C.I.A.
As usual for the NYT, they did not publicly reject the intelligence agencies'
analysis,
but also the facts they had gathered.
That, of course, would have created a perilous situation for the NYT.
As the saying goes: "if it looks like a false-flag, walks like a false-flag, and talks like a
false-flag, it just might be a "duck."
In the Skripnal psyop one can readily assess that the only truly "dead ducks" are the MSM
journalists and the Western politicians who peddled this incredible slapstick nonsense story
in order to further the "demonization of Russia" narrative of Western oligarchy. That these
same media "dead ducks" appear to have not even the very slightest interest whatsoever in the
current whereabouts or safety of said Skripnals speaks volumes about the true nature of this
intelligence operation.
"I made a significant error in my April 16 profile of Gina Haspel. It took a while to figure
out where I went wrong".
It was only when I found the horses head next to me in bed when I woke up, that I realized
what a stupid mistake I had made.
Gina Haspel has to be as dumb and incompetent as I suspected: someone is paying good money to
make her look like an ordinary sociopath, not a depraved tart who sucked cock to climb to the
head of the organisation.
Slane is ++ on the Skirpals. One 'fact' that emerged early on, made public by Slane, is that
the proposed 'official' time-line ( > press, Gvmt between the lines) of the Skripal
movements - trivial as in a town, drinkies, lunch, feeding ducks, etc. -- was never reported
correctly, obfuscated.
Idk the reasons, but it is a vital point.
___________________________________
Trump, we see, is treated like the zombie public, flashed random photos, sold tearful
narratives about babies, children, recall incubator babies, horrific bio-weapons
threats...
The PTB loathes him, Pres. are supposed to be complicit like Obama - or at least keep
their resistance toned down, be ready to compromise. .. Obama objected to, and refused to act
on, at least two engineered / fake Syria chem. 'attacks.' (Just looked on Goog and can't find
links to support.)
The only EU figure who stated there is no evidence that the Russkies novichoked
Sergei and Yulia was Macron, afaik. He didn't get the memo in time (the Elysée is
inefficient, lots of screw-ups there) but soon caught up! and expelled the minimum. -- I have
heard, hush hush, one in F was a receptionist - gofer (an excellent + extremely highly paid
position) who is now at the Emb. in Washington! Most likely merely emblematic story (see
telephone game) .. but telling.
I like this story. It makes Trump look like a naif which wouldn't bother President Teflon in
the least. On the other hand, both versions of the story expose Gina as a untrustworthy ratfucker.
I'm hoping she said "cross my heart and hope to die" when he queried her advice...
I'm glad I checked to see if anyone had mentioned this hack's article about Russia
restarting nuclear testing. Using his name as one search item I tried a number of current
issues. Like the fellows at local intersections holding up signs "will work for money",
Barnes might as well have a tattoo saying "I'll write anything if the price is right.
That it took so long to come up with a half-assed "explanation" shows he's not the brightest
bulb in the lamp. I suppose people whose jobs consist of slightly re-writing Deep State
dictation don't have to be especially clever.
That "apology" by Barnes is completely nonsensical. How would you know that there was
something wrong with your story, that there was an error in it, without knowing what it was?
If the CIA, various bloggers, commenters, etc., alerted him to the errors, it's unlikely they
would say, "There's something wrong in this story but I'm not going to say what it is. You'll
have to re-research they whole thing to figure it out." I don't think that's how people
usually point out errors.
"Which narrative is unraveling and which is gathering momentum?"psychohistorian@19
One thing that seems to be unravelling is the tight political cartel that controls Foreign
Policy in the UK.
If it does unravel and Labour turns to an independent foreign policy while it reverses the
disaster of 'austerity' and neo-liberalism, cases such as that of Assange and the Skripal
affair, both products of extremists within the Establishment who regard themselves as
privileged members of the DC Beltway, are going to be re-opened.
At the moment the UK is run by MI6 which sees itself as the real political directorate of the
CIA and the Deep State in the US. It seriously believes that it is on the verge of
establishing global hegemony. And this at a time when the UK is falling apart and its
population teeters on the brink of economic disaster. It has fallen into this delusion over
the years as it has been able to offer the CIA services which it is afraid to initiate
itself. Hence, most recently, the entire Russiagate nonsense which has British fingerprints
all over it. Hence too the new aggressiveness in DC towards Assange. Hence the disappearance,
without explanation, of the Skripals.
Julian Barnes is like Winston Smith without the intellectual curiosity. He quote happily goes
about his work. lol. What is the matter with you people? You are supposed to embrace the new
narrative!
From wikidpeida... A memory hole is any mechanism for the alteration or disappearance of
inconvenient or embarrassing documents, photographs, transcripts or other records, such as
from a website or other archive, particularly as part of an attempt to give the impression
that something never happened.[1][2] The concept was first popularized by George Orwell's
dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, where the Party's Ministry of Truth systematically
re-created all potentially embarrassing historical documents, in effect, re-writing all of
history to match the often-changing state propaganda. These changes were complete and
undetectable.
@37 bevin... maybe they will do with assange what they have done with the skripals... the uk
is more then pathetic at this point in time.. craig murray had more to say on the assange
case yesterday - A
Swedish Court Injects Some Sense
Julian E. Barnes' humble confession (a self-incrimination) sounds like one made in a Gulag.
failure of imaginati , Jun 6, 2019 2:23:10 PM |
35
Further down the memory hole is the side tale of the daughter of Brutish Army Chief Nurse
helping Skirpals and getting an award without contaminating the news. Was the girl's father
Pablo Miller,(of Orbis Dossier MFG) and a pal of Skirpal? There's debunk in their poor
narrative. The public has a photogenic memory.
There are 2 Julian Barneses (at the very least!), one is an English writer, the other has
mostly been writing for the WSJ ( https://www.wsj.com/news/author/julian-e.-barnes)
but since recently again for the NYTimes .
Trump is a drug-addled, brain-damaged, hollowed-out shell of the dull con man he once
was.
But, he perceives himself to be a brilliant mastermind - a stable genius. So, he might
indeed, be prone to making inquiries (generally these would induce the toadies around him to
stifle their laughter).
It makes sense that he might ask, while in GB, about the Skirpal incident, since he pulled
60 people from their posts and he remembered the fantasy he was lead to believe about sick
children and dead ducks.
The fact that he overreacted without sufficient evidence, may have inspired a tiny amount
of self-reflection simply because it may have embarrassed him to have been caught on his back
foot. He was lead to believe that his contemporaries intended to react in equal measure. They
did not. Therefore - he was "fooled" or tricked.
This is the only way to embarrass the buffoon. That is to have someone fool him
personally. And to make him look stupid.
He doesn't mind that he is a fat oaf, a greed head and a pig, but that is the stuff of his
own doing. He is comfortable in this. Money is the end-all, etc.
He bought Mar A Lago, making it his own club, because the Palm Beach Club and its elite
snobs would not let him join.
Trump was betrayed by Gina Haskell, the CIA and the NYT.
All of Western media has been compromised by the CIA and friends since at least the 50s.
Remember what late CIA director William Casey said in 1981; "We'll know our disinformation
program is complete when everything the US public believes is false".
They 'CIA' controls every talking head you can name. Believe no one. Sad isn't it.
Please note, everyone, that not all of these sad excuses for "journalists" are on the
CIA payroll. In fact, very few of them are. Most work with the CIA out of warped senses of
patriotism and duty to the empire. Most would never think of themselves as intelligence
agency assets, and no small number of them probably think their relationships with the CIA
are unique. They think that they are special and that their contacts on the inside at
the CIA are unusual. Few would guess that they are just another propaganda mule in the CIA's
stable, and that friendly guy who "leaks" to them is actually their handler; their
"operator" in spook-speak.
Of course, there is also the incentive provided by just having to take the story their CIA
"friend" gives them, edit it a little to fit their employer's style guidelines, and
then submit it as their own. A whole day's worth of work and they can have it finished in
half an hour. What's not to like about that?
CIA did not control many of the Vietnam era journalists that had their pieces printed in
mainstream media of the day. Not many left now and perhaps since the nineties they could no
longer get their articles published. Regan brought in perception management which eventually
brought all MSM 100% under US -CIA control.
If you're a CIA guy, you get the editor and the ombudsman on the payroll and he will make
certain that the desired propaganda gets published. If he's a Zionist, he's on the same page from the start, anyway.
The self-important "journalists" are controlled and in fact, they are flattered by their
special relationships with informants and the owner/managers. After one has sucked his or her way to the upper level, kissing up and kicking down... Laziness is a bonus.
I made a significant error in my April 16 profile of Gina Haspel. It took a while to figure
out where I went wrong.
What a strange construction. Doesn't the CIA have PR staff? A decent PR team would review
every item referencing their boss and issue clarifications and/or demand corrections
immediately. There should have been no need for Julian E. Barnes to figure anything out as
the CIA should have pointed out his mistake very quickly. This explanation/exculpation is
utter bullshit!
Every day when I turn on my computer, I am enticed with offers to "see how the Brady Bunch
kids look today" or "what do the stars of the 80s look like today?".
Apparently, there is quite a demand for updates on celebrities and their current well
being.
So why would Julian Barnes do an article about the Skirpals without showing us how they look
today? And just where are they living? Enquiring minds want to know!
I doubt that Trump asked questions about how those ducks and kids were doing. More likely
that MI5 was annoyed that they were exposed as the providers of the duck snuff pictures, and
put pressure on the NY Times.
Using ducks is easier. Gina Haspel could always ask one of the bottom-feeding subordinates
to nip down the road to one of those Chinese BBQ shops and
photograph the display of roast ducks hanging in the shop window . The photos can be
uploaded and altered to remove the background of the chef and the cashier and then the actual
ducks can be altered or colored appropriately before the pictures are sent to Haspel. Anyone
looking at the altered pictures would never guess their actual provenance.
:-)
I'm not sure where Haspel can find hippos or any other large animals that might topple on
top of someone (with dire consequences) were s/he to apply a whiff of nerve agent.
Thanks b for a good laugh at Barnes and Goldman's expense. I note Goldman is silent and I
guess that is because he would likely get his apology wrong and contradict Barnes BS.
Here's my profile of Gina Haspal: war criminal
Here's my profile of Julian Barnes: Fwit and BShitter
Here's my profile of Adam Goldman: Fwit and BShitter.
"... Here's the problem: it doesn't matter if you'd support Biden if he were to get the nomination, the Democratic base will simply not back another corporatist shill, ..."
"... No matter how much you think people should hold their nose and vote for the lesser of two evils, they're not going to get out of bed to go vote for someone they don't trust. The base is driving this election cycle, there is no way around it, if we don't hold the base we lose. ..."
"... Biden is a standard Joke in both parties known as an Obama lackey ..."
"... His first campaign fundraiser after his announcement was hosted by the CEO of Comcast. That is wholly out of touch with the middle class. ..."
"... She has passed Sanders in his relatively much more limited agenda, trumping him on policies castrating Wall St---Sanders has not much evolved beyond positions he's held since the 1970s, including understanding how to address the two largest parts of the Democratic base, women and blacks. ..."
"... Biden is not centre. If you think mainstream Democrats are centre, you're already to the right of people like the National Front (both UK and French). You're already a rabid extremist. Even someone like Sanders would be considered fairly firmly centrist in the rest of the free world. State funded health and education is accepted practice here, not a novel socialist/communist fantasy that will turn you into a Soviet drone. It's what we pay taxes for, not for a war machine to enforce business profit. ..."
"... Democrats are extreme right, Sanders is centrist...you don't actually have a left at all. ..."
"... That argument [ Elections are about preventing bad things from happening] is a double-edged sword. Many voters acted on that precept in 2016 which accounts for the creature that now squats in the White House. ..."
"... Are people who say this generally clueless or just unaware of the make up of Congress since January 2017? What change could Sanders have brought? What bills were the Republicans going to pass that Sanders would have signed? Do they not remember what Mitch McConnell said when Obama took office? Do they imagine that McConnell would shift his focus from stymieing any chance of enacting policies the president promoted with Sanders instead of Obama? ..."
"... Did you watching Bernie's townhall at Fox News? He seemed like he was in his 60s and handled many tough questions well. He seemed to be winning over some of the independents and conservatives in that crowd ..."
"... Finally the Guardian gets something right. We don't need these Clinton Era holdovers ..."
Here's the problem: it doesn't matter if you'd support Biden if he were to get the
nomination, the Democratic base will simply not back another corporatist shill, especially
after getting stabbed in the ankle in 2016.
No matter how much you think people should hold
their nose and vote for the lesser of two evils, they're not going to get out of bed to go
vote for someone they don't trust. The base is driving this election cycle, there is no way
around it, if we don't hold the base we lose.
The writers and readers of the Guardian (aka the Fox of the Left) who believe that the
American electorate has somehow shifted leftward remind me a delightful roommate that I had
back in Pleistocene. He came home one day convinced that George McGovern would win. "How did
you come up with that?" I asked. "I don't know a single person who is voting for Nixon."
It's
that level of bubble-driven stridency that will keep many of you at home on election day and
had another 4 years to the worst piece of crap to occupy the White House. Sure, there are
many people preferable to Biden, but a piece of burnt toast is preferable to Trump.
The Dems
won the midterms not on ideological grounds but by the pragmatic turnaround of middle class
white suburban women. Clinton did not lose in '16 because she was a "zombie centrist" but
because of her campaign's severe hubris, a lesson not learned from '08. Unless you prefer
ranting [and lefties often seem to prefer being in opposition to actually doing the heavy
lifting of compromise and governing], you will have to get rid of Trump by going with your
n-th choice, not your first one.
Sorry, that's the way it works outside of Berkeley, Austin,
Madison, Eugene, Brooklyn, Cambridge, and Asheville.
You're missing something. Plenty of people who support the actual left WILL be happy if we
get Biden, if it means we no longer have Trump.
The US system is built on compromise. Biden is a compromise, for sure. But would YOU
rather have Trump again? Really?
I don't want Biden. But last time I figured the left couldn't lose to a fucking moron I
was proven wrong.
Literally all the polling conducted in the 2016 election showed Bernie annihilating Trump by
a far higher margin than Clinton, who was losing in many polls. Biden is virtually a carbon
copy of Clinton. He is an establishment shill with the same voting record and the same
vulnerabilities that sank Clinton.
Like Hillary he shits on the most popular policies in the
country, and he shits on the base pushing those policies, and has shown zero signs of
learning from the 2016 catastrophe. He launched his campaign on a message of returning to the
same empty neoliberal politics that delivered us Donald Trump. Meanwhile Bernie is in fact
running on the most popular policies in the country. 70% of the American people, even a
majority 52% of Republicans, support Medicare For All. 82% of Americans support raising the
minimum wage. 76% of Americans support raising taxes on the rich. 60% of Americans support
free college tuition. 70% of Americans want stricter laws on assault weapons. 94% of
Americans support universal background checks. 58% of Americans support abortion rights in
all or most cases. 62% of Americans support legalizing marijuana. 78% of Americans support
stricter Wall Street regulation. 61% of Americans support ending the Afghanistan war. 72% of
Americans support expanding Social Security. 80% of Americans support the Green New Deal.
Literally all the data shows Bernie would be a far stronger candidate than a center right
corporate Democrat like Biden.
Biden is a standard Joke in both parties known as an Obama lackey and dim witted apologist
who will be blown out of the hunt by a female Dark Horse candidate yet to rise up out of the
dung pile of Democrat wannabes. The only real hope for the Democrats, guess who?
The somewhat grating and professorial Warren, as if lecturing to kindergartners, is becoming
the third choice in the polls behind Biden and Sanders due to her galaxy of hard-nosed, fully
fleshed-out policies the public is embracing.
She has passed Sanders in his relatively much
more limited agenda, trumping him on policies castrating Wall St---Sanders has not much
evolved beyond positions he's held since the 1970s, including understanding how to address
the two largest parts of the Democratic base, women and blacks.
I have no doubt Warren will
be an important member of the cabinet where she can implement her policies, which is why she
will be in Biden's cabinet. Biden has touched on gutting Wall St greed, signalling the rise
of her influence. For all his centrist corruption he grasps the desires of the base,
understanding his popularity would suffer if he didn't.
"The Democrats are the ones who were supposed to save us. It was their failure in this duty
that allowed the catastrophes to pile up."
It's not just the failure. It is cynical collaboration to placate the financially
powerful. The Republican project for at least the last 40 years has been to resurrect "Robber
Baron" era neo-feudalism with Republican leadership lining up for their share of the take.
Witness the breathless fawning of the likes of Scott Walker when he thought the prankster he
was talking to was a Koch. Mainstream media long accepted that political outcomes can be
bought, that lavishly funded lobbies can block popular initiatives and railroad publicly
distasteful ones, and feature fundraising scorecards as a measure of electability. As a
matter of fact, what does that say about our democratic process and equality under law? Back
in the 1980s Business Week featured a discussion of how manufactures and retailers were
backing away from a "middle class" centered focus to a "Tffany-Wallmart" strategy? Does such
a move support E Pluribus Unum or feudalistic social bifurcation?
Sadly, the Clinton, Obama, Biden school is way to focused on go along to get along, while
equity of opportunity and wealth, and equal protection under law has steadily diminished.
Obama, who campaigned on "change you can believe in" and "the audacity to hope" was less than
audacious when it came to the strangle-hold of too big to fail on the economy, and made them
even bigger. Yes, he was far more socially responsible than his predecessor but hob nobbed
with the "Great Recession's" architects and turned over redress for Mainstreet to the banks,
with predictable results. Many who voted for Trump were seeking any kind of change over more
of the same.
Better yet: progressive Democrats have realized a few key points:
* Medicare for all polls really damned well. Amazing well.
* Raising minimum wage polls really well. Hugely well.
* American progressive liberal policies, when not framed as such, poll really well. Americans
want these things. These issues are winners.
* Turnout. Turnout. Turnout. It is not about getting people who always vote Democratic at
every election to consider you. It is about getting people who do not regularly vote to
turnout at the polls. (Look at Spain where the threat of Vox encouraged huge numbers of women
to vote and the socialists and the left came out as winners.)
Biden is not on solid ground with issues supported by the electorate and catering to the
center is going g to repress turnout. (Which could have ugly down ticket implications.)
Biden is not centre. If you think mainstream Democrats are centre, you're already to the
right of people like the National Front (both UK and French). You're already a rabid
extremist. Even someone like Sanders would be considered fairly firmly centrist in the rest
of the free world. State funded health and education is accepted practice here, not a novel
socialist/communist fantasy that will turn you into a Soviet drone. It's what we pay taxes
for, not for a war machine to enforce business profit.
GOP is fascistic, Democrats are extreme right, Sanders is centrist...you don't actually
have a left at all.
"Elections are about preventing bad things from happening...:"
-- -- -- -- - That argument [ Elections are about preventing bad things from happening] is a double-edged sword. Many voters acted on that precept in 2016 which
accounts for the creature that now squats in the White House.
Saunders would have beaten Trump and brought real change
Are people who say this generally clueless or just unaware of the make up of Congress since
January 2017? What change could Sanders have brought? What bills were the Republicans going to pass that
Sanders would have signed? Do they not remember what Mitch McConnell said when Obama took
office? Do they imagine that McConnell would shift his focus from stymieing any chance of
enacting policies the president promoted with Sanders instead of Obama?
It's just about the most ridiculous claim a person could make about American politics.
Did you watching Bernie's townhall at Fox News? He seemed like he was in his 60s and handled
many tough questions well. He seemed to be winning over some of the independents and
conservatives in that crowd
Finally the Guardian gets something right. We don't need these Clinton Era holdovers and we don't need anymore Geriatrics in the White House.
There are some great new younger candidates who understand the modern economy, the corrupt
foreign policy and have good things to say. Try Yang and Gabbard. Get with the times
people.
Bernie Sanders showed up uninvited to a Walmart shareholders meeting Wednesday, blasting
what he called the retail giant's "starvation wages" and imploring it to pay people at
least $15 an hour.
But if you read further down
Sanders was invited to speak as a proxy for Walmart worker Cat Davis, a leader of the
pro-worker group United for Respect. It was Davis' proposal that Sanders pitched.
So was he invited or uninvited? Why is the lede contradicted by the 5th paragraph in?
Surely intentional, designed to make him look like a butt-in-ski rather than a proxy for a
WMT employee.
One of the most obvious and pervasive symptoms of our Empire's rapid decline and the
crapification of literally everything is the absolute dearth of copy editors worth a
damn.
Everyday when I do my Google News view I see at least one or sometimes two pure propaganda
hit pieces from the MSM trashing Sanders.
The one at below link is especially egregious in sandwiching a photo of Sanders with the
Russian flag on one side and Venezuela on the other. This is just a day or two after a story
showing a photo of him with a picture of two houses and a bag of money.
The Politico article about unions and the Green New Deal discusses the disconnect between unions and elected Democrats
while glossing over earlier policies that contributed to it. Unstated in the article is the years and decades that Democrats,
once elected, enact policies (NAFTA, allowing China in the WTO, etc.) that hurt unions. Democrats occasionally pass
legislation that tempers the decline of unions, but are always weak and less central than the party’s attempts to align with
business and Wall Street. The unions have justifiable fear that Democrats won’t help them when the time comes. And I don’t
think environmentalists are doing themselves any favors when using phrases like “just transition,” or emphasizing investments
in new technologies. These sound similar to what unions heard about the impact of the trade deals, which haven’t worked out
for union members.
Proponents of the Green New Deal should differentiate themselves from the Democratic proponents of free trade and similar
policies if they are to gain the support of unions. One aspect that I keep getting to is mandating that the construction and
operation of facilities must be done by unionized workers if it is to get government funding (including tax credits) or be
used to meet any mandates. I’m not sold on this idea, but at the very least it is something tangible for unions.
"... However, Williamson was not alone in his anti-Russian stance. It was under May's leadership that the controversial government-funded Integrity Initiative program really began to flourish. Designed to "counteract Russian propaganda" it instead deceptively engaged in spreading disinformation about Russia and even the UK Labour Party leader, Jeremy Corbyn, by hiring journalists, academics and commentators who would all sing from the same hymn sheet when it came to discourse about Russia in the press. ..."
"... What was most chilling about the revelations in the Integrity Initiative hacked documents was the extent to which policy makers within the inner workings of the establishment are apparently obsessed about an imminent "Russian threat" and are prepared to go to considerable lengths to persuade the British population of this. ..."
"... Even more unnerving was the discussion that there was need for some event to be staged in order to heighten the U.K. population's awareness of a Russian threat. The timing was uncanny: this was not long before the poisoning took place of ex-double agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter, which has, along with multiple discrepancies in the British narrative, led some analysts to ask whether the whole incident was indeed orchestrated by British secret services. ..."
"... Staged or not, May's handling of the Skripal incident left much to be desired. Even her experience of handling the Litvinenko affair as home secretary hadn't taught her a great deal. Before any concrete evidence was produced to implicate the Russian government in the poisoning, May was already issuing ultimatums to the Russian president. Her infamous phrase that the government concluded it was "highly likely" Russia was responsible for the poisoning even entered itself into the Russian vocabulary and became something of a household joke in Russia. ..."
"... So what can we expect from the next prime minister of the not-so-Great Britain? Whoever it is has their work cut out not only to unite the Conservative party, but the country. In terms of improving relations with Russia -- as long as the Tories remain in power, and the "deep state" or civil service continues to push its aggressive anti-Russian agenda -- , we are unlikely to see any significant change in policy. ..."
"... The UK under May has continued to serve as a “coalition partner” in the US-Saudi-Israeli Axis engineered and perpetuated dirty war against the Syrian government and its Russian and Iranian allies. Let’s not forget Theresa May’s well practiced phrase, “like the United States, we believe”: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-39591476 . May has consistently believed US claims about the April 2017 Khan Shaykhoun incident, the April 2018 Douma incident, and other alleged chemical “attacks” in Syria. ..."
"... The UK under May also has remained the base for two leading disinformation operations supporting the the assault against Syrian government: Rami Abdulrahman’s Syrian Observatory for Human Rights and Eliot Higgins’ Bellingcat. ..."
"... As of 31 March 2018, the British government had provided £38.4m in funding to the Al Qaeda allied White Helmets propaganda organization. In April 2018 the Trump administration suspended funding of the White Helmets. The US had provided more than $33 million to support the group since 2013. ..."
"... The British government remains a primary funder of the White Helmets propaganda organization. Posing as an impartial rescue force, the White Helmets work exclusively side-by-side armed militants including US State Department, UN, and EU designated foreign terrorist organizations. Their primary function is not “rescuing” anyone, but to manage a public relations campaign aimed at swaying public and political opinion, leveraging “humanitarian” sympathy worldwide ..."
"... In November 2016, video showed two White Helmets members staging a rescue operation for the Mannequin Challenge meme. In May 2017, video showed White Helmets members removing a man’s body following his execution by armed militants in Daraa. In June 2017, a member of the White Helmets was suspended indefinitely for assisting armed militants in the burial of mutilated corpses of Syrian government soldiers. ..."
"... Apropos, the last two paras about the Civil Service in Britain; Up until the last 2 decades or so, some of the brightest and best talents entered the Civil Service, good pay, good career prospects and good pension. Then this was hollowed out, everything ‘public sector’ was vilified and privatized and starved of funding. ..."
"... The race to the bottom is keenly contested. ..."
"... Without Russian money they are certainly not the world’s 6th largest economy and it appears that unless they want to side with China against the USA which is improbable, no impossible, they will lose Chinese Capital as well after Brexit. ..."
"... And again, a Mr. Jim Mellon a for real billionaire, several times over I should think, the same guy who carpetbagged Russia after the collapse of the CCCP. His gleanings were called “privatization”… of poor mother Russia. ..."
"... The US has it’s own deep state problem of civil servants, especially alphabet soup agencies who are accustomed to operating in the dark and think that they, not the political appointees make policy ..."
UK Prime Minister Theresa May's political career officially ended in tears last Friday, as
the woman who declared that she would provide "strong and stable" leadership when she came to
power three years ago, but who proved in the end to be not quite so strong or stable as she
broke down in front of the press outside 10 Downing Street.
She had in fact, arguably one of the most disastrous records of a UK prime minister to date.
A total of 50 cabinet resignations since she
took office , far more than any of her recent predecessors; together with scandals such as
the Grenfell Tower
disaster , Windrush
scandal , hostile environment policy and record levels of homelessness and poverty. And
that's not to mention her inability to deliver Brexit, which effectively led to her demise.
Indeed however tempting it may be to feel sorry for May -- she has been surrounded by
political vultures all vying for her position for months now -- one is minded of the words of
British political commentator Owen Jones who, when asked
recently if he felt sorry for the prime minister, noted that May's tears were simply those of
self-pity and were absent at times when they would have been appropriate, such as in the
aftermath of the Grenfell Tower fire, which claimed 72 lives.
'Permanent Crisis'
One may be inclined to think that if she was so unsuccessful on the domestic front, then
perhaps in the area of foreign policy May could have had a better record. No such luck. We only
have to look at the considerable deterioration in relations with Russia to understand that
under her leadership, Britain's standing in the world has diminished. Prominent British
journalist Patrick Cockburn has even gone as far to say that Britain is now "entering a period
of permanent crisis not
seen since the 17th century."
But arguably back in the 17th century the U.K. was more competent in the art of diplomacy
than it is now. May's defense minister, Gavin Williamson, with his comment that Russia should
"go away and shut up" epitomized the extraordinary lack of finesse and savoir-faire the May
government had when dealing with Russia.
His bellicose tone unfortunately went hand-in-hand with a completely misplaced notion of
Russia presenting to the UK some kind of genuine threat, as he argued earlier this year that
the UK had to "enhance its lethality" against such well-resourced states, as opposed to
concentrating its energies on Islamic terror groups. He was then accused by fellow politicians
of "sabre-rattling" in what were widely seen as misguided and provocative statements.
However, Williamson was not alone in his anti-Russian stance. It was under May's
leadership that the controversial government-funded Integrity Initiative program really
began to flourish. Designed to "counteract Russian propaganda" it instead deceptively engaged
in spreading disinformation about Russia and even the UK Labour Party leader, Jeremy Corbyn, by
hiring journalists, academics and commentators who would all sing from the same hymn sheet when
it came to discourse about Russia in the press.
What was most chilling about the revelations in the Integrity
Initiative hacked documents was the extent to which policy makers within the inner workings
of the establishment are apparently obsessed about an imminent "Russian threat" and are
prepared to go to considerable lengths to persuade the British population of this.
May with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Hangzhou, China, 2016. (Wikimedia Commons)
Uncanny Timing
Even more unnerving was the discussion that there was need for some event to be staged
in order to heighten the U.K. population's awareness of a Russian threat. The timing was
uncanny: this was not long before the poisoning took place of ex-double agent Sergei Skripal
and his daughter, which has, along with multiple discrepancies in the British narrative, led
some analysts to ask whether the whole incident was indeed orchestrated by
British secret services.
Staged or not, May's handling of the Skripal incident left much to be desired. Even her
experience of handling the Litvinenko affair as
home secretary hadn't taught her a great deal. Before any concrete evidence was produced to
implicate the Russian government in the poisoning, May was already issuing ultimatums to the
Russian president. Her infamous phrase that the government concluded it was "highly likely"
Russia was responsible for the poisoning even entered itself into the Russian vocabulary and
became something of a household joke in Russia.
The decision to publicly accuse another state of attempting murder on British soil with
evidence that only amounted to "a nerve agent of a type produced by Russia," was utterly
reckless, not only deeply harming relations with Russia, but undermining the credibility of the
U.K. as a whole. And despite it being an attempt to bolster the PM's position at a time when
desperately needed to generate support for her upcoming Brexit white paper – this itself,
given a delayed Brexit and divided country, proved fruitless.
So what can we expect from the next prime minister of the not-so-Great Britain? Whoever
it is has their work cut out not only to unite the Conservative party, but the country. In
terms of improving relations with Russia -- as long as the Tories remain in power, and the
"deep state" or civil service continues to push its aggressive anti-Russian agenda -- , we are
unlikely to see any significant change in policy.
One could hope that a certain Boris Johnson, himself named after a Russian
émigré, and the leading candidate to replace May, could seek to build bridges in
this regard, but his record on the Skripal case leaves room for doubt. The PM is after all a
figurehead, and the UK civil service remains a driving force of policy-making.
As former Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair once said: "You cannot underestimate how much
they [the civil service] believe it's their job to actually run the country and to resist the
changes put forward by people they dismiss as 'here today, gone tomorrow' politicians. They
genuinely see themselves as the true guardians of the national interest, and think that their
job is simply to wear you down and wait you out."
Says it all really .
As one reads this article it is primarily remarkably how closely it resembles
America’s past, present and future. Of course, England has long been known as
Washington’s lap dog. Unsurprisingly, what we seem to be best at is sales and PR. The
UK is far from the only “ally” we have that has followed us off the cliff.
And as the various publics look down and see the snake pit into which our style of
“democracy” and Winners Take All capitalism actually means they want out.
Unfortunately, the winners and our leaders have taken all already, including not only the
money, but the power. The shameful scams of NATO and politicizing the EU turned out to be new
ways to suck the lifeblood out of the earths “Others,” both in our countries and
in the “Others” in Africa, Asia, and everything above and below our borders.
So how do we get out of this? We don’t. Every empire from Cyrus To Babylon,
Alexander’s to The Pharaohs’ and Heraclius, the Spanish, Portuguese, and British
have collapsed in the dust and led to long periods of darkness, inhabited by The Four
Horsemen of The Apocalypse.
If you look around us, still mostly living in luxury unknown to the ancient non-winners,
all of the signs are there. In the multiple-party system in most of “free” Europe
or our Two-party system there’s but decline. Boris won’t save England and none of
the truly potentially electable quacks in our Democrats list are going to get us out of this.
Clinton didn’t, Obama didn’t and what’s up won’t. No one but Tulsi
Gabbard even talks about or has a foreign policy beyond being for peace and plenty for all.
Sure. Dumb.
I hate to sound gloomy-doomy, because I’m not. I’m a writer and a writer is an
observer. Watching all of this, including my own 2008 economic demise, is fascinating.
Gabbard isn’t going to be elected. We’ll get our own Mrs. May maybe, or more
Trump, Bolt-on or the fat guy who will initiate some wars that we’ll win like we did
with Vietnam and Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. ad nauseum. I’m not saying be dumb; I’m
saying be realistic, analytical, interested, and vocal, but come the collapse, be physically
and psychologically prepared (everything that Hillary wasn’t, for example.)
Abe , May 31, 2019 at 12:51
The UK under May has continued to serve as a “coalition partner” in the
US-Saudi-Israeli Axis engineered and perpetuated dirty war against the Syrian government and
its Russian and Iranian allies. Let’s not forget Theresa May’s well practiced phrase, “like the United
States, we believe”: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-39591476 . May has consistently believed US claims about the April 2017 Khan Shaykhoun incident, the
April 2018 Douma incident, and other alleged chemical “attacks” in Syria.
The UK under May also has remained the base for two leading disinformation operations
supporting the the assault against Syrian government: Rami Abdulrahman’s Syrian
Observatory for Human Rights and Eliot Higgins’ Bellingcat.
As of 31 March 2018, the British government had provided £38.4m in funding to the Al
Qaeda allied White Helmets propaganda organization. In April 2018 the Trump administration
suspended funding of the White Helmets. The US had provided more than $33 million to support
the group since 2013.
The British government remains a primary funder of the White Helmets propaganda
organization. Posing as an impartial rescue force, the White Helmets work exclusively
side-by-side armed militants including US State Department, UN, and EU designated foreign
terrorist organizations. Their primary function is not “rescuing” anyone, but to
manage a public relations campaign aimed at swaying public and political opinion, leveraging
“humanitarian” sympathy worldwide.
As of 31 March 2018, the British government had provided £38.4m in funding to the
White Helmets. In April 2018 the Trump administration suspended funding of the White Helmets.
The US had provided more than $33 million to support the group since 2013.
In November 2016, video showed two White Helmets members staging a rescue operation for
the Mannequin Challenge meme. In May 2017, video showed White Helmets members removing a
man’s body following his execution by armed militants in Daraa. In June 2017, a member
of the White Helmets was suspended indefinitely for assisting armed militants in the burial
of mutilated corpses of Syrian government soldiers.
On the night of 21 July 2018, Israel allowed 422 people – 98 White Helmet volunteers
and their family members – to cross the Israeli annexed Syrian Golan Heights and into
Jordan. A Syrian government official condemned the evacuation of White Helmets as a
“criminal operation” that had revealed “the terrorist nature” of the
group. In September 2018, the UK granted asylum to about 100 White Helmet staff and relatives
that had been evacuated to Jordan.
AnneR , May 31, 2019 at 09:22
Good Riddance to very Bad Rubbish (mind you that also applies to the whole of the Tory lot
plus the Blairites).
Yes May’s government has much to make amends for – and not just for and to the
survivors of Grenfell Towers, the Windrush Generation families, but also to: the Yemenis, the
Chagossians, the Syrians. It would have behooved her to have a smaller wardrobe and a larger,
effective compassion for those the (imperialist) British have done over numerous times up to
and including today. Even small gestures of real compassion, of real recognition of the
ugliness of Britian’s imperial past wrongdoings by way of simple apology are apparently
beyond her and her government (including the Civil Service).
As for Britain’s “standing” – it is about bloody time that this
small island off the western Eurasian coast put up and shut up and retired. Why on earth
should it have any *standing*? What *good* has it ever done? (And I ask this as someone born
there, whose father was in the army helping to maintain the Raj – much to my much later
disgust, though, disgracefully, not his.)
Bob of Bonsall , May 31, 2019 at 05:11
To be fair, and as much as it pains me to do so, I must point out that the Grenfell
tragedy and Windrush fiasco were as much due to Labour decisions as they were to Tory
incompetence.
John A , May 31, 2019 at 03:01
Apropos, the last two paras about the Civil Service in Britain; Up until the last 2
decades or so, some of the brightest and best talents entered the Civil Service, good pay,
good career prospects and good pension. Then this was hollowed out, everything ‘public
sector’ was vilified and privatized and starved of funding.
For these reasons, most of
the ‘brightest and best’ now shun the Civil Service for a career in casino
banking and similar avenues instead. The calibre of Civil Service advice has nose-dived
accordingly.
As with everything else in Britain post Thatcher, everything is for sale, get rich quick,
plod along with little or no pay increases and less and less job security, or starve homeless
on the streets are the options available these days.
Zhu , May 31, 2019 at 04:51
Sounds like the USA!
Douglas Turnbull , May 30, 2019 at 22:20
The continuing barbaric capitalist nightmare and its sad psychopathic 1% and the destructive antics of its sycophants...
Tom Kath , May 30, 2019 at 20:13
“Something rotten” is not restricted to the state of Denmark, Britain, or USA.
It is not even restricted to the “West”, so we must seek more fundamentally for
the source of this world’s abject immoral disgustingness. The race to the bottom is
keenly contested.
KiwiAntz , May 30, 2019 at 20:09
At last, for the long suffering Brits? The Maybot has finally danced her “Robotic
Dance” off the World scene to the cheers & high fives of most of the British
people, who have thoroughly had a gutsful of her duplicitous behaviour & disastrous
mishandling of Brexit!
And the article lists her shameful record during the period she was
Prime Minister, especially the Glenfell Tower tragedy & her pathetic response along with
the criminal culpability of the disgusting Conservative Tory Party & its role in this
travesty?
Their murderous Policies & austerity directly led to this disgrace? So its good
riddance to a contemptible woman, a abject failure & a loser who was good for absolutely
nothing except walking on stages & doing really bad dance moves!
LJ , May 30, 2019 at 18:39
She was all the Tories could come up with to keep Corbyn out of the office of Prime
Minister. There should certainly have been a General Election after David Cameron crashed the
ship of state with Brexit.
Boris Johnson would certainly complete that job so someone else
will have to play dartboard until the next election. Despite what the Guardian and BBC and
the rest say. And in spite of the Zionist attack on Corbyn he will be Prime Minister. Long
Overdue. Britain is Great no more.
Without Russian money they are certainly not the
world’s 6th largest economy and it appears that unless they want to side with China
against the USA which is improbable, no impossible, they will lose Chinese Capital as well
after Brexit.
Good. I hope Scotland votes for Independence. Wales should as well. Britain
deserves to go to hell after their history as an Empire. London is 41% foreign born. Just who
are they anyway? The British? We here in the USA, or rather younger people here in the USA
should take a good look at what happens over the next 5 years there and put it your memory
banks.
elmerfudzie , May 30, 2019 at 17:37
Tainted tenure indeed! No one asks the right questions anymore. For example, where did all
that Brexit cash come from? As I commented previously at CONSORTIUMNEWS and it is redacted
here; “The Panama Papers signaled a need for radical change(s) in the EU banking laws.
Hiding money, legit or not from, fair and open taxation, has become increasingly difficult
for the upper crust….”
The BREXIT cash originated, no surprise folks, from a
Gibraltar based firm, where a Mr Arron Banks (big bucks Banks) a guy with money to burn, with
corporate holdings in the Isle of Man and too, one of his buddies, an Alan Kentish of the STM
group specializing in, oh you’ll love this, offshore wealth preservation! LOL
And
again, a Mr. Jim Mellon a for real billionaire, several times over I should think, the same
guy who carpetbagged Russia after the collapse of the CCCP. His gleanings were called
“privatization”… of poor mother Russia. Well, to make a long story short, Mr Kentish, the original pro-BREXITeer was arrested in Gibraltar under the UK’s Crime
Act for such suspicious money funneling(s). My oh my Ms May, what strange political
bedfellows you seem to have!
Jeff Harrison , May 30, 2019 at 17:37
Here today, gone to lunch as the late Douglas Adams put it. The US has it’s own deep
state problem of civil servants, especially alphabet soup agencies who are accustomed to
operating in the dark and think that they, not the political appointees make policy. Their
thinking is bolstered by Congresses who stonewall and delay approving personnel for
leadership positions in the civil service.
OPSW proved to be a gang of a despicable, completely bought by the USA bottomfeeders. Looks like they are now a part
of "Intergity Initiative"
At this point credibility of the USA and UK experts on the topic is not zero, it is negative: they systematically generate
false flags.
Truth be told after Skripals affair the level of credibility of the UK government and expects is far below zero in any case.
This is just a gang of despicable warmongers.
Notable quotes:
"... If SST readers are confused by OPCW's constantly shifting explanations for why the Final Report on the Douma incident excluded the Engineering Assessment, they're not the only ones. ..."
"... Unfortunately for whoever thought up this defence, it is explicitly contradicted by both the Interim Report (published last July) and the Final Report, which state that the objective of the engineering studies was to evaluate how the cylinders arrived in position. ..."
Comments on official response to the release of the Engineering
Assessment of the Douma cylinders Paul McKeigue, David Miller, Jake Mason, Piers
Robinson
This post comments on the response to our
release of the Executive Summary of the Engineering Assessment of the Douma cylinders on 13
May 2018. All emphases in quoted passages are added by us. After OPCW had confirmed the
document to be genuine, the story was covered extensively by Russian media.
An informed commentary by Professor
Hiroyuki Aoyama in Tokyo has been published on Yahoo News's Japanese site. The only coverage in
western corporate media has been by Peter Hitchens in the
Mail on Sunday , Robert Fisk in the
Independent and Tucker Carlson on
Fox .
Other journalists who have been in
touch with us have told us that their stories were spiked by editors. As expected, the story
has reached much larger numbers through websites and videos that have disseminated it.
2
OPCW's response to the release of the document
2.1 Official response
In an email dated 11 May and shown to us, Deepti Choubey, the head of OPCW Public Affairs,
wrote:
Thank you for reaching out to us. It is exclusively through the Fact-Finding Mission, set
up in 2014, that the OPCW establishes facts surrounding allegations of use of toxic chemicals
for hostile purposes in the Syrian Arab Republic. On 1 March 2019, the OPCW has issued its
final and only valid official report, signed by the Director-General, regarding the incident
that took place in Douma, Syrian Arab Republic, on 7 April 2018. The document you shared with
us is not part of any of the material produced by the FFM. The individual mentioned in the
document has never been a member of the FFM .
The OPCW establishes facts surrounding allegations of the use of toxic chemicals for
hostile purposes in the Syrian Arab Republic through the Fact-Finding Mission (FFM), which
was set up in 2014. The OPCW Technical Secretariat reaffirms that the FFM complies with
established methodologies and practices to ensure the integrity of its findings. The FFM
takes into account all available, relevant, and reliable information and analysis within the
scope of its mandate to determine its findings. Per standard practice, the FFM draws
expertise from different divisions across the Technical Secretariat as needed. All
information was taken into account, deliberated, and weighed when formulating the final
report regarding the incident in Douma, Syrian Arab Republic, on 7 April 2018. On 1 March
2019, the OPCW issued its final report on this incident, signed by the Director-General.
Per OPCW rules and regulations, and in order to ensure the privacy, safety, and security
of personnel, the OPCW does not provide information about individual staff members of the
Technical Secretariat. Pursuant to its established policies and practices, the OPCW Technical
Secretariat is conducting an internal investigation about the unauthorised release of the
document in question. At this time, there is no further public information on this matter and
the OPCW is unable to accommodate requests for interviews.
This was taken as confirmation that the document was genuine.
2.2 Unofficial
briefings
Following OPCW's confirmation on 16 May that the document we had released was genuine, two
individuals in the UK whose communications have supported UK government policy on Syria
favoring regime change – Professor Scott Lucas of Birmingham University, and the former
Guardian journalist Brian Whitaker – began reporting that they had inside information on
how the Engineering Assessment had been excluded from the Final Report.
Henderson was writing what was, in effect, a dissenting assessment from that of most of
the OPCW's team and consultant experts. His findings were considered but were a minority
opinion as final report was written.
He followed this with a remarkably indiscreet
tweet asserting that "I know
how OPCW review process was conducted and what place Henderson's assessment had in it." When
challenged to explain his
connection to OPCW, Lucas did not answer. Hitchens
reported on 24 May that OPCW
Public Affairs had refused to comment on whether Lucas was receiving authorised briefings from
OPCW.
2.2.2 Whitaker
Whitaker was at first more circumspect about his sources,
reporting on 16 May that:
One story circulating in the chemical weapons community (though not confirmed) is that
Henderson had wanted to join the FFM and got rebuffed but was then given permission to do
some investigating on the sidelines of the FFM.
Eliot Higgins of Bellingcat extended Whitaker's version
with:
This reporting by @Brian_Whit on the leaked Douma report that the conspiracy theorists and
chemical weapon denialists are so excited about is consistent with what I'm hearing . Looks
like they all got played by a disgruntled OPCW employee.
In an
article
posted on 24 May, Whitaker was more explicit in reporting the spin of "an informed source" on
the Engineering Assessment.
an informed source has now shed some light on it. The key point here is the FFM's terms of
reference. Its basic role was to establish facts about the alleged attack, and it was not
allowed to apportion blame -- that is the job of the OPCW's newly-created Investigation and
Identification Team (IIT). Although the FFM determined that the cylinders were probably
dropped from the air, the published report (in line with its mandate) omitted any mention of
the obvious implication that they had been dropped by regime aircraft. According to the
informed source, when Henderson's assessment was reviewed there were concerns that it came
too close to attributing responsibility, and thus fell outside the scope of the FFM's
mandate. Whether or not that was the right decision, there was no doubt that Henderson's
assessment did fall within the mandate of the new Investigation and Identification Team. For
that reason, according to the source, he was advised to pass it to the IIT instead -- and he
did so.
Unless this account was entirely fabricated, it could only have come from someone with close
knowledge of how the Final Report had been prepared. A subsequent
tweet from Whitaker on 25 May,
presumably channelling the same source, confirmed that "Henderson and others" had been in
Douma:
Henderson and others did go to Douma to provide temporary support to the FFM, but they
were not official members of the FFM.
2.3 What the channelling of off-the-record briefings tells us
It is likely that (at least on this occasion) Lucas and Whitaker are telling the truth, and
that they have been briefed by someone with close knowledge of how the FFM Final Report was
prepared. If these briefings had not been authorised, OPCW Public Affairs could easily have
responded to Hitchens's question with a standard statement reiterating that "there is no
further public information on this matter" and that this extended to off-the-record briefings.
We would expect OPCW press officers to be reluctant to issue further statements that could
subsequently be shown to be false.
Like cellular biologists who perturb a complex system and measure its outputs, we can infer
from these observations the existence of a pathway. This pathway connects the production of
OPCW reports on alleged chemical attacks in Syria with a network of communicators in the UK who
in different ways have promoted the cause of regime change in Syria since 2012. It is evident
that Lucas and Whitaker are output nodes of this pathway. From August 2012, Whitaker as the
Guardian's Middle East editor
promoted Higgins from obscure beginnings as a blogger to become a widely-cited source on
the Syrian conflict. Whitaker was the first journalist to devote an
article to
attacking the Working Group, in February 2018 when its only collective output had been a brief
blog post.
It is of course possible that OPCW management for some procedural reason was unable to
provide further information on the record, and sought to disseminate an accurate version of
events via off-the-record briefings. But the choice of such highly partisan commentators as
Lucas and Whitaker as channels inevitably calls into question the good faith of whoever
provided these briefings, and undermines any remaining pretence to impartiality on the part of
OPCW management.
2.4 Discrepancies between versions of OPCW's response
An established method in investigative journalism is to compare official versions and to
infer from discrepancies what they are trying to hide. On 11 May OPCW Public Affairs stated
that "The document you shared with us is not part of any of the material produced by the FFM.
The individual mentioned in the document has never been a member of the FFM". After we pointed
out that these two statements were provably false – the external collaboration on the
engineering assessment of the Douma cylinders must have been authorised by OPCW, and Henderson
could hardly have been in Damascus on a tourist visa – they were not repeated on the
record. By 16 May OPCW Public Affairs had formulated a new policy: "Per OPCW rules and
regulations the OPCW does not provide information about individual staff members of the
Technical Secretariat." A more subtle version of Henderson's role was then channelled through
Lucas and Whitaker: "minority opinion", "on the sidelines" and elaborated by Higgins as
"disgruntled OPCW employee"'. Between 16 May and 25 May the story channelled through Whitaker
changed from "Henderson had wanted to join the FFM and got rebuffed but was then given
permission to do some investigating on the sidelines of the FFM." to admitting that "Henderson
and others" were in Douma "to provide temporary support to the FFM".
On 24 May Whitaker's informed source admits that "Henderson's assessment was reviewed" for
the Final Report, no longer attempting to maintain that the Engineering Assessment was not part
of the FFM's process. If we strip away the flannel from this latest story, it appears to be
accurate. The "informed source" tells us that the Engineering Assessment was excluded from the
Final Report not because its technical analysis had been rebutted, but because the conclusion
that the cylinders had been placed in position rather than dropped from the air would
necessarily have attributed responsibility for the incident to the opposition .
The argument that the mandate of the FFM prevented it from endorsing the Engineering
Assessment's conclusion is easily refuted as a matter of logic. Announcing the release of the
Final Report, OPCW
stated that "The FFM's mandate is to determine whether chemical weapons or toxic chemicals
as weapons have been used in Syria." In Douma this could be reduced to deciding between two
alternatives: (1) the gas cylinders were dropped from the air, implying that they were used as
chemical weapons; (2) the cylinders were placed in position, implying that the incident was
staged and that no chemical attack had occurred. Although to conclude that alternative (2) was
correct would implicate the opposition, this would not be attribution of blame for a chemical
attack but rather a determination that chemical weapons had not been used.
Clearly a verdict that the alleged chemical attack had been staged would have been
unacceptable to the French government, which had joined in the US-led missile attack on 14
April 2018. We can surmise that the Chief of Cabinet of OPCW, Sébastien Braha, who
(according to his Linkedin profile ) is still in post as
a French diplomat, would have been in a difficult position if he had allowed the FFM to release
a report that reached this conclusion. He would be in an even more difficult position if he
were to allow the newly-established
Investigation and
Identification Team (IIT), which also reports to him, to overturn the conclusions of the
Final Report and report that the alleged chemical attack was staged. Even if Braha's failure to
update his online profile with the date of leaving his diplomatic post is an oversight, this
would still be a conflict of interest based on the OECD definition of what "a reasonable
person, knowing the relevant facts, would conclude". As we have noted, OPCW appears to have no
arrangements for managing conflicts of interest. Until the governance and working practices of
OPCW are radically reformed, it is hard to see how neutral observers can have confidence in the
impartiality of the FFM or the IIT.
3 Government responses to an alleged chlorine attack on
19 May3.1 Reports of the alleged attack
Possible allusions to the release of the Engineering Assessment on 13 May can be
discerned in government responses to a report of an alleged chlorine attack in Idlib on 19
May. The earliest report , mentioning three missiles or
shells loaded with chlorine was from an Arabic-language website named ebaa.news at
11.01 am Syrian time. The location was given as Kubina Hill in Kabbana village, on the border
with Lattakia. At 12.46 am Syrian time Hamish de Bretton-Gordon (HdBG)
tweeted
Appears to be a chlorine attack from Regime artillery shells in Jose Al Shugour village -
4 casualties being evacuated for treatment
"Jose Al Shugour village" is presumably the town of Jisr Al-Shughour. Rami Abdulrahman's
Syrian Observatory for Human
Rights reported on 22 May that four fighters were treated in hospital after they
"suffocated in the intense and violent shelling by the regime forces, within caves and
trenches" but did not endorse the claims of a chlorine attack, noting that the source of this
story was "the Media platform of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham". The story was
elaborated in
a Fox News report on 23 May that quoted a "Dr Ahmad" from Idlib, who reported that he had
treated the casualties. Fox News also quoted Nidal Shikhani of the Chemical Violations Documentation
Centre Syria (CVDCS).
A possible match for the identity of "Dr Ahmad" is Dr Ahmad al-Dbis,
quoted by Reuters on 4 May 2019 as Safety and Security Manager for the Union of Medical
Care and Relief Organisations (UOSSM), describing airstrikes on Idlib and northern Hama. Since
2016 both HdBG
and the
CBRN Task Force that he set up in 2013 have been affiliated to UOSSM. A
report from 2014 quotes a "Dr Ahmad" described as a medic trained by HdBG for the CBRN Task
Force. CVDCS is an
NGO that has worked closely with the OPCW Fact-Finding Mission since 2015 to provide
purported eyewitnesses for interview in Syria, originally established in 2012 as the
Office of Documentation of the Chemical File in Syria , and later registered in Brussels as
a non-profit company named Same Justice. This company never complied with the legal requirement
to file accounts, and went into
liquidation on 27 February 2019.
The ebaa.news site appears to be closely linked to Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS),
frequently quoting HTS spokesmen and sometimes reporting exclusive stories obtained from HTS.
On 31 May 2018 HTS was
designated
by the US Department of State as a Foreign Terrorist Organization and a Specially Designated
Global Terrorist. The Coordinator for Counterterrorism noted that this designation "serves
notice that the United States is not fooled by this al-Qa'ida affiliate's attempt to rebrand
itself." In conclusion, the provenance of this story of a chemical attack on 19 May is dubious,
and the extent to which the sources are independent of one another is not clear.
British experts are this morning investigating a suspected chlorine attack by al-Assad in
Idlib. If it is proved, will she lead the international response against the return of this
indiscriminate evil?
As expected, the Prime Minister gave a bellicose answer, but made no reference to OPCW.
We of course acted in Syria, with France and the United States, when we saw chemical
weapons being used there. We are in close contact with the United States and are monitoring
the situation closely, and if any use of chemical weapons is confirmed, we will respond
appropriately.
Woodcock's "British experts" appear to have included HdBG, who had suggested in a
tweet the day
before that Woodcock should ask the Prime Minister about Idlib, though not about a chemical
attack. In a subsequent tweet Woodcock stated that his
experts were "on the ground in Syria".
3.3 French response
The daily press from the French foreign ministry on 22 May responded to a question on the
alleged chemical attack on 19 May with:
We have noted with concern these allegations which must be investigated. We have full
confidence in the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons .
3.4 US response
A press
statement from State Department Spokesperson Morgan Ortagus on 21 May dealt with the
alleged chemical attack two days earlier:
Unfortunately, we continue to see signs that the Assad regime may be renewing its use of
chemical weapons, including an alleged chlorine attack in northwest Syria on the morning of
May 19, 2019. We are still gathering information on this incident, but we repeat our warning
that if the Assad regime uses chemical weapons, the United States and our allies will respond
quickly and appropriately.
She mentioned a " continuing disinformation campaign " to "create the false narrative that
others are to blame for chemical weapons attacks that the Assad regime itself is conducting".
The following day Mr James Jeffrey, the State Department's special representative to Syria,
testified to the House Foreign Affairs Committee that "So far we cannot confirm [the reports of
chemical weapons use] but we're watching it". The New York Times
reported
this to be a "carefully worded recalibration" of the announcement by Morgan Ortagus the day
before, and that American military officials had "expressed surprise over the State
Department's strong statement". 4 Comparison of the Engineering Assessment with the
published Final Report
A comparison of the Engineering Assessment and the Final Report have been reported in
outline form by McIntyre . As Larson has
noted
, there are indications in the
Final
Report that whoever drafted it had access to an earlier version of the Engineering
Assessment (the released version dated 27 February 2019 is marked Rev 1) and was attempting to
rebut it without overtly mentioning it. For instance the Engineering Assessment lists five
points supporting the opinion of experts that the crater at location 2 had been created by a
the explosion of a mortar round or artillery rocket rather than an impact from a falling
object. These points included:
"an (unusually elevated, but possible) fragmentation pattern on upper walls"
"(whilst it was observed that a fire had been created in the corner of the room) black
scorching on the crater underside and ceiling."
The Final Report states falsely that a fragmentation pattern, visible in open-source images,
was absent:
The FFM analysed the damage on the rooftop terrace and below the crater in order to
determine if it had been created by an explosive device. However, this hypothesis is unlikely
given the absence of primary and secondary fragmentation characteristic of an explosion that
may have created the crater and the damage surrounding it.
This is followed by a paragraph that notes the blackening of the ceiling and attributes it
to the fire set in the room. The Final Report's allusion to the possibility of an explosive
device, with mention of fragmentation pattern and the setting of a fire in the room appears to
be an attempt to explain away the argument made in the Engineering Assessment.
We note that several of the key findings of the Engineering Assessment are based only on
examination of the cylinders. For instance the Engineering Assessment reports that the cylinder
at Location 2 bears no markings that would be consistent with the frame with fins (lying on the
balcony) ever having been attached to it, let alone the markings that would be expected if the
frame had been stripped off by impact. The Final Report records that the Syrian government
insisted on retaining custody of the cylinders for criminal investigation purposes.
Accordingly:
On 4 June, FFM team members tagged and sealed the cylinders from Locations 2 and 4, and
documented the procedure.
A useful way to take forward the investigation of the Douma incident would now be for the
Syrian government to invite an international team of neutral experts to examine the cylinders,
to assess whether the observations support the findings of the Engineering Assessment or the
conclusions of the published FFM Final Report, and to publish their findings in a form that
allows peer review and reproducibility of results from data. The next step would be a criminal
investigation of this incident, focusing on where, how and by whom were the 35 victims seen in
images at Location 2 killed.
If SST readers are confused by OPCW's constantly shifting explanations for why the Final
Report on the Douma incident excluded the Engineering Assessment, they're not the only
ones.
Yesterday OPCW released its official response (dated 21 May) to Russian criticisms (dated
26 April) of the Final Report of the Fact-Finding Mission on the Douma incident. In this
response OPCW made, officially and on the record, the same argument as that made by
Whitaker's "informed source: that to assess how the cylinders arrived in their positions was
outside the mandate of the FFM.
Unfortunately for whoever thought up this defence, it is explicitly contradicted by both
the Interim Report (published last July) and the Final Report, which state that the objective
of the engineering studies was to evaluate how the cylinders arrived in position.
Peter Hitchens is on the case, and has listed these contradictions and requested an
explanation from OPCW.
"... If you support Robert Stuart's efforts, go to this crowdfunding website. There you can learn more and contribute to this important effort to reveal whether the BBC video 'Saving Syria's Children' showed true or staged events. Was the alleged "napalm" attack real or was it staged propaganda? The project needs a large number of small donors and a few substantial ones to meet the June 7 deadline ..."
"... By the way, I recommend watching the 3 minute video at the crowd funding site: ..."
It's a David vs Goliath story. A former local newspaper reporter, Robert Stuart, is taking
on the British Broadcasting Corporation. Stuart believes that a sensational video story
about an alleged atrocity in Syria "was largely, if not entirely, staged." The BBC would
like it all to just go away. But like David, Stuart will not back down or let it go. It has
been proposed that the BBC could settle the issue by releasing the raw footage from the
event, but they refuse to do this. Why?
...
Robert Stuart is not quitting. He hopes the next step will be a documentary film
dramatically showing what he has discovered and further investigating important yet
unexplored angles.
The highly experienced film producer Victor Lewis-Smith, who tore up his BBC contract,
has stepped forward to help make this happen.
But to produce a high quality documentary including some travel takes funding. After
devoting almost six years to this effort, Robert Stuart's resources are exhausted. The
project needs support from concerned members of the public.
If you support Robert Stuart's efforts, go to this crowdfunding website. There you can
learn more and contribute to this important effort to reveal whether the BBC video 'Saving
Syria's Children' showed true or staged events. Was the alleged "napalm" attack real or was
it staged propaganda? The project needs a large number of small donors and a few
substantial ones to meet the June 7 deadline.
My main point of posting
They are looking for crowd funding to produce a documentary. I have not contributed thru crowd funding before.
1) is it safe and secure? input please
2) will my contribution be a matter of public record?
3) anything else you want to say, thx
By the way, I recommend watching the 3 minute video at the crowd funding site:
During a press conference in Japan U.S. President Donald Trump today
said ( video ):
And I'm not looking to hurt Iran at all. I'm looking to have Iran say, "No nuclear weapons." We have enough problems in this world
right now with nuclear weapons. No nuclear weapons for Iran.
And I think we'll make a deal.
Iran said: "No nuclear weapons." It said that several times. It continues to say that.
Iran does not have the intent to make nuclear weapons. It has no nuclear weapons program.
But Trump may be confused because the U.S. 'paper of the record', the New York Times, recently again began to falsely assert
that Iran has such a program.
A May 4 editorial in the Times claimed that Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps was running such a nuclear weapons program.
After a loud public outrage the Times corrected the editorial. Iran's UN office wrote a letter to the Times which was
published on May 6:
In an early version of "Trump Dials Up the Pressure on Iran" (editorial, nytimes.com, May 4), now corrected, you referred to a
nuclear weapons program in describing the reach of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps.
...
The editorial is correct in criticizing the punishing aspects of the Trump administration policy toward Iran -- one that has brought
only suffering to the Iranian people and one that will not result in any change in Iran's policies. But it was wrong to refer
to a weapons program -- a dangerous assertion that could lead to a great misunderstanding among the public .
Unfortunately that did not help. The NYT continues with the "dangerous assertion".
At a meeting of President Trump's top national security aides last Thursday, Acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan presented
an updated military plan that envisions sending as many as 120,000 troops to the Middle East should Iran attack American forces
or accelerate work on nuclear weapons , administration officials said.
One can not accelerate one's car, if one does not have one. The phrase "accelerate work on nuclear weapons" implies that Iran
has a nuclear weapons program. It may that the White House falsely claimed that but the authors use the phrase and never debunk it.
A May 14 NYT piece by Helene Cooper and Edward Wong
repeats the false claim
without pointing out that it is wrong:
The Trump administration is looking at plans to send as many as 120,000 troops to the Middle East should Iran attack American
forces or accelerate work on nuclear weapons , The New York Times reported.
Also on May 14 the NYT 's editorial cartoon was published under the caption
Will Iran Revive Its Nuclear Program?
The caption of the orientalist cartoon falsely asserted that Iran had enriched Uranium to weapons grade. And no, Iran does not have
a nuclear weapon or a nuclear weapons program in its freezer.
On May 16, after another public outcry, a correction was added to the cartoon:
An earlier version of a caption with this cartoon erroneously attributed a distinction to Iran's nuclear program. Iran has not
produced highly enriched uranium.
After this onslaught of false New York Times claims about Iran NYT critic Belen Fernandez asked:
Has the New York Times declared
war on Iran? She lists other claims made by the Times about Iran that are far from the truth.
Three days later, on May 25, Palko Karasz
reported in the
New York Times on Iran's reaction to Trump's
tiny
troop buildup in the Persian Gulf region. Again the obviously false "accelerate" phrase was used:
Under White House plans revised after pressure from hard-liners led by John R. Bolton, the president's national security adviser,
if Iran were to accelerate work on nuclear weapons , defense officials envision sending as many as 120,000 troops to the Middle
East.
Iran does not have a nuclear program. It can not "accelerate" one. The U.S. claims that Iran once had such a program but also
says that it was ended in 2003. The
standardformulation that
Reuters uses in its Iran reporting is thereby appropriate:
The United States and the U.N. nuclear watchdog believe Iran had a nuclear weapons program that it abandoned. Tehran denies ever
having had one.
Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to receive the transfer from any transfer or whatsoever of nuclear
weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or of control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; not to
manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; and not to seek or receive any assistance
in the manufacture of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.
With that Iran said "No nuclear weapons". Iran also accepted the nuclear safeguards demand in Article III of the treaty in form
of routine inspections by the treaty's nuclear watchdog organization IAEA.
Article IV of the NPT gives all non-nuclear-weapon state parties like Iran the "inalienable right" to "develop research, production
and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination." After signing the NPT Iran launched several civil nuclear
projects. These started under the Shah in 1970s and continued after the 1979 revolution in Iran.
Ever since the Iranian revolution the U.S. expressed explicit hostility to the Islamic Republic of Iran. It instigated the President
Saddam Hussein of Iraq to launch a war against the Islamic Republic and actively supported him throughout. It attempted and continues
to attempt to hobble Iran's development, nuclear and non-nuclear, by all possible means.
Under U.S. President George W. Bush the U.S. government claimed that Iran had a nuclear weapons program. The Islamic Republic
Iran rejected that claim and in 2004 signed the
Additional Protocol to the NPT which allows the IAEA
to do more rigorous, short-notice inspections at declared and undeclared nuclear facilities to look for secret nuclear activities.
With that the Islamic Republic of Iran said: "No nuclear weapons".
In a 2006 New York Times op-ed Javid Zarif, then the Iranian Ambassador to the United Nations,
wrote :
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the leader of the Islamic Republic, has issued a decree against the development, production, stockpiling
and use of nuclear weapons.
With that Iran's highest political and religious leader said: "No nuclear weapons".
Not only did Iran sign the NPT and its Additional Protocol but its political leadership outright rejects the development and ownership
of nuclear weapons.
Zarif also pointed out that the IAEA found that Iran had missed to declare some nuclear activities but also confirmed that it
never had the nuclear weapons program the Bush administration claimed it had:
In November 2003, for example, the agency confirmed that "to date, there is no evidence that the previously undeclared nuclear
material and activities were related to a nuclear weapons program."
During the "previously undeclared nuclear material and activities" which the IAEA investigated, some Iranian scientists worked
on a 'plan for a plan' towards nuclear weapons. They seem to have discussed what steps Iran would have to take, what materials, and
what kind of organization it would need to launch a nuclear weapons program. The work was not officially sanctioned and no actual
nuclear weapons program was ever launched. It is believed that the Iranian scientists worked on a 'plan for a plan' because they
were concerned that Iran's then arch enemy Saddam Hussein, who had bombarded Iranian cities with chemical weapons, was working towards
nuclear weapons. In 2003, after the U.S. invaded Iraq, that concern proved to be unfounded and the 'plan for a plan' project was
shut down.
In December 2007 all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies
confirmed the shut down:
A new assessment by American intelligence agencies concludes that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and that the
program remains frozen, contradicting judgment two years ago that Tehran was working relentlessly toward building a nuclear bomb.
...
[T]he new [National Intelligence Estimate] declares with "high confidence" that a military-run Iranian program intended to transform
that raw material into a nuclear weapon has been shut down since 2003, and also says with high confidence that the halt "was directed
primarily in response to increasing international scrutiny and pressure."
The National Intelligence Estimate ended efforts by the Bush administration to threaten Iran with war. But the U.S. government,
under Bush and then under President Obama, continued its effort to deny Iran its "inalienable right" to civil nuclear programs.
Obama waged a campaign of ever increasing sanctions on Iran. But the country did not give in. It countered by accelerating its
civil nuclear programs. It enriched more Uranium to civil use levels and developed more efficiant enrichment centrifuges. It was
the Obama administration that finally gave up on its escalatory course. It conceded that Iran has the "inalienable right" to run
its civil nuclear programs including Uranium enrichment. It was this concession, not the sanctions, that brought Iran to the table
for talks about its nuclear programs.
The result of those talks was the The Joint
Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) which was endorsed by UN Security Council Resolution 2231, adopted on July 20, 2015.
The JCPOA gives the IAEA additional tools to inspect
facilities in Iran. It restricts Iran's civil nuclear program to certain limits which will terminate in October 2025. The JCPOA also
reaffirms that Iran has full rights under the NPT. The IAEA since regularly inspects facilities in Iran and consistently reaffirms
in its reports that Iran has no nuclear weapons program.
The Trump administrations hostility to Iran has nothing to do with anything nuclear. The U.S. wants hegemony over the Persian Gulf
region. Iran rejects such imperial desires. The U.S. wants to control the flow of hydrocarbon resources to its competitors, primarily
China. Iran does not allow such controls over its exports. The U.S. wants that all hydrocarbon sales are made in U.S. dollars. Iran
demands payments in other currencies. Israel, which has significant influence within the Trump administration, uses claims of a non
existing Iranian nuclear weapons program to manipulate the U.S. public and to divert from its racist apartheid policies in Palestine.
Trump's talk - "I'm looking to have Iran say, "No nuclear weapons."" - is simply bullshit. Iran said so several times and continues
to say so. But Trump obviously believes that he can get away with making such idiotic claims.
The New York Times proves him right. It is again slipping into the role that it played during the propaganda run-up to
the war on Iraq in 2002/2003. False claims made by members of the Bush administration about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq were
reported by the Times as true, even while diligent reporters at other outlets
debunked those claims again and again.
The Times later apologized and fired Judith Miller, one of its reporters who wrote several of the pieces that supported the
false claims.
But it was never a problem of one reporter who channeled false claims by anonymous administration officials into her reports.
It was the editorial decision by the Times , taken long before the war on Iraq began, to use its power to support such a war. That
editorial decision made it possible that those false claims appeared in the paper.
This month alone one NYT editorial, one editorial cartoon and at least five reporters in three pieces published in the New
York Times made false claims about an Iranian nuclear weapons program that, as all the relevant official institutions confirm, does
not exist. This does not happen by chance.
It it is now obvious that the Times again decided to support false claims by an administration that is pushing the U.S. towards
another war in the Middle East.
Whilst you are at it, prove that the Skripal poison / Novichok case was a fascicle fake
and blame Theresa May categorically, show proof, throw her in prison and throw away the
key.
The Krassensteins and Wohl are just two sides of the same coin, just as Avenatti is a more
transparently pathetic version of the man he claimed to oppose, Donald Trump.
The Trump era has seen the rapid proliferation of a new type of political grifter. He or she
often builds huge Twitter followings with hyper-partisan content, dishing out relentless
aggression in the form of dunks and hot takes while promising big, Kaboom-y revelations that
may or (more often) may not be factual. They often amplify presences using vast networks of
sock-puppet accounts.
Avenatti had 254 cable appearances last year, including 147 on MSNBC and
CNN alone in a 10-week period. Cable news bookers fell so madly in love they nearly
propelled him into the presidential race, during a time when, among other things, he was
allegedly bilking $1.6 million from a paraplegic.
Waytago, cable! Congratulations for giving air time to any slimeball who throws enough coal
on your ratings furnace, beginning of course with the president.
...
Trump understood the modern press is not only weighted toward the outrageous, but
discouraging of moderation in any form . In the WWE-ized landscape, people like Jeb Bush and
John Kasich appeared as tomato cans for Trump to knock over, using shareable insults,
extravagant policy promises and ratings-stimulating antics.
...
From Charles Ponzi to Mike Milken to L. Ron Hubbard to Bernie Madoff to Jack Abramoff,
Americans have a long history of embracing snake-oilers and schemers, showering them not just
with money but social approval . In America, even after exposure, the huckster is often still
worshipped for being enterprising. In a weird way, we tend to admire the effort.
It's one thing to give these clowns our money and time. But do we have to give them our
respect, too? Make them political heroes? Are we really that stupid?
It is unclear whether May really wanted to implement Brexit deal but at least she negotiated several EU offers. It was UK
Parliament that rejects the offers.
I think May claim to fame might be not her failure in Brexit negotiation, but orchestration of infamous Skripals poisoning
false flag and the bout of Russophobia, as well as her attempt to interfere with the 2016 elections in the USA.
Notable quotes:
"... History will not be kind to Theresa May. By the standards she forthrightly set herself at the outset of her premiership, she has been a dismal failure. ..."
"... she became, in George Osborne's devastating phrase, "a dead woman walking". ..."
"... a political nonentity of such crushing mediocrity and insignificance that even when standing in direct sunlight she casts no shadow. A third-rate office manager elevated light years beyond her intellectual capacity, professional capabilities and pay grade. A national embarrassment and global laughing stock ..."
"... When May was elected Tory leader and hence prime minister, the field of choice was notable for its lightweight uniformity. ..."
"... the quality of leadership of the party has been modest at best for years. Among Tory leaders since the war, only Margaret Thatcher has managed to catch the climate of her time and impose her personality on a discernible period, however much one may deplore that climate and that period. ..."
"... What is striking about Conservative politics is that those who wish to hold onto power and wealth for their own class and who have the ambition and talent and imagination to make a difference do not go into politics. They become entrepreneurs, traders, speculators. There is too much regulation and self-abnegation in politics for such people. Look back over the leadership of the Tory party and you get to Harold Macmillan before you encounter anyone who came from a (brief) career in business. ..."
"... We are now told that she is "a patriot" – the last refuge of a political scoundrel – and that she has "tried her best", which was clearly grossly inadequate to the task ..."
"... The wars are over for Britain. Become a global reliable trading nation that honors contracts and business ties, the very elements that made Britain Great. It sure has not been the Wars especially the poodle wars. You laugh at May's tears and under performance but you may as well be looking at yourselves. ..."
"... Why should Britain be holding Venezuela Gold on behalf of Donald Trump? There is no yield in this, there is no value but a soiled reputation as an unreliable trader. Banks in Britain should be honest dealers not playing politics with contracts. ..."
"... It's not clear that all MI5/MI6 operatives are remainers. I suspect they are as divided as everyone else. The gang who attacked Trump simply did it because it was business and not personal. They even outsourced to Steele because they thought it might be cheaper. Outsourcing is perceived as cool in government circles and makes people feel good about themselves. It's the deep state offering value for money. ..."
"... May has done precisely what she was tasked to do by the Establishment: First to "negotiate" a Withdrawal deal that "Only the loser of a major war would agree to" after wasting two years, then do everything else possible to delay Brexit as long as possible and water it down to the point that the UK would even with a "delivered Brexit" still essentially be bound to the EU indefinitely. ..."
"... The final irony here is that it is ultimately only Parliament's duplicity and treachery, in spite of the fact that Parliament desperately wanted to ensure the UK "Remain", which has prevented her and the Globalists from achieving their goals through what they believed to be a process of "subtle subterfuge". ..."
"... She will indeed go down in history as a footnote of no significance or perhaps as the PM who showed the greatest betrayal of the British people on behalf of the Establishment ..."
History will not be kind to Theresa May. By the standards she forthrightly set herself
at the outset of her premiership, she has been a dismal failure. She proposed that,
contrary to most impartial expectation, she would be a socially liberal prime minister who
would strive to relieve the economic pressure on the poorest members of British society (the
briefly famous "just about managing"), but the only small concessions towards the relief of
poverty that have been wrung from her government have done nothing to reduce the incidence of
homelessness, food banks and wage rates that undershoot the demands made by private landlords,
services starved of funds and price rises.
And that's without even mentioning Brexit.
Following the self-inflicted disaster of the 2017 general election, in which May utterly
failed to project herself with any conviction as "strong and stable", she became, in George
Osborne's devastating phrase, "a dead woman walking".
That campaign was the most complacent, least effective ever fought by a major political
party in Britain, and the only explanation for the media's astonishment at the result can be
that editors and columnists had so convinced themselves that they had rendered Jeremy Corbyn,
in their description of choice, "unelectable" that they could see no outcome other than a
thumping Tory victory. What they could not see was that Corbyn is an inspired and inspiring
campaigner, while May is as dull as ditchwater.
The social media commentator Aidan Daley summed her up admirably: "Mayvis: a political
nonentity of such crushing mediocrity and insignificance that even when standing in direct
sunlight she casts no shadow. A third-rate office manager elevated light years beyond her
intellectual capacity, professional capabilities and pay grade. A national embarrassment and
global laughing stock ".
This unsparing but unarguable buttonholing raises a historical problem for the Conservative
Party that shows no sign of quick resolution. When May was elected Tory leader and hence
prime minister, the field of choice was notable for its lightweight uniformity. Given the
length of her cabinet experience, May clearly outshone her rivals, if not in charisma (a
quality conspicuously lacking from the field). But the quality of leadership of the party
has been modest at best for years. Among Tory leaders since the war, only Margaret Thatcher has
managed to catch the climate of her time and impose her personality on a discernible period,
however much one may deplore that climate and that period.
What is striking about Conservative politics is that those who wish to hold onto power
and wealth for their own class and who have the ambition and talent and imagination to make a
difference do not go into politics. They become entrepreneurs, traders, speculators. There is
too much regulation and self-abnegation in politics for such people. Look back over the
leadership of the Tory party and you get to Harold Macmillan before you encounter anyone who
came from a (brief) career in business.
Comparing May with Thatcher and Macmillan is instructive.
May has failed to create any sort of arresting public persona for herself. Aside from the
tiresome bromide "Brexit means Brexit", she has turned no phrase that immediately summons her
to mind. Who could essay her political philosophy, other than hanging on grimly against
insuperable odds and paying heed to no advice?
She has no imagination, no resourcefulness, no wit and no management skills. When pressed,
she retreats to prepared responses, regardless of their irrelevance to the question in hand.
We are now told that she is "a patriot" – the last refuge of a political scoundrel
– and that she has "tried her best", which was clearly grossly inadequate to the
task .
The mainstream media will be eternally grateful to her for betraying emotion at the end of
her resignation statement, thereby providing the "human interest" angle that cements the moment
in history and will be trotted out in every story about the May premiership for ever after,
much like Thatcher's tear-stained face in the back of the limo as it pulled away from Downing
Street for the last time. Whether this emotion sits appropriately with the "dignity" that her
admirers are rushing to credit to her is a question for others to ponder.
Attention now turns to her successor. Vast though the field is, it is again notable for its
lightweight nature. Smart money will be on Rory Stewart, already a media darling and a
politician unusually capable of sounding thoughtful and candid. He also has the advantage of
having led a colourful pre-politics life, thereby bringing instincts to his politics from
beyond the confines of career consultants and spads. But most speculation centres on Boris
Johnson, despite the high level of suspicion that he generates among Tory MPs. He is said to be
enthusiastically supported at the grassroots.
In this as in other aspects, he brings to mind Donald Trump. If Rory Stewart would offer a
safe pair of hands, Johnson would suggest a Trump-like level of gaffes and embarrassments,
thrills and spills.
Britain's Chief problem is that it has become a US poodle for nothing. Essentially
insolvent and small Britain indulges in middle East Wars and US Sanctions and Boycotts. What
do they get in return? Nothing at all.
This is a giant hangover from WWII. It wasn't enough that WWII destroyed Britain, the US
had to take advantage of it in the Anglo American loan and Bretton Woods.
Anyone that has studied WWII knows it was the Russians that killed Germany, not the US and
most certainly not Britain, though cracking the Enigma was certainly useful. But it was Brute
force of the Russians a KURSK that laid waste to Germany.
The US came out of the War essentially unscathed. Britain was bombed out rubble. The US
took full advantage with hard terms in their Anglo American Loan.
The relationship of the US to Britain is more like Abusive parent to abused child. It is
anything but equals. The US only calls on Britain for British Intelligence, or military
support to do something stupid like engage in the Iraq war. The poodle does as told.
ARM was founded in Britain. Now sold to Softbank in Japan. It was the INTEL giant killer.
Had Britain not been a poodle to the US, this one company would have been a driving force in
5G. But the Abusive parent, essentially told the Brits who could and could not associate with
ARM. Now in an even more abused poodle Japan, the world's most emasculated nation. Brits take
their marching order from Donald Trump a bloody moron.
The Tide is out on the British Empire. It is irrelevant at this point what happens with
Brexit. Stall long enough and nobody will care. Instead of branching out and leading in 5G,
they are following their abused parent into the dark ages.
Britain should be making its own deals with China while the US is foundering under Turmp.
Some businesses are such as Rolls Royce that is offering a Rolls Royce jet engine plant to
forward China's local and narrowbody jets. Britain can come in and be a reliable partner with
Huawei and get access to the largest markets in global history China and Asia. Instead the
Gov. wants the UK to be just a US poodle lucky to get a few scraps.
Protectionism can NEVER work in Britain. The Isles NEED TRADE. They cannot survive without
out it. Yet here they are with their brilliant engineering taking orders from Donald Trump
the idiots idiot.
May was just a symptom of the Poodle problem. Do as told, show no spine and live in the
shadow of the USA abuser parent. That is why NO PM in the UK casts a shadow. They are under
the oppressive shadow of the US. Taking orders, Killing off British soldiers for nothing.
The wars are over for Britain. Become a global reliable trading nation that honors
contracts and business ties, the very elements that made Britain Great. It sure has not been
the Wars especially the poodle wars. You laugh at May's tears and under performance but you
may as well be looking at yourselves.
Brexit under the shadow of the USA just strengthens the choke chain in Trump's insane
hand. You become dependent on an unreliable country with the most unreliable administration
in US History. As they do now, they dictate where you may trade and to whom you may sell your
products... and you go along with it like an obedient abused child seeking approval of the
Parent Abuser.
Get some spine and break ties with the USA that are carrying you into the abyss. Why
should Britain be holding Venezuela Gold on behalf of Donald Trump? There is no yield in
this, there is no value but a soiled reputation as an unreliable trader. Banks in Britain
should be honest dealers not playing politics with contracts. Every country in the world is
looking at this British poodle conduct. No country wants to deal with a poodle that refuses
to return assets or that weaponizes Trade. You are cutting your throats for any future global
investment FOR NOTHING!
It's not clear that all MI5/MI6 operatives are remainers. I suspect they are as divided as
everyone else. The gang who attacked Trump simply did it because it was business and not
personal. They even outsourced to Steele because they thought it might be cheaper.
Outsourcing is perceived as cool in government circles and makes people feel good about
themselves. It's the deep state offering value for money.
May achieved what she set out to do being a BREMAINER from the outset.
To block, stall and prevent at all costs BREXIT.
As a BREXIT supporter thank you May because you created a new party in the process as an
alternative to the fake" Conservative BREXIT party" and the EU Labour Custom Union slaves". I
swear Labour = Democrats in the US and their belief in social slavery to them.
When can we get them EU election figures ... as this is going to be such fun if the BREXIT
party manages to achieve an overwhelming vote it is like a 2nd referendum on the previous
referendum. ... Fingers crossed here though because you just know MI5 / MI6 and all the other
mercenaries are going to be ballot stuffing like **** and with no exit polls to prevent the
electoral fraud they will be carrying out on the orders of their paymasters.
Spare the tears, **** you got exactly what you deserved for your betrayal of British
democracy whilst constantly lying and pretending to support both UK AND US values.
May has done precisely what she was tasked to do by the Establishment: First to
"negotiate" a Withdrawal deal that "Only the loser of a major war would agree to" after
wasting two years, then do everything else possible to delay Brexit as long as possible and
water it down to the point that the UK would even with a "delivered Brexit" still essentially
be bound to the EU indefinitely.
The final irony here is that it is ultimately only Parliament's duplicity and treachery,
in spite of the fact that Parliament desperately wanted to ensure the UK "Remain", which has
prevented her and the Globalists from achieving their goals through what they believed to be
a process of "subtle subterfuge".
The ONLY way forward now is a "Hard" Brexit because Parliament has rejected everything
else, it is still the legal default position which does NOT legally require approval by
Parliament and it restores the negotiating position with the EU that May deliberately pissed
away over two years. And the lesson here to other countries wanting to get out of the
clutches of Brussels is this; If you want to leave the EU, JUST LEAVE. Let the Bureaucrats
work out the details later; they aren't that important.
She will indeed go down in history as a footnote of no significance or perhaps as the PM
who showed the greatest betrayal of the British people on behalf of the Establishment
**** off and go away to enjoy the corrupt benefits of your service to the Globalists until
you RIP.
May fits in with the other Prime Ministers of the Paedoph Isles:
"Rules which bar sex offenders from working with children are 'unfair' and even convicted
paedophiles should have the right to adopt, a leading legal academic has said."
Despicable neocons like Natasha Bertrand are cowards and attack people only because then feel the power on MIC and
intelligence agencies behind their backs
In normal circumstances and normal society she would be the history the next day. But politico is a slimy rag, so what to
expect of them
Notable quotes:
"... Politico's "Mueller report reveals Kushner's contacts with a 'pro-Kremlin' campaign adviser" (Politico, April 29, 2019), is dishonest, destructive, and should never have appeared in print. ..."
"... The author of the piece, Natasha Bertrand, initially refers to Dimitri Simes, CEO of the Center for the National Interest, not as an American citizen, although of course he is and has been for many years, nor as a leading representative of realist foreign policy thinking in the United States, which would have also been true. ..."
"... Instead, she initially frames him (in every sense of the word 'frame') as "a Russian willing to assist" the Trump campaign. This word choice rings, and is intended to ring, the Pavlovian bells of the Russia-gate narrative. Aside from being dishonest, her word choice smacks of racism -- a habit, to be sure, which is now widespread, as long as the object of that racism is Russia. ..."
"... 'Maybe Simes is a traitor -- although there are those who think he may not be.' If you accuse some Mr. X of being a rapist, and then add another opinion saying, 'Gosh, I don't think he is a rapist,' what is the impact on the reader? ..."
Politico's "Mueller report reveals Kushner's contacts with a 'pro-Kremlin' campaign adviser"
(Politico, April 29, 2019), is dishonest, destructive, and should never have appeared in
print.
The author of the piece, Natasha Bertrand, initially refers to Dimitri Simes, CEO of the
Center for the National Interest, not as an American citizen, although of course he is and has
been for many years, nor as a leading representative of realist foreign policy thinking in the
United States, which would have also been true.
Instead, she initially frames him (in every sense of the word 'frame') as "a Russian willing
to assist" the Trump campaign. This word choice rings, and is intended to ring, the Pavlovian
bells of the Russia-gate narrative. Aside from being dishonest, her word choice smacks of
racism -- a habit, to be sure, which is now widespread, as long as the object of that racism is
Russia.
If Ms. Bertrand has regularly watched the program The Great Game (Bol'shaia igra), and
understands it, and if she is familiar with Simes' writings and conferences and the
publications that appear in The National Interest, then she has no excuse for writing this
piece in the first place. The genre to which this piece belongs is clear.
It is called a hit piece.
Bertrand deploys, of course, a few fig leaves of pretend objectivity, which may have helped
assuage her conscience, but that is all that these fig leaves can do. What we have here is a
list of scurrilous attacks ("he [Simes] is completely pro-Kremlin and always has been"). These
attacks are then countered by opinions to the contrary, but without any suggestion as to where
the preponderance of evidence lies. There is insufficient detail.
And that is the whole point, isn't it? 'Maybe Simes is a traitor -- although there are those
who think he may not be.' If you accuse some Mr. X of being a rapist, and then add another
opinion saying, 'Gosh, I don't think he is a rapist,' what is the impact on the reader? In the
present context, the impact is this: if you take into consideration a Russian perspective in
any way, shape, or form, even for the purposes of avoiding war -- and this is precisely what Simes is constantly doing, and with considerable intelligence and courage -- then you are going
to get a nasty hit piece written about you by the likes of Politico and Ms. Bertrand.
I regularly watch The Great Game, which Mr. Simes co-hosts on Channel 1 with Vyacheslav
Nikonov, and I have seen how he not just once, but in virtually every single program defends US
interests, and disagrees when Russian colleagues try to make a one-sided case against the U.S.
Simes regularly invites Atlantic Council spokespersons, or their policy equivalent, to the
program, and there they have the freedom to make their case in great detail and without
interruption, and inevitably they make statements that are sharply critical of the Russian
government and its policies. It is Mr. Simes who sees to it that these voices from the Atlantic
Council are heard by the Russian side.
As a result, Simes is carrying out vitally important work of diplomacy that allows for a
two-way communication between policy elites on both sides, and he very adeptly is doing so in a
way that allows both sides to actually listen and hear what is being said. If he simply
screamed politically correct slogans, it would either shut this channel of communications down
or turn it into another pointless circus where no one really listens.
I find it baffling that Politico wants to undermine this virtually unique remaining channel
of diplomacy. For the sake of what? Would Politico prefer that there be no conversation
whatsoever between the US and Russia? Why? Isn't it obviously preferable that we make an effort
to understand a potential adversary's perspective, particularly when that potential adversary
is the other nuclear superpower? It is astonishing -- and foolish -- that no program anything
like The Great Game can be found anywhere in US media. In the US, we hear only variations on
our own perspective on our big news programs. Where do we allow voices from the other side to
make their case?
Simes should be thanked for his work. Instead what he gets is this hit piece. It is not only
disgusting and disheartening, it is frightening.
Paul R. Grenier is a co-founder of the Simone Weil Center for Political Philosophy. He
worked for many years as a simultaneous interpreter for the U.S. Defense and State Departments,
interpreting for Gen. Tommy Franks and serving as lead interpreter for US Central Command's
peacekeeping exercises with post-Soviet states.
Scripals's poisoning connected Prime Minister soon will be gone for good.
Novichok has lasting effects on British PM ;-) Now it will be much easier to investigate her role in spying on Trump,
British government role in creation of Steele dossier, and in launching neo-McCarthyism campaign against Russia (aka
Russiagate).
Notable quotes:
"... During her tumultuous tenure as PM, May survived two no-confidence votes. ..."
"... Crying May. What a Loser. Plus, she may have well co-conspired against Trump. ..."
May, the second - but certainly not the last - female prime minister in the UK, will
abandon her supremely unpopular withdrawal agreement instead of trying to force it through
the Commons for the fourth time. May's decision to call for a fourth vote on the withdrawal
agreement, this time packaging it in a bill that could have opened to door to a second
confirmatory referendum, was more than her fellow conservatives could tolerate. One of her
top cabinet ministers resigned and Graham Brady, the leader of the Tory backbenchers,
effectively forced May out by rounding up the votes for a rule change that would have allowed
MPs to oust her.
During her tumultuous tenure as PM, May survived two no-confidence votes.
Though May will stay on as caretaker until a new leader can be chosen, the race to succeed
May begins now...odds are that a 'Brexiteer' will fill the role. Whatever happens, the
contest should take a few weeks, and afterwards May will be on her way back to
Maidenhead.
"It is and will always remain a deep regret for me that I was not able to deliver
Brexit...I was not able to reach a consensus...that job will now fall to my successor," May
said.
Between now and May's resignation, May still has work to do: President Trump will travel
to the UK for a state visit, while Europe will also celebrate the 75th anniversary of
D-Day.
It's fitting that May touted the virtues of her moderate approach to governance during her
resignation speech, considering that her attempts to chart a middle path through Brexit ended
up alienating hard-core Brexiteers and remainers alike. Her fate was effectively sealed
nearly two years ago, after she called for a general election that cost the Tories their
majority in Parliament and emboldened Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn.
The pound's reaction was relatively muted, as May's decision to step down had been
telegraphed well in advance.
She didn't cry for syrians when she declared bombing Syria and using the firm her
husband is involved in,. They made billion, and she didn't cry over her makeover afterwards
new hair clothes and big jewels and cuddles with her husband in the media.
Many women in esteemed positions are just affirmative action or window dressing to
placate the masses with supposed maternal love but they end up being wicked as heck.
Perhaps, but it's worse than that:
They are part of the Divide & Conquer strategy, while (((Global-lusts))) are
plundering the Wealth Of Nations and taking over the real reigns of power.
Americants are easily distracted or fooled.
ps. "...wicked as heck." Wicked? Heck? What's up with the careful avoidance of "cuss
words"? It's ok, you're safe... No "ladies or preachers" (bitches or scammers) nearby. And
the Tylers or NSA won't rat you out.
"... However, nothing in the actual piece talks about security concerns. (I point this out because I perceive a trend towards such misleading summaries and headlines which contradict what the actual reporting says.) ..."
"... These companies do not have security concerns over Huawei. But the casual reader, who does not dive down into the actual piece, is left with a false impression that such concerns are valid and shared. ..."
"... South China Morning Post ..."
"... This move by Google-USG is mostly a propaganda warfare move. Huawei doesn't depend on smartphone sales to survive. It's American market was already small, while China's domestic market is huge. China is not Japan. ..."
"... Trump's heavy handed move against Huawei will backfire. The optic is unsettling; the US looks to be destroying a foreign competitor because it is winning. ..."
"... Until the reserve currency issue favoring the "exceptional" nation changes, the economic terrorism will continue.. ..."
"... What is funny in all these stories, is that there is little to no Huawei equipment (not the end-user smart phone, home router and stuff, but backbone routers, access equipment,..) anywhere in the US -- they are forbidden to compete. Most telcos are quite happy to sell in the US, as the absence of these Chinese competitors allows for healthy margins, which is no longer true in other markets. ..."
"... The US is trying desperately to quash tech success / innovation introduced by others who are not controlled by (or in partnership with) the US, via economic war, for now just politely called a trade war - China no 1 adversary. ..."
"... Attacking / dissing / scotching trade between one Co. (e.g. Huawei) and the world is disruptive of the usual, conventional, accepted, exchange functioning, and throws a pesky spanner in the works of the system. Revanchard motives, petty targetting, random pot-shots, lead to what? ..."
"... The war against Huawei is only one small aspect within the overall Trade War, which is based on the false premise of US economic strength. Most of the world wants to purchase material things, not financial services which is the Outlaw US Empire's forte and most of the world can easily forego. Trump's Trade War isn't going as planned which will cause him to double-down in a move that will destroy his 2020 hopes. ..."
However, nothing in
the actual piece talks about security concerns. (I point this out because I perceive a trend towards such misleading summaries
and headlines which contradict what the actual reporting says.)
The British processor company ARM, which licenses its design to Huawei, cites U.S. export controls as the reason to stop cooperation
with Huawei:
The conflict is putting companies and governments around the world in a tough spot, forcing them to choose between alienating
the United States or China .
Arm Holdings issued its statement after the BBC reported the firm had told staff to suspend dealings with Huawei.
An Arm spokesman said some of the company's intellectual property is designed in the United States and is therefore " subject
to U.S. export controls ."
Additionally two British telecom providers quote U.S. restrictions as reason for no longer buying Huawei smartphones:
BT Group's EE division, which is preparing to launch 5G service in six British cities later this month, said Wednesday it would
no longer offer a new Huawei smartphone as part of that service. Vodafone also said it would drop a Huawei smartphone from
its lineup. Both companies appeared to tie that decision to Google's move to withhold licenses for its Android operating software
from future Huawei phones.
These companies do not have security concerns over Huawei. But the casual reader, who does not dive down into the actual
piece, is left with a false impression that such concerns are valid and shared.
That the Trump administration says it has security reasons for its Huawei ban does not mean that the claim is true. Huawei
equipment is as good or bad as any other telecommunication equipment, be it from Cisco or Apple. The National Security Agency
and other secret services will try to infiltrate all types of such equipment.
After the sudden ban on U.S. entities to export to Huawei, chipmakers like Qualcomm temporarily stopped their relations with
Huawei. Google said that it would no longer allow access to the Google Play store for new Huawei smartphones. That will diminish
their utility for many users.
The public reaction in China to this move was quite negative. There were many calls for counter boycotts of Apple's i-phones
on social media and a general anti-American sentiment.
The founder and CEO of Huawei, Ren Zhengfei, tried to counter that. He gave a
two hour interview (vid, 3 min excerpt with subtitles)
directed at the Chinese public. Ren sounds very conciliatory and relaxed. The Global Times and the South China Morning
Post only have shortexcerpts
of what he said. They empathize that Huawei is well prepared and can master the challenge:
I do not believe this is precisely what will happen. Huawei already has its licenses purchased. In addition they could decide
to disrespect the IP if this was the case.
Huaweis's suppliers in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan (ROC), and Britain are examining if they can continue to make business with
Huawei, while some have already declared a suspension in cooperation.
The issue is that these non-American companies nonetheless use some American components of technology, and if they proceed
they will be sanctioned by the US themselves.
It is the same reason why Russia's Sukhoi did not in the end sell its SSJ-100 airliners to Iran -- East Asian tech companies
can hardly be expected to be more gung-ho on defying the US than Russia's leading defense plant......
@p #2 - Huawei surely has their processors *as of now*.
That - if USA would not ban Huawei (HiSilicon) processors, because of using that ARM technology. Thing is, Huawei would be
isolated from next-generation ARM processors. They are locked now in their current generation.
Even Qualcomm today, for what I know, bases their processors on ARM's "default" schemes, instead of doing their development
"from scratch", in a totally independent way. It would push for slow but steady decline as "top" smartphone vendor into "el cheapo"
niche.
Boeing is the counter-part in the contest to destroy Huawei. China has great leverage over Boeing's future. It is the nation with
the biggest market now and downstream for 10-20 years. China need planes, thousands of them.
As for Huawei's chief doubting the prowess of the Chinese students, he only needs to look at the rapidity of the conversion
of his nations' economy to a 98% digital economy. All that conversion was done by local, entrepreneurial innovators in the software
and hardware tech sector. It happened only in China and completely by Chinese young people who had phones and saw the future and
made it happen.
It has been Chinese minds building Chinese AI on Chinese Big Data.
Yes, they need Russian technologists and scientists. Those Russian minds in Russia, in Israel, in South Korea are proven difference
makers.
The need China now has will meet the solution rapidly. For five years, the Double Helix of Russia-China has been coming closer
in education and R&D institutes in both nations. China investors and Chinese sci-tech personnel are in the sci-tech parks of Russia,
and Russians are in similar facilities in China. More will happen now that the Economic War against China threatens.
Huawei will have solutions to replace all US components by the end of the year. It will lose some markets. but it will gain
hugely in the BRI markets yet to be developed.
In the long run, the US makers will rue the day Trump and his gang of Sinophobes and hegemonists took aim at Huawei and China's
tech sector.
This move by Google-USG is mostly a propaganda warfare move. Huawei doesn't depend on smartphone sales to survive. It's American
market was already small, while China's domestic market is huge. China is not Japan.
Besides, it's not like Europe is prospering either. Those post-war days are long gone.
And there's no contradiction between what the CEO said and the Government line: both are approaching the same problem from
different points of view, attacking it from different fronts at the same time. "Patriotism" is needed insofar as the Chinese people
must be prepared to suffer some hardships without giving up long term prosperity. "Nationalism" ("politics") is toxic insofar
as, as a teleological tool, it is a dead end (see Bannon's insane antics): the Chinese, after all, are communists, and communists,
by nature, are internationalists and think beyond the artificial division of humanity in Nation-States.
Talking Digital and security in the same sentence is laughable.... NOTHING Digital is 'secure',,, never has,,, never will.
Digital destroys everything it touches. At present, excepting for now the low wage States, it is destroying economies ever
so slowly one sector at a time. This has nothing to do with security and everything to do with the dying West, especially the
USA which is trying desperately to save what's left of its production whether it be 5G, Steel plants or Nord Stream. The West
created China when it happily allowed and assisted Western corporations to move the production there in order to hide the inflation
that was being created for wars and welfare and now has to deal with the fallout which eventually will be their undoing.
A full-blown trade war was probably inevitable, driven by geopolitical concerns as much or more than economics.
One wonders what each of China and US has been doing to prepare. It seems like the answer is "very little" but since it's USA
that is driving this bus, I would think that USA would've done more to prepare (than China has).
PS It's not just Boeing. China also supplies the vast majority of rare earth minerals.
Her captivity and probable imprisonment in the US explain his attitude. She is a high profile pawn. The US must convict her
in order to justify what they have done to her so far. She may not serve time, in the US prisons, but she will be branded a guilty
person, guilty of violating the Empire's rules (laws).
Imagine Ivanka in the same situation. Her daughter singing in Mandarin would be little help. The Trump Family will be a number
one target for equal treatment long after "45" leaves office.
The US Empire is wild with Power. All of that Power is destructive. And all the globe is the battlefield, except USA. But History
teaches that this in-equilibrium will not last long.
We've seen how Europe caved to US pressure to stop trading with Iran. Now Japan and others are caving to pressure to stop trading
with China. There is already pressure and negotiation to stop Nordstream. And all of the above leads to questions about Erdogan's
resolve.
Trump's heavy handed move against Huawei will backfire. The optic is unsettling; the US looks to be destroying a foreign competitor
because it is winning.
The ramifications of trade war with China (where the supply and manufacturing chain of most consumer electronics is these days)
is disruptive. Trump has created uncertainty for many manufacturers since there is Chinese part content is just about everything
these days. Some manufacturers might relocate production to the US but most will try to simply decouple from the US entirely.
Exposure to the US is really the problem not exposure to China.
The trade war with Iran was also unlikely to persist. But it has persisted, and deepened as European poodles pretended to resist
and then pretended not to notice that they didn't.
A new Bloomberg opinion piece agrees with that view
No, it doesn't b. You say USA trade war will fail because it lacks international support. Bloomberg says USA should get international
support to make it more effective. The difference is that it is highly likely that USA will get international support. It already
has support from Japan.
USA has proven that it can effectively manipulate it's poodle allies. Another example is Venezuela where more than two dozen
countries recognized Guido only because USA wanted them to.
<> <> <> <> <> <> <>
It's not Trump but the US Deep State that causes US allies to fall in line. Any analysis that relies on Trump as President
is bound to fail as his public persona is manipulated to keep Deep State adversaries (including the US public) off-balance.
Like President's before him, Trump will take the blame (and the credit) until another team member is chosen to replace him
in what we call "free and fair elections".
What is funny in all these stories, is that there is little to no Huawei equipment (not the end-user smart phone, home router
and stuff, but backbone routers, access equipment,..) anywhere in the US -- they are forbidden to compete. Most telcos are quite
happy to sell in the US, as the absence of these Chinese competitors allows for healthy margins, which is no longer true in other
markets.
So the Huawei ban hits first and foremost the US' partners.
China can only undo the US-exceptionalsim if and when it can visibly project military power. The only way to achieve
that is tt has to make great haste in building a few fleets of aircraft carriers, fregats and destroyers, etc. It must
build a grand, visibly magnificent Chinese Navy.
Modi wins in India, another victory for the world oligarchs. Exactly mimicking conditions in the U$A. Media and governmental
capture by the uber wealthy...
The US is trying desperately to quash tech success / innovation introduced by others who are not controlled by (or in partnership
with) the US, via economic war, for now just politely called a trade war - China no 1 adversary.
Afaik, the entire smart-phone industry is 'integrated' and 'regulated' by FTAs, the WTO, the patent circuit, the Corps. and
Gvmts. who collaborate amongst themselves.
Corps. can't afford to compete viciously because infrastructure, aka more encompassing systems or networks (sic) are a pre-requisite
for biz, thus, Gvmts. cooperate with the Corps, and sign various 'partnerships,' etc.
sidebar. Not to mention the essential metals / components provenance, other topic. see
Attacking / dissing / scotching trade between one Co. (e.g. Huawei) and the world is disruptive of the usual, conventional,
accepted, exchange functioning, and throws a pesky spanner in the works of the system. Revanchard motives, petty targetting, random
pot-shots, lead to what?
As I wrote in the Venezuela thread, major US corps are already belt tightening by permanently laying off managers, not already
cut-to-the-bone production staff, and another major clothing retailer is closing its 650+ stores. And the full impact of Trump's
Trade War has yet to be felt by consumers. As Wolff, Hudson and other like-minded economists note, there never was a genuine recovery
from 2008, while statistical manipulation hides the real state of the US economy. One thing that cannot be hidden is the waning
of revenues collected via taxes which drives the budget deficit--and the shortfall isn't just due to the GOP Congress's tax cuts.
The war against Huawei is only one small aspect within the overall Trade War, which is based on the false premise of US economic
strength. Most of the world wants to purchase material things, not financial services which is the Outlaw US Empire's forte and
most of the world can easily forego. Trump's Trade War isn't going as planned which will cause him to double-down in a move that
will destroy his 2020 hopes.
Data for 2019 is probably slightly different, but the trends should keep on. That data also does not separate Android-based
phones from non-Android phones. So, segmenting Android into Google and China infrastructures would mean
1) Huawei retains a $152B market - China
2) Huawei retains an unknown share in $87B market - APAC
3) Huawei loses a $163,9B market - all non-China world.
At best Huawei looses 40,7% of world market. That if all APAC population would voluntarily and uniformly drop out of Google
services into Huawei/China services (which they would not). At worst Huawei retains 37,7% of the marker (if APAC population would
uniformly follow Google, which they would not either).
"... In July 2017 Strache and his right hand man Johann Gudenus, who is also the big number in the FPOe, get invited for dinner to a rented villa on Ibiza, the Spanish tourist island in the Mediterranean. They are told that the daughter of a Russian billionaire plans large investments in Austria. It was said that she would like to help his party. The alleged daughter of the Russian billionaire, who is actually also Austrian, and her "friend" serve an expensive dinner. Alcohol flows freely. The pair offers a large party donation but asks for returns in form of mark ups on public contracts. ..."
"... Unknown to Strache the villa is professionally bugged with many hidden cameras and microphones. ..."
"... The right-wing parties will use the case to boost their legitimacy. ..."
"... Strache was obviously set up by some intelligence services, probably a German one with a British assist. The original aim was likely to blackmail him. But during the meeting on Ibiza Strache promised and did nothing illegal. Looking for potential support for his party is not a sin. Neither is discussing investments in Austria with a "daughter of a Russian oligarch." Some boosting while drunk is hardly a reason to go to jail. When the incident provided too little material to claim that Strache is corrupt, the video was held back until the right moment to politically assassinate him with the largest potential damage to his party. That moment was thought to be now. ..."
"... The massive economic shock following the banking collapse of 2007–8 is the direct cause of the crisis of confidence which is affecting almost all the institutions of western representative democracy. The banking collapse was not a natural event, like a tsunami. It was a direct result of man-made systems and artifices which permitted wealth to be generated and hoarded primarily through multiple financial transactions rather than by the actual production and sale of concrete goods, and which then disproportionately funnelled wealth to those engaged in the mechanics of the transactions. ..."
"... The political assassination of Christian Strache is unjust. What was done during the 2007-8 banking crisis was utterly corrupt and also unjust. Instead of going to jail the bankers were rewarded with extreme amounts of money for their assault on the well being of the people. The public was then told that it must starve through austerity to make up for the loss of money. ..."
During the last days a right wing politician in Austria was taken down by using an elaborate sting. Until Friday Heinz-Christian
Strache was leader of the far right (but not fascist) Freedom Party of Austria (FPOe) and the Vice Chancellor of the country. On
Friday morning two German papers, the Sueddeutsche Zeitung and Der Spiegelpublished
(German)
reports (English) about an old video that was made to take Strache down.
The FPOe has good connections with United Russia, the party of the Russian President Putin, and to other right-wing parties in
east Europe. It's pro-Russian position has led to verbal attacks on and defamation of the party from NATO supporting and neoliberal
circles.
In July 2017 Strache and his right hand man Johann Gudenus, who is also the big number in the FPOe, get invited for dinner to
a rented villa on Ibiza, the Spanish tourist island in the Mediterranean. They are told that the daughter of a Russian billionaire
plans large investments in Austria. It was said that she would like to help his party. The alleged daughter of the Russian billionaire,
who is actually also Austrian, and her "friend" serve an expensive dinner. Alcohol flows freely. The pair offers a large party donation
but asks for returns in form of mark ups on public contracts.
Unknown to Strache the villa is professionally bugged with many hidden cameras and microphones.
A scene from the video. Source: Der Falter (vid,
German)
During the six hour long party several schemes get proposed by the "Russian" and are discussed. Strache rejects most of them.
He insists several times that everything they plan or do must be legal and conform to the law. He says that a large donation could
probably be funneled through an endowment that would then support his party. It is a gray area under Austrian party financing laws.
They also discuss if the "Russian" could buy the Kronen Zeitung , Austria's powerful tabloid, and use it to prop up his party.
The evening goes on with several bottles of vodka on the table. Starche gets a bit drunk and boosts in front of the "oligarch
daughter" about all his connections to rich and powerful people. He does not actually have these.
Strache says that, in exchange for help for his party, the "Russian" could get public contracts for highway building and repair.
Currently most of such contracts in Austria go to the large Austrian company, STRABAG, that is owned by a neoliberal billionaire
who opposes the FPOe. At that time Strache was not yet in the government and had no way to decide about such contracts.
At one point Strache seems to understand that the whole thing is a setup. But his right hand man calms him down and vouches
for the "Russian". The sting ends with Strache and his companion leaving the place. The never again see the "Russian" and her co-plotter.
Nothing they talked about will ever come to fruition.
Three month later Strache and his party win more than 20% in the Austrian election and form a coalition government with the
conservative party OeVP led by Chancellor Sebastian Kurz. Even while the FPOe controls several ministries, it does not achieve much
politically. It lacks a real program and the government's policies are mostly run by the conservatives.
Nearly two years after the evening on Ibiza, ten days before the European parliament election in which Strache's party is predicted
to achieve good results, a video of the evening on Ibiza is handed to two German papers which are known to be have strong transatlanticist
leanings and have previously been used for other shady 'leaks'. The papers do not hesitate to take part in the plot and publish extensive
reports about the video.
After the reports appeared Strache immediately
stepped down and the conservatives
ended the coalition with his party. Austria will now have new elections.
On Bloomberg Leonid Bershidsky
opines
on the case:
Strache's discussion with the Russian oligarch's fake niece shows a propensity for dirty dealing that has nothing to do with idealistic
nationalism. Nationalist populists often agitate against entrenched, corrupt elites and pledge to drain various swamps. In the
videos, however, Strache and Gudenus behave like true swamp creatures, savoring rumors of drug and sex scandals in Austrian politics
and discussing how to create an authoritarian media machine like Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban's.
I do not believe that the people who voted for the FPOe (and similar parties in other countries) will subscribe to that view.
The politics of the main stream parties in Austria have for decades been notoriously corrupt. Compared to them Strache and his party
are astonishingly clean. In the video he insists several times that everything must stay within the legal realm. Whenever the "Russian"
puts forward a likely illegal scheme, Starche emphatically rejects it.
Bershidsky continues:
Strache, as one of the few nationalist populists in government in the European Union's wealthier member states, was an important
member of the movement Italian Interior Minister Matteo Salvini has been trying to cobble together ahead of the European Parliament
election that will take place next week. On Saturday, he was supposed to attend a Salvini-led rally in Milan with other like-minded
politicians from across Europe. Instead, he was in Vienna apologizing to his wife and to Kurz and protesting pitifully that he'd
been the victim of a "political assassination" -- a poisonous rain on the Italian right-winger's parade.
...
This leaves the European far right in disarray and plays into the hands of centrist and leftist forces ahead of next week's election.
Salvini's unifying effort has been thoroughly undermined, ...
This is also a misreading of the case. The right-wing parties will use the case to boost their legitimacy.
Strache was obviously set up by some intelligence services, probably a German one with a British assist. The original aim was
likely to blackmail him. But during the meeting on Ibiza Strache promised and did nothing illegal. Looking for potential support
for his party is not a sin. Neither is discussing investments in Austria with a "daughter of a Russian oligarch." Some boosting while
drunk is hardly a reason to go to jail. When the incident provided too little material to claim that Strache is corrupt, the video
was held back until the right moment to politically assassinate him with the largest potential damage to his party. That moment was
thought to be now.
But that Strache stepped down after the sudden media assault only makes him more convincing. The right-wing all over Europe will
see him as a martyr who was politically assassinated because he worked for their cause. The issue will increase the right-wingers
hate against the 'liberal' establishment. It will further motivate them: "They attack us because we are right and winning." The new
far-right block Natteo Salvini
will setup in the European Parliament will likely receive a record share of votes.
Establishment writers notoriously misinterpret the new right wing parties and their followers. This stand-offish sentence in the
Spiegel story about Strache's party demonstrates the problem:
In the last election, the party drew significant support from the working class, in part because of his ability to simplify even
the most complicated of issues and play the common man, even in his role as vice chancellor.
The implicit thesis, that the working class is too dumb to understand the "most complicated of issues", is not only incredibly
snobbish but utterly false. The working class understands very well what the establishment parties have done to it and continue to
do. The increasing vote share of the far-right is a direct consequence of the behavior of the neoliberal center and of the lack of
real left alternatives.
Last week, before the Strache video appeared, Craig Murray
put his finger on the wound:
The massive economic shock following the banking collapse of 2007–8 is the direct cause of the crisis of confidence which is affecting
almost all the institutions of western representative democracy. The banking collapse was not a natural event, like a tsunami.
It was a direct result of man-made systems and artifices which permitted wealth to be generated and hoarded primarily through
multiple financial transactions rather than by the actual production and sale of concrete goods, and which then disproportionately
funnelled wealth to those engaged in the mechanics of the transactions.
...
The rejection of the political class manifests itself in different ways and has been diverted down a number of entirely blind
alleys giving unfulfilled promise of a fresh start – Brexit, Trump, Macron. As the vote share of the established political parties
– and public engagement with established political institutions – falls everywhere, the chattering classes deride the political
symptoms of status quo rejection by the people as "populism". It is not populism to make sophisticated arguments that undermine
the received political wisdom and take on the entire weight of established media opinion.
If one wants to take down the far right one has to do so with arguments and good politics for the working class. Most people,
especially working class people, have a strong sense for justice. The political assassination of Christian Strache is unjust. What
was done during the 2007-8 banking crisis was utterly corrupt and also unjust. Instead of going to jail the bankers were rewarded
with extreme amounts of money for their assault on the well being of the people. The public was then told that it must starve through
austerity to make up for the loss of money.
While I consider myself to be a strong leftist who opposes the right wherever possible, I believe to understand why people vote
for Strache's FBOe and similar parties. When one talks to these people issues of injustice and inequality always come up. The new
'populist' parties at least claim to fight against the injustice done to the common men. Unlike most of the establishment parties
they seem to be still mostly clean and not yet corrupted.
In the early 1990s Strache actually flirted with violent fascists but he rejected their way. While he has far-right opinions,
he and his like are no danger to our societies. If we can not accept that Strache and his followers have some legitimate causes,
we will soon find us confronted with way more extreme people. The neoliberal establishment seems to do its best to achieve that.
Posted by b on May 19, 2019 at 01:10 PM |
Permalink
"... what is true is that May was judge, jury and executioner in convicting Russia of the poisoning and refused to follow an evidence based discovery process that lies at the heart of the UK justice system - by hiding behind those powers that the UK intelligence community "needs" in order to protect british (not russian, british) citizens from the sinister influences of foreign powers. ..."
"... the criminal activities of howler monkeys, like Strzok, Page, Brennan, McCabe, SUSAN RICE, Comey, Ohr, BIDEN, OBAMA, etc in the USA are bad enough (whilst hardly impacting civilian life in the US - BUT - the tactics used have been deployed to starve, cause disease, "dumb down", reduce life chances all over the middle east and elsewhere for countless millions of people. ..."
Couple of factors not mentioned. one is Israel and the other is more sinister still and tied
to the conclusions to be drawn from the Mueller report.
it may be true that Skripal helped Steele with some elements of the dossier compiled by
Steele, via SKripals handler Pablo Miller. It may be true that Skripal went "stir crazy" and an
attempt was made to silence him and his daughter - permanently, because they simply cold not be
trusted. a similar motivation could be drawn up against Russia - with the two Russians visiting
Salisbury used as diversionary "stool pigeons". It may be true that the "poisoning" was self
inflicted and was in fact a murder/suicide attempt as a result of depression along the ines
"what's the point of it all".
what is true is that May was judge, jury and executioner in convicting Russia of the
poisoning and refused to follow an evidence based discovery process that lies at the heart of
the UK justice system - by hiding behind those powers that the UK intelligence community
"needs" in order to protect british (not russian, british) citizens from the sinister
influences of foreign powers.
what ought to be apparent is
- the same tactics used by the special prosecutor to investigate the "Russia collusion"
smoke screen erected by the howler monkeys in the US intel agencies (aided and abetter by
howler monkeys in UK intel agencies) to stymie the US executive branch (Trump) are likely to be
used by the the UK government and some more as well - in true Le Carre fashion, but with much
dumber and less principled actors than Smiley's people.
these tactics prevented (and continue to prevent) investigation and prosecution of heinous
corruption within the obama administration of the previous 8 years - these howler monkey
intelligence agency tactics include(d) entrapment, honeypots, racketeering, blackmail, de facto
kidnapping (in the case of Skripals), bribery, wire fraud, unauthorized wire-tapping, breach of
authorized intel agency activities (like the FBI operating overseas and the CIA operating
domestically in the US, false and unverified claims in FISA warrants, NSA providing unauthorized
information to the CIA and FBI etc)
- given the howler monkey activities of the alphabet soup, it is not beyond the imagination
to draw parallels with the CIA's reporting and analysis of situations on the ground wherever
they operate to provide intel ahead of military activity. the DOD has already proved complicit
by hiring Halper (for hundreds of thousands of dollars) to assist with the entrapment of Trump
operative Papadopoulos. Mifsud is likely a CIA, not a Russian, asset.
- given that we have ample evidence of the howler monkeys in the alphabet soup seeking to
facilitate a coup against a sitting US president, it is certainly plausible that - as with the
US goverment sponsoring the mujaheedin, isis and al qaeda in afghanistan to fight the russians
in late 80's early 90's, Iraq yellow cake and WMD - that the howler monkeys paid the white
helmets to ovethrow assad and foment civil war in Syria - thus causing the migration of some 5
million syrians into europe, iraq, turkey, jordan, turkey and lebanon.
so , the case is that howler monkey activity in intel agencies of the UK and US (add
(F)rance to get FUKUS) are guilty of the manufacture of human conflict by fabricating evidence,
breaking the laws (certainly of the targeted countries, but also of the UK and US), providing
shitty analysis (howler monkeys are only good at swinging in trees and flinging ****) and
generally operating as evil actors on the dark side of humanity.
this can only be brought into sharp relief if howler monkey activities were instead shown to
be powers for good rather than the geo-political risks that persist in Iran, North Korea,
Venezuela, Yemen, Libya and so on and so forth.
Never mind how much past conflicts in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan and so on relied on
evidence and analysis thrown at us by the howler monkeys in the tree tops, how much of what we
we are doing now is a fabrication causing needless suffering by civilian (not politicians or
military engaged in conflict) populations?
the criminal activities of howler monkeys, like Strzok, Page, Brennan, McCabe, SUSAN RICE,
Comey, Ohr, BIDEN, OBAMA, etc in the USA are bad enough (whilst hardly impacting civilian life
in the US - BUT - the tactics used have been deployed to starve, cause disease, "dumb down",
reduce life chances all over the middle east and elsewhere for countless millions of
people.
there are equivalents of strzok, page, ohr right throughout the US and UK government
"machines" operating overseas. think about that. crimes exposed by Barr et al in the US -
against a sitting president - are replicated wherever howler monkeys operate overseas as well.
"... Things have indeed moved on since the Skripal affair, not at least in terms of the prime minister Teresa May. It must now be clear to even the most dimwitted that she is a lunatic of note. This is obviously not something that has only come as a response to Brexit. However Brexit has shown her up as an utter idiot. ..."
"... Only a person of this caliper might be able to make any sense of the Skripal affair, and even if it makes perfect sense in her diseased mind, ..."
"... Teresa May has been the common denominator in many of the sick things happening in the UK, ..."
"... "And, according to Bustani, Bolton didn't mince words. "Cheney wants you out," Bustani recalled Bolton saying, referring to the then-vice president of the United States. "We can't accept your management style." ..."
"... Bolton continued, according to Bustani's recollections: "You have 24 hours to leave the organization, and if you don't comply with this decision by Washington, we have ways to retaliate against you." ..."
"... There was a pause. "We know where your kids live. You have two sons in New York."" ..."
"... The Brits have gone nuts. Maybe it is Karma for all the centuries of bad actions towards the rest of the world. Now that their DS manipulation is being exposed, what else are they going to do? Try to influence Putin? ..."
"... I don't think they've gone nuts. I think the UK is the center of the globalist cabal, and the cabal is on the back foot and getting desperate. 6 hours ago And the more desperate they are the more dangerous they become. And the Satanic head of this globalist cabal are the Rothschilds, who belong to the powerful Chabad Lubavitch cult, and who "made the modern banking system and the Fed that made Zionism, the world wars, the European Union, and so on." ..."
"... Between 2003 and 2013 "the Jared Khushner family foundation donated a total of $342,500 to various institutions and projects associated with the movement... in addition the Donald J Trump Foundation has donated $11,550 to three Chabad institutions." -- Kushners Belong to Jewish Supremacist Doomsday Group (that prophesies WWIII after which the Jews will rule). ..."
"... what is true is that May was judge, jury and executioner in convicting Russia of the poisoning and refused to follow an evidence based discovery process that lies at the heart of the UK justice system - by hiding behind those powers that the UK intelligence community "needs" in order to protect british (not russian, british) citizens from the sinister influences of foreign powers. ..."
"... the criminal activities of howler monkeys, like Strzok, Page, Brennan, McCabe, SUSAN RICE, Comey, Ohr, BIDEN, OBAMA, etc in the USA are bad enough (whilst hardly impacting civilian life in the US - BUT - the tactics used have been deployed to starve, cause disease, "dumb down", reduce life chances all over the middle east and elsewhere for countless millions of people. ..."
===
all of this is entirely irrelevant .... the World and his mother know that the us is a rat infested terrorist regime that NOBODY
else in the World REALLY trusts or believes .... "that is all ye know on Earth ... and all ye need to know" (Keats - if you are
American
you will need to do a search -NOT the Goggle NSA one - on that )
===
Looks like everyone in the DS did not get their dead ducks in a row....... get it. Skipals were feeding ducks after they were
poisioned but the ducks did not die.
===
The starting assumption is false: "The neocon faction in the US is usually (and reasonably) regarded as the motivator behind
much of the western aggression in the Middle East."
BOTH parties have meddled incessantly in the middle east, so the idea
of meddling being unique to neocons of provably false. Clinton and Obama did not reduce our footprint in the middle east, Hillary's
behavior under Obama was particularly meddlesome and irrational. Worse than the Republicans based on results.
===
Democrat, Republican, Conservative, Labour. What`s the difference ?; NONE. They are all part of the Establishment owned Western
Political Cartel. 31 minutes ago You presume that there are no neocons among Democrats, an erroneous presumption. However, the neocons
among the Democrats don't call themselves "neocons" and toe the line on domestic Democrat insanity, just as the neocons infesting
the Republican party toe the line on Republican domestic insanity. Why not? The purpose of neocons (Republican or Democrat) is to
create chaos and disaster to further Israel's monstrous agenda.
If you pay attention to what they do and not to what they
call themselves , life becomes much simpler.
===
...The UK Government is up to its neck in the Trump collusion plot, and on its dealings with Syria.
It is all going to come out very soon. It is also more likely than not that MI6 were involved in the Litvinenko assassination -as
suggested by his father.
===
Things have indeed moved on since the Skripal affair, not at least in terms of the prime minister Teresa May. It must now be
clear to even the most dimwitted that she is a lunatic of note. This is obviously not something that has only come as a response
to Brexit. However Brexit has shown her up as an utter idiot.
Only a person of this caliper might be able to make any sense of the Skripal affair, and even if it makes perfect sense in her
diseased mind, it does not by implication make sense to anyone else.
Teresa May has been the common denominator in many of the sick things happening in the UK,
In the interest of any sane person in that Kingdom, get her removed!
Granted that May is the poster girl for idiotic
behavior but David Cameron and Tony Blair didn't do too bad at giving blow jobs to Uncle Shmuel. Shmuel should have told May, "Suck,
dammit! Blow is just a figure of speech."
===
Who was complicate in the Lie ... Nicky Haley, the US White House, the US Media, the US Military, the UK Government, the UK Media and possibly Saudia Arabia and Israel. That's a Youge conspiracy for just ONE Lie. And NOBODY is going to be held accountable.
===
If Theresa May ever taught us anything, it's that if you suspect a building is a chemical weapons facility, bomb it
===
It's a very simple lesson really...
NEVER TRUST a single word uttered by these corrupt nations EVER... Works for
me... and has been 100% right for years now
===
The OPCW is indeed compromised.
In 2002, John Bolton directly threatened then director Jose Bustani for negotiating with Saddam Hussein to allow OPCW inspectors
to conduct unannounced visits to Iraq, which would undermine the US plans to attack.
...
"And, according to Bustani, Bolton didn't mince words. "Cheney wants you out," Bustani recalled Bolton saying, referring to the
then-vice president of the United States. "We can't accept your management style."
Bolton continued, according to Bustani's recollections: "You have 24 hours to leave the organization, and if you don't comply
with this decision by Washington, we have ways to retaliate against you."
There was a pause. "We know where your kids live. You have two sons in New York.""
===
Why did Trump select Bolton, anyway? I no longer buy the 3D chess nor the genius of Trump theories. Yes, I will still support
him but he needs to look alive.
===
Trump didn't select Bolton... the Boss did
===
Very good and correct points apart from :
"This time they might even receive greater support from France this time around – since Macron is facing a revolution at home
and would kill (possibly literally) for a nice international distraction."
The beginning of the paragraph is probably right. The media in France followed the lead of Macron concerning both Douma, & The
Skripals and they would probably defend their positions by defending also the next false flag event in Syria or in Britain.
However the nonsense that "Macron is facing a revolution at home and would kill (possibly literally) for a nice international
distraction" is pure hyperbole worthy of a false news site like Breitbart or, in this case, Russia Today. Nothing like a revolution
is happening in France. Macron has the same support as he has had since the last election and the Yellow Vest have to a large degree
gone home. Some 18.500 participated throughout France in the last demonstration and anyway, very few of them want a "revolution".
They want more social welfare and better pensions.
===
The yellow vests indeed do want more social welfare and better pensions, but they also want lower taxes - ON PETROL.
Breitbart has been known to push false narratives (just like CNN or MSNBC or Fox News) but can you point out any fake stories
from RT? I ask because they've been a reliable factual counterweight to the Western media lies over the past 3 years at least.
Your comment reads like standard issue NATO ********.
===
Same reason the deep state is worried about the nano thermite found in the ashes of 9/11. With a widespread catastrophe there
is always an outsider doing their own research on the remnants of the disaster. You can bet your bottom dollar, assuming this story
is even close to being accurate, that someone would have done an analysis on the isotopes, especially if the war drums against Russia
were beating.
===
The Brits have gone nuts. Maybe it is Karma for all the centuries of bad actions towards the rest of the world. Now that
their DS manipulation is being exposed, what else are they going to do? Try to influence Putin?
===
I don't think they've gone nuts. I think the UK is the center of the globalist cabal, and the cabal is on the back foot and
getting desperate. 6 hours ago And the more desperate they are the more dangerous they become. And the Satanic head of this globalist
cabal are the Rothschilds, who belong to the powerful Chabad Lubavitch cult, and who "made the modern banking system and the Fed
that made Zionism, the world wars, the European Union, and so on."
Between 2003 and 2013 "the Jared Khushner family foundation donated a total of $342,500 to various institutions and projects associated
with the movement... in addition the Donald J Trump Foundation has donated $11,550 to three Chabad institutions." -- Kushners Belong
to Jewish Supremacist Doomsday Group (that prophesies WWIII after which the Jews will rule).
===
Britain is a police state.
===
(Edited)
Putin shot down MH17!!!!
Remember that gem? They really have to stretch the truth with this one.
Assad using chemical weapons right before he cleaned out Damascus from the cockroaches. Ah ha, yeap. Makes perfect sense if you
have **** for brains. Which are the sort of people the empire relies on these days.
Joos and Zios running things is working out real well. This is the kind of work you'd expect from an office clerk with a bad attitude,
certainly not from god's chosen. 7
===
Yes, and wasn't it the same ******** fake news source, Bellingcat, pushing that lie that also pushed some of the false flag
Syria chemical attack lies?
===
Couple of factors not mentioned. one is Israel and the other is more sinister still and tied
to the conclusions to be drawn from the Mueller report.
it may be true that Skripal helped Steele with some elements of the dossier compiled by
Steele, via SKripals handler Pablo Miller. It may be true that Skripal went "stir crazy" and an
attempt was made to silence him and his daughter - permanently, because they simply cold not be
trusted. a similar motivation could be drawn up against Russia - with the two Russians visiting
Salisbury used as diversionary "stool pigeons". It may be true that the "poisoning" was self
inflicted and was in fact a murder/suicide attempt as a result of depression along the ines
"what's the point of it all".
what is true is that May was judge, jury and executioner in convicting Russia of the
poisoning and refused to follow an evidence based discovery process that lies at the heart of
the UK justice system - by hiding behind those powers that the UK intelligence community
"needs" in order to protect british (not russian, british) citizens from the sinister
influences of foreign powers.
what ought to be apparent is
- the same tactics used by the special prosecutor to investigate the "Russia collusion"
smoke screen erected by the howler monkeys in the US intel agencies (aided and abetter by
howler monkeys in UK intel agencies) to stymie the US executive branch (Trump) are likely to be
used by the the UK government and some more as well - in true Le Carre fashion, but with much
dumber and less principled actors than Smiley's people.
these tactics prevented (and continue to prevent) investigation and prosecution of heinous
corruption within the obama administration of the previous 8 years - these howler monkey
intelligence agency tactics include(d) entrapment, honeypots, racketeering, blackmail, de facto
kidnapping (in the case of Skripals), bribery, wire fraud, unauthorized wire-tapping, breach of
authorized intel agency activities (like the FBI operating overseas and the CIA operating
domestically in the US, false and unverified claims in FISA warrants, NSA providing unauthorized
information to the CIA and FBI etc)
- given the howler monkey activities of the alphabet soup, it is not beyond the imagination
to draw parallels with the CIA's reporting and analysis of situations on the ground wherever
they operate to provide intel ahead of military activity. the DOD has already proved complicit
by hiring Halper (for hundreds of thousands of dollars) to assist with the entrapment of Trump
operative Papadopoulos. Mifsud is likely a CIA, not a Russian, asset.
- given that we have ample evidence of the howler monkeys in the alphabet soup seeking to
facilitate a coup against a sitting US president, it is certainly plausible that - as with the
US goverment sponsoring the mujaheedin, isis and al qaeda in afghanistan to fight the russians
in late 80's early 90's, Iraq yellow cake and WMD - that the howler monkeys paid the white
helmets to ovethrow assad and foment civil war in Syria - thus causing the migration of some 5
million syrians into europe, iraq, turkey, jordan, turkey and lebanon.
so , the case is that howler monkey activity in intel agencies of the UK and US (add
(F)rance to get FUKUS) are guilty of the manufacture of human conflict by fabricating evidence,
breaking the laws (certainly of the targeted countries, but also of the UK and US), providing
shitty analysis (howler monkeys are only good at swinging in trees and flinging ****) and
generally operating as evil actors on the dark side of humanity.
this can only be brought into sharp relief if howler monkey activities were instead shown to
be powers for good rather than the geo-political risks that persist in Iran, North Korea,
Venezuela, Yemen, Libya and so on and so forth.
Never mind how much past conflicts in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan and so on relied on
evidence and analysis thrown at us by the howler monkeys in the tree tops, how much of what we
we are doing now is a fabrication causing needless suffering by civilian (not politicians or
military engaged in conflict) populations?
the criminal activities of howler monkeys, like Strzok, Page, Brennan, McCabe, SUSAN RICE,
Comey, Ohr, BIDEN, OBAMA, etc in the USA are bad enough (whilst hardly impacting civilian life
in the US - BUT - the tactics used have been deployed to starve, cause disease, "dumb down",
reduce life chances all over the middle east and elsewhere for countless millions of
people.
there are equivalents of strzok, page, ohr right throughout the US and UK government
"machines" operating overseas. think about that. crimes exposed by Barr et al in the US -
against a sitting president - are replicated wherever howler monkeys operate overseas as well.
===
Excellent post! And my brain keeps wobbling around the recent revelation that the former heads of the CIA and FBI are both
avowed COMMUNISTS, Brennan and Comey, TRUMP, OFF YOUR ***!!!!
===
exactly.
the liars, cheaters and stealers (aka howler monkeys) ALWAYS project their own crimes onto any opposition - meaning that when
they accuse Trump of collusion with Russia, it is in fact the howler monkeys doing the collusion.
they should be investigated to the same degree that Trump and his assocaites have been - plus China collusion and Ukrainian
collusion. All I can say is " watch your back "..
===
The 'Keystone Cops' outcome of these two events show the utter desperation of the Deep State to continue on with their one world
agenda. Hopefully that is a good sign of weakening. Someone in total control wouldn't make so many amateur mistakes. This proves
that Putin is putting the west in a sort of Jujitsu 'choke hold' where you slowly cut off their oxygen until they tap out. In the
meantime, the opponent flails about throwing useless, wild punches trying to escape the inevitable outcome. That's how I'm reading
it and I hope I'm right.
===
I hope you're right too - but I also fear the other case - they've simply rid themselves of so many perceived challenges that
they no longer bother to be as cautious as before. Along with the new guard just not being as competent and organized, coming from
the "everyone gets a trophy" crowd.
===
(Edited) These false flags would be readily accepted by the public if not for the internet. Which, I believe, is the primary
factor behind the growing government push to censor those who question the "official" narratives.
===
The biggest false flag of all is 9/11. You have to be a moron not to have noticed the controlled explosion of the twin towers
on videos available on youtube and the downing of tower no 7 that was hit by nothing.
===
(Edited) 99.99% false flag inside job done by government/intel agency collaboration - US/Israel/Saudi to lead the US into the
Middle East.
The beastly trid of evil willing to murder 3000 innocent Americans for this sick agenda. And then millions more in the Middle
East. 8
===
I have a very good friend who watched as two sons went off to Afghanistan and Iraq after 9/11 to "fight terrorism". I have
presented all the evidence of 9/.11 being a false flag, who did it and how it was done. He refuses to believe it. I assume a large
part of society clings to the notion, as he, that "our people" wouldn't do such a thing. They make the classic error of assuming
that the psychopaths amongst us think and reason as they do.
Here's a great article on the nature of psychopathy. It's a long read but good insight into the minds (I'd say hearts .... but
they have none) of these 6% who 'lead" us.
===
I've had some run-ins with real psychopaths--I worked for one for a few years. The reason they are so effective is that they
blindside people. Because they are such a minority, we don't run into them very often and even if we do, we don't "get it." We have
internal models of what people are. Those models comprise our "normalcy bias" and we shape our experience to fit. So, for the
psycho/sociopaths, it's like clubbing baby seals. Maybe that's why they get arrogant and sloppy.
===
Psychopaths have low impulse control. That said, Reality is there are powers beyond psychopath.
===
The Skripal event was fabricated ( two months before the start of the WC) to try and get public support and outrage - enough
- so that the 'people' would support a boycott of Russia's World Cup !!
It ******* failed !! - Like everything else they attempt !!! Try keeping the Brits away from their soccer - the chaos would make the 'yellow vests' ******* blush !!!
===
Their Jihadi buttboys eventually escaped through the Golan and off to Canada, the UK and the rest of the ""Assad Must Go" world
for residency, in exchange for thier services to the (((criminal enterprise))).
===
The obvious fact that the Owners are choosing political frontmen of undaunted stupidity, unable to plan more than 2 steps ahead
is a very hopeful sign. Now they have to shut down the internet through their buttboys false frontmen of social media like Fuckerturd
and Dorsey.
===
Back to today...
...and while things have moved on, we're still puzzling over all the same issues.
What was the purpose of the Skripal attack? TO CLOSE DOWN THE UK END OF THE STEELE REPORT
What was the original plan of the Douma attack? TO COW RUSSIA INTO LEAVING SYRIA
Is there, as it appears, an internal power struggle in the Trump administration? NO...TRUMP HSS NO REAL POWER
Has that resolved? Who is running the United States? THE HIGHEST ECHELONS OF THE OCCULT GROUPS HAVE ALWAYS RUN AMERICA
Seeing as the OPCW has been shown to cover-up evidence in Douma, can we trust them on Skripal? Or anything else? THE OPCW
ARE A POLITICALLY, SCIENTIFICALLY, ETHICALLY AND MORALLY COMPROMISED ORGANISATION.......SO NO IS THE ANSWER!
Speaking of which, where on Earth IS Sergei Skripal? IMO..... SERGI SKRIPAL IS DEAD AND HIS DAUGHTER YULIA iS HELD UNDER
DRUG INDUCED HOUSE ARREST IN THE UK TO AID AND INDUCE "STOCKHOLM SYNDROME" IN HER BEFORE RELEASE CAN BE CONSIDERED
===
skripal was to be the conduit for funneling Novichok, conveniently produced at porton down and the white helmets for the next
false flag event...
Rob Slane and all the forum contributors have flogged and dissected SKRIPAL to death.
Sensible and informed people understand what actually happened.
===
The fun really starts when the deep state decides that it no longer needs public approval.
===
Or indeed 90% of it's subjects.
===
i know, i totally agree. the official story is complete bunkum. not one fact to back it up. in fact, it's contradicting itself
every time new "facts" are belched out by HMG
===
It used to be that we had to "read between the lines" to find the truth. Now, we have to "read between the lies".
The OPCW is obviously compromised and is not an independent organisation.
The 'clowns' really are stupid - they keep showing us how they do it!
===
(Edited) They've bragged and played their hand one too many times, exposing the deception for all the world to see.
Problem (false-flag) - Reaction (provoke an emotional response) - Solution (violate civil liberties/privacy, consolidate power,
sanctions, war, etc.)
The emperor has no clothes and is running around naked.
===
(Edited) The fact that the term "false flag" has entered the every day lexicon of the English language is a tremendous setback
for our Owners.
I suspect the Yulia Skripal is occupying the cell next to Julian Assange.
===
"The UK government has lied and evaded on every key aspect"
Lies & evasion are TM's specialties, along with distraction politics.
===
(Edited) And the extortion empire moves on to new victims to prey on.
It was quite a spectacle watching $100 million burn up on firing missiles on empty runways though. Boy that was a great use of US
tax payers money.
===
(Edited) This is a long long piece about not much of anything without a single introduction of new information or proof? It
is entirely without substance and is entirely speculative opinion as it stands without evidence.
That is NOT to say that the narrative is not entirely correct, I believe that it is, just that speculation doesn't really prove
what we may all believe to be the truth. There is a need for facts, probably supported by leaks, in the Skripal case as has been
the case with OPCW and Douma.
===
We'll do yourself a favor then and read the linked articles as well as the source docs. If you haven't, then expressing skepticism
here is a disservice to the hard and thankless work these brave journalists have been doing, to put it mildly.
"... The neocon faction in the US is usually (and reasonably) regarded as the motivator behind much of the western aggression in the Middle East. ..."
"... Granted the US has been looking for excuses to intervene ever more overtly in Syria since 2013, and in that sense this Douma "initiative" is a continuation of their longterm policy. It's also true Russia was warning just such a false flag would be attempted in early March. But in the intervening month the situation on the ground has changed so radically that such an attempt no longer made any sense. ..."
"... A false flag in early March, while pockets of the US proxy army were still holding ground in Ghouta would have enabled a possible offensive in their support which would prevent Ghouta falling entirely into government hands and thereby also maintain the pressure on Damascus. A false flag in early April is all but useless because the US proxy army in the region was completely vanquished and nothing would be gained by an offensive in that place at that time. ..."
"... The US media has been similarly, and uncharacteristically divided and apparently unsure. Tucker Carlson railed against the stupidity of attacking Syria. Commentators on MSNBC were also expressing intense scepticism of the US intent and fear about possible escalation. ..."
"... The official story is a hot mess of proven falsehoods, contradictions, implausible conspiracy theories, more falsehoods and inexplicable silences were cricket chirps tell us all we need to know. ..."
"... The UK government has lied and evaded on every key aspect. ..."
"... Indeed if current claims by Russian FM Lavrov turn out to be true, a "novichok" (whatever that precisely means in this case) may not have been the only substance found in those samples, and a compound called "BZ", a non-lethal agent developed in Europe and America, has been discovered and suppressed in the OPCW report (more about that later). ..."
"... The Skripals themselves were announced to be alive and out of danger mere days after claims they were all but certain to die. Yulia, soon thereafter, apparently called her cousin Viktoria only to subsequently announce, indirectly through the helpful agency of the Metropolitan Police, that she didn't want to talk to her cousin – or anyone else – at all. ..."
"... She is now allegedly discharged from hospital and has "specially trained officers helping to take care of" her in an undisclosed location. A form or words so creepily sinister it's hard to imagine how they were ever permitted the light of day. ..."
"... If a false flag chemical attack had taken place in Syria at the time Russia predicted, just a week or two after the Skripal poisoning, a lot of the attention that's been paid to the Skripals over the last month would likely have been diverted. Many of the questions being asked by Russia and in the alt media may never have been asked as the focus of the world turned to a possible superpower stand-off in the Middle East. ..."
"... So, could it be the Skripal event was never intended to last so long in the public eye? Could it be that it was indeed a false flag, or a fake event, as many have alleged, planned as a sketchy prelude to, or warm up act for a bigger chemical attack in Syria, scheduled for a week or so later in mid-March – just around the time Russia was warning of such a possibility? ..."
"... This would explain why the UK may have been pushing for the false flag to happen (as claimed by Russia) even after it could no longer serve much useful purpose on the ground, and why the Douma "attack" seems to have been so sketchily done by a gang on the run. The UK needed the second part to happen in order to distract from the first. ..."
"... If this is true, Theresa May and her cabinet are currently way out on a limb even by cynical UK standards. Not only have they lied about the Skripal event, but in order to cover up that lie they have promoted a false flag in Syria, and "responded" to it by a flagrant breach of international and domestic law. Worst of all, if the Russians aren't bluffing, they have some evidence to prove some of the most egregious parts of this. ..."
"... But even if some or all of our speculation proves false, and even if the Russian claims of UK collusion with terrorists in Syria prove unfounded, May is still guilty of multiple lies and has still waged war without parliamentary approval. ..."
"... The UK were the most vocal about Syria, and desperately tried to drum up support over Skripal, but it all came to nothing much in the end. ..."
"... Theresa May's political career still hangs by a thread, and her "Falklands moment", at best, staved off the inevitable for a few months. A washout in the EU elections, a very real threat from Farage's Brexit party, and rumblings inside her own party, make her position as unstable as ever. ..."
"... In the US, generally speaking, it seems that the Trump admin – or at least whichever interested parties currently have control of the wheels of government – have called time on war in Syria. Instead, they've moved on to projects in Venezuela and North Korea, and even war with Iran. ..."
"... The failure of the Douma false flag to cause the war it was meant to cause, and the vast collection of evidence that suggests it was a false flag, should be spread far and wide. Not just because it's a truth which vindicates the smeared minority in the alternate media. ..."
In view of the latest revelations from the leaked report, which seem to prove that at least some elements of the Douma "chemical
attack" were entirely staged, we want to take look back at the chaotic events of Spring 2018.
What was the agenda behind the Douma false flag?
Why was the US response seemingly token and ineffective?
Why was the Secretary of State Rex Tillerson fired?
What agenda tied the Skripal case to the Douma attack?
The following is an extract from an article by Catte originally published April 14th last year, which takes on a greater weight
in light of certain evidence – not only that the Douma attack was faked, but that the OPCW is compromised.
The neocon faction in the US is usually (and reasonably) regarded as the motivator behind much of the western aggression
in the Middle East.
Since at least 2001 and the launch of the "War on Terror" the US has led the way in finding or creating facile excuses to fight
oil wars and hegemonic wars and proxy wars in the region. But this time the dynamics look a little different.
This time it really looks as if the UK has been setting the pace of the "response".
The fact (as stated above) that Mattis was apparently telegraphing his own private doubts a)about the verifiability of the
attacks, and b)about the dangers of a military response suggests he was a far from enthusiastic partaker in this adventure.
Trump's attitude is harder to gauge. His tweets veered wildly between unhinged threats and apparent efforts at conciliation.
But he must have known he would lose (and seemingly has lost) a great part of his natural voter base (who elected him on a no-more-war
mandate) by an act of open aggression that threatened confrontation with Russia on the flimsiest of pretexts.
Granted the US has been looking for excuses to intervene ever more overtly in Syria since 2013, and in that sense this
Douma "initiative" is a continuation of their longterm policy. It's also true Russia was warning just such a false flag would
be attempted in early March. But in the intervening month the situation on the ground has changed so radically that such an attempt
no longer made any sense.
A false flag in early March, while pockets of the US proxy army were still holding ground in Ghouta would have enabled
a possible offensive in their support which would prevent Ghouta falling entirely into government hands and thereby also maintain
the pressure on Damascus. A false flag in early April is all but useless because the US proxy army in the region was completely
vanquished and nothing would be gained by an offensive in that place at that time.
You can see why Mattis and others in the administration might be reluctant to take part in the false flag/punitive air strike
narrative if they saw nothing currently to be gained to repay the risk. They may have preferred to wait for developments and plan
for a more productive way of playing the R2P card in the future.
The US media has been similarly, and uncharacteristically divided and apparently unsure. Tucker Carlson railed against
the stupidity of attacking Syria. Commentators on MSNBC were also expressing intense scepticism of the US intent and fear about
possible escalation.
The UK govt and media on the other hand has been much more homogeneous in advocating for action. No doubts of the type expressed
by Mattis have been heard from the lips of an UK government minister. Even May, a cowardly PM, has been (under how much pressure?)
voicing sterling certitude in public that action HAD to be taken.
Couple this with the – as yet unverified – claims by Russia of direct UK involvement in arranging the Douma "attack", and the
claims by Syria that the perps are in their custody, and a tentative storyline emerges. It's possible this time there were other
considerations in the mix beside the usual need to "be seen to do something" and Trump's perpetual requirement to appease the
liberal Russiagaters and lunatic warmongers at home. Maybe this time it was also about helping the UK out of a sticky problem.
THE SKRIPAL CONSIDERATION
Probably the only thing we can all broadly agree on about the Skripal narrative is that it manifestly did not go according
to plan. However it was intended to play out, it wasn't this way. Since some time in mid to late March it's been clear the entire
thing has become little more than an exercise in damage-limitation, leak-plugging and general containment.
The official story is a hot mess of proven falsehoods, contradictions, implausible conspiracy theories, more falsehoods
and inexplicable silences were cricket chirps tell us all we need to know.
The UK government has lied and evaded on every key aspect.
It lied again and again about the information Porton Down had given it
Its lawyers all but lied to Mr Justice Robinson about whether or not the Skripals had relatives in Russia in an unscrupulous
attempt to maintain total control of them, or at least of the narrative.
It is not publishing the OPCW report on the chemical analyses, and the summary of that report reads like an exercise in
allusion and weasel-wording. Even the name of the "toxic substance" found in the Skripals' blood is omitted, and the only thing
tying it to the UK government's public claims of "novichok" is association by inference and proximity.
Indeed if current claims by Russian FM Lavrov turn out to be true, a "novichok" (whatever that precisely means in this
case) may not have been the only substance found in those samples, and a compound called "BZ", a non-lethal agent developed in
Europe and America, has been discovered and suppressed in the OPCW report (more about that later).
None of the alleged victims of this alleged attack has been seen in public even in passing since the event. There is no film
or photographs of DS Bailey leaving the hospital, no film or photographs of his wife or family members doing the same. No interviews
with Bailey, no interviews with his wife, family, distant relatives, work colleagues.
The Skripals themselves were announced to be alive and out of danger mere days after claims they were all but certain to
die. Yulia, soon thereafter, apparently called her cousin Viktoria only to subsequently announce, indirectly through the helpful
agency of the Metropolitan Police, that she didn't want to talk to her cousin – or anyone else – at all.
She is now allegedly discharged from hospital and has "specially trained officers helping to take care of" her in an undisclosed
location. A form or words so creepily sinister it's hard to imagine how they were ever permitted the light of day.
Very little of this bizarre, self-defeating, embarrassing, hysterical story makes any sense other than as a random narrative,
snaking wildly in response to events the narrative-makers can't completely control.
Why? What went wrong? Why has the UK government got itself into this mess? And how much did the Douma "gas attack" and subsequent
drive for a concerted western "response" have to do with trying to fix that?
IS THIS WHAT HAPPENED?
If a false flag chemical attack had taken place in Syria at the time Russia predicted, just a week or two after the Skripal
poisoning, a lot of the attention that's been paid to the Skripals over the last month would likely have been diverted. Many of
the questions being asked by Russia and in the alt media may never have been asked as the focus of the world turned to a possible
superpower stand-off in the Middle East.
So, could it be the Skripal event was never intended to last so long in the public eye? Could it be that it was indeed
a false flag, or a fake event, as many have alleged, planned as a sketchy prelude to, or warm up act for a bigger chemical attack
in Syria, scheduled for a week or so later in mid-March – just around the time Russia was warning of such a possibility?
Could it be this planned event was unexpectedly canceled by the leading players in the drama (the US) when the Russians called
them out and the rapid and unexpected fall of Ghouta meant any such intervention became pointless at least for the moment?
Did this cancelation leave the UK swinging in the wind, with a fantastical story that was never intended to withstand close
scrutiny, and no second act for distraction?
So, did they push on with the now virtually useless "chemical attack", botch it (again), leaving a clear evidence trail leading
back to them? Did they then further insist on an allied "response" to their botched false flag in order to provide yet more distraction
and hopefully destroy some of that evidence?
This would explain why the UK may have been pushing for the false flag to happen (as claimed by Russia) even after it could
no longer serve much useful purpose on the ground, and why the Douma "attack" seems to have been so sketchily done by a gang on
the run. The UK needed the second part to happen in order to distract from the first.
It would explain why the US has been less than enthused by the idea of reprisals. Because while killing Syrians to further
geo-strategic interests is not a problem, killing Syrians (and risking escalation with Russia) in order to rescue an embarrassed
UK government is less appealing.
And it would explain why the "reprisals" when they came were so half-hearted.
If this is true, Theresa May and her cabinet are currently way out on a limb even by cynical UK standards. Not only have
they lied about the Skripal event, but in order to cover up that lie they have promoted a false flag in Syria, and "responded"
to it by a flagrant breach of international and domestic law. Worst of all, if the Russians aren't bluffing, they have some evidence
to prove some of the most egregious parts of this.
This is very bad.
But even if some or all of our speculation proves false, and even if the Russian claims of UK collusion with terrorists
in Syria prove unfounded, May is still guilty of multiple lies and has still waged war without parliamentary approval.
This is a major issue. She and her government should resign. But it's unlikely that will happen.
So what next? There is a sense this is a watershed for many of the parties involved and for the citizens of the countries drawn
into this.
Will the usual suspects try to avoid paying for their crimes and misadventures by more rhetoric, more false flags, more "reprisals"?
Or will this signal some other change in direction?
We'll all know soon enough.
* * *
Back to today...
...and while things have moved on, we're still puzzling over all the same issues.
What was the purpose of the Skripal attack?
What was the original plan of the Douma attack?
Is there, as it appears, an internal power struggle in the Trump administration?
Has that resolved? Who is running the United States?
Seeing as the OPCW has been shown to cover-up evidence in Douma, can we trust them on Skripal? Or anything else?
Speaking of which, where on Earth IS Sergei Skripal?
All these questions stand, and are important, but more important than all of that is the lesson: They tried it before, and just
because it didn't work doesn't mean they won't try it again.
Last spring, the Western powers showed they will deploy a false flag if they need too, for domestic or international motives.
And they have the motives right now.
The UK were the most vocal about Syria, and desperately tried to drum up support over Skripal, but it all came to nothing
much in the end.
Theresa May's political career still hangs by a thread, and her "Falklands moment", at best, staved off the inevitable for
a few months. A washout in the EU elections, a very real threat from Farage's Brexit party, and rumblings inside her own party, make
her position as unstable as ever.
Britain had the most to gain, of all NATO countries, and that is still true. We don't know what they might do.
This time they might even receive greater support from France this time around – since Macron is facing a revolution at home and
would kill (possibly literally) for a nice international distraction.
In the US, generally speaking, it seems that the Trump admin – or at least whichever interested parties currently have control
of the wheels of government – have called time on war in Syria. Instead, they've moved on to projects in Venezuela and North Korea,
and even war with Iran.
That's not to say Syria is safe, far from it. They are always just one carefully place false-flag away from all-out war. Last
year, Mattis (or whoever) decided war with Syria was not an option – that it was too risky or complicated. That might not happen
next time.
Clearly, the US hasn't totally seen sense in terms of stoking conflict with Russia – as seen by the decision to pull out of the
INF Treaty late last year. And further demonstrated by their attempts to overthrow Russia's ally Nicolas Maduro. Another ripe candidate
for a false flag.
The failure of the Douma false flag to cause the war it was meant to cause, and the vast collection of evidence that suggests
it was a false flag, should be spread far and wide. Not just because it's a truth which vindicates the smeared minority in the alternate
media.
But because recognising what they were trying to do last time , is the best defense when they try it again next time .
The US is closer to war with Iran
than it has been since the Bush years, or perhaps ever. And Bolton is largely to blame
But Bolton is on a fast track, seemingly aware that Trump's time in office may be limited.' Photograph: Jim Young/Reuters Donald
Trump's national security adviser John Bolton wants the United States to go to war with
Iran .
And everything that the Trump administration has done over its Iran policy, particularly since Bolton became Trump's top foreign
policy adviser in April of 2018, must be viewed through this lens, including the alarming US military posturing in the Middle East
of the past two weeks.
Just after one month on the job, Bolton
gave Trump
the final push he needed to withdraw from the Iran nuclear agreement, which at the time was (and still is, for now) successfully
boxing in Iran's nuclear program and blocking all pathways for Iran to build a bomb. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)
– as the Iran deal is formally known – was the biggest obstacle to Bolton's drive for a regime change war, because it eliminated
a helpful pretext that served so useful to sell the war in Iraq 17 years ago.
Since walking away from the deal, the Trump administration has claimed that with a "maximum pressure" campaign against Iran, it
can achieve a "better deal" that magically turns Iran into a Jeffersonian democracy bowing to every and any American wish. But this
has always been a fantastically bad-faith argument meant to obscure the actual goal (regime change) and provide cover for the incremental
steps – the crushing sanctions, bellicose rhetoric, and antagonizing military maneuvers – that have now put the United States closer
to war with Iran than it has been since at least the latter half of the Bush administration, or perhaps ever.
In his White House statement 10 days ago announcing (an already pre-planned) carrier and bomber deployment to the Middle East,
Bolton cited "a number of troubling and escalatory indications and warnings" from Iran to justify the bolstered US military presence.
But multiple sources who have seen the same intelligence have since
said
that Bolton and the Trump administration blew it "out of proportion, characterizing the threat as more significant than it actually
was". Even a British general operating in the region pushed back this week,
saying he has seen no evidence of an increased Iranian threat.
What's even more worrying is that Bolton knows what he's doing. He's "a
seasoned bureaucratic infighter
who has the skills to press forcefully for his views" – and he has a long history of using those skills to undermine American
diplomacy and work toward killing arms control agreements.
As a senior official in the George W Bush administration,
he played key role
in the collapse of the Agreed Framework, the Clinton-era deal that froze North Korea's plutonium nuclear program (the North Koreans
tested their first bomb four years later).
He said
he "felt like a kid on Christmas day" after he orchestrated the US withdrawal from the international criminal court in 2002.
And now as a senior official in the Trump administration, he
pushed
for the US to withdrawal from a crucial nuclear arms treaty with Russia.
While it's unclear how much of a role he played in scuttling Trump's negotiations with Kim Jong-un in Hanoi last year, he publicly
called for the so-called
"Libya model" with the North Koreans (in other words, regime change by force). Just months before joining the administration, he
tried to make the
legal case for a preventive war against Pyongyang. And if you think he cares about the aftermath of war with North Korea, he
doesn't. Bolton was reportedly
"unmoved" by a presentation during his time in the Bush administration of the catastrophic consequences of such a war. "I don't
do war. I do policy," he said then.
So far, Bolton has been successful in moving the United States toward his desired outcome with Iran – if getting the Pentagon
to draw up plans to send
120,000 US troops to the region to confront Iran is any indication. There are hopeful signs that we can avoid war, as US officials
and our European allies, seemingly alarmed by what Bolton is up to, are
sounding the alarm about
the Trump administration skewing intelligence on Iran.
But Bolton is on a fast track, seemingly aware that Trump's time in office may be limited. The question, ultimately, is whether
the president can stick to his instincts of avoiding more military conflict, or acquiesce to a man hellbent on boxing him into a
corner with no way out other than war with Iran.
Ben Armbruster is the communications director for Win Without War and previously served as National Security Editor at ThinkProgress
...what motive would they possibly have, these enormous corporate media conglomerates, and the transnational corporations that
own them, and these intelligence agencies, and their fronts and cutouts, and corporate lobbyists and PR firms, and councils, and
think tanks, and research institutes, to disinform the Western masses, or to manufacture an official narrative that allows them
to systematically stigmatize, marginalize, criminalize, deplatform, demonetize, and otherwise eliminate any type of speech they
deem to be "Russian disinformation," or "extremist content," or a "conspiracy theory," or simply too "dangerous," "divisive,"
or "confusing" to circulate among the general public?
No see? That makes no sense. That's just an example of the type of fascist disinformation these Putin-Nazi disinformationists
are trying to spread to confuse us to the point where we can't even concentrate long enough to think anymore, or parse the meaningless
jargon-laden nonsense they're trying to deceive us with, and just devolve into these Pavlovian imbeciles conditioned to respond
to specific trigger words, like "extremist," "terrorist," "fascist," "populist," "anti-Semitic," "Russians," "hackers," and whatever
other emotional stimuli we are being trained to instantly recognize and robotically react to like circus animals.
Or I don't know, maybe it isn't. I'm not even sure what I'm trying to say. Probably they've already got to me. I'd better get
back down into my anti-disinformation bunker, pull up The Guardian , or The Washington Post , or Der Spiegel
on my child-proof computer, and immerse myself in some objective journalism, before the Putin-Nazi spywhale makes its way up the
Landwehrkanal, takes control of what's left of my mind, and forces me into going out and trying to vote for Hitler or something.
I recommend you do the same, and I'll see you when this nightmare over.
C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and political satirist based in Berlin. His plays are published
by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing (USA). His debut novel,
ZONE 23 , is published by Snoggsworthy,
Swaine & Cormorant Paperbacks. He can be reached at cjhopkins.com or
consentfactory.org .
"... MSNBC is also that bastion of journalistic integrity that hired an exposed CIA mole, Ken Dilanian, to feed its viewers propaganda about "national security ..."
"... Now, the parties truly "meddling in America's democracy" should be very clear, although I can only scratch the surface here concerning the long history of media corruption and outright lies broadcast all the time. ..."
"... The criminal behaviour continues unabated. Lies and fraud abound. American behaviour worldwide is an embarrassment to any free thinking individual. They are a danger to all of us. ..."
"... Organisations like the BBC and all the rest of the corporate media are a greater threat to democracy than any foreign army or terrorist organisation. ..."
CNN rigged a poll to censor out nearly everyone under 45 years of age. Based on this nonsensical false sampling they claim Biden
is now in the lead.
MSNBC was caught making up false numbers to report, increasing Biden from an actual 25% approval to a magical 28%, just enough
to edge out Bernie Sanders. But this is a fraud, deliberate journalistic malfeasance at the highest levels. How could such a thing
happen?
MSNBC is also that bastion of journalistic integrity that hired an exposed CIA mole, Ken Dilanian, to feed its viewers propaganda
about "national security."
MSNBC also made hysterical, highly dangerous, and false claims about the Russians' ability and intention to shut down America's
electrical grid, a completely false story that was retracted as soon as it went out by the Washington Post. This kind of unhinged
war propaganda could lead the world straight to Armageddon.
Now, the parties truly "meddling in America's democracy" should be very clear, although I can only scratch the surface here
concerning the long history of media corruption and outright lies broadcast all the time.
Grafter
The criminal behaviour continues unabated. Lies and fraud abound. American behaviour worldwide is an embarrassment to any
free thinking individual. They are a danger to all of us. We can start by removing them from Europe along with their so called
"allies". Here in the disunited UK T.May and her little gang of Tory millionaires should be top priority for political oblivion.
People worldwide urgently need to wake up to the sick joke that goes under the name of "American democracy".
mark
Organisations like the BBC and all the rest of the corporate media are a greater threat to democracy than any foreign army
or terrorist organisation.
They need to be constantly exposed for what they are rather than actually suppressed or controlled. They can be safely left
to wither on the vine and decline into irrelevance. Social media and sites like this are a powerful antidote.
"... You know the ones: articles predicting whatever the news of the day will be The End of Democracy. Alongside The New York Times and The Washington Post , whose op-ed pages are pretty much a daily End of Days, practitioners include Chicken Little regulars Rachel Maddow , Lawrence Tribe, Malcolm Nance, David Corn, Benjamin Wittes, Charles Pierce, Bob Cesca, and Marcy Wheeler. ..."
"... We've gone from thinking the president is literally a Russian agent (since 1987, the last year your mom and dad dated!) to worrying the attorney general is trying to obstruct a House committee from investigating a completed investigation into obstruction by writing a summary not everyone liked of a report already released. But the actual content is irrelevant. What matters is there is another crisis to write about! The op-ed industry can't keep up with all the Republic-ending stuff Trump and his henchworld are up to. ..."
"... All persons with Russian-sounding names are Kremlin Agents(tm) *except* the alleged sources for The Dossier(tm). Those anonymous Russians can be trusted implicitly. ..."
"... Matt Tiabbi has a book out on hate, Hate Inc, and has done an excellent interview with Chris Hedges on RT. ..."
"... Rep. Eric Swalwell (D, California), who sits on the House Intelligence Committee, before Mueller finished his investigation, on Hardball on MSNBC, Jan. 2019: ..."
"... Matthews: "Do you believe the president, right now, has been an agent of the Russians?" Swalwell: "Yes, I think there's more evidence that he is-" Matthews: "Agent?" Swalwell: "Yes. and I think all the arrows point in that direction, and I haven't seen a single piece of evidence that he's not." Matthews: "An agent like in the 1940s where you had people who were 'reds,' to use an old term, like that? In other words, working for a foreign power?" Swalwell: "He's working on behalf of the Russians, yes." ..."
"... One of the best things to come from Trump's election has been the lengths some of his opponents will go to discredit themselves in the court of public opinion: Brennan, Clapper, Clinton, Comey, McCabe, the list goes on and on, often merely to make a buck. Even Watergate figures like Carl Bernstein and John Dean have demolished their own reputations, or what was left of them to begin with. If they only knew, or cared, how badly they look in hindsight. ..."
"... @MM: >>One of the best things to come from Trump's election has been the lengths some of his opponents will go to discredit themselves in the court of public opinion << ..."
"... These people don't care about "public opinion." They operate inside a circle-jerk echo chamber whose membership includes the powers dominating the culture, the media (both mainstream and social), the government, and, increasingly, the major corporations. In short, the bulk of what some call the Ruling Class. ..."
"... Facts, evidence, and truth have nothing to do with it. So an investigation, rigged though it was, nonetheless clears Trump of conspiring with Moscow, but the story becomes how Trump is guilty anyway. Orwell, a man well ahead of his time, had the whole thing figured out long ago. ..."
"... "Now tell me again it's all 'sound and fury, signifying nothing.'" On the issue of Trump/Russia collusion, it is, and always was, because we now know it started with the Clinton campaign and a now-discredited dossier. ..."
"... These are the people who we elect to "govern" us. If one looks back upon the 230 years or so during which this thing of ours has been in existence, the overwhelming majority of our elected officials (federal, state and local) have probably been, to one degree or another, narcissistic, mendacious and just generally dishonest incompetents. ..."
"... Lynch, Holder, Obama as silent as church mice. i:e who gave Comey his marching orders ? ..."
"... What "illegal things" were revealed in the Mueller report? Trump was trying to obstruct an INJUSTICE, i.e. the "soft coup" done by the anti-American, lawless leftist Dems. ..."
"... On the Big Ugly Lie*, what's their excuse? * Trump colluded with Russia to steal the election, an attack on par with Pearl Harbor and 9/11. ..."
You know the ones: articles predicting whatever the news of the day will be The End of
Democracy. Alongside TheNew York Times and TheWashington Post ,
whose op-ed pages are pretty much a daily End of Days, practitioners include Chicken Little
regulars Rachel
Maddow , Lawrence Tribe, Malcolm Nance, David Corn, Benjamin Wittes, Charles Pierce, Bob
Cesca, and Marcy Wheeler.
You'd have thought after almost three years of wrong predictions (no new wars, no economic
collapse, no Russiagate) this industry would have slam shut faster than a Rust Belt union hall.
You would have especially thought these kinds of articles would have tapered off with the
release of the Mueller Report. It turned out to be the opposite -- while Mueller found no
conspiracy and charged no obstruction, the dang report turns out to be chock-a-block with
hidden messages, secret road maps, and voices speaking in tongues (albeit only to Democrats)
about obstruction.
We've gone from thinking the president is literally a Russian agent (since 1987, the last
year your mom and dad dated!) to worrying the attorney general is trying to obstruct a House
committee from investigating a completed investigation into obstruction by writing a summary
not everyone liked of a report already released. But the actual content is irrelevant. What
matters is there is another crisis to write about! The op-ed industry can't keep up with
all the Republic-ending stuff Trump and his henchworld are up to.
Help has arrived. Now anyone can write their own fear-mongering article, using this handy
tool, the op-ed-o-Matic. The GoFundMe for the AI-driven app version will be up soon, but for
now, simply follow these simple steps to punditry!
Start with a terrifying cliche. Here are some to choose from: There is a clear and
present danger; Dark clouds gather, the center cannot hold; It is unclear the Republic will
survive; Democracy itself is under attack; We face a profound/unique/existential
threat/crisis/turning point/test. Also, that "First they came for "
poem is good. Be creative; The Washington Post
calls the present state of things "constitutional nihilism." Snappy!
Be philosophical and slightly weary in tone,
such as "I am in despair as I have never been before about the future of our experiment in
self-rule." Say you're
sad for the state of the nation. Claim time is short, but there just may be a chance to
stop this. Add " by any means necessary."
Then choose a follow-on quote to reinforce the danger, maybe from: The Federalist Papers,
especially Madison on tyranny; Lincoln, pretty much anything about "the people, government,
test for our great nation, blah blah;" the Jack Nicholson character about not being able to
handle the truth; something from the neocons like Bill Kristol or Max Boot who now hate Trump.
Start with "even" as in " even arch conservative Jennifer Rubin now says "
After all that to get the blood up, explain the current bad thing Trump did. Label it "a
high crime or misdemeanor if there ever was one." Use some legalese, such as proffer, colorable
argument, inter alia, sinecure, duly-authorized, perjurious, and that little law book squiggly
thingy (18 USC § 1513.) Be sure to say "no one is above the law," then a dramatic hyphen,
then "even the president." Law school is overrated; you and Google know as much as anyone about
emoluments, perjury, campaign finance regulations, contempt, tax law, subpoenas, obstruction,
or whatever the day's thing is, and it changes a lot. But whatever, the bastard is obviously
guilty. Your standard is
tabloid-level , so just make it too good to be true.
Next, find an old Trump tweet where he criticized someone for doing just what he is doing.
That never gets old! Reference burning the Reichstag. If the crisis you're writing about deals
with immigration or white supremacy (meh, basically the same thing, right?), refer to
Kristallnacht.
Include every bad thing Trump ever did as examples of why whatever you're talking about must
be true. Swing for the fence with lines like "seeks to destroy decades of LGBTQIXYZ progress"
or "built concentration camps to murder children." Cite Trump accepting Putin's word over the
findings of "our" intelligence community, his "very fine people" support for Nazi cosplayers,
the magic list of 10,000 lies, how Trump has blood on his hands for endangering the press as
the enemy of the people, and how Trump caused the hurricane in Puerto Rico.
And Nixon. Always bring up Nixon. The context or details don't matter. In case Wikipedia is
down, he was one of the presidents before Trump your grandpa liked for awhile and then didn't
like after Robert Redford showed he was a clear and present danger to Saturday Night Live, or
the Saturday Night Massacre, it doesn't matter, we all agree Nixon.
Focus on the villain, who must be unhinged, off the rails, over the edge, diseased, out of
control, a danger to himself and others, straight-up diagnosed
mentally ill , or under Trump/Putin's spell. Barr is currently the Vader-du-jour. The
New York Timescharacterized him as
"The transformation of William Barr from respected establishment lawyer to evil genius
outplaying and undermining his old friend Robert Mueller is a Grand Guignol spectacle." James
Comey went as far as
describing Trump people as having had their souls eaten by the president. That's not
hyperbole, it's journalism!
But also hold out for a hero, the Neo one inside Trumpworld who will rise, flip, or leak to
save us. Forget past nominees like the pee tape, Comey, Clapper, Flynn, Page, Papadopoulos,
Manafort, Cohen, Mattis, Kelly, Barr, Linda Sarsour (replace with Ilhan Omar,) Avenatti, and
Omarosa to focus on McGahn. He's gonna be the one!
Then call for everyone else bad to resign, be impeached, go to jail, have their old statues
torn down, delete their accounts, be referred to the SDNY, be smited by the 25th Amendment, or
have their last election delegitimized by the Night King. Draw your rationale from either the
most obscure corner of the Founding Founders' work ("the rough draft, subsection IIXX of the
Articles of Confederation addendum, Spanish language edition, makes clear Trump is unfit for
office") or go broad as in "his oath requires him to uphold the Constitution, which he clearly
is not doing." Like Nancy Pelosi, mention how Trump seems unlikely to voluntarily cede power if
he loses in 2020.
Cultural references are important. Out of fashion: Godfather memes especially about
who is going to be Fredo, 'bots, weaponize, Pussy Hats, the Parkland Kids, Putin homophobe
themes, incest "jokes" about Ivanka, the phrases the walls are closing in, tick tock, take to
the streets, adult in the room, just wait for Mueller Time, and let that sink in.
Things you can still use: abyss, grifter, crime family, not who we are, follow the money.
Also you may make breaking news out of Twitter typos. Stylistically anyone with a
Russian-sounding name must be either an oligarch, friend of Putin, or have ties to the Kremlin.
Same for anyone who has done business with Trump or used the ATM in the Deutsche Bank lobby in
New York. Mention Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez somewhere because every article has to mention AOC
somewhere now.
Finally, your op-ed should end either with this House Judiciary Committee chair Jerry Nadler
faux Kennedy-esque
quote, "The choice is simple: We can stand up to this president in defense of the country
and the Constitution and the liberty we love, or we can let the moment pass us by. History will
judge us for how we face this challenge" or, if you want to go old school, this one from
Hillary Clinton
saying, "I really believe that we are in a crisis, a constitutional crisis. We are in a
crisis of confidence and a crisis over the rule of law and the institutions that have weathered
a lot of problems over so many years. And it is something that, regardless of where you stand
in the political spectrum, should give real heartburn to everybody. Because this is a test for
our country."
Crisis. Test. Judgment of history. Readers love that stuff, because it equates Trump's dumb
tweets with Lincoln pulling the Union together after a literal civil war that killed millions
of Americans in brother-to-brother conflict. As long as the rubes believe the world is coming
to an end, you might as well make a buck writing about it.
Liberal journalists seem to think that Trump is either an ignorant oaf or an evil genius.
These views are oppositional, but many liberal journalists seem to hold both of them.
I pretty much lost all respect for the Washington Post during the last election. Each WaPo
anti-Trump op ed became increasingly apocalyptic until you imagined that the universe would
implode should he be elected. It was that silly.
But other media promote "end of the world as we know it "scenarios also. TAC included.
Seriously, if I read one more article about how flyover America is a drug infested,
impoverished wasteland inhabited by those not intelligent or ambitious enough to move to the
coasts.
Drama draws readers and online traffic.
I guess it's up to the reader to sift through the competing narratives for the truth.
On the one hand, I agree that it's laughable and ridiculous -- this flood of apocalyptic
predictions and articles, wherein Trump, a juvenile buffoon who in fact does not even control
the government he nominally heads, is depicted as some kind of unprecedented threat to
democracy and Everything We Hold Dear.
I mean, OK, the judgment of the libs and neocons writing this stuff is clearly addled by
their irrational and rabid hatred for Trump. Still, are they really that stupid or is it just
that they are hopelessly dishonest? I lean toward the latter explanation.
That said, the abiding irony is that there is in fact a deepening crisis in this country.
It's about an increasingly dysfunctional democracy, a bitterly alienated and divided
citizenry, a set of ruling elites who despise a large percentage of their countrymen and have
contrived an economic and political system that enriches themselves while consigning the
despised percentage to permanent struggling status, a cultural establishment that rejects the
traditional Judeo-Christian values that built Western civilization and, Jacobin-style, is
busily overturning and replacing those values with their own would-be New Moral Order.
And so forth.
So yeah, there most definitely is a crisis and it might even be apocalyptic in dimension
and character. (Heck, it put Trump in the White House.) But the actual crisis is not the one
the fools are writing about. In fact, not only are they not writing about it -- they're in
large part responsible for it.
Like I said: an abiding irony. One for the history books.
All persons with Russian-sounding names are Kremlin Agents(tm) *except* the alleged sources
for The Dossier(tm). Those anonymous Russians can be trusted implicitly.
Van Buren has apparently chosen to forget the apocalyptic rants from the right during the
Obama administration. As for today's alarmists, as I write this the Dow is down over 700
points due to Trump's foolish trade war, his administration is ignoring two centuries of
tradition by stonewalling Congress' legitimate oversight authority and John Bolton is trying
to provoke a war with Iran. Now tell me again it's all "sound and fury, signifying nothing."
Rep. Eric Swalwell (D, California), who sits on the House Intelligence Committee, before
Mueller finished his investigation, on Hardball on MSNBC, Jan. 2019:
Matthews: "Do you believe the president, right now, has been an agent of the
Russians?"
Swalwell: "Yes, I think there's more evidence that he is-"
Matthews: "Agent?"
Swalwell: "Yes. and I think all the arrows point in that direction, and I haven't seen a
single piece of evidence that he's not."
Matthews: "An agent like in the 1940s where you had people who were 'reds,' to use an old
term, like that? In other words, working for a foreign power?"
Swalwell: "He's working on behalf of the Russians, yes."
The same congressman, who makes Joseph McCarthy look moderate, after Mueller completed his
investigation, on Fox News, Mar. 2019:
Cavuto: "Would you say the president is not a Russian agent?"
Swalwell: "The president acts on Russia's behalf, I don't need to see the Mueller report for
that."
And this month, after he had annouced his presidential bid, on Face the Nation:
Brennan: "But I know you have been talking because you are also in an intelligence role on
that House committee saying a number of things that I want to quote back to you. Up until
this point you said when you were asked in January, 'do you believe the president right now
has been an agent of the Russians?' You said, 'yes,' you were asked again at the end of that
month by a questioner, 'I'm still not hearing any evidence that he's an agent of Russia.' And
you said, 'Yeah I think it's pretty clear it's almost hiding in plain sight.' The Mueller
report did not substantiate any conspiracy or coordination with Russia. Do you regret
prejudging the outcome?"
Swalwell: "No, actually I- I- I think I should have been louder."
And people say Denin Nunes politicized the House Intelligence Committee?
One of the best things to come from Trump's election has been the lengths some of his
opponents will go to discredit themselves in the court of public opinion: Brennan, Clapper,
Clinton, Comey, McCabe, the list goes on and on, often merely to make a buck. Even Watergate
figures like Carl Bernstein and John Dean have demolished their own reputations, or what was
left of them to begin with. If they only knew, or cared, how badly they look in
hindsight.
"Liberal journalists seem to think that Trump is either an ignorant oaf or an evil
genius."
You're missing the point, it's Trump's ignorance, his extreme sense of entitlement and
limitless ego that are a danger to our democracy. He doesn't understand the norms of
democracy, otherwise known as American principles. All he understands is what he wants and
his notion of American greatness, which has nothing to do with true American principles.
@MM: >>One of the best things to come from Trump's election has been the lengths some
of his opponents will go to discredit themselves in the court of public opinion <<
These people don't care about "public opinion." They operate inside a circle-jerk echo
chamber whose membership includes the powers dominating the culture, the media (both
mainstream and social), the government, and, increasingly, the major corporations. In short,
the bulk of what some call the Ruling Class.
In their minds, public opinion can be suppressed or at least controlled by their near
monopoly on major media. The stories they want told will get told. The stories they don't
want told will not get told. Except at more or less isolated right-wing websites and such
whose audience and reach are limited.
Facts, evidence, and truth have nothing to do with it. So an investigation, rigged though
it was, nonetheless clears Trump of conspiring with Moscow, but the story becomes how Trump
is guilty anyway. Orwell, a man well ahead of his time, had the whole thing figured out long
ago.
jhawk: "As I write this the Dow is down over 700 points."
This is the same Dow Jones that, even with today's drop is still 40% higher than it was
right before the 2016 election, correct?
"Now tell me again it's all 'sound and fury, signifying nothing.'" On the issue of Trump/Russia collusion, it is, and always was, because we now know it
started with the Clinton campaign and a now-discredited dossier.
These are the people who we elect to "govern" us. If one looks back upon the 230 years or
so during which this thing of ours has been in existence, the overwhelming majority of our
elected officials (federal, state and local) have probably been, to one degree or another,
narcissistic, mendacious and just generally dishonest incompetents. It seems that it's only
when we hit rock bottom and the country's very survival is at stake that the cream rises to
the top and the very best step to the plate, so given what we have in Washington now, maybe
we haven't reached that point–at least not yet.
This is a hoot. Little Pettie strikes again! Projecting his own myopia as always! His Greater
Leader, The Trumpster, and the sycophants who worship him daily (for a fee, of course) daily
tweets or shouts from a podium the impending doom of our nations due to hoards of the "other"
spreading disease and violence nationwide while supported by the great love of Evangelical
"Christians" who faith not merely predicts but yearns for the end of the world!!!
Can't quite tell. It is hypocrisy or grand delusions blooming brightly at TAC!
CT Farmer: "If one looks back upon the 230 years or so during which this thing of ours has
been in existence, the overwhelming majority of our elected officials have probably been, to
one degree or another, narcissistic, mendacious and just generally dishonest incompetents."
No doubt, I only picked on him because he represents the crappiest district in the Bay
Area, which I have personal experience on, and he's running for president on the "Trump is a
Russian agent" platform, which even Joseph McCarthy was too timid to attempt.
That's either saying something, or it's nothing. I could've quoted another presidential candidate who's claimed that law enforcement and
criminal justice in America is racist from top to bottom and front to back. Or I could've quoted a different presidential candidate who's stated unequivocally that
every human being, not just American citizen, is entitled to free education and health care,
without regard to cost or need.
Just a few thoughts about comments above: Who "yearns for the end of the world"?? Give names
please, stop slandering. What "illegal things" were revealed in the Mueller report? Trump was
trying to obstruct an INJUSTICE, i.e. the "soft coup" done by the anti-American, lawless
leftist Dems. The fact is that we are a nation of laws and illegals (no matter where they are
from, Mars, Supitor; whether they are green, purple, whatever color) are a threat to our
country. I heard report that about a third of the crimes in the USA are done by illegals, at
a cost of billions. Well, more crap from brain washed boobs above, but I'm done trying to
point them out ..
" you know, we're all at it, breathing apocalyptic fire and brimstone, left and right. No
point throwing stones at each other on this subject."
**************
My thoughts, too. It's difficult to sift through the hype on all sides & find anything
solid. Outrage generates traffic, thoughtful discussion-not so much. So we end up with
clickbait & tabloids.
Maybe the Dems and their supporters should spend more time trying to understand why they lost
and less time complaining about it. But then that's not nearly as much fun.
Thanks for the voice of reason. A couple of complaints on Trump: he hasn't accomplished much
on the border; budgets continue to bleed red ink. He at least could have vetoed the budgets.
Isn't it a bit rich to suggest that the outrage media started in 2016? How long have
Limbaugh, Coulter, Ingraham, Levin, Hannity, .. been milking the Republican multiverse.
Sean: "Isn't it a bit rich to suggest that the outrage media started in 2016?"
That's a bit like saying because my neighbor ran over my dog, I'll then bulldoze his
house. Besides, the left and the press are supposed to be superior to the right and the unwashed
masses. They always fact-based, logical, reasonable, non-ideological, and consistent.
On the Big Ugly Lie*, what's their excuse?
* Trump colluded with Russia to steal the election, an attack on par with Pearl Harbor and
9/11.
Neocons and neolibs control the USA foreign policy. That's given. NYT just reflects foreign policy establishment talking points.
Links between Daniel Jones and Steele are really interesting and new information
Notable quotes:
"... "The goal here is bigger than any one election," said Daniel Jones, a former F.B.I. analyst and Senate investigator whose nonprofit group, Advance Democracy, recently flagged a number of suspicious websites and social media accounts to law enforcement authorities. ..."
"... According to a report published this morning, he notes that the Silicon Valley Community Foundation, which has received "significant funding" from technology billionaires, funneled $500,000 to the non-profit group Advance Democracy. That organization shares a street address with The Democracy Integrity Project. ..."
"... That's because both organizations were founded by former Senate Intel staffer Daniel Jones, who at that time worked for Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who hails from just down the road from Silicon Valley in San Francisco. As TruNews has previously reported, those connections to the Senate Intel Committee have played a significant role in the ongoing "Russia Narrative" drama in Washington, D.C. ..."
"... Jones has been previously identified as a central figure in the investigation who served as potential go-between with the committee's ranking Democrat, Sen. Mark Warner, and former MI6 agent Christopher Steele. ..."
"... The NYT is very much invested in the post Cold War status quo. ..."
"... That would be the Clintons and the Bushes. Both political parties and every POTUS since 1968. In fact, I believe this is the main reason why the Dems created and are pushing Russiagate so hard. They don't want us looking at what really gave us Trump: the neoliberal neoconservative fiasco of the past 40+ years. ..."
"... told about Russia and that they interfered with not only our elections, but in so many other countries too. I remember a time when people would insist on seeing the evidence on stuff the intelligence agencies tell them, but ever since Her lost the election they lost their minds. I'll see references to articles that say something, but offer no evidence. Like the one this essay is about. ..."
"... Plus they tried to kill the Skripals. And the GOP are also under Vlad's thumb. This is why Russia Gate has to be debunked. ..."
"... So, yes, it's going to take too long. Short of a miracle, I'm starting to think we're all going to be radioactive ash before Cold War II ends. There was a modicum of restraint with Cold War I; some people had enough sense to realize the end result was nuclear war. That type of sense seems nowhere to be found in Washington, D.C., these days. ..."
"... Dick Cheney is as evil as any human being I've ever heard of. I doubt whether he's done everything some folks believe he's done -- but not because he isn't evil enough, only because he lacked either the guts or the necessity. I believe he would have fit in perfectly well with Himmler and Goebbels, and he would enthusiastically embraced their approach to getting and wielding power. ..."
"... A few months ago, I made a comment to someone that it's like we're supposed to hate them (Russia) for their freedoms. ..."
gjohnsit on Sun, 05/12/2019 - 5:32pm The NY Times just posted one of the most atrocious pieces of
journalistic malpractice I have ever read.
Less than two weeks before pivotal elections for the European Parliament, a constellation of websites and social media accounts
linked to Russia or far-right groups is spreading disinformation, encouraging discord and amplifying distrust in the centrist
parties that have governed for decades.
European Union investigators, academics and advocacy groups say the new disinformation efforts share many of the same digital
fingerprints or tactics used in previous Russian attacks, including the Kremlin's interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign.
That's a powerful statement. There's just one problem: the article doesn't present a single bit of proof. Just anecdotes. In fact,
it doesn't even quote anyone to back up these claims, but for one single exception.
"The goal here is bigger than any one election," said Daniel Jones, a former F.B.I. analyst and Senate investigator whose
nonprofit group, Advance Democracy, recently flagged a number of suspicious websites and social media accounts to law enforcement
authorities.
"It is to constantly divide, increase distrust and undermine our faith in institutions and democracy itself. They're working
to destroy everything that was built post-World War II."
Russia is why people are losing faith in our government institutions. Not because they are owned by oligarchs. If you listen closely
you can hear President Bush.
So who is Daniel Jones and Advance Democracy? That's an
interesting story .
According to a report published this morning, he notes that the Silicon Valley Community Foundation, which has received "significant
funding" from technology billionaires, funneled $500,000 to the non-profit group Advance Democracy. That organization shares a
street address with The Democracy Integrity Project.
That's because both organizations were founded by former Senate Intel staffer Daniel Jones, who at that time worked for
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who hails from just down the road from Silicon Valley in San Francisco. As TruNews has previously
reported, those connections to the Senate Intel Committee have played a significant role in the ongoing "Russia Narrative" drama
in Washington, D.C.
Jones has been previously identified as a central figure in the investigation who served as potential go-between with the
committee's ranking Democrat, Sen. Mark Warner, and former MI6 agent Christopher Steele. That's because TDIP, which receives
significant funding from George Soros, funneled some of that money toward Steele's research for Fusion GPS that led to the infamous
dossier on President Donald Trump.
However, as Ross reports today: "Mystery surrounds both of Jones's operations. The identities of both groups' donors have largely
been kept secret, as Jones has avoided revealing his backers.
Nothing to see here. Just two sketchy political organizations sharing the same street address. Perfectly normal.
"The election has yet to come, and we are already suspected of doing something wrong?" the Russian prime minister, Dmitri A.
Medvedev, said in March. "Suspecting someone of an event that has not yet happened is a bunch of paranoid nonsense."
It's not nonsense. It's scapegoating. There's a difference.
CBS News (2/4/19) briefly interviewed Honolulu Civil Beats reporter Nick Grube regarding Gabbard's campaign announcement. The
anchors had clearly never encountered the term anti-interventionism before, struggling to even pronounce the word, then laughing
and saying it "doesn't roll off the tongue."
They're [the Kremlin] working to destroy everything that was built post-World War II.
That would be the Clintons and the Bushes. Both political parties and every POTUS since 1968. In fact, I believe this is
the main reason why the Dems created and are pushing Russiagate so hard. They don't want us looking at what really gave us Trump:
the neoliberal neoconservative fiasco of the past 40+ years.
It's also why so many people of my generation (over 60) are having trouble understanding and accepting what's going on. To
do so will require letting go of everything they thought was true. That kind of change does not come easy to many people.
I heard someone recently say "We have to elect a Dem or else our post-War advantages will disappear."
Got to wonder where he's been for the past 40 years. That horse left the barn a long time ago.
told about Russia and that they interfered with not only our elections, but in so many other countries too. I remember
a time when people would insist on seeing the evidence on stuff the intelligence agencies tell them, but ever since Her lost the
election they lost their minds. I'll see references to articles that say something, but offer no evidence. Like the one this essay
is about.
Plus they tried to kill the Skripals. And the GOP are also under Vlad's thumb. This is why Russia Gate has to be debunked.
People say that Mueller has put to rest the fact that Russia indeed interfered with the election, but all he showed was the
FBIs "belief' that they did and that some Russians will ties to Vlad hacked the DNC computers. He didn't interview anyone involved
with that as laid out in my recent essay.
I've even seen people who were once against our invasions being okay with them and repeating the party line. Unfuckingbelievable!
The Year 2000 was not that long ago, and we were bombarded for two decades beforehand with talk of all the dreadful things
that might happen, could happen, and some people firmly believed would happen - and then didn't happen. (As it turned out,
the most obvious sign of "Y2K" was the "19100" bug that plagued Web pages for months afterward. It was cosmetic and harmless,
but annoying.)
I expected it to take about ten years for sanity to return - but it looks like being more like fifty. And there will probably
be some cultists who construct their own "reality" around what didn't happen, like the 1840s Millerites (who spun off the still-extant
Seventh Day Adventists).
The NYT and WaPoo have new articles out about how bad the dastardly Russians are still interfering with the whole dang country
now. And WaPoo had some university do a study on how Russia tried to get people to vote for Bernie and blah, blah,...
I read an article last year saying that Bernie needs to knock off being with the Russia Gaters because he is going to be accused
of being in Vlad's pockets anyway. But he's still saying that Trump is under Russia's thumb and that Russia is doing all kinds
of bad stuff.
Then there's all the websites like DK, emptyhead, democratic underground and others saying that Mueller confirmed Russia did
bad things and maybe if the democrats work harder on their investigations they will find stuff that Mueller missed. I think 10
years is optimistic, but however long it's going to take its going to be too long.
I think 10 years is optimistic, but however long it's going to take it's going to be too long.
Consider how long it took for Cold War I to finally start to ebb. It took at least a decade, and that was with the memory of
a horrendous world war fresh on most minds. Now, we're so insulated from the reality of war, not even allowed reports from the
battlefields, much less accurate information and numbers, that we have lost touch with the horror. Evil men such as Bolton spend
every minute of every day trying to embroil us in deadly excursions and foreign entanglements. Our "intelligence" agencies are
no more than modern versions of the NAZI era Reich Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda.
So, yes, it's going to take too long. Short of a miracle, I'm starting to think we're all going to be radioactive
ash before Cold War II ends. There was a modicum of restraint with Cold War I; some people had enough sense to realize the end
result was nuclear war. That type of sense seems nowhere to be found in Washington, D.C., these days.
So, yes, it's going to take too long. Short of a miracle, I'm starting to think we're all going to be radioactive ash before
Cold War II ends. There was a modicum of restraint with Cold War I; some people had enough sense to realize the end result
was nuclear war. That type of sense seems nowhere to be found in Washington, D.C., these days.
Fortunately for us ordinary Americans, the Russians really do love their children too.....
@snoopydawg
Are they going to say they're both (Bernie and Trump) working with Russia? That would be amusing. I wonder if it would cause any
of them to vote third party or not vote at all.
...who was a software development consultant at the time, the reason nothing much happened was that's lot of people worked
their butts off for several years. COBOL programmers were dragged out of retirement and all kinds of goofy OS and library hacks
were implemented to reduce the amount of work and risk.
It's also why so many people of my generation (over 60) are having trouble understanding and accepting what's going on.
To do so will require letting go of everything they thought was true. That kind of change does not come easy to many people.
I spent several years grappling with my fall down the rabbit hole. I started freeing myself from the matrix during #Occupy
and towards the end of Obama's first term I was starting to really get it... at least get it enough to know I wasn't voting for
him a second time. Then Bernie arrived on the scene and it was music to my ears. That pretty much completed the process for me
but it STILL took time and I STILL have places where I "don't believe they are that evil" (twin towers anyone) yet I suspect that
in the fullness of time I may yet find that they are in fact that evil.
I have a lot of sympathy for those still caught in the matrix. It's a really good trap. That doesn't change the fact that I
see them as my enemy and the enemy of all mankind but I at least understand.
@SnappleBC Dick Cheney is as evil as any human being I've ever heard of. I doubt whether he's done everything some folks believe he's
done -- but not because he isn't evil enough, only because he lacked either the guts or the necessity. I believe he would have
fit in perfectly well with Himmler and Goebbels, and he would enthusiastically embraced their approach to getting and wielding
power.
Just this century this country has killed a million Iraqis and who knows how many people in the other countries we've invaded?
40,000 Venezuelans died last year because of our sanctions and no matter how many people in Yemen die every day because of the
Saudis we will continue supporting them.
Then there's Hiroshima and Nagasaki as aliasalias stated. Oh hell yes they are that evil.
killed and displaced around the Globe by the Empire in just this century alone, so many still can't believe this same government
could murder 3000 on 9/11.
Cognitive dissidence doesn't even start to explain it.
...is the intense access that these privatized propagandists have to the New York Times . And certainly the Times
should explain why it freely publishes radical divisive stories that cannot be verified from compromised sources that have previously
been exposed as disreputable. This is what Russia is accused of doing, sewing confusion and fear in the US, based on misinformation.
Now the New York Times is doing it for them. The fact that a US media outlet is deliberately sabotaging the domestic tranquility
with alarming lies is exactly what congress should be investigating. But any congressperson that did so would see their careers
destroyed. Congress surrendered to the media monopolies a long time ago.
What we can do is confirm for Americans that they must never trust anything they read in the New York Times and the
Washington Post . Remind them of the tragic facts in recent history. The lies that endangers people's lives and disables
their intelligence are written between the lines.
The NYT and WaPoo and other media are continuing to come up with new stories every day telling us something new that Russia
is doing. This is not going away any time soon. Unfortunately.
@Lookout@Lookout with
us all getting under our desks or along the walls if we are in the hallway and I don't think any one of us didn't treat this as
something critical for us to learn in order to survive.
As a kid that loved riding a bicycle one Public Service announcement I paid careful attention to was the instruction to do if
I saw that bright flash which was to throw the bike down and curl up along the curb, I even thought about that problem on unpaved
streets.
I remember bomb shelters were advertised a lot and I remember some tv dramas were about people fleeing to their bomb shelter
and the dilemma of being only fit to hold a small group but had neighbors, friends and strangers pleading to be let in.
The 'Twilight Zone' series even had one episode where a very wealthy man with a shelter picked certain important people in
his life, his school teacher, Priest and others were offered shelter only if they will apologize for things he'd caught criticism
for his behavior in his past. Trivial stuff, but he had a screen for them to watch the destruction live.
Long story short, they'd rather die than spend the rest of their lives with him. Especially with all their friends and family
gone, so he is alone, goes crazy, runs outside and is found by a policemen to be crying and babbling at a city fountain, in a
city that had not been bombed, but for him it had happened and all he could see was destruction around him.
All that aside considering we'd already dropped 'the' bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki those behind all the public warnings and
information that was needed in order for people to know how to survive couldn't really believe that nonsense.
Unless they could believe all those dead Japanese would've likely survived if they had ducked under their desks or curled up
along a curb, and if that were true they were as loony as the 'Twilight Zone' character.
Yeah if only all those schoolchildren had jumped under their desk before the building and everything around it was obliterated.
...if you see a light brighter than the sun. (1 min)
in the top of the ninth the screen goes black, the live stream has stopped because the electrical grid the Tropicana had shut
down and the stadium was without power for the lights, scoreboard, broadcast, etc. were down.
It took about forty-five minutes for power to be restored but right when it happened I thought it was the stream I was watching
so I clicked on other streaming sites and it was on a couple of them I read why all broadcasts were off.
But in the chat box I really couldn't tell if a few were joking or not when they blamed it on the Russians. One in particular
didn't look like they were joking as that person repeated the claim a few times. No kidding, and one lamented that (paraphrasing)
'now the Russians are messing with our National sport'.
Any time something happens now people will willingly accept that Russia did something that caused it. See the tweet I posted
above. Secret service agents and police are doing nothing as the Guaido goons keeps people from delivering food and stuff to the
embassy sitters. One goon tried taking the bag out of a guy's hands and they just watched. One person tried to throw a cucumber
and the cops pounced on him, pushed him to the ground and bloodied him up. But Russia is the one who put the embassy sitters into
the embassy and is supporting them. SMDH!
Advance Democracy, recently flagged a number of suspicious websites and social media accounts to law enforcement authorities."It
is to constantly divide, increase distrust and undermine our faith in institutions and democracy itself.
An organization that reports undesirable speech to law enforcement is worried about the undermining of democracy. Got it.
"... Adam Schiff, chair of the House intelligence committee, told ABC's This Week impeachment by the Democratic-run House would be divisive and unlikely to succeed in the Republican-run Senate. ..."
"... Trump's stonewalling of congressional oversight does add weight to calls for impeachment, Schiff said, adding: "But you know, part of our reluctance is we are already a bitterly divided country and an impeachment process will divide us further." ..."
Democrats are reluctant to impeach Donald Trump but he may provoke such a
move by continuing to obstruct congressional efforts to oversee his administration, a senior
lawmaker said on Sunday.
Adam Schiff, chair of the House intelligence committee, told ABC's This Week impeachment by
the Democratic-run House would be divisive and unlikely to succeed in the Republican-run
Senate.
"But [Trump] may get us there," Schiff said. "He certainly seems to be trying and maybe this
is his perverse way of dividing us more he thinks that's to his political advantage, but it's
certainly not to the country's advantage."
Trump's stonewalling of congressional oversight does add weight to calls for impeachment,
Schiff said, adding: "But you know, part of our reluctance is we are already a bitterly divided
country and an impeachment process will divide us further."
This "shadowy Russian" might well be Sergey Skripal. This suggests that Steele dossier was CIA operation with British MI6 as transfer mechanism and
Steele as a cover. And implicates Brennan. So this is next level of leaks after "Stormy Daniel"...
Another NYT leak out of a set of well coordinated leans from anonymous intelligence officials ;-) Poor Melania...
Notable quotes:
"... But U.S. intelligence officials have reason to doubt the veracity of the video and other information about Trump associates provided by the Russian, according to a fascinating report from The New York Times. ..."
"... If there was ANYTHING on Trump, it would have oversaturated the airwaves 24/7 during his candidacy, and he would have never made it out of the primaries. ..."
"... More than you know, whenever Russian is stated, replace with Ukrainian. TPTB cannot help themselves but push forward on another agenda as the current one falls apart. The Russophobia is still being stoked no matter what. ..."
"... Steele was a double agent, maybe triple. British,Ukrainian and probably American. Does that start to make a little more sense ? Those huuuge donations to the CF from Ukraine, McStains involvement, Steele's early retirement from MI6, Brennan's frequent trips to Ukraine, State Dept.s role. Investigate the Chalupa sisters to find out who the rest of the rats are.Lee Stranahan started before he was shut down. ..."
"... the CIA has to turn America into a criminal totalitarian regime in order to make the world safe for democracy ..."
"... How much you wanna bet that Brennan, Obama's CIA Director, was behind ..."
"... You mean the same Brennan who is the godfather of ISIS? ..."
"... "U.S. intelligence officials told The Times" Sounds like the Donald is finally learning to cooperate better with his masters. They can call off the hounds. ..."
"... Ok - so we have yet another (likely factual) story here of overt, in-your-face abuse of power and agency aimed directly at American citizens for political gain. And tomorrow? Probably another. And then another. Until: 'Bimbo Fatigue' Remember that phrase. If real justice isn't thrown down soon, you can forget it. Looks to me like (possibly) Trump imploring for public support - i.e., he can't do this himself, or it's too dangerous and he knows it... ..."
"... Why is the CIA trying to purchase dirt on a sitting President in 2017! Because they have nothing on him! And they are desperate to not all hang by the neck. The times are trying to portray this as Russian intelligence sowing discord between the US intelligence agencies and Trump...Wrong! The US Intel agencies are sowing that discord all on their fucking own. They weren't fooled at all, they created this fucking mess for their own treasonous reasons and now want us to believe that hey...if we fucked up its because the big bad russkies tricked us. ..."
"... 'The Russian, who has ties to organized criminals and money launderers' wtf! So far the Russians are playing our CIA like a bunch of amateurs. And the deep state/dem's bought it hook, line and sinker. Trump was right again. Dem's and Russia are colluding against a duly elected Presidential candidate. I guess it's safe to say we need another order for more Rope. Dem's and deepshit state just can't get enough of hanging themselves. This ain't over by a long shot. ..."
"... i call bullshit. you dont 'buy back' a software program that can be copied in 30 seconds. this whole story is a fabrication just like the dossier. made up to inflect bad info on to trump. ..."
"... Yeah, I loved that one. "Here. I'm giving you back that software I ripped off from you. I copied it to this CD and then deleted it from my computer... You know: wiped it with a cloth." ..."
"... And I love that the CIA thinks they can get away with a tale like that when everyone but my 90-year-old mother-in-law knows how a digital file works ..."
"... So were these "patriotic" CIA superheroes interested in Bill Clinton's rapes, rapes and more rapes? Were they concerned that he was snorting coke and using Arkansas state troopers for procurers of hosebags for him to screw? ..."
When they said "Russian collusion", few expected it to be between the CIA and a "shadowy
Russian operative." And yet, according to a blockbuster NYT report, that's precisely what
happened.
* * *
The CIA paid $100,000 last year to a Russian operative who claimed to have derogatory
information about President Trump, including a video tape of the Republican engaged with
prostitutes in a Moscow hotel room. If the video showed Trump, it would support claims made in
the infamous Steele dossier, the salacious opposition research report financed by the Clinton
campaign and DNC.
But U.S. intelligence officials have reason to doubt the veracity of the video and other
information about Trump associates provided by the Russian, according to
a fascinating report from The New York Times.
American spies made contact with the Russia early in 2017 after he offered to sell the Trump
material along with cyber hacking tools that were stolen from the NSA that year, according to
The Times. U.S. intelligence officials told The Times they were so desperate to retrieve those
tools that they negotiated with the operative for months despite several red flags, including
indications that he was working in concert with Russian intelligence.
Another red flag was the Russian's financial request. He initially sought $10 million for
the information but dropped the asking price to $1 million.
After months of negotiations, American spies handed over $100,000 in cash in a brief case to
the Russian during a meeting in Berlin in September.
The operative also offered documents and emails that purported to implicate other Trump
associates, including former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. But The Times viewed the
documents and reported that they were mostly information that is already in the public
domain.
The Russian, who has ties to organized criminals and money launderers, showed the video
purported to be Trump to a Berlin-based American businessman who served as his intermediary to
the CIA. But according to the Times, the footage and the location of the viewing raised
questions about its authenticity.
The 15-second clip showed two women speaking with a man. It is not clear if the man was
Trump, and there was no audio. The Russian also showed the video to his American partner at the
Russian embassy in Berlin, a sign that the operative had ties to Russian intelligence.
The Russian stonewalled the production of the cyber tools, and U.S. officials eventually cut
ties, according to The Times. After the payout in Berlin, the man provided information about
Trump and his associates of questionable veracity.
The Americans gave him an ultimatum earlier in 2018 to either play ball, leave Western
Europe, or face criminal charges. He left, according to The Times, which interviewed U.S.
officials, the American intermediary and the Russian for its article.
The Times' U.S. sources -- who appear to paint the American side in a positive light -- said
that they were reluctant to purchase information because they did not want to be seen buying
dirt on the president.
The officials also expressed concern that the Russian operative was planting disinformation
on behalf of the Russian government. U.S. officials were worried that the Russian government
has sought to sow discord between U.S. intelligence agencies and Trump. The revelation that the
CIA purchased dirt on him would likely do the trick.
The Times report also has other new details.
Four other Russians with ties to the spy world have surfaced over the past year offering to
sell dirt on Trump that closely mirrors allegations made in the dossier, according to the
article. But officials have reason to believe that some of sellers have ties to Russian
intelligence agencies.
The Times also provides new details on Cody Shearer, a notorious operative close to the
Clintons. Shearer was recently revealed to have shopped
around a so-called "second dossier" prior to the campaign which mirrored the sex allegations of
the Steele report.
According to The Times, he has criss-crossed Europe over the past six months in an attempt
to find video footage of Trump from the Moscow hotel room. Shearer claimed to have information
from the FSB, Russia's spy service, that a video existed of Trump with prostitutes in a Moscow
hotel room.
He shared a memo making the allegations with his friend and fellow Clinton fixer, Sidney
Blumenthal. Blumenthal in turn passed the memo to his friend, Jonathan Winer, a Department of
State official. Winer then gave the information to Steele who provided it to the FBI in October
2016.
Steele also provided information to Winer, who wrote up a two-page memo that was circulated
within the State Department.
Trump has denied allegations that he used prostitutes in Moscow. He has called the dossier a
"hoax" and "crap."
* * *
On Saturday morning, Trump tweeted that "according to the @nytimes, a Russian sold phony
secrets on "Trump" to the U.S. Asking price was $10 million, brought down to $1 million to be
paid over time. I hope people are now seeing & understanding what is going on here. It is
all now starting to come out - DRAIN THE SWAMP!
Of course, if Trump really wants to "drain the swamp", any such decision would have
originate with him. Tags PoliticsCommercial Banks
Release the pee pee video now! No one pee peed in the $100,000 video in question. The
15-second clip showed two women speaking with a man. It is not clear if the man was Trump,
and there was no audio. And how can anyone be more fascinated by the prospect of pee pee than
by the fact that US intelligence agencies were buying bad information from extremely shady
foreigners in an attempt to overthrow the President of the United States?
Trump is starting to assume that the people are dumber than Obowel did. Earth to Don, you
sir have the drain pump, you sir have surrounded yourself with Swamp creatures.... You sir
are.............
According to this, the Russians stole the hacking tools needed to cut through the Swamp
levee, which were developed by the NSA, and now the CIA cannot buy them back. Now, since the
USA wanted its Swamp, the Russians are more than happy to let the USA drown in its swamp.
Anyone have a link for the Qanon posts. I haven't seen them in a couple of weeks since he
left 8chan where he was posting. I don't want the Youtube BS, I just want the link... anyone
got one. Its strangely not googleable... LOLZ.
If you think that the CIA is a U.S. intelligence agency working on the best interests of
the United States, you better wake up and smell the treason. They only work for the best
interests of themselves.
Here is a question. Why does the CIA not come out and clear the air re: Trump?
I mean they were even paying people to come up with dirt. He is now your president and the
country is a fucking mess. Should the CIA not come out and say we tried but we got nothing?
They do have the ability to fix all this Trump shit and yet crickets.
And the best interests of clients. The CIA started out is the muscle for the Dulles
Brothers clients who were being booted out of various countries they were super-exploiting.
The Agency hasn't looked back since.
Nobody got whizzed on. That lurid fantasy came soley out of the head of Hillary Clinton,
given to Blumenthal, passed around and made to look like it came from Russia.
It IS remarkable the stuff people believe when all logic goes against it. Like Oswald
firing magic bullets from an old Italian Carcano...and jet fuel melting steel beams...and a
building collapsing through the path of greatest resistance into its own footprint after NOT
being hit by an airplane...and Kennedy being shot from behind, but his head snapping
backwards from the impact...and Oswald picking the worst possible shooting location, but in
front of Kennedy were two intersecting highways going in any direction...and terrorist
passports floating gently down from the sky.
RFK and Nixon knew immediately the assassination of JFK was a CIA hit job because they had
CHAIRED those hit squad operations themselves for Cuban Operations. They saw the CIA- Cuban
hit squad fingerprints all over the kill. RFK had personally fired Wm Harvey, Dulles' chief
of assassinations. However, RFK was silenced because he and Jack had been tag-teaming Marilyn
Monroe.
The reason JFK was killed was a) his openly stated determination to shatter the CIA into a
thousand pieces so they could no longer operate as a dangerous, renegade private army; and b)
in the Spring of '63 JFK delivered his famous American U address calling for the end of the
Cold War...
Oswald was always a patsie... the WC documents how his rifle was inoperable... scope
needed parts just to be be sited and take aim... even after parts installed the rifle
attributed to Oswald remained highly inaccurate... Military sharpshooters couldn't even hit
stationary targets reliably.
Drain the swamp! Townsquare justice for Odumbo and Hitlery! George Soros to bathe in the
Amazon River with 1 million Piranha Fish until it completely disappears. Drain the evil
Dumorat swamp. Drain the banana republic CIA and FBI. Our tax dollars and constitution did
not pay for this shit.
With today's technology, the CIA is most likely working on a fake video for you right now.
They might release it on Vimeo or Netflix to cover the costs and give themselves plausible
deniability. To add a finishing touch they will make a fake video of Julian Assange claiming
he is releasing it. You'll be in hog heaven. Which is where folks like you go just before
being slaughtered by your owners and turned into spam.
Of course the story is a plant to introduce the hacking tools to cover the payment to
Russians for dirt on a sitting POTUS by his own Intel Agency...
And CNN, MSNBC, etc are still wall to wall Trump impeachment... they no longer even
pretend. Brain dead Erin Burnett opened with "the Republicans are at it again" to night (in
my regular 30 secs of checking in for a laugh)!
No shit, this is what I tell every Libtard when they cry the tired "Trump is corrupt and
evil" meme. If there was ANYTHING on Trump, it would have oversaturated the airwaves 24/7
during his candidacy, and he would have never made it out of the primaries.
So which is it? Is he the world's greatest evil retard idiot, or a 9000+ IQ genius that is
so slick and underhanded that he was able to collude with Putin, hide all evidence, and pull
off the biggest caper in the history of the United States by sneaking into the Presidency?
You can't have it both ways.
We must also give credit to the army of Russian bots that tell us how to think and act all
day, where would we be without them?
Of course the story is a plant to introduce the hacking tools to cover the payment to
Russians for dirt on a sitting POTUS by his own Intel Agency...
And CNN, MSNBC, etc are still wall to wall Trump impeachment... they no longer even
pretend. Brain dead Erin Burnett opened with "the Republicans are at it again" to night (in
my regular 30 secs of checking in for a laugh)!
No shit, this is what I tell every Libtard when they cry the tired "Trump is corrupt and
evil" meme. If there was ANYTHING on Trump, it would have oversaturated the airwaves 24/7
during his candidacy, and he would have never made it out of the primaries.
So which is it? Is he the world's greatest evil retard idiot, or a 9000+ IQ genius that is
so slick and underhanded that he was able to collude with Putin, hide all evidence, and pull
off the biggest caper in the history of the United States by sneaking into the Presidency?
You can't have it both ways.
We must also give credit to the army of Russian bots that tell us how to think and act all
day, where would we be without them?
More than you know, whenever Russian is stated, replace with Ukrainian. TPTB cannot help
themselves but push forward on another agenda as the current one falls apart. The Russophobia
is still being stoked no matter what.
Steele was a double agent, maybe triple. British,Ukrainian and probably American. Does
that start to make a little more sense ? Those huuuge donations to the CF from Ukraine,
McStains involvement, Steele's early retirement from MI6, Brennan's frequent trips to
Ukraine, State Dept.s role. Investigate the Chalupa sisters to find out who the rest of the
rats are.Lee Stranahan started before he was shut down.
Good point in the last sentence. If someone is going to "drain the swamp" it is going to
have to be the president of the United States. I think I'm correct that he can fire anyone
that works in the executive department for cause. He can also order investigations or hire
people who will launch real investigations.
Mr. President, if you want to "drain the swamp," drain it.
If there was a video it would of been leaked during the election, they have nothing that
sticks on the guy.
All the evidence thus far states
Obama Hillary the FBI, DNC, CIA all spied on Trump and colluded with foreign governments
(U.K. , Ukraine , Russia) to try and dig up dirt to use against Trump (and they more or less
failed).
They turned over every rock they could, look at that stupid hot-mic video in the bus, how
many hours of video did they have to go through to dig up that crumb? they went back
searching through 30+ years of content and thats all they could come up with.... some locker
room talk lol
People have to just face it.
Your government was and still is corrupt and its a weaponized system of control, Your
government colluded with the enemy in a desperate attempt to stop Trump from becoming
president. Your government started a sham "Russia investigation" to cover up its own crimes.
Your government applied a different standard of justice to the clintons than it would have to
you or anyone else.
To date ZERO evidence has been brought forward that Trump or anyone in his campaign did
anything wrong, and the only people that have done anything wrong so far were picked by "the
swamp" to fill positions..... all the others fell into petty perjury Traps on meaningless
topics and insignificant factoids.
Isn't it lovely to find out that your money and mine is being used by government agents to
give us the government they want?
It's sort of like a thug robbing you and using part of your money to pay another thug to
rough you up from time time to time if you ask any questions with the thugs believing it's
for our own good.
Thanks, Hillary, for looking out for us. You and your best buds are the best. Such
bighearted givers! Meanwhile, give our regards to your partner in slime Obama, although it
must pain you to have been bested by 'Beavis' who thinks so much of himself to balance out
how little he impresses anyone who knows him.
"U.S. intelligence officials told The Times" Sounds like the Donald is finally learning to cooperate better with his masters. They can
call off the hounds.
Ok - so we have yet another (likely factual) story here of overt, in-your-face abuse of
power and agency aimed directly at American citizens for political gain. And tomorrow? Probably another. And then another. Until: 'Bimbo Fatigue' Remember that phrase. If real justice isn't thrown down soon, you can forget it. Looks to me like (possibly) Trump imploring for public support - i.e., he can't do this
himself, or it's too dangerous and he knows it...
As taxpayers can we sue the CIA for misusing our funds? Pretty sure that buying sex videos
for commercial release isn't part of the CIA's lawful mandate even at bargain prices.
Why is the CIA trying to purchase dirt on a sitting President in 2017! Because they have nothing on him! And they are desperate to not all hang by the neck. The times are trying to portray this as Russian intelligence sowing discord between the US
intelligence agencies and Trump...Wrong! The US Intel agencies are sowing that discord all on
their fucking own. They weren't fooled at all, they created this fucking mess for their own
treasonous reasons and now want us to believe that hey...if we fucked up its because the big
bad russkies tricked us.
my sauces tell me that pink pussyhat wearing hollywood types have been called in because
they have a doppelganger for trump and access to 30,000 sexually abused victims that can act
as Russian prostitutes for just ten bucks each. snapchat has a trump emoji that can be transplanted onto any porn video star - male or
female - thus confirming that trump is a serial (serious?) user of ladies of the night
my sauces also tell me that the CIA offers a reward of 100,000 bucks (or 10 BTC) for every
photo-shopped (snap-shopped or porn-shopped) material.
of course, the CIA already owns many many porn movie studios and films, but it would
prefer third "party" movies - not from epstein's island where its operatives choose to rela
with a pizza.
the CIA "pink" budget for such movies is limited to just 5,000 clips or 5 billion of
taxpayers funds, whichever is the higher.
'The Russian, who has ties to organized criminals and money launderers' wtf! So far the
Russians are playing our CIA like a bunch of amateurs. And the deep state/dem's bought it
hook, line and sinker. Trump was right again. Dem's and Russia are colluding against a duly
elected Presidential candidate. I guess it's safe to say we need another order for more Rope.
Dem's and deepshit state just can't get enough of hanging themselves. This ain't over by a
long shot.
i call bullshit. you dont 'buy back' a software program that can be copied in 30 seconds.
this whole story is a fabrication just like the dossier. made up to inflect bad info on to
trump.
Yeah, I loved that one. "Here. I'm giving you back that software I ripped off from you. I
copied it to this CD and then deleted it from my computer... You know: wiped it with a
cloth."
And I love that the CIA thinks they can get away with a tale like that when everyone but
my 90-year-old mother-in-law knows how a digital file works.
So were these "patriotic" CIA superheroes interested in Bill Clinton's rapes, rapes and
more rapes? Were they concerned that he was snorting coke and using Arkansas state troopers
for procurers of hosebags for him to screw?
I mean if they're so concerned about Trump and a couple of hookers... Better put some ice on that, CIA.
You all are so ridiculous and fooled with your "drain the swamp" bs. It's a great idea but
Trump doing it is a joke, I mean just look at who he has hired, what's wrong with you all are
you blind?!!
He can't even fill 1/3 of the government positions he's supposed to and the ones he has
have no business holding the positions given to them and are so incompetent, downright
criminal or just personally horrendous humans that they can't stay in office more than a few
months. All their blatant and moronically concocted lies are backing them into corners every
day that they just try and lie out of again. America is over if we really have gotten to the
point that a group like Trump's has support, it's just astonishing.
"... The CIA, with the knowledge of the Director of National Intelligence, worked with British counterparts starting in the summer of 2015 to collect intelligence on Republican and at least one Democrat candidate. John Brennan was probably hoping that his proactive steps to help the Hillary Clinton campaign would ensure him taking over as DNI in the new Clinton Administration. Regardless of motives, the CIA enlisted the British intelligence community to start gathering intelligence on most major Republican candidates and on Bernie Sanders. This initial phase of intelligence gathering goes beyond opposition research. The information being gathered identified the key personnel in each campaign and identified the people outside the United States receiving their calls, texts and emails. This information was turned into intelligence reports that then were passed back to the United States intel community as "liaison reporting." This was not put into normal classified channels. This intelligence was put into a SAP, i.e. a Special Access Program. ..."
"... One person who needs to be called on the carpet and asked some hard questions is current CIA Director Gina Haspel. She was CIA Chief of Station in London at the time and was a regular attendee at the meeting of the Brit's Joint Intelligence Committee aka the JIC. I suppose it is possible she was cut out of the process, but I believe that is unlikely. ..."
"... I am confident that a survey of NSA and CIA liaison reporting will show that George Papadopoulos was identified as a possible target by the fall of 2015. Initially, his name was "masked." But we now know that many people on the Trump campaign had their names "unmasked." You cannot unmask someone unless their name is in an intelligence report. ..."
"... Sater's communication with Rozov were intercepted by western intelligence agencies -- GCHQ and NSA. I do not know which agency put it into an intel report, but it was put into the system. The Sater FD-1023 will tell us whether or not Sater did this at the direction of the FBI or acted on his own initiative. The key point is that the "bait" to do something with the Russians came from a registered FBI informant. ..."
"... That's good, sooner it's clarified the better, and the stronger the better, ..."
"... Best approach is to slaughter Donald for his bromance with Putin , but not go too far betting on Putin re Syria ..."
"... Hakluyt is described by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism's Henry Williams as " one of the more secretive firms within the corporate investigations world " and as "a retirement home for ex-MI6 [British foreign intelligence] officers, but it now also recruits from the worlds of management consultancy and banking " ..."
"... I do not believe that it is a mere coincidence that Australian diplomat, Alexander Downer, was the one credited by the FBI for launching the investigation into George Papadopolous : It was Downer who told the FBI of Papodopoulos' comments, which became one of the "driving factors that led the FBI to open an investigation in July 2016 into Russia's attempts to disrupt the election and whether any of President Trump's associates conspired," The Times reported. ..."
"... Downer, a long-time Aussie chum of Bill and Hillary Clinton, had been on Hakluyt's advisory board since 2008. Officially, he had to resign his Hakluyt role in 2014, but his informal connections continued uninterrupted, the News Corp. Australian Network reported in a January 2016 exclusive: ..."
"... I'm curious why they went after minor characters in the Trump campaign and not Jared or one of Trump's sons? From what I've read of Hoover, it seems he was constantly building "dossiers" of the powerful and those he considered "subversives" so that he would remain preeminent. Then there was the Church Committee investigation. Is this qualitatively different? Can we ever expect that law enforcement & intelligence with so much secretive power are not the 4th branch of government? ..."
"... Also involved - and I think Judge Ellis was very well aware of this - is a fundamental distinction relating to what law enforcement authorities are trying to achieve. If Mueller was honestly - even of perhaps misguidedly - trying to get witnesses to 'sing', that is hardly a mortal sin. If he was trying to get them to 'compose', then the question becomes whether he should be under indictment for subversion of the Constitution. ..."
"... Why aren't the MSM having a hissy fit about the real, documented election interference by the British Commonwealth/5 Eyes spooks in the 2016 campaign (and before)? The hoax of projecting onto Putin what they themselves have done must be exposed before the country move forward on any front. ..."
"... So, was Skripal one of Steele's so-called Kremlin insiders? I see Pablo Miller is connected to both Porton Down and Steele via the ironically titled II's media pods. And Miller is certainly connected to Skripal. ..."
Do not focus on July 2016 as the so-called start of the counter intelligence investigation of Donald Trump. That is a lie. We
know, thanks to the work of Judicial Watch, that the FBI had signed up Christopher Steele as a Confidential Human Source (aka CHS)
by February of 2016. It is incumbent on Attorney General Barr to examine the contact reports filed by Steele's FBI handler (those
reports are known as FD-1023s). He also, as I have noted in a previous post, needs to look at the FD-1023s for Felix Sater and Henry
Greenberg. But these will only tell a small part of the story. There is a massive intelligence side to this story.
The CIA, with the knowledge of the Director of National Intelligence, worked with British counterparts starting in the summer
of 2015 to collect intelligence on Republican and at least one Democrat candidate. John Brennan was probably hoping that his proactive
steps to help the Hillary Clinton campaign would ensure him taking over as DNI in the new Clinton Administration. Regardless of motives,
the CIA enlisted the British intelligence community to start gathering intelligence on most major Republican candidates and on Bernie
Sanders. This initial phase of intelligence gathering goes beyond opposition research. The information being gathered identified
the key personnel in each campaign and identified the people outside the United States receiving their calls, texts and emails. This
information was turned into intelligence reports that then were passed back to the United States intel community as "liaison reporting."
This was not put into normal classified channels. This intelligence was put into a SAP, i.e. a Special Access Program.
One person who needs to be called on the carpet and asked some hard questions is current CIA Director Gina Haspel. She was
CIA Chief of Station in London at the time and was a regular attendee at the meeting of the Brit's Joint Intelligence Committee aka
the JIC. I suppose it is possible she was cut out of the process, but I believe that is unlikely.
This initial phase of intelligence collection produced a great volume of intelligence that allowed analysts to identify key personnel
and the people they were communicating with overseas. You don't have to have access to intelligence information to understand this.
For example, you simply have to ask the question, "how did George Papadopoulos get on the radar." I am confident that a survey
of NSA and CIA liaison reporting will show that George Papadopoulos was identified as a possible target by the fall of 2015. Initially,
his name was "masked." But we now know that many people on the Trump campaign had their names "unmasked." You cannot unmask someone
unless their name is in an intelligence report. We also know that Felix Sater, a longtime business associate of Donald Trump
and an FBI informant since December 1998 (he was signed up by Andrew Weismann), initiated the proposal to do a Trump Tower in Moscow.
Don't take my word for it, that's what Robert Mueller reported:
In the late summer of 2015, the Trump Organization received a new inquiry about pursuing a Trump Tower project in Moscow. In approximately
September 2015, Felix Sater . . . contacted Cohen (i.e., Michael Cohen) on behalf of I.C. Expert Investment Company (I.C. Expert),
a Russian real-estate development corporation controlled by Andrei Vladimirovich Rozov. Sater had known Rozov since approximately
2007 and, in 2014, had served as an agent on behalf of Rozov during Rozov's purchase of a building in New York City. Sater later
contacted Rozov and proposed that I.C. Expert pursue a Trump Tower Moscow project in which I.C. Expert would license the name and
brand from the Trump Organization but construct the building on its own. Sater worked on the deal with Rozov and another employee
of I.C. Expert. (see page 69 of the Mueller Report).
Sater's communication with Rozov were intercepted by western intelligence agencies -- GCHQ and NSA. I do not know which agency
put it into an intel report, but it was put into the system. The Sater FD-1023 will tell us whether or not Sater did this at the
direction of the FBI or acted on his own initiative. The key point is that the "bait" to do something with the Russians came from
a registered FBI informant.
By December of 2015, the Hillary Campaign decided to use the Russian angle on Donald Trump. Thanks to Wikileaks we have Campaign
Manager John Podesta's email exchange in December 2015 with Democratic operative Brent Budowsky:
" That's good, sooner it's clarified the better, and the stronger the better, " Budowski replies, later adding: "
Best approach is to slaughter Donald for his bromance with Putin , but not go too far betting on Putin re Syria ."
The program to slaughter Donald Trump using Russia as the hatchet was already underway. This was more the opposition research.
This was the weaponization of law enforcement and intelligence assets to attack political opponents. Hillary had covered the opposition
research angle in London by hiring a firm comprised of former MI6 assets--
Hakluyt: there was a second, even more powerful and mysterious opposition research and intelligence firm lurking about
with significant political and financial links to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her 2016 campaign for president against
Donald Trump.
Meet London-based Hakluyt & Co. , founded by three former British intelligence
operatives in 1995 to provide the kind of otherwise inaccessible research for which select governments and Fortune 500 corporations
pay huge sums. . . .
Hakluyt is described by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism's
Henry
Williams as " one of the more secretive firms within the corporate investigations world " and as "a retirement home for ex-MI6
[British foreign intelligence] officers, but it now also recruits from the worlds of management consultancy and banking "
I do not believe that it is a mere coincidence that Australian diplomat, Alexander Downer, was the one credited by the FBI
for launching the investigation into
George Papadopolous : It was Downer who told the FBI of Papodopoulos' comments, which became one of the "driving factors that
led the FBI to open an investigation in July 2016 into Russia's attempts to disrupt the election and whether any of President Trump's
associates conspired," The Times reported.
Downer, a long-time Aussie chum of Bill and Hillary Clinton, had been on Hakluyt's advisory board since 2008. Officially,
he had to resign his Hakluyt role in 2014, but his informal connections continued uninterrupted, the News Corp. Australian Network
reported in a January 2016 exclusive:
But it can be revealed Mr. Downer has still been attending client conferences and gatherings of the group, including a client
cocktail soirée at the Orangery at Kensington Palace a few months ago.
His attendance at that event is understood to have come days after he also attended a two-day country retreat at the invitation
of the group, which has been involved in a number of corporate spy scandals in recent times.
Much remains to be uncovered in this plot. But this much is certain--there is an extensive documentary record, including TOP SECRET
intelligence reports (SIGINT and HUMINT) and emails and phone calls that will show there was a concerted covert action operation
mounted against Donald Trump and his campaign. Those documents will tell the story. This cannot be allowed to happen again.
Having watched interviews of Papadopoulos on TeeVee I would say that this creature would be easy to manipulate. His ego is so
enormous that a minimal effort would be required.
I'm curious why they went after minor characters in the Trump campaign and not Jared or one of Trump's sons? From what
I've read of Hoover, it seems he was constantly building "dossiers" of the powerful and those he considered "subversives" so that
he would remain preeminent. Then there was the Church Committee investigation. Is this qualitatively different? Can we ever expect
that law enforcement & intelligence with so much secretive power are not the 4th branch of government?
The guts of the matter was well expressed by Judge T.S. Ellis when he made the distinction between different results which
can be expected from exerting pressures on witnesses: they may 'sing' - which is, commonly, in the interests of justice - but,
there again, they may 'compose', which is not.
Also involved - and I think Judge Ellis was very well aware of this - is a fundamental distinction relating to what law
enforcement authorities are trying to achieve. If Mueller was honestly - even of perhaps misguidedly - trying to get witnesses
to 'sing', that is hardly a mortal sin. If he was trying to get them to 'compose', then the question becomes whether he should
be under indictment for subversion of the Constitution.
Yes, indeed, many a composition have been elicited by prosecutors in criminal cases. The issue is there is no penalty for prosecutorial
misconduct while the advancement points ratchet up with each conviction. The incentives are aligned perfectly for the "institution"
to run rough shod on ordinary Americans. Only those wealthy enough to fight the unlimited funds of the government have a chance.
But of course in matters relating to national security there is the added twist of state secrets that protects government malfeasance.
I don't know how the national security state we continue to build ever gets rolled back. A small victory would be for Trump
to declassify all documents and communications relating to the multifaceted spying on his campaign and as Larry so eloquently
writes to frame him as a Manchurian Candidate. At least the public will learn about what their grandchildren are paying for. But
it seems that Trump prefers tweeting to taking any kind of action. Not that it would matter much as half the country will still
believe that Trump deserves it until the tables are turned on their team. While most Americans will say to use Ben Hunt's phrasing
Yay! Constitution. Yay! Liberty. they sure don't care as the state oligarchy tighten their chokehold.
Yes, he seems young and ambitious enough to be easy (and willing) prey. Having been involved in some local political campaigns
though, I've observed that more and more than before, young people like him are hyper-concerned with networking. Papadopoulos'
ego aside, of course he and many people who sign on hope to make self-serving connections. Not only that, it's also been my observation
that casual sexual hook-ups go with the territory, and not only among young, single guys like him. I have to say I've been shocked
a few times by how risky and cavalier some liaisons have been that've come to my attention, considering "public figures" are involved.
No doubt that's why a "honeypot" was dispatched to try to help entrap Papadopoulos.
Why aren't the MSM having a hissy fit about the real, documented election interference by the British Commonwealth/5 Eyes
spooks in the 2016 campaign (and before)? The hoax of projecting onto Putin what they themselves have done must be exposed before
the country move forward on any front.
So, was Skripal one of Steele's so-called Kremlin insiders? I see Pablo Miller is connected to both Porton Down and Steele
via the ironically titled II's media pods. And Miller is certainly connected to Skripal.
Papadopolos was very young hence the nativity getting sucked in. The ego helped for sure. Probably exciting to be part of something
important probably for the first time since he started working for Trump campaign
One thing that's always concerned me about Larry's informative and insightful essays on these matters is how can we be assured
that the IC documentation mentioned has been filled out honestly and accurately -- or that the forms even still exist and haven't
been conveniently "lost" or surreptitiously destroyed?
"... The Jimi Dore show is what the Daily Show used to be. ..."
"... NYTimes and Washington Post won the Pulitzer prizes for "thorough coverage" of 2016 Russia collusion ..."
"... The xenophobia towards Russia is higher than during the cold war. It's embarrassing imo. ..."
"... 14:52 Russian Troll farm: spends 15k on adds America: We lost the war we are no longer a sovereign nation ..."
"... Russiagate distracts from the very real Israelgate. #BDS ..."
"... so alex jones got banned from all platforms for being a conspiracy theorist while the MSM were pushing one for two years?! wow ..."
"... Pretty sure psychopaths will not feel embarrassment or humiliation, only rage and vengeance. ..."
"... CNN is actually a cult and It has a following. ..."
"... The funny thing about Dems claiming Trump wouldn't accept the result of the election - Cohen testified to Congress that Trump actually expected to lose and was running as a PR stunt. ..."
"... Keith Olbermann is Grandpa Maddow ..."
"... If somebody in power is after you, the feds will indict a ham sandwich... ..."
"... I kinda figured out myself that this Russia Gate was a load of lies and/or wishful thinking. Jimmy and his guests showed me that i wasn't wrong of nuts even. Thanks Jimmy, for hooking me up. ..."
"... We've known all along this has been a coup. This is not news to the informed. ..."
"... The Soviet Union moved from Russia, to the ruling class of DC and NYC. ..."
Now that Trump has agreed to go along with the war with Russia, they will back off on Trump and let him continue provoking
Russia in Syria, Venezuela and by flying US planes into Russian air space. Mueller helped Bush lie America into destroying Iraq.
US Empire wants military bases in more and more nations.
The funny thing about Dems claiming Trump wouldn't accept the result of the election - Cohen testified to Congress that Trump
actually expected to lose and was running as a PR stunt. LOL. Can't make this stuff up. The danger here is that the what really
happened was a deep state effort with mainstream media to overthrow a lawfully elected president of country. That's scarier than
any thing Trump may ever do.
I'm a conservative and have tremendous amount of respect for Jimmy Dore and Aaron Mate'. I may not agree with them on specific
policies but I know these two guys come from a sincere, honest place. I usually just blow off liberal rhetoric but I listen to
what Jimmy has to say. God bless them
FLYNN The FBI has concluded that Michael Flynn did not have any secret relationship with Russia and has cleared the retired
Lt. General of any wrongdoing. According to a U.S. intelligence official speaking with NPR, after reviewing the transcripts, FBI
agents found that Michael Flynn's forced resignation could only have been orchestrated from Obama insiders operating within the
White House.
"The FBI reviewed intercepts
of communications between the Russian ambassador to the United States and retired Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn -- national security
adviser to then-President-elect Trump -- but has not found any evidence of wrongdoing or illicit ties to the Russian government,
U.S. officials said."
Another current U.S Intelligence official agreed with the FBI and told NPR , "there is no evidence of criminal
wrongdoing in the transcripts of of former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn's conversations with Russian Ambassador Sergey
Kislyak, The official also said there was "absolutely nothing" in the transcripts that suggests Flynn was acting under instructions
"or that the trail leads higher." "I don't think [Flynn] knew he was doing anything wrong," the official said. "Flynn talked about
sanctions, but no specific promises were made. Flynn was speaking more in general 'maybe we'll take a look at this going forward'
terms."
So why aren't we listening to the officials who actually HEARD the calls? Don't be fooled, this isn't about Flynn discussing
sanctions or anything else with Russia for that matter. This is about delegitimizing a president. There is a reason why Democrats
are still determined to investigate Flynn even though he has already resigned. They are using this as a way to prove that Trump
was "in with Russia" and therefore an illegitimate president. Democrats will stop at nothing to get Trump out of the White House.
They don't care how many lives they have to ruin.
Communists on the Left colluded with Soviet Russia for decades and infiltrated politics, academia, education, media. Now
that Russia doesn't represent a threat and is now a growing Christian democracy...they hate it.
Jimmy: they (the globalist elite) want to defeat all of us. We all (Progressives, Christians, Conservatives, people who love
their country ) are on the same boat. The globalists want to destroy all of us. They are against the nation state, against people
having their own culture and defending it, they are against Christians (look at the way Obama referred to Catholics who were attacked
in Sri Lanka (Easter worshippers)), they are against true democracy meaning against a government that has the true interest of
their citizens in mind not the interest of the elite that controls all branches of the government. I might disagree with your
socialist policies and particularly what you said about Venezuela (I am from Colombia and saw the disastrous policies of Chavez
and Maduro destroying that nation) but we all have a common enemy and the Right and the true Left should come together in this
fight.
Because (CIA agent) Anderson "Cooper" Vanderbilt is the most trusted "NAME™" in News. Yeah, right. We already know the truth
about this porky mofo. His time is coming.
Remember this is the Special Counsel Investigation, the "Ultimate" Investigation. Which is also the 3rd Investigation. We already
had the House & then the Senate Investigate Russia Collusion & both came up with NO Evidence. So they started as Special Counsel
Investigation which has now come up with the same Conclusion as they did🤔
I always believed in you when it came to Russia Jimmy. I don't agree with you on everything, but you and Kyle are definitely
one of the new progressives that didn't go off the deep end with this conspiracy.
And yes, exactly what Aaron says. I kinda figured out myself that this Russia Gate was a load of lies and/or wishful thinking.
Jimmy and his guests showed me that i wasn't wrong of nuts even. Thanks Jimmy, for hooking me up.
It's only fair that "news journalists" start doing stand-up routines - it's your fault Jimmy for taking over the role of serious
news journalism from them, was probably inevitable, LOL.
I used to respect Keith Olberman (and Rachael Maddow as well!) when they were criticizing Bush for lying us into a war over
a non existent weapons of mass destruction program. I think these living colostomy bags are promoted to their positions to undermine
legitimate criticism of the criminal dirtbags that run this nation. They were right about Bush Jr, wrong about Obozo - and of
course, other...
The two of you are both great! I think so highly of Aaron, and the fact that he seems to have chosen Jimmy's show for his first
lengthy take on the "end of Russiagate" is telling! Both of you deserve our props and thanks for helping keep us ALL sane over
the past couple of years.
I'm sure they all still believe Trump will be indicted or impeached "any day now". These people are mentally unstable, they
are the textbook example of delusional.
<
So we have a lying media, directly opposed to the interests of the American people. Aside
from whining about it, what is to be done?>
First, learn the method:
"The more I argued with them, the better I came to know their dialectic. First they
counted on the stupidity of their adversary, and then, when there was no other way out, they
themselves simply played stupid. If all this didn't help, they pretended not to understand,
or, if challenged, they changed the subject in a hurry, quoted platitudes which, if you
accepted them, they immediately related to entirely different matters, and then, if again
attacked, gave ground and pretended not to know exactly what you were talking about. Whenever
you tried to attack one of these apostles, your hand closed on a jelly-like slime which
divided up and poured through your fingers, but in the next moment collected again. But if
you really struck one of these fellows so telling a blow that, observed by the audience, he
couldn't help but agree, and if you believed that this had taken you at least one step
forward, your amazement was great the next day. The J_w had not the slightest recollection of
the day before, he rattled off his same old nonsense as though nothing at all had happened,
and, if indignantly challenged, affected amazement; he couldn't remember a thing, except that
he had proved the correctness of his assertions the previous day.
Sometimes I stood there thunderstruck. I didn't know what to be more amazed at: the agility
of their tongues or their virtuosity at lying. Gradually I began to hate them."
I don't want to say # AGBarr is positively engaged
on the Dem(on)rats. His mere level headed and professionalism exposed the Dem(on)rats' circus act.
Notable quotes:
"... You might remember that McCabe picked Goldman of all people to interview him about the use of 'Confidential Human Sources' in Operation Crossfire Hurricane - funny that! ..."
"... Goldman's (McCabe's) argument is that the President was a national security risk because he fired Comey. "Counterintelligence investigators had to consider whether the president's own actions constituted a possible threat to national security." ..."
"... 3 years and at least 33 million have been wasted in attempt to link Trump campaign to Russian intelligence ..."
"... Brennan used any Russian talking to a U.S. person as a reason to surveillance the U.S. person. Red scare...the century old excuse used by the FBI to illegally spy on Americans. The history books won't describe his actions as honorable ..."
"... What was it that prompted Goldman (ie McCabe) to publish his latest article on the FBI Russia investigation? Answer: Barr's criticism's of the FBI. ..."
"... CIA/FBI helping each other out. Informally of course. Standard off the books quid pro quo. ..."
"... The F.B.I. received the information from the Australian government on July 26, 2016, the special counsel's report said, and the bureau code-named its investigation Crossfire Hurricane . ..."
Both the Washington Post and CNN - which breathlessly reported on their peers' anonymously-sourced anti-Trump propaganda for two
years - have somehow failed to write a single article mentioning Azra Turk . As the Times revealed on Thursday, the FBI operative
who went by the name Azra Turk repeatedly flirted with Trump aide George Papadopoulos during their encounters as well as in email
exchanges according to an October, 2018
Daily Caller report, confirmed by
the Times.
While in London in 2016, Ms. Turk exchanged emails with Mr. Papadopoulos, saying meeting him had been the " highlight of my
trip ," according to messages provided by Mr. Papadopoulos.
" I am excited about what the future holds for us :), " she wrote. -
New York Times
And as the Times makes clear, "the FBI sent her to London as part of the counterintelligence inquiry opened that summer" to investigate
the Trump campaign. Verified account @ ByronYork May 2 Follow Follow @ ByronYork Following
Following @ ByronYork Unfollow Unfollow @ ByronYork Blocked Blocked @ ByronYork Unblock Unblock @ ByronYork Pending Pending follow
request from @ ByronYork Cancel Cancel your follow request to @ ByronYork More
In his House testimony, George Papadopoulos described undercover FBI informant Stefan Halper introducing him to undercover FBI
informant 'Azra Turk.' pic.twitter.com/8jO4lK6Ldt
So I get there. I get to
London. And he introduces -- or he does not introduce me to, but I can't remember exactly how I came into contact with his assistant,
this young lady named Azra Turk, which I think is a fake name, by the way. My --
Mr. Meadows. Why do you believe it's a fake name?
Mr. Papadopoulos. Reading -- reading Twitter and people saying that Azra in Turkish means pure and then Turk. So unless she has
the name of pure Turk. I don't know. Maybe that's -- those are common names in Turkey. I don't know. But it just seems that it was
probably a fake alias.
Another beautiful young lady -- you know, I had many young beautiful ladies coming into my life with Joseph Mifsud and now another
professor. The professors liked to introduce me to young beautiful women.
And we're sitting there, and she didn't strike me as a Cambridge associate at all. So right away, I was suspicious that there
was something not right here. She -- her English was very bad. She spoke with -- I think she was a Turkish national, but she also
might have been a dual American citizen. I'm not sure. And she took me to -- out for drinks in London and was probing me a lot.
Meanwhile, a Russian-born academic falsely accused of being a Kremlin 'honeypot' operative against Mike Flynn, Svetlana Lokhova,
has an interesting theory as to why the Times published the '2nd spy' revelation in the first place.
I am a 'veteran' of reading Adam Goldman (NYT) articles about Halper's role with the FBI so here are pointers. You always have
to ask: 1) Why did he write the article? 2) When did he write the article? 3) What is the narrative he is placing? 4) What has
he left out? THREAD
2/ You might remember that McCabe picked Goldman of all people to interview him about the use of 'Confidential Human Sources'
in
Operation Crossfire Hurricane - funny that!
Andrew McCabe intervied by NYT's Adam Goldma...
Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe discussed his career, the FBI, and his firing from the Bureau. He was interviewed
by New York Times reporter Adam Go...
4/ Goldman's (McCabe's) argument is that the President was a national security risk because he fired Comey. "Counterintelligence
investigators had to consider whether the president's own actions constituted a possible threat to national security."
3 years and at least 33 million have been wasted in attempt to link Trump campaign to Russian intelligence. As I stated 2 years
ago, I am not A Russian honeytrap for Gen Flynn.
Brennan used any Russian talking to a U.S. person as a reason to surveillance the U.S. person. Red scare...the century
old excuse used by the FBI to illegally spy on Americans. The history books won't describe his actions as honorable
Svetlana Lokhova @RealSLokhova • 7h v
7/ This is Goldman's implausible explanation for spying. The President is portrayed as nuts, nytimes.com/2018/05/18/us/...
President Trump accused the without evidence, of planting a mole inside his campaign to undermine his presidential run. But
the F.B.I. in fact dispatched a confidential informant to meet with Trump campaign advisers as it began its investigation into
possible links between his campaign and Russia.
8/ What was it that prompted Goldman (ie McCabe) to publish his latest article on the FBI Russia investigation? Answer:
Barr's criticism's of the FBI.
Barr: One of the things I want to look -- there are people -- many people seem to assume that the only intelligence collection
that occurred was a single confidential informant and a FISA warrant. I would like to find out whether that is, in fact, true.
It strikes me as a fairly anemic effort if that was the counterintelligence effort designed to stop the threat as it's being represented.
9/ The message by NYT (McCabe) is that the FBI threw their best guys at this, hence sudden reference to Operation 'Ghost Stories'.
10/ The main message is that the Russia investigation was legally predicated,
CNN law enforcement analyst and retired FBI agent James A. Gagliano opined on Twitter that perhaps the Times was helping the intelligence
community get out in front of the upcoming Inspector General report on the FBI's conduct during the 2016 election.
James A. Gagliano @JamesAGagliano
Must caveat with -- would have had to have been a "CERTIFIED" FBI Undercover Agent (UCA), who had passed the UCA course,
been pre-screened (psychologicals) and been handpicked by FBI HQ for a high-profile overseas assignment. Also, Legat London
would've assuredly coordinated w/MI5.
James A. Gagliano @JamesAGagliano
Unless it was foreign intelligence service supplying the "honey trap.'' Papadopoulos argued *Azra Turk* had thick accent
-- which wouldn't preclude her from FBI service, if US citizen. Some argue Agency employee. Surmise, absent heavy redaction,
pending IG report lays this bare.
James A. Gagliano @JamesAGagliano
MAYBE this is why @nytimes helped get out in front of the news cycle that will roil following IG report that may be released
this month or next.
As I understand it, the CIA is not supposed to be involved with spying on American citizens, but the FBI has wide ranging latitude.
This article says she was presumed to be FBI, but Papadoploulos says he thinks she was CIA. So, it would be a graver offense if
she was CIA and busy performing illegal spying activities on an American citizen.
If I am fuzzy on this, maybe someone can clarify who knows the rules a little better.
MSM burying the truth? Well imagine my shock. I'm surprised the likes of CNN and Facebook are still trying to hide their ban
on truth and just openly claim truth is hate speech.
If you work at the CIA, do you get "honeypot" privileges ?
They must have a lot of downtime.
Wonder if "honeypot" is a line item in the CIA budget and how they forecast that. Do their rates decline over time, maybe with
an associated depletion account set up like for petroleum reserves. Lots of questions here.
"Mr. Barr reignited the controversy last month when
he told
Congress , "I think spying on a political campaign is a big deal." He backed off the charged declaration later in the same
hearing, saying: "I think spying did occur. The question is whether it was adequately predicated. And I'm not suggesting that
it wasn't adequately predicated. But I need to explore that." "
......
Mr. Barr again defended his use of the term "spying" at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Wednesday, saying he wanted
to know more about the F.B.I.'s investigative efforts during 2016 and explained that the early inquiry most likely went beyond
the use of an informant and a court-authorized wiretap of a former Trump campaign adviser, Carter Page, who had interacted with
a Russian intelligence officer.
.....
Weeks before Mr. Papadopoulos met with Ms. Turk and Mr. Halper, the F.B.I. had opened its investigation into the Russia effort
-- based largely on information that Mr. Papadopoulos had relayed to an Australian diplomat about a Russian offer to help the
Trump campaign by releasing thousands of hacked Democratic emails.
The F.B.I. received the information from the Australian government on July 26, 2016, the special counsel's report said, and
the bureau code-named its investigation
Crossfire Hurricane .
Investigators scrambled to determine whether Mr. Papadopoulos had any Russian contacts while deciding to scrutinize three additional
Trump campaign aides who had concerning ties to Russia: Paul Manafort, its chairman; Michael T. Flynn, who went on to be the president's
first national security adviser; and Mr. Page.
His response: "I'm just going to leave it right now as a 'government investigator.' I use that wording for a reason, and
I'm going to leave it at that."
Priceless!
Not FBI, just a 'government investigator.' and "I use that wording for a reason," and people on Twitter all trying to solve
that complicated puzzle ! LOL.
"... Zero Percent of Elite Commentators Oppose Regime Change in Venezuela ..."
"... It's so frustrating to see the current lunacy in the mainstream media, and the idiotocracy at work in Washington DC, regardless of political party or who's fat ass sits in the oval office. Tulsi Gabbard is about the only sane person in DC right now on foreign affairs - forget Sanders, Warren and 'regular guy' Joe Biden ..."
< somewhat surprising to me at first glance, but with a little further thought, as to be
expected - the US media is corporate controlled, pro-militarism, pro-interventionism,
pro-armaments sales, and totally pro-regime change - anywhere in the world. All
editorialists are neo-colonialists and imperialists at heart, regardless of who occupies
the white house>
Zero Percent of Elite Commentators Oppose Regime Change in Venezuela
A FAIR survey of US opinion journalism on Venezuela found no voices in elite corporate
media that opposed regime change in that country. Over a three-month period (1/15/19 --
4/15/19), zero opinion pieces in the New York Times and Washington Post took an anti --
regime change or pro-Maduro/Chavista position.
Not a single commentator on the big three
Sunday morning talkshows or PBS NewsHour came out against President Nicolás Maduro
stepping down from the Venezuelan government.....
Let's make a mess of Venezuela, you know, like the US has done across the middle
east/north Africa since.... well since almost forever....
It's so frustrating to see the current lunacy in the mainstream media, and the idiotocracy
at work in Washington DC, regardless of political party or who's fat ass sits in the oval
office. Tulsi Gabbard is about the only sane person in DC right now on foreign affairs -
forget Sanders, Warren and 'regular guy' Joe Biden
"... The truth is, that a foreign government did indeed meddle in the American Presidential election, in a failed attempt to fix the outcome, but it was not Russia. It was the City of London, and the Five Eyes imperial intelligence services of the British Commonwealth, along with treasonous, "Tory" American elements. If that admission is forced to the surface, through the vigorous actions of all that oppose the presently dominant Big Lie tyranny, that revelation will shock and liberate people all over the world. The mental stranglehold of "fake news" media outlets can be permanently broken. That is the task of the next days and weeks. ..."
"... Apart from documenting the presence of "former" British intelligence agent Christopher Steele, former MI6 head Sir Richard Dearlove, and former GCHQ head Robert Hannigan at the center of the Russiagate campaign against President Trump for the past several years, we must, in order to expose this successfully, identify not only what was actually done and who was doing it, but the deeper policy motivation: why it was done. ..."
"... President Donald Trump has no vested interest in protecting the British "special relationship." From his second day in office, Trump declared that he would clean out the intelligence agencies. If Trump were to do that, however, the real, tragic history of America's last 50 years would be exhumed from that swamp. Shining a light into that darkness would illuminate the world. The American people would stop playing Othello to the City of London's Iago. They would denounce the British "special relationship," never again to fight imperial wars for the greater glory of the British Empire. They would learn the true story of Vietnam, of Iraq 1991 and Iraq 2003, of Libya 2011, and many other conflicts, special operations, and assassinations. The American people would know the truth, and the truth would set them free. ..."
"... The current insurrection against the United States Presidency is part of a global strategic battle: will a conspiracy of republican forces overcome the modern day British imperial system, centered in the hot money centers of the City of London and Wall Street, or will the oligarchical system once again triumph, immiserating all but the very wealthy? That is the real issue of the insurrection against the maverick American president being conducted by the London and NATO-centered enforcers of the old world. To paraphrase the American Declaration of Independence, ..."
"... According to CIA Director John Brennan's Congressional testimony, the British began complaining loudly about candidate Trump and Russia in late 2015. Brennan's statements were echoed in articles in The Guardian . According to Brennan, intelligence leads about Trump and Russia had been forwarded to Brennan from both British intelligence and from Estonia. ..."
"... This task force targeted Trump campaign volunteers Carter Page and George Papadopoulos in entrapment operations on British soil, using British agents, during the spring and summer of 2016. ..."
"... Hannigan abruptly resigned from GCHQ shortly after the election, sparking widespread speculation that the British were making an attempt at damage control. ..."
"... In 2016, the Manafort investigation migrated to the Democratic National Committee with direct assistance provided by Ukrainian state intelligence. This effort was led by Alexandra Chalupa, an admirer of Stepan Bandera and other heroes of Nazi history in Ukraine. Chalupa also had deep connections to British-oriented networks at the U.S. State Department. ..."
"... The final nail in this case has been provided by The Hill 's John Solomon. He says that Steele told former Associate Attorney General Bruce Ohr about the sources for the dirty dossier. According to Solomon, Ohr's notes reveal one main source, a former senior Russian intelligence official living in the United States. But, as anyone familiar with the territory would know, there is no such retired senior Russian intelligence official living in the United States whose entire life is not controlled by the CIA. ..."
"... As a result of Congressional investigations of Russiagate, it has become abundantly clear that the British operation against Trump was aided and abetted by the Obama White House, the State Department, the CIA, the FBI, and personalities associated with the National Endowment for Democracy. ..."
"... Out of the Ukraine coup, an entire military-centered propaganda apparatus arose, first through NATO, and then out from there to military units and diplomatic centers in the U.S., Europe, and Britain, to run low intensity operations, and black propaganda, against Russia. ..."
"... The British end of the operation includes the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, and NATO's Strategic Communications Center. In the United States, the Integrity Initiative has been integrated into the Global Engagement Center at the U.S. State Department. Most certainly, this operation is poised again to intervene in the U.S. elections; the British House of Lords have stated explicitly, in their December 2018 report, British Foreign Policy in a Shifting World Order, that Donald Trump must not be re-elected. ..."
"... This is why the British are yelping that under no circumstances can the classified documents concerning their role in the attempted coup against Donald Trump be declassified. It would end their leverage over the United States and much of Europe. That is why these documents must indeed be declassified, and parallel investigations by citizens and government officials concerned with ending the imperial system, otherwise known as the current "war party," must begin in earnest. ..."
"... Why did the DNC not allow the FBI to investigate the so-called" Russian hacked" emails? Rather, they hire CrowdStrike did you know: ..."
"... War with Afghanistan was Obama's payoff to the MIC, just as Russia is now Trump's payoff. ..."
"... The important truth about the emails is in their authenticity and in the contents. No one has even attempted to claim that they are not authentic or that the contents we've seen are other than the actual contents of the authentic messages. ..."
"... That is what i think. People should not concentrate on how, who and where. This is just a smokescreen to avoid talking about the content of the emails and Hillary Clinton's disgusting actions. She is a criminal and a murderess just like Obama and Tony Blair are lyers and mass murderers. ..."
The British Role in 'Russiagate' Is About to Be Fully Exposed April 8, 2019
20190408-russiagate-exposed-brits.pdf
The "fake news" media has now dropped its pretense of having ever had any intention of allowing the truth -- as documented in
U.S. Attorney General Barr's summary of Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller's report, exonerating President Donald Trump of having
"conspired or coordinated with the Russian government" -- to thoroughly refute the Russiagate "Big Lie." Soon, however, it is certain
that the deliberate, British Intelligence-originated, military-grade disinformation campaign carried out against the United States,
including to this day, will be exposed.
The truth is, that a foreign government did indeed meddle in the American Presidential election, in a failed attempt to fix
the outcome, but it was not Russia. It was the City of London, and the Five Eyes imperial intelligence services of the British Commonwealth,
along with treasonous, "Tory" American elements. If that admission is forced to the surface, through the vigorous actions of all
that oppose the presently dominant Big Lie tyranny, that revelation will shock and liberate people all over the world. The mental
stranglehold of "fake news" media outlets can be permanently broken. That is the task of the next days and weeks.
"It's hard to find a black cat in a dark room, especially if there is no cat," says the Chinese proverb. Yet, although the Mueller
report was called a "nothing burger," it was not: it still presented the potentially lethal lie that twelve Russian gremlins, code-named
Guccifer 2.0, hacked the DNC. Sundry media meatheads thus continue to blog and broadcast about "what else is really there."
The false Russian hack story, still being repeated, marches on, undeterred, like the emperor without any clothes. One lame-brained
variation, promoted in order to cover up the British role, states that Hillary Clinton, rather than Trump, colluded with the Russians.
It is being repeated by Republicans and Democrats alike, some of them malicious, some of them confused, and all of them completely
wrong. The media, such as the failed New York Times and various electronic media, must be forced to either admit the truth,
or be even more thoroughly discredited than they already have been. They must stop their constant repetition of this Joseph Goebbels-like
Big Lie. There must be a vigorous dissemination of the truth by all those journalists, politicians, activists and citizens that love
truth more than their own assumptions, including about President Trump, or other dearly-held systems of false belief.
Apart from documenting the presence of "former" British intelligence agent Christopher Steele, former MI6 head Sir Richard
Dearlove, and former GCHQ head Robert Hannigan at the center of the Russiagate campaign against President Trump for the past several
years, we must, in order to expose this successfully, identify not only what was actually done and who was doing it, but the deeper
policy motivation: why it was done.
A New Cultural Paradigm
The world is actually on the verge of ending the military conflicts among the major world powers, such as Russia, China, the United
States, and India. These four powers, and not the City of London, are the key fulcrum around which a new era in humanity's future
will be decided. A new monetary and credit system brought into being through these four powers would foster the greatest physical
economic growth in the history of humanity. In addition, discussions involving Italy working with China on the industrialization
of the African continent (discussions which could soon also involve the United States) show that sections of Europe want to join
China's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and leave the dying trans-Atlantic financial empire behind.
The recent announcement of a United States commitment to return to the Moon by 2024 can, in particular, become the basis for a
proposal to other nations -- for example, China, Russia, and India, all of whom are space powers of demonstrated capability -- to
resolve their differences on Earth in a higher, joint mission. As Russia's Roscosmos Director Dmitry Rogozin said in a recent interview:
"I am a fierce proponent of international cooperation, including with Americans, because their country is big and technologically
advanced, and they can make good partners Especially since personal and professional relations between Roscosmos and NASA at the
working level are great."
There is also the possibility of ending the danger of thermonuclear war. President Trump, speaking on April 4 of the prospects
for world peace, stated:
"Between Russia, China, and us, we're all making hundreds of billions of dollars worth of weapons, including nuclear, which is
ridiculous. I think it's much better if we all got together and didn't make these weapons those three countries I think can come
together and stop the spending and spend on things that are more productive toward long-term peace."
This is a statement of real importance. Such an outlook is a rejection of the "perpetual crisis/perpetual war" outlook of the
Bush-Obama Administration, a four-term "war presidency" which was abruptly, unexpectedly ended in 2016. The British were not amused.
It is to stop this new cultural paradigm, pivoted on the Pacific and the potential Four Powers alliance, that British imperial
forces have deployed. The 2016 election of President Trump, and his personal friendship with President Xi Jinping and desire to work
with President Putin, are an intolerable strategic threat to the eighteenth-century geopolitics of the British empire. They have
repeatedly used Russiagate to disrupt the process of deliberation among Presidents Xi, Trump, and Putin, thus increasing the danger
of war. Russiagate, in the interest of international security, must be ended by exposing it for the utter fraud that it is.
The Truth Set Free
President Donald Trump has no vested interest in protecting the British "special relationship." From his second day in office,
Trump declared that he would clean out the intelligence agencies. If Trump were to do that, however, the real, tragic history of
America's last 50 years would be exhumed from that swamp. Shining a light into that darkness would illuminate the world. The American
people would stop playing Othello to the City of London's Iago. They would denounce the British "special relationship," never again
to fight imperial wars for the greater glory of the British Empire. They would learn the true story of Vietnam, of Iraq 1991 and
Iraq 2003, of Libya 2011, and many other conflicts, special operations, and assassinations. The American people would know the truth,
and the truth would set them free.
The current insurrection against the United States Presidency is part of a global strategic battle: will a conspiracy of republican
forces overcome the modern day British imperial system, centered in the hot money centers of the City of London and Wall Street,
or will the oligarchical system once again triumph, immiserating all but the very wealthy? That is the real issue of the insurrection
against the maverick American president being conducted by the London and NATO-centered enforcers of the old world. To paraphrase
the American Declaration of Independence,
"The history of the present Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the
undermining of the United States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world."
DOCUMENTATION
While Robert Mueller found that there was "no collusion" between Donald Trump or the Trump Campaign and Russia, he also filed
two indictments regarding alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election. The first alleges that 12 members of Russian Military
Intelligence hacked the DNC and John Podesta and delivered the purloined files to WikiLeaks for strategic publication before the
July 2016 Democratic National Convention and in October 2016, one month before the election. The second indictment charges the Internet
Research Agency, a Russian internet merchandising and marketing firm, with running social media campaigns in the U.S. in 2016 designed
to impact the election. When the fuller version of the Mueller report becomes public, it is certain to recharge the claims of Russian
interference based on the so-called background "evidence" supporting these indictments.
The good news, however, is that investigations in the United States and Britain, have unearthed significant contrary evidence
exposing British Intelligence, NATO, and, to a lesser extent, Ukraine, as the actual foreign actors in the 2016 U.S. presidential
election. We provide a short summary of the main aspects of that evidence to spark further investigations of the British intelligence
networks, entities, and methods at issue, internationally. More detailed accounts concerning specific aspects of what we recite here
can be found on our website.
The Russian Hack That Wasn't
The Veterans Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, an association of former U.S. intelligence officials, have demonstrated that
the Russian hack of the DNC alleged by Robert Mueller, was more likely an internal leak,
rather than a hack conducted
over the internet. William Binney, who conducted the main investigations for the VIPS, spent 30 years at the National Security Agency,
becoming Technical Director. He designed the sorts of NSA programs that would detect a Russian hack if one occurred. Binney conducted
an actual forensic examination of the DNC files released by WikiLeaks, and the related files circulated by the persona Guccifer 2.0,
who Robert Mueller claims is a GRU creation. Binney has demonstrated that the calculated transfer speeds and metadata characteristics
of these files are consistent with downloading to a thumb drive or storage device rather than an internet-based hack. This supports
the account by WikiLeaks of how it obtained the files. According to WikiLeaks and former Ambassador Craig Murray, they were obtained
from a person who was not a Russian state actor of any kind, in Washington, D.C. WikiLeaks offered to tell the Justice Department
all about this, and actual negotiations to this effect were proceeding in early 2017, when Senator Mark Warner and FBI Director James
Comey acted to sabotage and end the negotiations.
Further, as opposed to the hyperbole in the media and in Robert Mueller's indictment, analysis of the Internet Research Agency's
alleged "weaponization" of Facebook in 2016 involved
a paltry total of $46,000 in Facebook
ads and $4,700 spent on Google platforms . In an election in which the major campaigns spend tens of thousands of dollars every
day on these platforms, whatever the IRA thought it was doing in its amateurish and juvenile memes and tropes was like throwing a
stone in the ocean. Most of these activities occurred after the election and never mentioned either candidate. The interpretation
that these ads were designed to draw clicks and website traffic, rather than influence the election, must be considered.
The "evidence" for Mueller's GRU hacking indictment was provided, in part, by CrowdStrike, the DNC vendor that originated the
claims that the Russians had hacked that entity. CrowdStrike is closely associated with the Atlantic Council's Digital Research Lab
(DRL), an operation jointly funded by NATO's Strategic Communications Center and the U.S. State Department, to counter Russian "hybrid
warfare." CrowdStrike has been caught more than once falsely attributing hacks to the Russians and the Atlantic Council's DRL is
a font of anti-Russian intelligence operations.
The British Target Trump
According to CIA Director John Brennan's Congressional testimony, the British began complaining loudly about candidate Trump
and Russia in late 2015. Brennan's statements were echoed in articles in The Guardian . According to Brennan, intelligence
leads about Trump and Russia had been forwarded to Brennan from both British intelligence and from Estonia. The former head
of the Russia Desk for MI6 and protégé of Sir Richard Dearlove, Christopher Steele, fresh from working for British Intelligence,
the FBI, and U.S. State Department in the 2014 Ukraine coup, assembled in 2016 a phony dossier called Operation Charlemagne, claiming
widespread Russian interference in European elections, including in the Brexit vote. By the spring of 2016, Steele was contributing
to a British/U.S. intelligence task force on the Trump Campaign which had been convened at CIA headquarters under John Brennan's
direction.
This task force targeted Trump campaign volunteers Carter Page and George Papadopoulos in entrapment operations on British
soil, using British agents, during the spring and summer of 2016. The personnel employed in these operations all had multiple
connections to the British firm Hakluyt, to Steele's firm Orbis, and to the British military's Integrity Initiative. Sometime in
the summer of 2016, Robert Hannigan, then head of GCHQ, flew to Washington to brief John Brennan personally. Hannigan abruptly
resigned from GCHQ shortly after the election, sparking widespread speculation that the British were making an attempt at damage
control.
Michael Flynn and Paul Manafort were already on the radar and under investigation by the same British, Dearlove-centered intelligence
network and by Christopher Steele specifically. Flynn had been defamed by Dearlove and Stefan Halper, as a possible Russian agent
way back in 2014 because he spoke to Russian researcher Svetlana Lokhova at a dinner sponsored by Dearlove's Cambridge Security Forum.
Or, at least that was the pretext for the targeting of Flynn, who otherwise defied British intelligence by exposing Western support
for terrorist operations in Syria and sought a collaborative relationship with Russia to counter ISIS. Manafort was under FBI investigation
throughout 2014 and 2015, largely in retaliation for his role in steering the Party of the Regions to political power in Ukraine.
In 2016, the Manafort investigation migrated to the Democratic National Committee with direct assistance provided by Ukrainian
state intelligence. This effort was led by Alexandra Chalupa, an admirer of Stepan Bandera and other heroes of Nazi history in Ukraine.
Chalupa also had deep connections to British-oriented networks at the U.S. State Department.
In or around June 2016, Christopher Steele began writing his dirty and bogus dossier about Trump and Russia. This is the dossier
which claimed that Trump was compromised by Putin and that Putin was coordinating with Trump in the 2016 election. The main "legend"
of this full-spectrum information warfare operation run from Britain, was that Donald Trump was receiving "dirt" on Hillary Clinton
from Russia. The operations targeting Page and Papadopoulos consisted of multiple attempts to plant fabricated evidence on them which
would reflect what Steele himself was fabricating in the dirty dossier. At the very same time, the infamous June 2016 meeting at
Trump Tower was being set up. That meeting involved the Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya, who, it was alleged in a series of
bizarre emails written by British publicist Ron Goldstone to set up the meeting, could deliver "dirt" on Hillary Clinton direct from
the Russian government. Veselnitskaya didn't deliver any such dirt. But the entire operation was being monitored by State Department
intelligence agent Kyle Parker, an expert on Russia. Parker's emails reveal deep ties to the highest levels of British intelligence
and much chatter between them about Trump and Russia.
A now-changed version of the website for Christopher Steele's firm, Orbis, trumpeted an expertise in information warfare operations,
and the networks in which Steele runs are deeply integrated into the British military's Integrity Initiative. The Integrity Initiative
is a rapid response propaganda operation using major journalists in the United States and Europe to carry out targeted defamation
campaigns. Its central charge, according to documents posted by the hacking group Anonymous, is selling the United States and Western
Europe on the immediate need for regime change in Russia, even if that involves war.
Much has been made by Republicans and other lunkheads in the U.S. Congress of Steele's contacts with Russians for his dossier.
They claim that such contacts resulted in a Russian disinformation operation being run through the duped Christopher Steele. Nothing
could be further from the truth.
MI6's Dirty Dossier on Donald Trump: Full-Spectrum Information Warfare
On its face, Steele's dossier would immediately be recognized as a complete fabrication by any competent intelligence analyst.
He cites some 32 sources inside the Russian government for his fabricated claims about Trump. What they allegedly told him is specific
enough in time and content to identify them. To believe that the dossier is true or that actual Russians contributed to it, you must
also believe that that the British government was willing to roll up this entire network, exposing them, since the intention was
for the dossier's wild claims to be published as widely as possible. By all accounts, Britain and the United States together do not
have 32 highly placed sources inside the Russian government, nor would they ever make them public in this way or with this very sloppy
tradecraft. Steele's fabrication also uses aspects of readily available public information, such as the sale of 19% of the energy
company Rosneft, (the alleged bribe offered to Carter Page for lifting sanctions) to concoct a fictional narrative of high crimes
and misdemeanors.
Other claims in the dossier were published, publicly, in various Ukrainian publications. The famous claim that Trump directed
prostitutes to urinate on a bed once slept upon by Barack Obama seems to be plagiarized from similarly fake 2009 British propaganda
stories about Silvio Berlusconi spending the night with a prostitute in a hotel room in Rome, "defiling" Putin's bed. According to
various sources in the United States, this outrageous claim was made by Sergei Millian. George Papadopoulos has stated that he believes
Millian is an FBI informant, recounting in his book how a friend of Millian's blurted this out when Millian, Papadopoulos and the
friend were having coffee.
The final nail in this case has been provided by The Hill 's John Solomon. He says that Steele told former Associate
Attorney General Bruce Ohr about the sources for the dirty dossier. According to Solomon, Ohr's notes reveal one main source, a former
senior Russian intelligence official living in the United States. But, as anyone familiar with the territory would know, there is
no such retired senior Russian intelligence official living in the United States whose entire life is not controlled by the CIA.
Despite its obvious fake pedigree, Steele's dossier was laundered into the Justice Department repeatedly, by the CIA and State
Department and the Obama White House. It was used to obtain FISA surveillance warrants turning key members of the Trump Campaign
into walking microphones. It was circulated endlessly by the Clinton Campaign to a network of reporters in the U.S. known to serve
as scribes for the intelligence community. John Brennan used it to conduct a special emergency briefing of the leading members of
the U.S. Congress charged with intelligence responsibilities in August of 2016 and to brief Harry Reid, who was Senate Majority Leader
at the time. All of this activity meant that the salacious accusation that Trump was a Putin pawn and the FBI was investigating the
matter, leaked out and was used by the Clinton Campaign to defame Trump for its electoral advantage. When Trump won, Steele's nonsense
received the stamp of the U.S. intelligence community and official currency in the campaign to take out the President.
As a result of Congressional investigations of Russiagate, it has become abundantly clear that the British operation against
Trump was aided and abetted by the Obama White House, the State Department, the CIA, the FBI, and personalities associated with the
National Endowment for Democracy. The individuals involved might be named Veterans of the 2014 Ukrainian Coup, since all of
them also worked on this operation. It is no accident that Victoria Nuland, the case agent for the Ukraine coup, played a major role
in bolstering Steele's credentials for the purpose of selling his dirty dossier to the media and to the Justice Department. This
went so far as Steele giving a full scale briefing on his fabricated dossier at the State Department in October 2016.
Out of the Ukraine coup, an entire military-centered propaganda apparatus arose, first through NATO, and then out from there
to military units and diplomatic centers in the U.S., Europe, and Britain, to run low intensity operations, and black propaganda,
against Russia.
The British end of the operation includes the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, and NATO's Strategic Communications
Center. In the United States, the Integrity Initiative has been integrated into the Global Engagement Center at the U.S. State Department.
Most certainly, this operation is poised again to intervene in the U.S. elections; the British House of Lords have stated explicitly,
in their December 2018 report, British Foreign Policy in a Shifting World Order, that Donald Trump must not be re-elected.
This is why the British are yelping that under no circumstances can the classified documents concerning their role in the
attempted coup against Donald Trump be declassified. It would end their leverage over the United States and much of Europe. That
is why these documents must indeed be declassified, and parallel investigations by citizens and government officials concerned with
ending the imperial system, otherwise known as the current "war party," must begin in earnest.
"in a post-Iraq invasion world, only herd-minded human livestock believe"
Perhaps add mainstream media to the list of such sincere believers, they will fire their own real journalists.
David Walters , April 24, 2019 at 13:14
"This doesn't mean that Russia would never use hackers to interfere in world political affairs or that Vladimir Putin is some
sort of virtuous girl scout, it just means that in a post-Iraq invasion world, only herd-minded human livestock believe the unsubstantiated
assertions of opaque and unaccountable government agencies about governments who are oppositional to those same agencies."
Absolutely correct.
Anyone who still believes what the IC says if a moron. As Pompeo recently said to the student body of Texas A&M University,
my alma matta, the CIA's job is to lie, cheat and steel. He went on the explain that the CIA has courses to teach their agent
that dark "art".
Right, David Walters, and see Pompous Pompeo now. The only truths he's told was to a student body of Texas A&M University –
his own alma mater – the CIA's job is to lie, cheat and steal.
Even though he's left his post as CIA Director and assumed his current post of Secretary of State. Pompous Pompeo continues his
CIA traits of lying, cheating, and stealing. It's in a way similar to a phrase, "A leopard never changes its spots". This is why
the DPRK govt issued a Persona Non Grata on Pompous Pompeo – that he isn't a bona fide diplomat, but a CIA official.
CWG , April 22, 2019 at 17:15
Here's my take on the 'Russian Collusion Deep State LIE.
There was NO Russian Collusion at all to get Trump in the White House. Most probably, Putin would have favored Clinton, since
she could be bought. Trump can't.
What did happen was illegal spying on the Trump campaign. That started late 2015, WITHOUT a FISA warrant. They only obtained
that in 2016, through lying to the FISA Court. The basis for that first warrant was the Fusion GPS Steele Dossier.
Ever since Trump won the election, they real conspirators knew they had a problem. That was apparent ever after Devin Nunes
did the right thing by informing Trump they were spying on him.
Since they obtained those FISA warrant through lying to the FISA Court (which is treason) they needed to cover that up as quickly
as possible.
So what did they do? Instead of admitting they lied to the FISA Court they kept on lying till this very day. The same lie through
which they obtained the FISA warrants to spy on the Trump campaign was being pushed openly.
The lie is and was 'Trump colluded with the Russians in order to win the Presidential Election'.
They knew from day one Trump didn't do anything wrong. They did know they spied on Trump through lying to the FISA Court, which
again, is treason. According to the Constitution, lying to the FISA court= Treason.
In order to avoid being indicted and prosecuted, they somehow needed to 'take down' the Attorney General. At all costs, they
needed to try and hide what really happened.
So there they went. 'Trump colluded with the Russians. Not just Trump, but the entire Trump campaign!'.
'Sessions should recuse himself', the propaganda MSM said in unison. 'Recuse, recuse'.
Sessions, naively recused himself. Back then, even he probably didn't know the entire story. It was only later on that Sarah
Carter and Jon Solomon found out it had been Hillary who ordered and paid the Steele Dossier.
The real conspirators hoped that through the Special Counsel rat Mueller they might be able to achieve three main objectives.
1: Convince the American people Russia indeed was meddling in the Presidential Election.
2: Find any sort of dirt on Trump and/or people who helped him win the Election in order to 'take them down'.
Many people were indicted, some were prosecuted. Yet NONE of them were convicted for a crime that had ANYTHING to with with
the elections. NONE.
They stretched it out as long as possible. 'The longer you repeat a lie, the more people are willing to believe the lie'.
So that is what they did. They still do it. Mueller took TWO years to brainwash as many people as possible. 'Russian Collusion,
Russian Collusion. Russia. Russia. Russia. Russia. Rusiaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhh ..
Why did they want to make sure they could keep telling that lie as long as possible?
Because they FEAR people will learn the truth. There was NEVER any Russian Collusion with the Trump campaign.
There was spying on the Trump campaign by Obama in order to try and make Hillary win the Presidential Election.
That is the actual COLLUSION between the Clinton Campaign and a weaponized Obama regime!!
So what did 'Herr Mueller' do?
He took YEARS to come up with the conclusion that the Trump campaign did NOT collude with Russia.
The MSM tried to make us all believe it was about that. Yet it was NOT.
His conclusive report is all about the question 'did or didn't the Trump campaign collude with the Russians'.
Trump exonerated, and the MSM only talks about that. Trump, Trump, Trump.
They still want us all to believe that was what the Mueller 'investigation' was all about. Yet it was not.
The most important objective of the Mueller 'investigation' was not to 'investigate'.
It was to 'instigate' that HUGE lie.
The same lie which they used to obtain the FISA warrant on the Trump campaign.
"Russia'.
So what has 'Herr Mueller' done?
A: He finds ZERO evidence at all which proves the Trump campaign colluded with ANY Russians.
And now the huge lie, which after all was the main objective right from the get go. (A was only a distraction)
B: Russians hacked the DNC.
That is what they wants us all to believe. That Russia somehow did bad stuff.
Now it was not Russia who did bad stuff.
It was Obama working together with the Clinton campaign. Obama weaponized his entire regime in order to let Clinton win the
Presidency.
That is the REAL collusion. The real CRIME. Treason!
In order to create a 'cover up' Mueller NEEDED to instigate that Russia somehow did bad things.
That's what the Mueller Dossier is ALL about. They now have 'black on white' 'evidence' that Russia somehow did bad things.
Because if Russia didn't do anything like that, it would make us all ask the fair question 'why did Obama spy on the Trump
Campaign'.
Let's go a bit deeper still.
Here's a trap Mueller created. What if Trump would openly doubt the LIE they still push? The HUGE lie that Russia did bad things?
After all, they NEED that LIE in order to COVER UP their own crime.
If Trump would say 'I do not believe Russia did anything to influence the elections, I think Mueller wrote that to COVER UP
the real crime', what would happen?
They would say 'GOTCHA now, see Trump is colluding with Russia? He even refuses to accept Russia hacked the DNC, this ultimately
proofs Trump indeed is a Russian asset'.
They believe that trap will work. They needed that trap, since if Russia wasn't doing anything wrong, it would show us all
THEY were the criminals.
They NEED that lie, in order to COVER UP.
That is the 'Insurance Policy' Stzrok and Page texted about. Even Sarah Carter and Jon Solomon still don't seem to see all
that.
They should have attacked the HUGE lie that Russia was somehow hacking the DNC. That is simply not true. It's a Mueller created
LIE.
That LIE = the Insurance Policy.
What did they need an Insurance Policy for? They want us all to believe that was about preventing Trump from being elected.
Although true, that is only A.
They NEEDED an Insurance Policy in the unlikely case Trump would become President and would find out they were illegally spying
on him!
The REAL crime is Obama weaponized the American Government to spy on even a duly elected President.
What's the punishment for Treason?
About Assange and Seth Rich.
Days after Mueller finishes his 'mission' (Establish the LIE Russia did bad things) which seems to be succesfull, the Deep
State arrest the ONLY source who could undermine that lie.
Assange Since he knows who is (Seth Rich?) and who isn't (Russia) the source.
If Assange could testify under oath the emails did not come from Russia, the LIE would be exposed.
No coincidences here. I fear Assange will never testify under oath. I actually fear for his life.
Deniz , April 23, 2019 at 13:48
While I wholeheartedly agree with you that Obama and Clinton are criminals, the far less convincing part of your argument is
that Trump is not now beholden to the same MIC interests. Bolton, Abrahams, Pompeo, Pence his relationship with Netanyahu, the
overthrow of Madura are all glaring examples that contradict the Rights narrative that he is some type of hero. Trump may not
have colluded with Russia, but he does seem to be colluding with Saudia Arabia, Israel, Big Oil and the MIC.
Whether one is on the Right or Left, the house is still made of glass.
boxerwars , April 22, 2019 at 17:13
RE: "A Russian Agent Smear"
:::
Was Pat Tillman Murdered?
JUL 30, 2007
I don't know, but it seems increasingly conceivable. Just absorb these facts:
O'Neal said Tillman, a corporal, threw a smoke grenade to identify themselves to fellow soldiers who were firing at them. Tillman
was waving his arms shouting "Cease fire, friendlies, I am Pat [expletive] Tillman, damn it!" again and again when he was killed,
O'Neal said
In the same testimony, medical examiners said the bullet holes in Tillman's head were so close together that it appeared the
Army Ranger was cut down by an M-16 fired from a mere 10 yards or so away.
The motive? I don't know. It's still likeliest it was an accident. But there's some mysterious testimony in the SI report about
nameless snipers. A reader suggests the following interpretation:
News this weekend said that there were "snipers" present and the witnesses didn't remember their names. I believe that's code
in the Army–these guys were Delta. In the Tillman incident, these snipers weren't part of the unit and they were never mentioned
publicly before. That's a key indicator that they weren't supposed to be acknowledged.
If you've ever read Blackhawk Down, Mark Bowden explains how he grew frustrated because interviewed Rangers kept referring
to "soldiers from another unit" while claiming they didn't know the unit ID or the soldiers' names. It took him months to crack
the unit ID and find people from Delta who were present at the fight.
Randy Shugart and Gary Gordon, the Delta operators who earned Medals of Honor in Mogadishu, have always been identified as
snipers, too.
If my theory is correct, the Delta guys could have fired the shots – a three-round burst to the forehead from 50 yards is impossible
for normal soldiers and Rangers, but is probably an easy shot for those guys. But because Delta doesn't officially exist and Tillman
was a hero, nobody in the Army would want to have to explain exactly how the event went down. Easier just to claim hostile fire
until the family forced them to do otherwise.
This makes some sense to me, although we shouldn't dismiss the chance he was murdered. Tillman was a star and might have aroused
jealousy or resentment. He also opposed the Iraq war and was a proud atheist. In Bush's increasingly sectarian military, that
might have stirred hostility. I don't know. But I know enough to want a deeper investigation. My atheist readers will no doubt
admire the way Tillman left this world, according to the man who was with him:
As bullets flew above their heads, the young soldier at Pat Tillman's side started praying. "I thought I was praying to myself,
but I guess he heard me," Sgt. Bryan O'Neal recalled in an interview Saturday with The Associated Press. "He said something like,
'Hey, O'Neal, why are you praying? God can't help us now."'
(Maybe the Congress can )
////// The USA is aghast with "smears" and "internal investigations" and promised but never produced "White Papers" 'as the
world turns' and circles continents Dominated by American Military Power / Predominantly Barbarous / Uncivilized Use of Force
/ and Arrogantly Effective in it's use of Dominating Military Power.
\\\\ The Poorer Peoples of the World accept their lots-in-life with some acceptance of reality vis-a-vis the "lot-in-life"
they've been alleged/assigned.
/// But How Do We Accept The Fact that our Self-Sacrificiing Hero,Pat Tillman, was slaughtered in Afghanistan,
(WITH POSITIVE PROOF) – by his own Fellow American soldiers – ???
!!!! What i'm say'n is, if Tillman represents the Life Surrendering "American Hero"
WHY DID HIS FELLOW "AMERICAN SOLDIERS" ASSASSINATE & MURDER HIM ???????
AND WHY IS THIS STORY BURIED ALONG WITH MANY OTHER SMEAR Stories
that provide prophylactic protection for all the Trump pianist prophylaxis cover
Up for the Right Wing theft of American Democracy under FDR
In favor of Ayn Rand's prevalent OBJECTIVISM under Trump.
"Capitalism and Altruism
are incompatible
capitalism and altruism
cannot coexist in man,
or in the same society".
President Trump represents
Stark & Total Capitalism
Just as "Conservative Party"
Core is in The Confederacy
AKA; The RIGHT WING
The Right Wing of US Gov't
Is All About PRESERVING
Confederate States' Laws
Written by Thomas Jefferson
Prior to The Constitution, which
became the Received/Judicial
Constitutional Law of the Land in
The Republic of the "United States"
It's not enough that Trump is clearly a classic narcissist whose behavior will continue to deteriorate the more his actions
and statements are attacked and countered? You know what happens when narcissists are driven into a corner by people tearing them
down? They get weapons and start killing people.
There is already more than ample evidence to remove Donald Trump from office, not the least being he's clearly mentally unfit.
Yet the Democrats, some of whom ran for office on a promise to impeach, are suddenly reticent to act without "more investigation".
Nancy Pelosi stated on the record prior to release of the Mueller report impeachment wasn't on the agenda "for now". She's now
making noises in the opposite direction, but that's all they are: noise.
The bottom line is the Clintonite New Democrats currently running the party have only one issue to run on next year: getting
rid of Donald Trump. They still operate under the delusion they will be able to use him to draw off moderate Republican voters,
the same ones they were positive would come out for Hillary Clinton in '16. Their multitude of candidates pay lip service to progressive
policy then carefully walk back to the standard centrist positions once the donations start coming, but the common underlying
theme was and continues to be "Donald Trump is evil, and we need to elect a Democrat."
In short, without Donald Trump in the Oval Office, the Democrat Party has no platform. They need him there as a target, because
Mike Pence would be impossible for them to beat. They are under orders, according to various writers who've addressed the Clinton
campaign, to block Bernie Sanders and his platform at all costs; and they will allow the country to crash and burn before they
disobey those orders. That means keeping Donald Trump right where he is through next November.
Eddie S , April 24, 2019 at 21:14
Exactly right, EKB -- - you can't ballroom dance without a partner! Also reminds me of the couples you occasionally run into
where one partner repeatedly runs-down the other, and you get the feeling that the critical partner doesn't have much going on
in his/her life so they deflect that by focusing on the other partner
Johnny Ryan S , April 22, 2019 at 13:38
Why did the DNC not allow the FBI to investigate the so-called" Russian hacked" emails? Rather, they hire CrowdStrike did
you know:
1)Obama Appoints CrowdStrike Officer To Admin Post Two Months Before June 2016 Report On Russia Hacking DNC
2) CrowdStrike Co-Founder Is Fellow On Russia Hawk Group, Has Connections To George Soros, Ukrainian Billionaire
3) DNC stayed that the FBI never asked to investigate the servers – that is a lie.
4) CrowdStrike received $100 million in investments led by Google Capital (since re-branded as CapitalG) in 2015. CapitalG is
owned by Alphabet, and Eric Schmidt, Alphabet's chairman, was a supporter of Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election. More than just
supporting Clinton, leaked emails from Wikileaks in November 2016 showed that in 2014 he wanted to have an active role in the
campaign.
-daily caller and dan bongino have been bringing these points up since 2016.
Deniz , April 22, 2019 at 12:36
The Right is currently salivating over the tough law enforcement rhetoric coming out of Barr and Trump.
It reminds me of when Obama was running for office in 2008 when everyone, including myself, was in awe of him. What kept slipping
into his soaring anti-intervention speeches, was a commitment to the good war in Afghanistan, which seemed totally out of place
with the rest of his rhetoric. The fine print was far more reflective of his administration actions as the rest of it his communications
turned out to be just telling people what they wanted to hear.
War with Afghanistan was Obama's payoff to the MIC, just as Russia is now Trump's payoff.
The argument about not inserting Rich and the download is a good one as a defense strategy but doesn't help with finding the
truth about the emails. We can only hope that pursuing the truth and producing it will have a cumulative effect and the illusory
truth effect will include this truth.
Red Douglas , April 22, 2019 at 16:00
>>> ". . . doesn't help with finding the truth about the emails."
The important truth about the emails is in their authenticity and in the contents. No one has even attempted to claim that
they are not authentic or that the contents we've seen are other than the actual contents of the authentic messages.
Why should we much care how they were acquired and provided to the publisher?
Lily , April 22, 2019 at 17:55
That is what i think. People should not concentrate on how, who and where. This is just a smokescreen to avoid talking about
the content of the emails and Hillary Clinton's disgusting actions. She is a criminal and a murderess just like Obama and Tony
Blair are lyers and mass murderers.
All three of them are free, earning millions with their publicity whereas two brave persons who were telling the truth have
been tortured and are still in jail. Reality has become like the most horrible nightmare. Everything simply seems to have turned
upside down. No writer would invent such a primitive plot. And yet it is the unbelievable reality.
Dump Pelousy , April 23, 2019 at 13:21
I totally agree with you, and in fact believe that this whole 22month expensive and mind numbing circus has been played out
JUST to keep the public from knowing what the emails actually said. Can you imagine Madcow focusing with such ferocity on John
Pedesta as she has on Putin, by discussing what he wrote during a presidential campaign to "influence the election" ? We'd be
a different country now, not fighting our way thru the McCarthite Swamp she helped create.
SBS broadcast a 4 part doco called The Fourth Estate in June last year. It's about the NYT unhealthy obsession with Trump.
Episode 1 begins with his swearing in and cuts to stunned(?) NYT staffers watching the speech in which he says "For too long,
our politicians have prospered while (blah blah blah) and this stops, right here, and right now."
From then on it consists of an endless stream of huddles as various groups of staffers ponder the best way to spin various 'angles'
and approaches, or solo senior staffers pontificating on all manner of hypotheticals. There are lots of opinionated people working
at the NYT and none of them is 'stupid'.
I recorded Episode 1 and my conclusion from watching it is that NOTHING the NYT publishes is accidental. I began recording Episode
2 but aborted the mission after 30 minutes or so because the repetitive self-worship and drivel was eerily similar to Episode
1.
Wikipedia has an entry devoted to the series and it's freely available on the www. I recommend watching the first few minutes
of Episode 1 just to get a feeling for the tone.
The cartoon in question was published in an International Edition as a gloat or a public (private) joke, imo. I remain unconvinced
that the Editorial Staff at the Jew York Times was blissfully unaware that the cartoon 'might' create an opportunity for the "Anti-Semitism!!?"
crowd to stir up, and capitalise upon, the ensuing indignation and outrage.
03/28/2016 With the increasing propaganda wars, we thought a reminder of just how naive many
Westerners are when it comes to their news-feed. As
Arjun Walia, of GlobalResearch.ca, notes, Dr. Ulfkotte went on public television stating
that he was forced to publish the works of intelligence agents under his own name, also adding
that noncompliance with these orders would result in him losing his job.
He recently made an appearance on RT news to share these facts:
I've been a journalist for about 25 years, and I was educated to lie, to betray, and not
to tell the truth to the public.
But seeing right now within the last months how the German and American media tries to
bring war to the people in Europe, to bring war to Russia -- this is a point of no return and
I'm going to stand up and say it is not right what I have done in the past, to manipulate
people, to make propaganda against Russia, and it is not right what my colleagues do and have
done in the past because they are bribed to betray the people, not only in Germany, all over
Europe.
"... RT has been able to capitalise on growing mistrust of western media among westerners. During the breaking of the coverage of many political scandals, RT articles aggressively raised issues that many felt were not being pursued by the western media, which is frequently seen as covering up non-PC stories. Many users believe that RT is willing to talk about incidents that western media will not, a belief that RT actively encourages. As such, many users of a both far-right and far-left disposition are willing to listen to RT, even being aware of RT's control by the government, rather than western media. ..."
"... On page four of this this interesting sentence we find the following sentence: " Driving a wedge between Russians and government is key. " ..."
"... It is interesting to see that Integrity Initiative was ahead of the game when it came to punishing Russia for its involvement in Crimea's move to independence from Ukraine to the point that their greatest hope was that there would be regime change in Russia. ..."
"... As you can see from these documents, Integrity Initiative, a government-funded, not-for-profit charity has a mandate to ensure that the West is immune to Russia's ongoing propaganda campaign by providing propaganda of its own. ..."
While
it received relatively little coverage from the Western mainstream media establishment, a
recent 42 megabyte upload on an Anonymous server provides us with an inside glimpse into
the genesis of the Western anti-Russia narrative.
According to the documents, an organization (rather ironically) named Integrity Initiative with the moniker
"Defending Democracy Against Disinformation" was organized to mobilize global public opinion
against Russia and its agenda as you can see on the organization's "About" webpage:
The non-for-profit charity was set up in 2015 as a partnership of several independent
organizations led by The Institute for Statecraft. It claims that it is dedicated to "
education in good governance and to enabling societies to adapt to a rapidly changing
world. ", a rather benign mission statement. In its first two years, it was funded by
private individuals, however, funding for 2017 and 2018 was largely provided by governments,
particularly the United Kingdom, reflecting the U.K.'s appreciation of the " importance of
the threat, and a wish to support civil society programmes seeking to rebuild the ability of
democratic societies to resist large scale, malicious disinformation and influence
campaigns."
According to the documents a number of organizations including the United States Department of
State, the U.K.'s Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO), NATO, Facebook and the Lithuanian
Ministry of Defense were looking to fund the Integrity Initiative as you can see here:
Integrity Initiative
states the following about its services:
" It is inevitable that a programme tackling disinformation in Europe finds itself spending
much of its time addressing the activities of the Russian State, including those carried out
through its intelligence services. The Kremlin has invested more operational thought, intent
and resource in disinformation, in Europe and elsewhere in the democratic world, than any other
single player. "
Not surprisingly, Integrity Initiative has comments on the leaking of its own documents by
Anonymous:
" We note both the attempts by Russian state propaganda outlets to amplify the volume of
this leak; and the suggestion by a major Anonymous-linked Twitter account that the Kremlin
subverted the banner of Anonymous to disguise their responsibility for it...
It is of course a matter of deep regret that Integrity Initiative documents have been stolen
and posted on line, still more so that, in breach of any defensible practice, Russian state
propaganda outlets have published or re-published a large number of names and contact details.
We have not yet had the chance to analyse all of the documents, so cannot say with confidence
whether they are all genuine or whether they include doctored or false material.
Although it is clear that much of the material was indeed on the Integrity Initiative or
Institute systems, much of it is dated and was never used. In particular, many of the names
published were on an internal list of experts in this field who had been considered as
potential invitees to future cooperation. In the event, many were never contacted by the
Integrity Initiative and did not contribute to it. Nor were these documents therefore included
in any funding proposals. Not only did these individuals have nothing to do with the programme
– they may not even have heard of us. We are of course trying to contact all named
individuals for whom we have contact details to ensure that they are aware of what has
happened. "
With that background, let's look at four of the documents that were posted.
1.) A undated document discussing Russia's use of social media as a proxy for
propaganda:
Note the following comments regarding Russia Today aka RT:
" RT has been able to capitalise on growing mistrust of western media among westerners.
During the breaking of the coverage of many political scandals, RT articles aggressively raised
issues that many felt were not being pursued by the western media, which is frequently seen as
covering up non-PC stories. Many users believe that RT is willing to talk about incidents that
western media will not, a belief that RT actively encourages. As such, many users of a both
far-right and far-left disposition are willing to listen to RT, even being aware of RT's
control by the government, rather than western media. "
Here is a page from the document which discusses the target audiences for Russian social
media propaganda:
Note that the memo clearly states that Russian media outlets like RT and Sputnik are
targeting an audience that is "distrusting of statecraft and major media groups.". I wonder why
Westerners would be distrusting of their own media?
2.) A 2017 document outlining plans for developing an American arm of Integrity
Initiative:
Note that the writer of the memo states that the West is badly in need of a reassertion of
U.S. leadership and that America needs to rebuild its understanding of Russia and how to deal
with it. It also notes that the international community needs to rebuild its understanding of
Russia to ensure that Western governments get the popular support that democracies require
(i.e. a strongly anti-populist movement).
3.) An undated document showing how Integrity Initiative is planning to expand "expert
clusters" to other nations including Austria, Canada, Poland, Portugal, Sweden and Switzerland
among others:
4.) A
January 2015 document showing Integrity Initiative's views on setting up anti-Russia
sanctions with the goal of changing Russia's behaviour, peace in Ukraine, a return of Crimea
and, most importantly, possible regime change in Russia:
On page four of this this interesting sentence we find the following sentence:
" Driving a wedge between Russians and government is key. "
It is interesting to see that Integrity Initiative was ahead of the game when it came to
punishing Russia for its involvement in Crimea's move to independence from Ukraine to the point
that their greatest hope was that there would be regime change in Russia.
As you can see from these documents, Integrity Initiative, a government-funded, not-for-profit
charity has a mandate to ensure that the West is immune to Russia's ongoing propaganda campaign
by providing propaganda of its own. It's certainly a good thing that Integrity Initiative has
the "real truth" and is willing to pressure us into seeing the global geopolitical quagmire
with its 20/20 vision. Apparently, integrity in this post-truth era is in the eye of the
beholder/purveyor.
Decades long "image" of London's spy school fall spectacularly apart, apparently it is not
populated with the high IQ, highly educated brass any more, average intelligence however
cannot play on international stage, script is poor, directing mediocre, inconsistencies and
deep holes in story negate logics...
it is time that London joins Washington, hand in hand,
like lowers to seek fortunes elsewhere, the prey is still to be found in oligarchs of
Ukraine, Poland, Lithuania, Romania and the like places with spineless political caricatures.
Go London go...there is no fortune for you in EU...and by now you stench of your morals and
ethics reaches shores of smallest island on GMT+12 time scale.
It's been a year since the Salisbury incident. We still don't have the investigative
conclusion. We don't know who's responsible and how exactly the Skripals were poisoned or if
they were even poisoned at all. But international relations sure were poisoned. It appears that
our ambassador to Britain, the esteemed Alexander Yakovenko is a spy decorated with military
medals.
Why don't the Russians just lay out the facts of the story as told by the British? The
Brits story is so stupid it makes zero sense... According to the British media Skripal and
his daughter came into contact with "military grade" Novichok nerve agent and both
survived... Even though they said a tiny drop can be fatal... The poor woman who did die was
a homeless drug addict. Supposedly, her boyfriend found a bottle of "perfume" in a "perfume
box" that was in a trash receptacle. The boyfriend retrieved it from the waste bin and gave
it to to the unfortunate woman. She died. According to the British government, Russian spies
put the Novichok in the perfume bottle and planted the bottle in the trash bin so the
boyfriend would find it... Personally, I blame the death of the homeless woman on a "false
flag" operation run by British intelligence. Someone had to die. Why not an "expendable"?
Meanwhile, the Skripals remain under house arrest, cut off from the outside world... And no
one in the British media has asked to talk to them. No one.
The British story about the Skripals is falling apart. First we were told an off duty
police officer found them. Then we are told that an off duty nurse helped the police officer.
Then it was the off duty nurse that found them and was helped by the police officer. Then it
was the daughter of the off duty nurse that found them. Then the off duty nurse turned out to
be Britain's highest ranking female military medic. Then we are told the police officer never
attended them and had been sent to their house the following day. This week the local TV news
channel (BBC Points West) interviewed a woman that said SHE was the first one to find the
Skripals who were alone on the bench frothing at the mouth. She claims she walked over and
was going to phone an ambulance when a female police officer arrived. Then the female police
officer was interviewed and stated she was driving her police van and was the first on scene
after someone had phoned them for help. She also stated that although she didn't know what
was wrong with the Skripals, she thought the vomit on the ground was suspicious and requested
a Hazmat team in full protective gear to remove the vomit.
Maria is an intelligent in a very high level, fiery and articulate. The British political
system would trade at least half of their politicians for one of her.
Vladimir,can you find out if England has just set up Ireland by sending someone there and
having them post flammable packages back to England? The addresses were so vague that they
should have alerted someone in the postal service,especially since England is on high alert
for terror attacks.That says to me that the government knew they were coming.ISIS would claim
responsibility for a silent fart in a packed room.No-one in Ireland has claimed
responsibility for the packages,probably because it's "highly likely" that England has set up
Ireland.If the Brits are found to be behind it,like black people and Israeli's have been
caught out spraying racist graffiti against themselves,Salisbury will be even more
questionable.Elliot Abrams shipped arms in "aid" convoys,so now no-one believes the aid to
Venezuela isn't hiding weapons.What have the filthy Brits been caught doing in recent years
that would make them look guilty like Elliot Abrams?
Maria Zacharova may be simply too decent a human being to realise that the west is run by
a mafia-like cabal that cares not a jot for their own peoples, let alone those in foreign
realms. She looks for logical explanations that might account for actions, but needs to face
the reality that monumental greed and corruption have hollowed out all corridors of power in
western governments. Any semblance of an unbiased independent media went extinct a long time
ago, replaced by well placed operatives from the intelligence agencies, who manage a vast
array of pseudo "journalists". The western puppet regimes are simply useful idiots who obey
instructions, they sell themselves for money and privilege. In other words, traitors to the
people who put them in office. Those public officials and politicians who perhaps had a shred
of integrity get eliminated, or compromised by indiscretions that are held over them, or by
simple intimidation tactics -- the classic "carrot and stick" method. Russians lifted
themselves from the disastrous days of "perestroika" and have restored their nation to near
normalcy. The west may at some point do the same, but it will take a complete collapse of
their present totalitarian regimes to start the healing, if it is to happen. With each
passing day, the zombification of the masses continues, let us hope it has not already got to
the stage where a return to a better world becomes unattainable.
Mrs Spokeswoman really nailed it: US & UK resort to this Dead Cat tactics everyday
now. That was the Case with Kosovo, Iraq, Libya, Ukraine, Syria & now Venezuela. However,
they only manage to bait in their "Allies" (better said Vassals)- and then they fail to
deliver since Syria. Russian Intervention & People waking up to their Lies makes their
Case less and less credible. The paralel Universe they are creating inside their brainwashing
Media is fading away. And that makes them the more dangerous...
It's sad when the only real news people in the US can get is from the Russian media. The
west is financially and morally bankrupt. Thank you Zacharova and Russia for telling the
truth about the evil deeds of the west. Median approval of U.S. leadership across 134
countries and areas stands at a new low of 30%, according to a new Gallup report. Maybe the
tide is finally turning and the evil deeds of the west will be exposed.
I think the underlying cause of all the UK anti-Russia carry ons goes right back to the
damage you did to them during the Crimean War...you bloodied their nose and they have never
forgiven you...silly buggers!
💥💥💥🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺
The Roman-Israeli Brits are born liars, but liars will always fall apart because their
stories never add up. I suspect that the Skripals were never even poisoned but paid by the
British to confirm the lie. The Western politicians have become so corrupt that you cannot
believe a word coming from their lying mouths. Over the decades they have become so confident
that everybody would swallow their reckless lies that they don't even care what they say and
what they do without thinking or caring about the consequences of their actions.
To UK & US: Please show some respect for world ordinary people. We are not stupid. We
are intelligent & also kind compassionate human beings. U're insulting our
intelligence!
I think they have completely lost the plot, relying on stupidity and arrogance to achieve
the least amount possible in the messiest most insane way possible. Seriously, the publicly
state the reality, conduct regime change operations, to get US troops into and country and
then charge 150% of cost of that occupation, protection, straight out of a Mafioso playback,
only their blind arrogance and ignorance, make that kind of public stance possible. Any
government that signs onto it, traitors to their own people, selling out to an foreign
occupation, using Americans forces to sustain autocratic control of that country, those
citizens paying for the bullets Americans will use to kill them, should they try to end the
occupation. The more forces required to quell the public, the more they bill the occupied
country and the MORE PROFITABLE IT BECOMES, utter insanity. Only utterly blind stupidity
could make that public statement possible, beyond something you would expect from a backward
third world country and some despot drunk on power, nope, this from the USA, the not home of
freedom, the not home of justice and clearly the not home of democracy, the best people
killers on the planet, ready to back militarily any despot it puts in charge, at the expense
of their victims. Any sane country would hide this embarrassment, nope the US proud.
Imagine a parallel universe where Maria is the British Prime Minister. The British
politicians are not in her league. She is notionally just a spokeswoman, in Britain we don't
have such free speaking spokesmen. It seems everything said in Britain has to be a lie. So
refreshing and much more intellectually engaging to have the truth. There is the small matter
of appearance, nobody in British politics now or ever is dressed as well as Maria. Or this
show's host. I also like it how Maria has her notes on her phone.
The country was divided before Mueller Report. Now it is even more divided.
Notable quotes:
"... We wouldn't know that a Clinton-linked operative, Joseph Mifsud, seeded Trump campaign aide George Papadopoulos with the rumor that Russia had 'Dirt' on Hillary Clinton - which would later be coaxed out of Papadopoulos by a Clinton-linked Australian ambassador, Alexander Downer, and that this apparent 'setup' would be the genesis of the FBI's " operation crossfire hurricane " operation against the Trump campaign. ..."
"... We wouldn't know about the role of Fusion GPS - the opposition research firm hired by Hillary Clinton's campaign to commission the Steele dossier. Fusion is also linked to the infamous Trump Tower meeting , and hired Nellie Ohr - the CIA-linked wife of the DOJ's then-#4 employee, Bruce Ohr. Nellie fed her husband Bruce intelligence she had gathered against Trump while working for Fusion , according to transcripts of her closed-door Congressional testimony. ..."
"... Now the dossier -- financed by Hillary Clinton's campaign and the Democratic National Committee , and compiled by the former British intelligence agent Christopher Steele -- is likely to face new, possibly harsh scrutiny from multiple inquiries . - NYT ..."
"... The report was debunked after internet sleuths traced the IP address to a marketing server located outside Philadelphia, leading Alfa Bank executives to file a lawsuit against Fusion GPS in October 2017, claiming their reputations were harmed by the Steele Dossier. ..."
"... And who placed the Trump-Alfa theory with various media outlets? None other than former FBI counterintelligence officer and Dianne Feinstein aide Dan Jones - who is currently working with Fusion GPS and Steele to continue their Trump-Russia investigation funded in part by George Soros . ..."
"... Of course, when one stops painting with broad brush strokes, it's clear that the dossier was fabricated bullshit. ..."
"... after a nearly two-year investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller and roughly 40 FBI agents and other specialists, no evidence was found to support the dossier's wild claims of "DNC moles, Romanian hackers, Russian pensioners, or years of Trump-Putin intelligence trading ," as the Times puts it. ..."
"... As there was spying, there must necessarily also have been channels to get the information thus gathered back to its original buyer - the Clinton campaign. Who passed the information back to Clinton, and what got passed? ..."
"... the NYTt prints all the news a scumbag would. remember Judith Miller, the Zionazi reporter the NYT ..."
"... There was no 'hack.' That is the big, anti-Russia, pro-MIC lie which all the other lies serve. ..."
"... Seth Rich had the means and the motive. So did Imran Awan, but it would make no sense for Awan to turn anything over to wikileaks . . .he would have kept them as insurance. ..."
"... Until the real criminals are processed and the media can be restored you don't have a United States. This corruption is beyond comprehension. You had the (((media)) providing kickbacks to the FBI for leaked information. These bribes are how CNN was on site during Roger Stones invasion. ..."
"... So now the narrative is, "We were wrong about Russian collusion, and that's Russia's fault"?! ..."
As we now shift from the "witch hunt" against Trump to 'investigating the investigators' who spied on him - remember this; Donald
Trump was supposed to lose the 2016 election by almost all accounts. And had Hillary won, as expected, none of this would have seen
the light of day .
We wouldn't know that a Clinton-linked operative, Joseph Mifsud,
seeded Trump campaign aide George Papadopoulos with the rumor that Russia had 'Dirt' on Hillary Clinton - which would later be
coaxed out of Papadopoulos by a Clinton-linked Australian ambassador, Alexander Downer, and that this apparent 'setup' would be the
genesis of the FBI's "
operation crossfire hurricane " operation against the Trump campaign.
We wouldn't know about the role of Fusion GPS - the opposition research firm hired by Hillary Clinton's campaign to commission
the Steele dossier. Fusion is also linked to the infamous
Trump Tower meeting , and hired
Nellie Ohr - the CIA-linked wife of the DOJ's then-#4 employee, Bruce Ohr. Nellie fed her husband Bruce intelligence she had
gathered against Trump while working for Fusion ,
according to transcripts of her closed-door Congressional testimony.
And if not for reporting by the Daily
Caller 's Chuck Ross and others, we wouldn't know that the FBI sent a longtime spook, Stefan Halper, to infiltrate and spy on
the Trump campaign - after the Obama DOJ paid him over $400,000
right before the 2016 US election (out of more than $1 million he received while Obama was president).
According to the New
York Times , the tables are turning, starting with the Steele Dossier.
[T]he release on Thursday of
the report
by the special counsel , Robert S. Mueller III, underscored what had grown clearer for months -- that while many Trump aides
had welcomed contacts with the Russians, some of the most sensational claims in the dossier appeared to be false, and others were
impossible to prove . Mr. Mueller's report contained over a dozen passing references to the document's claims but no overall assessment
of why so much did not check out.
While Congressional Republicans have vowed to investigate, the DOJ's Inspector General is considering whether the FBI improperly
relied on the dossier when they used it to apply for a surveillance warrant on Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. The IG also wants
to know about Steele's sources and whether the FBI disclosed any doubts as to the veracity of the dossier .
Attorney General Barr, meanwhile, said he will review the FBI's conduct in the Russia investigation after saying the agency
spied on the Trump
campaign .
Doubts over the dossier
The FBI's scramble to vet the dossier's claims are well known. According to an April, 2017
NYT report , the FBI agreed
to pay Steele $50,000 for "solid corroboration" of his claims . Steele was apparently unable to produce satisfactory evidence - and
was ultimately not paid for his efforts:
Mr. Steele met his F.B.I. contact in Rome in early October, bringing a stack of new intelligence reports. One, dated Sept.
14, said that Mr. Putin was facing "fallout" over his apparent involvement in the D.N.C. hack and was receiving "conflicting advice"
on what to do.
The agent said that if Mr. Steele could get solid corroboration of his reports, the F.B.I. would pay him $50,000 for his efforts,
according to two people familiar with the offer. Ultimately, he was not paid . -
NYT
Still, the FBI used the dossier to obtain the FISA warrant on Page - while the document itself was heavily shopped around to various
media outlets . The late Sen. John McCain provided a copy to Former FBI Director James Comey, who already had a version, and briefed
President Trump on the salacious document. Comey's briefing to Trump was then used by CNN and BuzzFeed to justify reporting on and
publishing the dossier following the election.
Let's not forget that in October, 2016, both Hillary Clinton and her campaign chairman John Podesta promoted the conspiracy theory
that a secret Russian server was communicating with Trump Tower.
The report was debunked after internet sleuths traced the IP address to a marketing server located outside Philadelphia, leading
Alfa Bank executives to file a lawsuit against Fusion GPS in October 2017, claiming their reputations were harmed by the Steele Dossier.
And who placed the Trump-Alfa theory with various media outlets? None other than former FBI counterintelligence officer and Dianne
Feinstein aide Dan Jones - who is currently working with Fusion GPS and Steele to continue their Trump-Russia investigation funded
in part by
George Soros .
Russian tricks? The Times notes that Steele "has not ruled out" that he may have been fed Russian disinformation while assembling his dossier.
That would mean that in addition to carrying out an effective attack on the Clinton campaign, Russian spymasters hedged their
bets and placed a few land mines under Mr. Trump's presidency as well.
Oleg D. Kalugin, a former K.G.B. general who now lives outside Washington, saw that as plausible. "Russia has huge experience
in spreading false information," he said. -
NYT
In short, Steele is being given an 'out' with this admission.
A lawyer for Fusion GPS, Joshua Levy, says that the Mueller report substantiated the "core reporting" in the Steele memos - namely
that "Trump campaign figures were secretly meeting Kremlin figures," and that Russia's president, Vladimir V. Putin, had directed
"a covert operation to elect Donald J. Trump."
Of course, when one stops painting with broad brush strokes, it's clear that the dossier was fabricated bullshit.
The dossier tantalized Mr. Trump's opponents with a worst-case account of the president's conduct. And for those trying to
make sense of the Trump-Russia saga, the dossier infused the quest for understanding with urgency.
In blunt prose, it suggested that a foreign power had fully compromised the man who would become the next president of the
United States.
The Russians, it asserted, had tried winning over Mr. Trump with real estate deals in Moscow -- which he had not taken up --
and set him up with prostitutes in a Moscow hotel in 2013, filming the proceedings for future exploitation. A handful of aides
were described as conspiring with the Russians at every turn.
Mr. Trump, it said, had moles inside the D.N.C. The memos claimed that he and the Kremlin had been exchanging intelligence
for eight years and were using Romanian hackers against the Democrats , and that Russian pensioners in the United States were
running a covert communications network . -
NYT
And after a nearly two-year investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller and roughly 40 FBI agents and other specialists, no
evidence was found to support the dossier's wild claims of "DNC moles, Romanian hackers, Russian pensioners, or years of Trump-Putin
intelligence trading ," as the Times puts it.
Now that the shoe is on the other foot, and key Democrats backing away from talks of impeachment, let's see if lady justice will
follow the rest of us down the rabbit hole.
This is why the whole FISA court is a joke. What is their remedy if their power is abused? What happens. Well,... the FISA
courts was lied to and found out about it in the early 2000's. Mueller was FBI chief. So they got a strongly worded dressing-down,
a mark in their permanent record from high school, and NO ONE was fired... no one was sanctioned, no agent was transferred to
Alaska.
Fast forward 10 or 12 years and the FBI is doing this **** again. Lying to the court... you know the court where there are
no Democrat judges or Republican judges.. they are all super awesome.... and what is the remedy when the FISA court is told they've
been lied to by the FBI and used in a intel operation with MI6, inserting assets, into a freaking domestic Presidential campaign!!!
and then they WON. Good god.
And what do we hear from our court? Nadda. Do we hear of some Federal Judges hauling FBI and DOJ folks in front of them and
throwing them in jail? Nope. It appears from here... that our Federal Justices are corrupt and have no problem letting illegal
police-state actions go on with ZERO accountability or recourse. They could care less evidently. It's all secret you know... trust
us they say.. Why aren't these judges publicly making loud noises about how the judiciary is complicit , with the press, in wholesale
spying and leaking for political reasons AND a coup attempt when the wrong guy won.???
Where is awesome Justice Roberts? Why isn't he throwing down some truth on just how compromised the rule of law in his courts
clearly are in the last 10 years? The FISA court is his baby. It does no good for them to assure us they are concerned too, and
they've taken action and sent strongly worded letters. Pisses me off. ? Right? heck of rant...
When did Russians interfere in our elections?? 2016. Who was president when Russians interfered with elections?? oobama. Who
was head of the CIA?? Brennan. Who was National Intelligence director?? Clapper. Who was head of the FBI when the Russians interfered
in our elections?? Comey. The pattern is obvious. When Trump was a private citizen the oobama and all his cabinet appointees and
Intel Managers had their hands on all the levers and instruments of Government..and did nothing . Your oobama is guilty of treason
and failing his Oath Of Office...everybody knows this.
This article is still a roundabout gambit to blame Russia.
Fair enough, where's Bill Browder? In England. Browder's allegations were utilized to try and damage Russia, even though Russia
(not the USSR), is about the most reliable friend America has.
Russia helped Lincoln, and were it not for that crucial help, there'd be no America to sanction Russia today. The Tsar paid
for that help with his dynasty, when Nicholas II was murdered, and dethroned.
Americans are truly ungrateful brutes..
Now, sanctions, opprobrium, and hatred are heaped on Russia, most cogently by chauvinistic racists, who look down their noses
at Rus (Russ) and yet, cannot sacrifice 25 millions of their own people, for the sake of others.
Russians are considered subhuman, and yet, the divine spark of humanity resides solely in their breasts. The zionists claim
a false figure of 6 million for a faux holocaust, and yet, nobody pays attention to the true holocaust of 25 millions, or the
many millions before that disastrous instigated war.
That the Russians are childlike, believing others to be like them, loyal, self sacrificing, and generous, has now brought the
world to the brink of armageddon, and still, they bear the burden of proof, though their accusers, who ought provide the evidence,
are bereft of any..
Thomas Jefferson it was, who observing whatever he observed, exclaimed in cogent agitation, that "I fear for my countrymen,
when I remember that God is Just, and His Justice does not repose forever".
Investigate Jared and Ivanka Kushner, along with Charles Kushner, and much ought be clear, no cheers...
I don't buy that "Few bad apples at the top", "Good rank and file" Argument. I have never seen one. We should assume everyone
from the top to the bottom of FBI, DOJ, and State, just to get started, probably every other three better agency is bad. At least
incompotent, at worst treasonous.
As there was spying, there must necessarily also have been channels to get the information thus gathered back to its original
buyer - the Clinton campaign. Who passed the information back to Clinton, and what got passed?
the NYTt prints all the news a scumbag would. remember Judith Miller, the Zionazi reporter the NYT used to push
the Iraq war with all sorts of ********? after the war was determined to be started under a false premise and became common knowledge
there were no wmds in iraq the nyt came forward and reported the war was ******** as if they were reporting breaking news.
they have done the same thing here. they pushed the russiagate story with both barrels even though the informed populace knew
it was ******** before trump was sworn in as potus. now that the all the holes in the story are readily apparent the nyt comes
forward with breaking revelation that something is wrong with the story.
The Seth Rich investigation; where is it now? Murder of a campaign staffer; tampering with or influencing an election, is it
not? Hmmm... When nine hundred years old you become, look this good you will not.
Once upon a time there was a Bernie supporter. And his name was Seth Rich. Then there was a "botched robbery", which evidence
that was concluded on, I have no idea. Do you? Anyhow, The End.
Seth Rich had the means and the motive. So did Imran Awan, but it would make no sense for Awan to turn anything over to
wikileaks . . .he would have kept them as insurance.
Why wouldn't Assange name the source for the DNC emails? Is this a future bargaining chip? And what if he did name Seth Rich?
He would have to prove it. Could he?
They've got Assange now...Maybe they should ask him if it was Seth Rich who gave him the emails?
Maybe even do it under oath and on national television. I don't think it's still considered "burning a source" if your source
has already been murdered....
Until the real criminals are processed and the media can be restored you don't have a United States. This corruption is
beyond comprehension. You had the (((media)) providing kickbacks to the FBI for leaked information. These bribes are how CNN was
on site during Roger Stones invasion.
Treason and Sedition is rampant in America and all SPY roads lead to Clapper, Brennan and Obama...This needs attention.
The media is abusive and narrating attacks on a dully elected president
Oleg D. Kalugin, a former K.G.B. general who now lives outside Washington, saw that as plausible. "Russia has huge experience
in spreading false information," he said. -
NYT
You have got to be ******* kidding me. So now the narrative is, "We were wrong about Russian collusion, and that's
Russia's fault"?!
"... This is one of the biggest problems with mainstream media these days. They just give out fake stories or tailor-made stories out there and people on social media latch on to the stories without actually trying to find out what really happened. ..."
"... I've never thought of there being an antisemitism crisis in the Labour party but rather think of it as part of a concerted attack on anyone opposing Israeli policy towards Palestinians, occupied territories and so on. ..."
In the article, Buzzfeed reporters Jason Leopold and Anthony Cormier claim to have been
told, by two anonymous sources, that Robert Mueller's "Russiagate" investigation had evidence
Donald Trump had instructed his lawyer to lie to Congress. That would be a felony, and
obviously an impeachable offence.
The reaction of the news media and associated twitterati was as quick as it was predictable.
MSNCBC, CNN, the BBC, The Guardian the usual suspects. They were all over it within hours.
But then, less than a day later, Robert Mueller's spokesperson Peter Carr issued this statement :
BuzzFeed's description of specific statements to the special counsel's office, and
characterization of documents and testimony obtained by this office, regarding Michael
Cohen's congressional testimony are not accurate,"
Despite this, BuzzFeed is sticking to its guns. Insisting that Mueller's statement is vague,
and therefore does not undercut the heart of their story.
The rest of the mainstream media are sensing the tone though and jumping ship. The
Washington Post – not known for their pro-Trump slant –
ran an editorial pointing out the scarcity of Mueller's public comment (this the first
statement Mueller has ever issued concerning evidence or claims in the press), and arguing that
the rush to refute the BuzzFeed article means it is probably completely false.
Nevertheless, BuzzFeed has not retracted or altered their story in any way – except
for putting in one small paragraph reporting that Mueller's office disputes their story. There
is no note of the update, and the rest of the story
remains unchanged .
The article claimed Trump's campaign manager Paul Manafort had met with Julian Assange at
least three times prior to the 2016 Presidential Election. No evidence was produced, save the
word of "unnamed intelligence officials", "secret Ecuadorian documents" and the like. While the
predictable news outlets picked up the story and ran with it with the eagerness of a
6-month-old Golden Retriever,
we in the alternative media were quick to point out the logical and factual deficiencies in
the story.
Within hours, The Guardian had edited its language to be rather more circumspect , and
include the denials made by both accused parties. The edits made to the article were not noted
or highlighted in any way, we only know they exist because of internet archives. The next day
The Guardian released a brief, terse, defensive statement. That statement was itself
refuted by both Manafort and WikiLeaks. As of today, WikiLeaks is actively pursuing legal
action in this case.
Later, it was revealed that a key contributor to the story had been previously been
convicted of forgery .
No apology has been made, and no retraction issued, no explanation given. Both the editor,
Katherine Viner, and Luke Harding have been totally silent on the topic.
So, in the last 2 months both Buzzfeed and The Guardian have issued "BREAKING NEWS"
stories that made bold claims, but were not backed up with any evidence. Both these stories
were shown to be untrue in less than 24 hours.
Anonymous sources are a common area here – both stories rely exclusively on the word
of "unnamed sources" from either "the intelligence services" or "government agencies".
Anonymous sources are the batarangs on the propagandist's utility belt. Flexible, simple,
timeless.
Anonymity allows government agencies to leak misinformation on purpose, without hurting
their credibility. It allows newspapers to control public opinion without having any actual
facts on hand. It allows intelligence agencies to plant narratives they may want to revisit, or
to give targets of blackmail operations a warning. And, most obviously, it allows journalists
to simply make stuff up.
I don't know which specific class these two stories fall into – but I do know it's one
or all of them.
So we come to the question of motive: BuzzFeed and The Guardian must have known there
was no evidence to back up their assertions (yet, anyway). They must know the
"significant minority" of the population who believe "conspiracy theories about their own
government" will research and refute these claims.
So why publish them?
Well, in the Guardian's case, every story demonising Assange discredits WikiLeaks'
future output, whilst also softening public sympathy for Assange in preparation for potential
extradition of to the US. All the mainstream press have turned on WikiLeaks, but The
Guardian – for some reason – has a particularly strong institutional axe to
grind with WikiLeaks, and specifically Julian Assange.
Similarly, every "Russia bad!" story primes the public to accept increased defence spending,
increased control of the internet by the government and increased social media censorship. It
is very much the gift that keeps on giving in that regard.
In BuzzFeed's case, it has been apparent for a while now that the Mueller investigation is
likely to fizzle. Articles and interviews from various media sources have been prepping the
public for a "let
down" for a few weeks. At this point, there is no case for impeaching Trump. But the Deep
State still needs to keep him over a barrel.
Trump has been a disappointment to his base and is yet to implement half the policies he
discussed on the campaign trail, but he's not fully and totally being controlled by the
warhawking Deep State yet, either. His policy of peace with North Korea and decisions to pull
out of Syria and Afghanistan show that there is a tug-of-war ongoing inside the administration.
It's probably no coincidence that this latest of many "bombshells" comes so quickly on the heels of
Trump's announcement of the Syria withdrawal.
Careful "leaks", planted stories and social media witch-hunts remind Trump how precarious
his position is, whilst simultaneously distracting the public – both pro-Trump and
anti-Trump – from real issues.
The case-specific "why?" doesn't matter so much as the general aim of this type of
manipulation. The important question is: Why does the media tell lies if they know they will be
revealed as such?
Clearly, the lies serve a purpose, regardless of their retraction or qualification.
Telling a lie loudly and then taking it back quietly is an old propaganda trick – it
allows the paper to maintain a facade of "accountability". The point of this practice is to
propagate lies into the public consciousness. It's a method that can be used to distract and
disseminate and divide.
The accuracy of the statement is immaterial. The point is, once it has been said it cannot
be unsaid. There are countless examples: "Assange was working for Russia", "Trump ordered
Cohen to lie to Congress", "Russia hacked the US election", "Donald Trump worked for the KGB",
"Assad gassed his own people", "Jeremy Corbyn is an antisemite".
The list goes on and on and on. None these have been proven. All were asserted without
evidence, fiercely defended as facts, and then discretely qualified.
That is the purpose of "fake news", to forge the Empire's
"created reality" , and force us all to live in it. These are world-shaping,
policy-informing, news-dominating narratives and are nothing but feathers in the wind .
A perfect examplar of this occurred just two days ago on the BBC's flagship Political debate
show Question Time :
The (notionally impartial) host not only sided with right-wing author Isabel Oakeshott in
criticising Labour's polling, but then joined in mocking the Labour MP Diane Abbott for
attempting to correct the record.
Both Oakeshott and Fiona Bruce, the host, were
factually incorrect – as shown a hundred times over since. But that doesn't matter.
The lie was told, the audience laughed, the reality was created. "Labour are behind in the
polls, anybody who says otherwise is a laughingstock" .
The lie goes around the world while the truth is still putting its boots on.
That's why fake news is so important to them, and so dangerous us.
Kit Knightly is co-editor of OffGuardian. The Guardian banned him from commenting. Twice. He
used to write for fun, but now he's forced to out of a near-permanent sense of outrage.
This is one of the biggest problems with mainstream media these days. They just give out
fake stories or tailor-made stories out there and people on social media latch on to the
stories without actually trying to find out what really happened.
This is not the first time BuzzFeed it issuing an article like this one by now it has developed a reputation for
propagating facts that are untrue. It is said to see what our media houses have come down too, gone are the days when news
reports were based on facts.
Here's a short piece on Muralgate as part of Israeli information warfare:
Was the antisemitism crisis in the UK Labour Party designed as a distraction from Gaza?
Very early on some complained that Jeremy Corbyn was a victim of a smear campaign, but
might it be more accurate to say that UK politics witnessed a deliberate smokescreen? As
controversial as this narrative is, I think that all the evidence points in that
direction.
https://www.academia.edu/38226258/MuralGate_as_a_Distraction_from_Gaza_Smear_and_Smokescreen
I've never thought of there being an antisemitism crisis in the Labour party but rather
think of it as part of a concerted attack on anyone opposing Israeli policy towards
Palestinians, occupied territories and so on. There's two reasons for this; one being that
the intellectual base of left wing politics has historically has always included a lot of
Jewish thinkers. The other is that we don't have a Labour party here in the US but any organization that's critical of these
policies gets tarred in exactly the same way. Its a lazy 'fill in the blanks' approach that obviously does the job (because
the media just takes up the banner and runs with it, it doesn't hang around to ask questions) but at the same time its
really easy to see through if you know what to look for.
Buzzfeed is a complete scam. I remember the night of the Presidential election their running vote tallies were completely
false – they had Hillary Clinton leading the whole time. They know exactly what they are doing. It's not like they are
making mistakes.
BuzzFeed is a useful outlet for fake news because no intelligent person takes the zine
seriously. But CNN/MSNBC/etc. consumers only see hear the manic assertions and miss where
the 'news' came from then later miss the corrections. If Brian Stelter is later pressed he
can say "Well, it's BuzzFeed, I mean, come on. CNN had nothing to do with it." BuzzFeed
says a couple of prostitutes peed on a bed to amuse Trump, the story is discredited, but a
lot of people still believe it. And on and on.
Now the story that Trump hat wearing high school kids were harassing black people who
were quoting the Bible – and then laughed at an old Native American who stepped in to
prevent the kids from assaulting the blacks – is falling apart. Seems odd that
Anderson Cooper or Don Lemon haven't invited the Black Israelites on to talk about civil
rights in 2019 – especially LGBT rights and anti-antisemitism..
This is the classic way to insert stories in the main stream media. You use postings on
Internet sites which reverberate -- they get reposted (which you may do a bit of as well)
so they build up a veneer of credibility. They are then quoted as "authoritative" by more
established media.
The technique isn't new and its not confined to politics. This is how product marketing
works, using a combination of press releases, 'leaks', 'exclusive access' and so on to get
'buzz' about the product. As with politics it often finds itself in a gray area where it
might be marketing a product that doesn't exist (yet), often to forestall a competitor's
advantage. (Disclaimer -- I've never worked in marketing but I have spent my working life
developing products and technologies. Sometimes what gets published about what you and your
colleagues have developed is a bit of a surprise ..but that's just how business
works!)
Good article Kit, just please correct the few times where I thought you missed a word. "All were asserted without evidence,
fiercely defended as facts, and then discretely qualified." Did you not mean disqualified? Similarly at the very end.
The creation of chaos appears to be the aim.
And it's working just fine.
When it gets bad enough, the engineers of the chaos just move in and reorganize things the
way they have always wanted them.
It's what I would do if I were a soulless, incompetent fathead.
There is of course another possibility: click bait.
The public click thru absolutely outrageous headlines more than measured ones. They are
like junkies neding a fix.
James Delingpole gets huge click thru metrics using a pre-adolescent puerile
in-your-face rudeness. He has a captive audience of very right people, mostly on
Breitbart.
There is similar behaviour on the left, equally calculated.
You want this sort of thing to stop, the general populace must turn away in huge droves
from the click bait.
Any idea what Cadwalladr is on about in her latest tweet?
A girlfriend of an oligarch manhandled at a Moscow airport?
Still no mention of II/IoS and Caroles links with them and their anti Russian
disinformation.
She mentions the usual bogeymen , trump, mannafort, farage, but not Murdoch, Mandy,
Blair or Tory MP's.
Meanwhile the plot of a coup to by-pass parliamentry democracy reaches a denoument this
week – all the neocon/lib forces are to be marshalled under the patrician Grieve and
Cooper along with all the right-thinking forces of the land in the final fight between to
regain the land for Mordor. A unholy alliance of the Willing to stop the Corbynite Hobbits
ridding the land of the ancient powers!
Latest bit of fake news by the Groaniad
'May's move comes as fresh polling evidence suggests the public are sanguine about the
possibility of a no-deal Brexit.
A poll by ICM conducted in the wake of last week's historic government defeat and seen by
the Guardian asked voters what should happen next.'
"seen by the Guardian" "the public are sangunie"
Look into my mystical crystal bowl eyes, you are sanguine, sanguine !
Do they even know what 'sanguine' means?
Dear Off-G you could do with a perma link to the ticker tape of all the twaddle the
Obssesive Groaniad prints, we could all contribute.
"Dear Off-G you could do with a perma link to the ticker tape of all the twaddle the
Obssesive Groaniad prints, we could all contribute "
Yes. The obvious course is for OG to take on the task of exposing Hte Garuniad's lies and
manipulations, in real time.
Not that this is a criticism of the excellent work currently being done.
"The lie goes around the world while the truth is still putting its boots on."
This is one of the most pertinant phrases today, particularly with the speed of modern
communications. The lies which led to the invasion of Iraq, the lies around so called
chemical weapons attacks, the lies about the White Helmets, the media lies which lead to
the demonisation of Jeremy Corbyn and Diane Abbott
If the media keeps on propagating lies and misinformation, then we could find ourselves on
the brink of a final catastrophic war.
Illusions operate in place of true for that is their function, given them by those who hold
them dear.
Belief you are separate (from life – each other and world) is the belief that truth
is different for each one and that there is a hierarchy of illusions – where some are
held as more true than others. Each must establish this for themself by attack on others to
make their own true.
The errors seen in others are thus always a call for attack and not for undoing, healing or
correction.
The mind is thus set at war with itself by war of self-reinforcing self-illusion with
obviously distressing results to the willingness to those who give reality to its dictate.
If you see the underlying principles of a mind at war with (in active denial of) living
truth, are recognisably insane but normal premise to human confusion, then you are no
longer altogether listening to confusion.
That there is fear of truth in us would be more evident if we were not so active in the
engagement within illusions as if some illusions can be victorious over other
illusions.
The mind of deceit seems to be the saviour from confusion, while actually protecting and
persisting it as the sin seen or flagged onto others. This protects 'sin' or irrevocable
guilt that calls for punishment, as the framework of perception by the attempt to put it
out on another and MAKE it true.
But then an underlying fear of truth is magnified by the fear that what we thought to
get rid of, will come back to us and damn us. Which will SEEM true while we persist in
seeing errors as uncorrectable AND as the means to protect and maintain defences for a
false sense of possession and control.
Insane defences protect insanity against healing.
There is a work I companion with over many years as a daily inspiration that I associate
with synchronicity of recognition or resonance of what is apparently going on, with
emerging perspective of desire to see – rather than persistence in habits and
patterns of thought that are brought to light by choosing not to automatically react as if
true.
Illusions cannot 'save themselves' by struggle or assertion. But any awakening point of
recognition of false as false is an opportunity to simply call on truth instead of trying
to make true.
"Survival' within a battle of illusions is seeking a 'better' illusion within a
self-damnation that can only arrive at its starting place. Releasing this as the point from
which to receive identity is through the willingness or choice NOT to use it by opening to
another in desire for a peace of being that is prior to – or beneath – the
coverings of a buzz feed of fake news.
Questioning what we are, made a questionable mind and gave it the time of day to rob us of
the joy in the day thereof. Another way to say this – is the interjecting of the mind
of thought and control upon the flow of communication and relation that life already is the
being and sharing of – as a 'self-consciousness' of inhibition and division.
This curious capacity to become both subject and object – and as if separate from
fearful life – is associated with lack of power and lack of love by the drive to then
regain it or protect the little we hath from a sense of total loss.
Edward Bernays, Walter Lippmann, Joseph Goebbels, Luke Harding (and his many vile clones in the Western media) Manufacturing
Consent . You nail it Kit in one single article. The phrase 'created reality' says it all. Sort of a bit like the 2 minutes
of hate thing from that famous book. And of course, now the slime have NewsGuard ready to roll out as well as many having
their Facebook and Twitter accounts suspended or terminated. Incidentally, my Facebook account has been suspended 5-6 times
now for 'breaching community standards'.
Another good bit of recent news misinformation was the story about the Chinese 'spy chip'
that was embedded into server motherboards made in China. This story was well debunked by
the technical community -- the general response was a combination of "If it was in the SKU
we'd have noticed it" and "this is one fantastic part, where can I buy some?" but the story
will still come up if you do a search on "Chinese spy chip" rather than the (numerous)
rebuttals.
More sinister, and more important, is the global campaign against Huewei. You'll find
numerous instances of countries banning their equipment because of fears that its spying
for China, something the company has been at pains to prove false. There's two levels to
this, though. One is the normal Cold War/Chinese intellectual property theft stuff, the
other is commercial. Huawei is currently in a position to supply what's called '5G'
wireless equipment, not just the phones but the entire infrastructure that's needed to make
them work. US companies are somewhat behind in their ability to deploy this technology so
it has become necessary to slow or eliminate the competition by political rather than
technical means. There's a lot of money at stake, and as we know from the so-called energy
sector threatening the hegemony has already caused several wars, coups and what-have-you so
its not inconceivable that a similar measures might have to be taken with this technology.
(There's more than money at stake as well -- control of the technology is vital if you want
to use it for spying. Spying? Everyone does, in fact its gone commercial with the
personalization of advertising, its just a question of who gets to reap the
rewards.)
Aside from the aforementioned warnings about HUAWEI' s ability to competively and
profitably manufacture and markert so-called fifth generation wireless telephony systems
and products, which are surely based upon simply; jealous commercial slander by Huawei's
competitors.
More important is the strange fact that this " fifth generation wireless technology "
has not been to be a safe, or even a practical technology, by any of the necessary and
acceptable ITU approved standards organisations.
This is more than a source of health and safety concerns all of the population most
widely, and is still without he necessary approvals which are still absent, and thus it is
an urgent matter for official precautions with health and safety, given the wide scope of
this high-speed and wide-band emmission radio wave technology?
So called "5G" encompasses a whole basket of technologies, some established and some still
being tested. The role of the ITU is to set overall parameters for the technology with
other industry groups dealing with the details. The process is well established, its used
by all complex technologies that have to interoperate globally, and it invariably ends up
with some kind of patent basket where participants share technologies (and spoils). (I've
been involved peripherally in similar sorts of activities in the past so I've seen how
these groups work.)
Since this technology is evolutionary rather than revolutionary its likely that
equipment manufacturers will deliver it in phases so the race is to get your equipment
placed because it can always be upgraded later (typically this will be firmware updates for
the infrastructure kit). Here you notice that two of the big players in this are Chinese,
they just happen to be ZTE and Huawei. One of the other players is Qualcomm, a company that
you may not be familiar with but essentially had a stranglehold on previous generation
wireless technology through its IP portfolio (it derives most of its income from licensing
rather than manufacturing). Anyone who works in this business and figure out two plus two
knows exactly what's going on when the US government goes after Chinese manufacturers and
spying, health and safety and what-have-you are definitely not the real reasons. (the
H&S angle I've not heard of but since 5G will mostly use existing frequencies there's
no change -- anyway the whole electromagnetic radiation thing is one of those voodoo things
put out by people who never studied physics at school or beyond)(we can put this into
another thread, it doesn't belong here).
In many aspects of mobile technology the Chinese are, unfortunately, light years of us.
(So are the Koreans, BTW.) Its a hard truth but one we must face if we're to do anything
about being competitive.
Years ago, a British company called Sportingbet was cornering the market for bets placed
over the internet, punters could use credit cards, the Americans were caught unprepared,
hastily put together a statute that got attached to another one (which was debated certain
to pass) only hours before voting.
At a stroke, the new law cut off the US punters, the share price of Sporting plummeted,
eventually remnants of the company got sold. Within months, an American company emerged, no
problem with using credit card placing bets. (The story's more complex, arrests of
Sportingbet execs are a part of it, but the substance of it that matters is as Baron
says).
That's what the American business does, it's ruthless beyond one's
imagination.
I see they've discovered the 'doc' who gave Julia Skripal CPR on the park bench.
It turns out the 'doc' was Colonel Alison McCourt, Chief Nursing Officer of the Army!
What a coincidence!
or, alternatively check Colonel McCourt's award winning daughter , as nominated by mum
Where would the Skripals be today, were it not for the astounding 'Lifesaver' military
instincts instilled by mother ?
Maybe someone can get an interview with the daughter, now , as first responder . . .
given the monetary value in bread & butter espionage fiction; even, she could write a
book titled
Mother's Pride & Joy , (as 'Lifesaver') >>> itsa' miracle of modern
medicine & Star Wars & all penned with a trick Bic tracheotomy in
mind
These smears are all small change by US standards They are the daily fare of what passes
for a political system.
Some recent far more entertaining smears:-
Barack Obomber is a Muslim illegal alien.
His wife, Michelle, is really a man.
Clinton is dead. Her place has been taken by a body double.
Trump is having an incestuous relationship with his daughter.
Melania is a hooker.
One Presidential candidate in the 1800s put it about that his opponent had just died.
You can't vote for him, he's dead. Vote for me instead.
Britain clearly falls way behind in the smear stakes.
The best they can come up with is Steele's Golden Showers and Jezza is an anti Semite. How
pathetic is that?
The BBC / Diane Abbott story is more interesting when you read reports that the host wound
up the audience pre-show to get them to have a go at Ms Abbottt. One person described it as
a 'roast'. The BBC has some serious credibility issues these days (John Reith must be
spinning in his grave something rotten -- he established the idea that the BBC should be
impartial, establishing a reputation that's been ruthlessly exploited and totally sullied
in recent years).
Planting stories in credulous or complicit media relies on journalists who might know
how to write but know nothing about what they're writing about. They'll turn out copy on
anything without asking questions. There are some, though, that seem to want to understand
the story, that will ask questions and so on. We have to seek them out and -- most
important -- find a way of paying them because while media is entirely dependent on
eyeballs and clicks for income its essentially compromised. (See the articles in the
current edition of "Time" magazine about digital media -- they're an important
read.)
"We have to seek them out and -- most important -- find a way of paying them"
Via Off-Guardian and similar platforms?
As you say, it is indeed up to us. We have to put our money where our mouth is and
develop an alternative, as-incorruptible-as-possible media platform that serious
journalists can join. Thousands of people contributing a pound a month is a start, tens and
hundreds of thousands would make a real difference.
So disinherit Auntie, stop paying the licence fee, and redirect you monies to where the
truth get told.
Quoted tweet: Ollie Richardson 7h
"The funniest thing about GiletsJaunes: At no point in the Syrian war did the Syrian people
march on the streets and chant "Assad is a dictator". But today the French people are on
French streets calling Macron & Co dictators"
[Vexarb adds: The Yellow Jerkins shout, "Macron Must Go" -- facing tear gas, truncheons,
armoured cars and lethal weapons deployed by the Rothschild Regime.]
"That is the purpose of "fake news", to forge the Empire's "created reality", and force us
all to live in it." – author
Precisely.
Here in the U.S. the deep state is working hard with "business" to limit access to any
progressive media that might challenge the "Empire's created reality." Offering software to
public libraries that facilitate suppressing the truth in favor of the empire's lie.
Capitalism and the military state at work, joined at the hip. I believe that fits Benito's
definition of "fascism" quite nicely.
"A moderate House of Cards the greatest wit / Though he can start it cannot finish it." --
Wolfgang von Goethe, German scientist.
I am re-posting the following extract from previous thread, "Curious Bedfellows",
because it is relevant to the present thread on Brassy, Barefaced Lying by criminal
regimes.
"andrew belshaw Jan, 17, 2019
USA and Israel planned and carried out the FALSE FLAG 9/11 Attacks–
then blamed Afghananistan, Iraq, etc
FBI named their 9/11 investigation PENTTBOM
for PENtagon Twin Towers BOMbing
So where are the FBI explosive tests???
.
WHERE ARE THE FBI TESTS FOR EXPLOSIVES???
Reply
vexarb Jan, 18, 2019
Andrew, do you imply that the FBI actually tested for explosives -- and their report has
been suppressed?
Or do you mean the FBI, like the committee which issued the Official Report, avoided the
usual test for explosives in cases where modern buildings fall down?
I ask for clarification because I read at the time that the FBI said, they had no
evidence against Osama Ben Laden or Saddam Hussein.
Reply
axisofoil Jan, 19, 2019
The FBI did extensive and thorough forensics and sample testing from the crime scene of
9/11 with the National Institute of Standards and Technology. The molecular examination of
the remains and dust was conducted to the nano level. An admirable undertaking. The
thoroughly documented results were printed up at a cost of over 8 Million tax payer
dollars. _The documents were unfortunately misplaced._ the cost to duplicate the tests was
deemed too much of a financial burden on the American public by law makers."
@5 I had listed some curious incidences of "training exercises" including a bioterrorism
training exercise that happened in New York three
days before 9/11.
I am adding to my own personal notes another bioterrorism training exercise that happened
just prior to the highly suspicious Skripal poisoning.
-------
Add to the list, "Toxic Dagger", a biological/chemical training exercise held
just prior to the Skripal poisoning. Toxic Dagger is the largest annual British army
biological/chemical training exercise.
"Completing the training and exercising against these scenarios provides
a challenging programme for the Royal Marines to demonstrate their proficiency in
the methods to detect, assess and mitigate a CBRN threat."
The first person to discover the Skripals was the Chief Nursing Officer of the British
Army (whose experience includes deployment to Sierre Leone to help fight Ebola).
"An experienced officer, highly connected, who is also known for handling highly
infectious patients?"
The nurse claimed later that it was actually her daughter that was with her that detected
and assessed the Skripal scenario.
The daughter was 16 at the time and we presume the Lifesaver Award she received would be a
feather in her cap useful for her imminent application for admission to a university. Wonder
if Lori Loughlin had thought of using such an angle?
Btw on the Skripal thing does that nurse also run over to every "spice" zombie she sees in
public? Anyone in a puddle of their own partly digested booze? Does she go hunting under
bridges for heroin addicts and glue sniffers? Does she check on everyone sleeping on a bench
or in some doorway? It is England after all.
Weird hobby she's got and with her kid in tow too :P
(Yes I'm being facetious about a bullshit narrative straight out of the 1950ies).
Not only they lost all moral authority. UK MSM became openly neofascist in some areas exceeeding the press of Third Riech and the
USSR in distortions and falsifications. .
Notable quotes:
"... Corruption of government and media, is also exceedingly dangerous, for everyone's mental health. People begin to subconsciously know that they are being lied to, but they cannot accept it, because the lies conflict with their worldview, which quite naturally is based on trust for authority, and that nice man reading the news on TV. ..."
"... In 2004, Karl Rove in The Bush Government " Guys like me were 'in what we call the reality-based community,' which he defined as people who 'believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.' [ ] 'That's not the way the world really works anymore,' he continued. 'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do' ..."
Even if the Skripal affair WAS staged, you shouldn't get too excited about it. In fact, you should be rather pleased because
it would demonstrate that the tired, incompetent old UK is still capable of mounting an operation of which young, vigorous, competent
Russia would be proud.
The UK can fake events with the best of them! I would find that reassuring rather than deplorable because it's a nasty world
out there.
The Government and the media, have not been telling the whole truth for a long time. Sometimes they blatantly lie. Most people
still believe most of what they say, as there is an in-built trust of authority, for some very good historical reasons. The Skripal
story, made it obvious to a large number of people, that some of it could not be true. Most still believe it or din't take much
notice. The arrest of Julian Assange made it clearer, to an even larger number of people, that the government and the media, had
lost all moral authority. Still many people didn't take much notice, or were convinced by the lies in the media, that he was a
rapist and should be in jail.
The lies and corruption from government, is now increasingly out in the open. I believe that this is deliberate. I also think
that it is exceedingly dangerous for society for multiple reasons. We are conditioned to accept authority as our moral guide.
They act as an example of acceptable behaviour. If society as a whole, behaved like government, all trust would break down. Virtually
all functions of society are based on trust. Without such trust, nothing will work.
Corruption of government and media, is also exceedingly dangerous, for everyone's mental health. People begin to subconsciously
know that they are being lied to, but they cannot accept it, because the lies conflict with their worldview, which quite naturally
is based on trust for authority, and that nice man reading the news on TV.
I believe this has all been pre-planned, and it will result in a disastrous effect on all society, unless something happens
to bring the governments and media back to truth and sanity. I have no idea what that might be, but I expect it will not be pleasant.
The following was an early warning of the mass insanity affecting The US Government. It has spread like a highly infectious
disease.
In 2004, Karl Rove in The Bush Government " Guys like me were 'in what we call the reality-based community,' which he defined
as people who 'believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.' [ ] 'That's not the way the world
really works anymore,' he continued. 'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying
that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's
how things will sort out. We're history's actors and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do'
British propaganda is clearly as close to neofascist propaganda as one can get... British neocons are even closer to neofascists then the US neocons. And British security services are closer to
the Third Reich security services then any other.
Skripals is a such a grandiose false flag operation that Gellen (of operation Gladio fame) probably would be amazed and humbled.
Notable quotes:
"... The official narrative of the Salisbury incident is ever-fluctuating. Seemingly each and every article, news segment, official statement or documentary about any element of the case contains new information, requiring the established account to be at least partially rewritten and/or contradicting established elements of the story.... ..."
"... If nothing else, that Haynes was willing to transmit an apparently obvious fiction speaks volumes about the willingness of mainstream journalists to parrot each and every fresh claim in the Skripal case, even if it wildly conflicts with what they themselves have written previously. ..."
"... Oh dear oh dear.. It appears the UK may be denying there were any poor ducks involved... https://twitter.com/haynesdeborah/status/1118409471754153984 ..."
It seems highly reasonable to conclude the NY Times item has blown away any remaining
truthfulness to the Skripal Saga and the entire Saga--like Russiagate--can be concluded to be
a very serious hoax, and that there's no reason whatsoever to trust anything said by UK's
Tory government.
"The official narrative of the Salisbury incident is ever-fluctuating. Seemingly each and
every article, news segment, official statement or documentary about any element of the case
contains new information, requiring the established account to be at least partially
rewritten and/or contradicting established elements of the story....
"If nothing else, that Haynes was willing to transmit an apparently obvious fiction speaks
volumes about the willingness of mainstream journalists to parrot each and every fresh claim
in the Skripal case, even if it wildly conflicts with what they themselves have written
previously."
"Difficult to verify your version of events given it involves nameless officials. Knowing
you're often used by security services to peddle propaganda seemed a reasonable assumption
they'd urged you to backtrack your earlier advocacy as story detonates official #Skripal
narrative."
It seems highly reasonable to conclude the NY Times item has blown away any
remaining truthfulness to the Skripal Saga and the entire Saga--like Russiagate--can be
concluded to be a very serious hoax, and that there's no reason whatsoever to trust anything
said by UK's Tory government.
"... Skripal was just one more effort to tighten sanctions against Putin's allies in the Russian oligarchy and isolate Trump from foreign policy initiatives not approved by the Deep State. ..."
"... The significance of the NY Times story, then, is that, inadvertently it reinforces the reality that in the matter of Russiagate and Trump all roads lead to London, the Tory Establishment, which has been living off US-Russian tensions for seventy years and security agencies doing what the CIA cannot do for itself. ..."
Craig Murray has a piece on this today. There is nothing very new in what he writes but he
sees the significance of this story, which is not about ducks or children or Donald Trump's
personality but a concerted and thorough campaign, carried out largely by British state
actors, to deepen the 'west's' isolation of Russia.
The real story of both the Cold War and the continually recurring propaganda stories about
the "millions" of "victims of communism" is that the Soviet Union was manipulated throughout
its history by capitalist control over the international economy. Like a demonic organist
capitalist governments pulled out all the stops to control the moods and the policies of a
state that the Bolsheviks never did get to rule.
In the end the Politburo gave in and did what the 'west' had always been wanted which is
to hand over the country, lock, stock and population to the cannibals of capital.
The result being what was probably, after the 1930-45 war, the largest kill off of
Russians in modern history: Yeltsin plus Harvard Business School being responsible for many
more deaths than even the intoxicated propagandist Robert Conquest ever dreamed of.
It is that total control over Russia, through the manipulation of its economy, and the
direction of its capitalists, that is behind the long series of sanctions, which are being
added to every day: their purpose is to re-invent Yeltsinism, re-empower the Fifth Column in
the Kremlin, and, in a stroke, re-establish the inevitable and eternal hegemony of the
Washington centered Empire.
In this work the assistance of the 'cousins'in MI6 and GCHQ, plus the entire British
military establishment has been crucial in a period in which the subservience of POTUS to the
Deep State was, thanks to the underestimation of his electoral chances, very much in
question. During a period in which Trump had to be tamed and brought under control the UK
Establishment's assistance in coming up with a series of highly publicised interventions was
crucia l.
Lysias points out that Haspel had acted as the CIA's Head of Station in London in 2016. It
was in London that the entire "Russiagate" nonsense was put together, with British based
actors continually prodding Congress, the media and the Democrats to act on revelations
regarding Papadopolous, Mifsud, Stefan Halper.
Skripal was just one more effort to
tighten sanctions against Putin's allies in the Russian oligarchy and isolate Trump from
foreign policy initiatives not approved by the Deep State.The significance of the
NY Times story, then, is that, inadvertently it reinforces the reality that in the matter of
Russiagate and Trump all roads lead to London, the Tory Establishment, which has been living
off US-Russian tensions for seventy years and security agencies doing what the CIA cannot do
for itself.
I'm wondering what the purpose of the Guardian article is.
On the face of it it looks like just another Guardian attempt to besmirch Trump over his
putative commitment and connections to Russia and Putin, but equally, it could be read as an,
almost surreptitious, attempt to point up that Trump only responded as he did because he was
deliberately (?) misinformed/duped by the American (and British?) security services, thereby
questioning the aims, motives, methods and narrative of those security services.
If you read any of the books about behind the scenes at Trump's WhiteHouse you will find a
familiar scenario which corroborates this account, where Trump is easily manipulable by his
aides, who know very well how to push his buttons. Bolton, AIPAC, Bannon have all employed
this strategy successfully and of course Fox News have a mainstream connection to his brain.
So it sounds par for the course. As well as suggesting that Trump wouldn't have been inclined
to agree to the UK's request without the nonsense pictures, which also rings true to
form.
As for his general conduct, Simon Tisdall's excoriating account of his preference for his
Saudi friend, overriding the American people's request to get out of the Yemen massacres, is
on the ball, and sums up what a clear and present danger he is.
Somehow I don't think Donald Trump is going to ignore every story in the papers and TV and
listen to a professional manipulator from the CIA. More likely he saw an opportunity to talk
fake tough on Russia in order to take some of the heat out of Mueller's investigations,
buying time.
He must know Bolton's a neo-con nut-case and that the re-launching of dirty wars on South
America on the pretext of Russian and Chinese interference is as much of a fatuous waste of
time as the MacCarthyian idiocy.
Russia enters an era in which Western leadership is as unscrutable and bonkers as
Stalin's.
China enters an era in which having spied on everything western, it now dreads itself being
spied on by Western spies.
Politics is surely not so crude as village one-upmanship, where the loudest and most
bombastic talkers get all the admiration from the community, just because they are too lazy
or too busy to run the village themselves? Whatever outrageous claim lifts the town's skirts
up ends up with the big gold chain.
There's a lot of assumptions and projections of your own there, as well as
mischaracterising what is being said about him. there is ample evidence of his manchild
attitude – arrogance, bullying, narcissism, naivety, inability to concentrate, laziness
and a fundamental lack of intelligence.
I don't think Trump's reversing of Obama's creation and funding Islamic State shows a lack
of intelligence or narcissism. He came into office and instead of veni vidi vici as per
madame bloodsucker Clinton, he deployed Iran and Syrian Kurds to round them up and disperse
them.
At last someone in the White House grew some nuts and nouse, for a change.
This report today in the Guardian appears to be not so much about the Scrotals, more about
trying to portray Trump as a gullible idiot.
Yet another piece of evidence to confirm what I wrote in the comments sections on here
months ago. That the Skripal event was a total Psyop, carried out by the corrupt government.
Same as the fabricated terror Psyops at Westminster, London Bridge and Manchester.
@ Ian April 17, 2019 at 22:42
Ever hear of Operation Gladio? I suggest you read up on it, as you are very naive if you
believe the PTB won't sacrifice innocents if it suits their plans. False Flag ops (and
bald-faced lies) are the favoured way to spark off wars, or to introduce stricter limitations
on the people's freedoms (Patriot Act, stuff like that).
@ Ian April 18, 2019 at 00:11
Do you accept that the Operation Gladio attacks were False Flag operations, murdering
innocent European citizens in order to place the blame on the Reds? 'I have heard of
so-called Operation Gladio ' sounds very much like you are dismissive of the attacks.
'..which has nothing to do with these allegations ' It has to do with the fact that False
Flag ops killing one's own citizens is not an unknown phenomena, whilst you appear to have
believed it was, by your response.
I am not claiming Manchester was a False Flag, though I may well suspect it was.
You would be surprised how much evidence many 'conspiracy theorists' have to back up their
dismissal of government and MSM 'narratives'.
So we have a new contributor here by the name of Villanelle. This name has nothing to do
with villains but is a French term meaning:
"a pastoral or lyrical poem of nineteen lines, with only two rhymes throughout, and some
lines repeated."
-- –
[ Mod: "Villanelle" is merely the latest incarnation of a serial sockpuppeteer who comments
under different names in nearly every thread. Craig has been kept informed. ]
-- –
So there are recurring rhymes or themes. An apparently simple but very open question based
on a very non- specific enquiry: what evidence would convince you of a certain occurrence? I
can imagine this as a famous punchline in a legal drama or the like.
A famous barrister just winding up the case of a convicted triple murderer with the line
to the judge: " Your honour, you seem to have made many assumptions in this case, but please
tell me what evidence would you require to prove that my client is innocent?"
Of course in real life the judge would tell the barrister to go where the sun does not
shine. How can you ask such a question, repeatedly, then followed by next, when the case and
all the evidence have already been discussed?
I think Alexander is on the right track. Villanelle is an agent provocateur. (S)he
dominated this thread by also meticulously at least initially answering almost every single
comment by deflection. But contrary to what Alexander says I think he is not CB but is more
like our Wikipedia prolific commentator previously featuring here. Who knows whether this is
not some form of fishing or phishing by something like the II?
'A police officer stands guard outside of the home of former Russian military intelligence officer Sergei Skripal, in Salisbury,
BritainNew York Times Accidentally Unravels UK Government's Official Skripal Narrative':
Latest from Sputnik: includes pic and reference to Craig's present blog post. ' There could be several explanations for this
seeming anomaly. To name just some of the most unsettling:
Several children were hospitalised, and several ducks did die, and for reasons unclear the British government didn't inform
the public and prevented the children and their parents from revealing they'd been affected, while secretly communicating the
fact to other governments in literally graphic detail.
Counterfeit and/or misleading images may have been produced by persons unknown to bolster Britain's case for concerted international
action, and further been relayed to Haspel (if not other overseas officials), conning her and Trump into backing its mass-expulsion
policy.
Alternatively of course, perhaps the stirring tale of Haspel converting the reticent President with impactful images is mere
gossip, or spin -- after all, the article's authors didn't discuss the episode with the CIA chief herself, but based their article
on interviews "with more than a dozen current and former intelligence officials who have briefed or worked alongside her" .'
@ Villanelle April 17, 2019 at 13:27
A hell of a lot more than the load of BS narrative served up by HMG in lieu of any evidence.
But I'll give you a question, as you appear to have swallowed HMG hogwash hook, line and sinker: Can you explain why neither Sergei
nor Yulia have contacted their nonagenarian respective mother/grandmother for months, though she has begged HMG to allow contact?
Given that Sergei used to phone her every week or two, and that Yulia was her loving carer?
Is this not somewhat putting the cart before the horse? Last I was aware it was up to those making the accusation to prove
their case. If you read the articles relating to the Skirpal case on here, you would see that most of the evidence put forward
for this being a Russian assassination attempt has been widely discredited and comes from sources with dubious links to British
security services. So something beyond speculation would be a start.
If I was to indulge in such speculation, I'd say it looks most likely to me on the back of what I've read that Sergei was attempting
to return to Russia with some kind of information or material, and this whole affair was an ill planned and on the fly attempt
to stop Sergei, and pin the blame on the Ruskies as a nice bonus.
howsabout, say , a widely respected and trusted Foreign Minister, standing up in the mother of all parliaments and saying "I,
Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson, will immediately instigate a full and integral inquiry upon my own initiative and once all
the facts are established, following institutional statecraft, we will then make a considered response to whichever agency bounced
the UK into this mess"
see references:
"Serial liar Boris Johnson caught lying again?" Kevin Maguire, an editor at Daily Mirror,
howsabout, say , a widely respected and trusted Foreign Minister, standing up in the mother of all parliaments and saying "I,
Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson, will immediately instigate a full and integral inquiry upon my own initiative and once all
the facts are established, following institutional statecraft, we will then make a considered response to whichever agency bounced
the UK into this mess"
see references:
"Serial liar Boris Johnson caught lying again?" Kevin Maguire, an editor at Daily Mirror,
We have had so many contradictory stories from the media and government, that there is definitely something very wrong.
The Guardian has made no attempt to contradict the concocted story that ducks died and "sickened" children had to be hospitalised
– it just didn't happen, it was "fake news" spread by the muderous gina Haspel.
Johnson told us that only Russia could have produced Novichok, which was a complete lie.
The policeman who was contaminated, was originally supposed to be one of the first on the scene, then he visited the Skripal's
house, supposedly wearing police isswue gloves, which later turned out to be a full Hazchem suit.
He was put in isolation in hospital, with doctors and nurses wearing Hazchem suits, yet his wife and daughter were not required
to wear them.
The two boys feeding the ducks in the park were not hurt, no ducks died from the Skripal contaminated bread fed to them.
When did the Skripals get poisoned?
Was it when they left the house – how did they manage to walk around for hours before collapsing? That is definitely not how military
grade nerve agents work.
Where are the Skripals now?
Villanelle, you have just come on here spouting pro government rubbish, and yet you seem to have no idea how much this case
has been researched by Craig and the posters on here.
@ Villanelle April 17, 2019 at 13:57
If as many contend it is a UK False Flag set-up, no evidence on earth would convince me that the Russians were responsible, because
they weren't.
But the real question should be: what evidence is there for the government narratives (plural because they change with the weather)?
To portray some one or group as guilty of a crime, it is normal to provide evidence. Maybe old fashioned, but things work better
that way.
But of course, the UK has form: it went to war in Afghanistan without proof, just on Uncle Sam's say-so.
It bombed Syria over Chemical Weapon 'allegations', with no proof.
It attacked Iraq over alleged Chemical Weapons.
And it bombed Libya over false allegations.
So, yep, HMG has 'form' at fomenting false 'casus belli'.
·When did the Skripals return home to actually touch the door? Earliest door could've been coated around 12 noon. No cctv of
their car returning and timeline is off.
· Why did they both fall ill later that afternoon at precisely same moment despite different body compositions?
·The fact the potential assassins walked up the street in broad daylight unconcerned about any CCTV, why did Sergei's house have
no CCTV.
·The method – insanely risky given Skripal wasn't hiding, living at that address under his real name with no CCTV.
·The fact that for days after these events police stood outside, right next to the door in question with no protective clothing,
this despite an officer apparently falling ill after 'forcing entry' – no sign of forced entry on that door.
· Why did Charlie Rowley and his brother insist in TV interviews he broke the bottle spilled a quantity on his hands and then
wash it off? He even talked of its 'oily' consistency and its smell. A google search shows all the MSM reported the bottled 'splintered'
into pieces. It's reported the sample handed to the OPCW was 98.3% pure.
· Ţhe fact both Skripals have all but vanished despite Yulia feeling the need to phone her cousin during her 'situation'.
There are many other inconsistencies.
If these are answered satisfactorily, I guess Craig and all other querying folk will be convinced.
@ Villanelle April 17, 2019 at 14:09
The following should teach you all you need to know about the OPCW – it is afraid to deal honestly in cases which go against the
Western (US) narrative:
'Was UK paying White Helmets to produce Syria 'chemical weapon' PR as cover for Jaish Al Islam?': https://www.rt.com/op-ed/454205-uk-paying-white-helmets-syria-jaish/
?
And in my estimation, Syria was what was behind the Salisbury Saga. The UK wanted to get across to the public the idea Russia
used Chemical Weapons, in time for the next 'False Flag' CW ops (real or hoax) that the British founded and funded 'White Helmets'
mercenary head-choppers' PR outfit organised in Syria.
I am, Villanelle.
If only Sergey Skripal suddenly and unexplainably died in first year or two after he was swapped. You know, that type of death,
like heart attack during your usual morning fitness, or falling out of the window, or perhaps you remember the guy who was found
dead in his travel bag and somehow it was attributes to his sexual play with his gay partner. Something of this kind.
Gosh, even simple death of rat poison would do.
Not the absurd story about FSB trying to kill an ex-spy with secret warfare in rural England, near the fence of Porton Down, with
the most experienced Army Nurse rushing to help and brave British doctors successfully treating Novichok poisoning. So successfully,
that Yulia was able to read and write two languages, using complex grammar constructions She even didn't stumble on foreign words,
reciting long text in front of cameras and her facial expressions are all relevant, healthy and telling of good self-possession.
So NO, I'm not convinced.
Villanelle has asked a silly question but provided no evidence for his/her/its belief in some "official" version of events
which somehow involves Russian guilt. The simple fact is that there is no evidence for any Russian state involvement in the disappearance
of the Skripals. As for their alleged poisoning – all samples went through Porton Down, a UK government agency – so there is no
independent chain of custody. Just as with the OPCW "investigation" of the alleged Khan Sheykhoun CW "attack" in Syria where all
samples were supplied through terrorists and their White Helmets associates. And OPCW itself refused to visit the Syrian airbase
even when invited and guaranteed security for such a visit.
Russian visitors Petrov and Boshirov (there is no evidence that these are false identities) were in Salisbury on 3 and 4 March
2018 either as tourists or for some other purpose, but the police have been unable to link them in any way with the Skripals.
Craig Murray and others have pointed out innumerable logical impossibilities – not just inconsistencies – in official and media
reports.
There is no case for Russia to answer. Russia needs no defence. The simple answer to Villanelle is that after all the official
obfuscation by UK government and intelligence agencies, there is NOTHING that would now convince me of Russian guilt.
The way honest people proceed is as follows:
Firstly, we assemble the known facts, and then secondly we invent an explanation that's consistent with those facts.
Villanelle evidently goes about things differently.
The question asked, in paraphrase, is:
"The explanation is that the KGB tried and failed to kill Skripal. What facts can we invent that would be consistent with that
explanation?"
This is revealing, I feel.
Charlie Rowley has even met with a Russian ambassador, asking him for help as the British government have kept him in the dark
over the death of Dawn Sturgess, and the matter as a whole.
Even Charlie's meeting with the ambassador was spun though. I saw several information light reports on that in UK media, attempting
to portray the meeting as a result of Russian stonewalling, not British.
As a 'Murrayista' I must say I do roll around with mirth every time Craig posts. I have no theories, banal geopolitics, only
total incredulity at the official narrative. It is so hilarious, and yet they go on straight-faced putting it out. You Bostock,
seem to be happy to accept the bizarre facts and somehow feel they prove something. Vilanelle just keeps popping up squeaking
at some minor point or other.
There is a gigantic smell over the Salisbury incident, but it is not true that ALL the media just suck it up. One or two brave
souls like Mary Djevsky ask simple basic journalistic questions and gets a pile of ordure poured over her for her trouble. The
rest seem cowed into silence. Why does the establishment fear such questions?
Rob Slane (blogmire.com) and his intrepid band of commenters are also poring over this
dead duck story today. Somewhere on Rob's page is reference to the parents of the
duck-feeding boys being told, two weeks after the event, to burn the children's clothes. To
save myself time, I'm paste in here my comment on that aspect of the official script which I
pasted under Rob's article.
So, two weeks after the duck feed, the parents were instructed to burn the boys' clothes.
It seems like an extreme measure given that everyone else in Salisbury was advised just to
launder any clothes under suspicion of contamination. Luckily for the boys and their family
and community (if not the nation), the parents remembered exactly which clothes the boys had
been wearing. Even more luckily, neither the boys nor their duck-feeding clothes had come
into contact with anyone or anything in the intervening fortnight. It's a miracle.
We have been told by many/various sources, that the Novichok was applied in gel form to
the Skripal's door furniture.
Gel does not evaporate.
If the Novichock had in fact been applied by an atomiser spray, then there would have been no
need to wear protective clothing and cordon off large areas of Salisbury because it would
have evaporated.
Your serve Villanelle.
Your own link provides the answer to that question, if you were actually processing it
rather than selectively picking out the bits which support the government narrative.
The whole point of chemical weapons is to cause as much death, injury and incapacity as
possible amongst the enemy, with the added bonus of it severely limiting or reducing their
ability to operate in the affected area. So given what we know from the government's
narrative of alleged Russian application to the doorknob – why would you chose an agent
which burns off at atmospheric temperatures if it's known that there could be several hours
between application and contact with the intended victim?
None of which adequately explains all of the other inconsistencies in the properties of
this agent, either?
How were the samples tested by the OPCW of such high purity so long after the event? How
do you tie this up with agent failing to kill the apparent targets? According to chemists, a
minute dosage of this substance is enough to kill at such high purity?
Perhaps it would be better, Villanelle, if you could let everyone else know which parts of
the "UK Govt. version", you find most compelling. Which pieces of evidence supplied by the UK
Govt. do you find the most convincing?
Bearing in mind that this evidence is brought to you by Intelligence agencies and politicians
with a track record of lying and dissembling, it is surely incumbent on any seeker of truth
to treat with scepticism anything put out by known liars.
Do you believe that Saddam had WMD?
How about Syria? Have these same intelligence agencies and government officials, who you
believe without question now, been truthful and consistent throughout the aggression against
Syria?
I suspect, based on your half arsed attempts on this thread to whitewash the UK government,
that you would literally believe anything you're told as long as it came from official
sources.
It was pointed out to you earlier in the thread that you are way out of your depth on this
forum. I second that.
If you really want to know more about the holes in the official version, which I doubt, then
the archives on here as well as Moon of Alabama and the excellent Blogmire would help to fill
in the obvious gaps in your knowledge. It would also stop you asking stupid questions and
looking foolish.
What would convince me? Even the slightest effort by HMG to produce credible explanations
for the many lacunae that have been spotted in their narrative. Of course their point-blank
refusal to do so doesn't prove they have something to hide. I often feel that with devious
cunning they deliberately let dodgy narratives out into the public domain, then sit back and
watch 'the usual suspects' run around in frustration. Thank goodness we have RT to point out
the truth.
A lot of people take the piss out of the 'How to poison door knobs' manual, but through my
connections in the security services I have managed to get hold of a copy.
I translated it using Google translate.
Here is a section on the special protective Hazmat suits that the two agents would
obviously have worn to perform the job.
It's quite a long and complicated procedure because it is very hard to doff the suit
afterwards without contaminating yourself.
First, you need a buddy to help you, and a mirror, a tent and and chlorine solution.
No doubt they carried these in the small knapsack one of them was wearing.
It takes half an hour and this is a small fraction of the necessary procedure:
Engage the trained observer.
Disinfect outer gloves.
Remove outer apron.
Disinfect outer gloves
Remove and discard outer gloves
Inspect and disinfect inner gloves
Remove face shield
Disinfect inner gloves
Remove surgical hood
Disinfect inner gloves
Remove the coverall
Disinfect inner gloves
Remove boot covers
Change inner gloves
Remove the N95 respirator
Disinfect the new inner gloves
Disinfect your shoes
Disinfect inner gloves
Remove and discard inner gloves
Perform hand hygiene
Examine body for contaminants
Exit the doffing area
Take a shower.
Go and feed ducks
For videos showing the procedure can be found here:
After reading the manual I have tremendous respect for the assassins: to do all that in
broad daylight on a Sunday morning in Salisbury without being spotted.
Clearly they were real pros. So no more laughing please.
"Possibly the Guardian and New York Times are inventing utter drivel, as in the Manafort
meeting Assange story. That would in itself be worrying. "
To my mind they have been doing it for years. It is getting worse. Rusbridger, although he
admitted to being controlled, was a real editor in comparison to Katherine Viner. There is no
moral compass anymore. Yet there are still readers who have been reading it for years who
think it is the same radical organ it was when known as the Manchester Guardian.
Perhaps more important than the Stephen Davies letter is the diagnosis that fentanyl was
the poison involved – quite a strong opoid. But it was quite clear from the start
– as far as the medical profession is concerned – that there was no evidence of a
nerve agent. Novichok is a word circulated by the west to point the finger at Russia. It
means newcomer. This morning I joined a Russian website. Under my name it said Novichok.
Too bad there's not an established legal process in the Western world for adjudicating
these claims. I am thinking of a venue where each side could openly present its case on the
basis of whatever evidence each is able to supply, could ask questions of the other side,
etc., and would agree to abide by whatever decision the citizens appointed by lot to
administer this venue would decide.
No idea how something like this hypothetical structure or institution might be brought
about, but it would seem helpful to have in cases like these, no?
I take this discussion back to my original point, which to my amazement was published
(unfortunately the joke wasn't) Tony_0pmoc
April 17, 2019 at 11:44 which starts
"The Government and the media, have not been telling the whole truth for a long time.
Sometimes they blatantly lie."
Many people posting here, quite obviously still believe most of what is published in the
mainstream media. Most people I know, rarely lie, and when they do, its pretty obvious. yet
some people I know, are quite obviously compulsive liars. they are addicted to it, but
unfortunately do not have exceedingly good memories, to remember all their lies. I never
trust a word such people say any more, unless I know they are telling the truth, which
sometimes they do.
Same girl?
Just Believe – The Magic of Novichok – Before Novichok – After
Novichok
But they don't need good memories when the media don't raise inconsistencies that arise
some time later.
'We are the United States of Amnesia, which is encouraged by a media that has no desire to
tell us the truth about anything, serving their corporate masters who have other plans to
dominate us.' – Gore Vidal
Some ask, why the obsession with the MSM, but they are all we've got holding power to
account. Especially here in the UK with no written constitution. The reason powerful people
give for being against the codified rules of a written constitution, is it'd restrict their
room to act . But in fact, you really do need a set of 'codified' rules – a line that
EVERYONE is afraid of crossing.
The reason why we need a written constitution is because it's not clear where power and
responsibility reside in the UK.
The security services seem to have free rein so
politicians can claim plausible deniability.
Look at the to and froing over historical accusations of UK involvement in torture, with
Straw and Blair basically accusing Mi6 of going rogue. Both insist they never authorised
torture in TV interviews last year (Straw on radio , Blair on Newsnight); they claim they
never signed the documents, despite their signatures being on said documents. The whole
situation is a mess and many MPs have called for a judge-led inquiry , both Blair and Straw
have stated they are happy to cooperate. And yet
Theresa May however, has other ideas; the govt missed its own deadline \to respond last
year and the whole thing seems to have been forgotten.
more drivel from sycophant puppets that proves the US and UK is run by imbeciles who take
the public for gullible idiots, anyone who believes a word they say is just that. Wishing
Julian Assange well in his upcoming court appearance, it's a sick world that allows crooks to
lock up brave and courageous lamplighters like Assange and Manning, their integrity shines
brightly over the dung heap trying to silence them.
That the official Skripal story is bogus should be clear to anyone with eyes, ears and the
barest minimum of intellectual honesty. What is needed to send the story to its final resting
place and raise a more interesting story is information on the whereabouts of the Skripals to
this day. Their disappearance smells like month-old fish, and the best bet is that some
highly placed people in the British Foreign Office and intelligence community have something
very embarrassing to hide. Frankly, I am surprised that nothing has been leaked on this
score.
When the person who was home secretary for six years, then prime minister for a couple of
years, steps down from her current role towards oblivion, new people can take up the
baton.
New people will be able to ask new questions.
1) where are the Skripals?
2) why was all this fabricated?
3) who put all this twaddle in place?
I doubt very much any harm has come to them, they are either innocent victims or went
along with 'spy games ' as Trump called it. But clearly someone doesn't want them giving any
unscripted or unsupervised interviews were all the variables can't be controlled.
Most likely probably resettled somewhere now with new identities: US, Canada, NZ ,
Australia. Could be anywhere, take yer pick.
The unquestioning MSM, pretending as if they never existed, makes you feel like the
country has gone to all hell.
I'm stuck here waiting for your answer to my earlier post. What's holding you up?
Whilst you are about it, could you kindly enlighten us as to the main aim of the Skripal
"narrative" (Ugh – that word reminds me of A.Campbell).
Was it
A) To take Skripal out of circulation before the Steele dossier s**t hit the fan
B) To connect Russia to "chemical weapons" as part of the Syria deal
C) To further drive in the wedge between Trump and Russia
D) To Divert the Attention of the Dopey UK electorate from the Brexit mess
E) Other
Please put in correct order of importance.
It's just occurred to me that you probably knock off at 1730. You are probably down on the
river now the trout season has kicked off. What's the fishing like around Hermitage?
Do get back to us tomorrow!
Agreed.
'The incident is cited as an example of the then deputy CIA director (now director). Gina
Haspel.'
'She is said to have '
Both these quotes from the Guardian article imply (to me) there is no reliable source. It
may not have happened.
Its an office rumour to big up the Director and piss off the boss. One would assume to piss
of the boss you'd actually have to show him a picture of someone pissing on him and that's
opening up a whole other can of worms.
I'll give you points for trying but nowhere does any report from the OPCWsay that the
tests showed Novichok.
Their references are ' toxic chemical ' and even Porton Down's wording ( in the MSM you'll
hate to know ) was similar to – It's what the government says it is.
Despite the waffle the above is not a very specific – is it?
Being as you know a few things answer a few questions please:
How many doors were at the front of the Skripal house and how many handles ( the MSM keep
saying doorknobs) were tested in total?
Why was Charlies flat only given a cursory clean up with say Cilit Bang and the Skripal
house dismantled being as Charlie and Dawn got a massive dose of alleged Novichok?
What was the actual cause of Dawn's death, bearing in mind her relatives said the first
inquest showed no damage to her internal organs?
What colour was Yulia's hair in the Duck feeding ultra clear video(s) and what was Sergei
wearing?
What colour hair did the young woman found on the bench have and what colour hair did the
Salisbury Hospital staff notice?
If the ' Toxic Chemical ' was extremely deadly Russian Novichok , how is it that no-one
else has died or been contaminated ( even slightly ) save three people from the alleged
original attack and two later after opening a ' shrink wrapped sealed ' bottle of what the
Authorities say was the same as that ' smeared ?' – ' sprayed ' on only one door
handle.
If the above is true why didn't the Zizzis staff suffer from some contamination to or the
pub staff who handled the Skripal's cutlery plates and drinks glasses as well as those who
touched the handles of the doors the Skripl's touched with no bad effects?
How come the sprayers/sealers didn't die or fall ill themselves? Hazmat suits in a cul de
sac on a Sunday?
That's just a few questions for an expert to be going on with.
I am not sure if it is clear for folks on the far side of NYT paywall that NYT reported on "children and ducks" not merely
as a quote of CIA director, but as a straight fact. This is the caption of one of the photos illustrating the article: "A former
Russian intelligence officer, Sergei Skripal, and his daughter were poisoned last year in Britain in a slipshod attack that also
sickened children, killed ducks and required careful cleanup.CreditWill Oliver/EPA, via Shutterstock"
I'm willing to believe a lot of things about the Brits and Haspel, but "stupid" isn't one of them. That they tried the Skripal
stunt demonstrates they had great confidence in their control of the UK and US press, and I'll concede that confidence was justified.
Note Haspel hasn't denied any aspect of the news item.
Why perpetrate a hoax like the Skripal Saga, which was all too real for the one confirmed dead.
Taregt: Russia
Why? Previous sanctions not performing as anticipated--indeed, they are actually backfiring.
But if that policy line's already a proven failure, why double-down?
When faced with failure, Neocons always double-down.
Meanwhile, sanctions employed for almost 4 years when Skripal Act 1 begins clearly aren't working, which brings up the question
of how Russia is actually perceived by the genuine International Community--did the provocations and sanctions diminish Russia's
standing in the world prior to March 2018?
Given ever growing attendance to Russian sponsored and located symposiums, Russia's reputation seems to be growing at the expense
of the smearing nations.
Motive for Skripal Hoax: To do what sanctions couldn't.
Outcome of Skripal Hoax: Russian reputation higher than ever. Indeed, the two hoaxes have had the opposite affect on Russia's
international standing and the entire sanctions regime helped to make Russia stronger than it otherwise would be without their
imposition.
"... The idea that Trump was kidded along in this way with photos of suffering children is similar to that which allegedly persuaded him to bomb Syria (along with the UK and France) after the more recent also alleged Douma chemical weapons attacks. So who actually was telling him porkies and why or is this just another myth to prove Trump's crassness – in which case there is no need to make anything up. ..."
"... Trump doesn't give a toss about suffering children or suffering anyone else, so it's not likely that he was persuaded by the kind of argument that runs from injured children to the need for US diplomatic action. ..."
"... Trump forgets he lies in minutes. He'd not heard about Julian Assange? If I was reporter I would have played him his words from my laptop and ask: Mr President is this you or a fake President? ..."
"... Actually he is a fake President as most US Presidents are. The man's a dunce. I thought after George W Bush US Presidents couldn't get any worse but know history hits us up the backside with a banjo yet again. ..."
I took note when I read that on the Guardian website late last night. What struck me was
the treatment of the statement as if it could be true, but in more than one way.
The idea that Trump was kidded along in this way with photos of suffering children is
similar to that which allegedly persuaded him to bomb Syria (along with the UK and France)
after the more recent also alleged Douma chemical weapons attacks. So who actually was
telling him porkies and why or is this just another myth to prove Trump's crassness –
in which case there is no need to make anything up.
Even if the story is true, the article accepts it as fact and in no way qualifies it,
which is just plain misrepresentation as Craig points out.
The reference to the two Russian operatives at that time is certainly a give away one way
and another – but nothing in the article to highlight that inconsistency.
Strange timing too for the appearance of the article too. No doubt there will be a
response from the Russian Embassy.
Trump brings together stupidity, narcissistic mental illness and obnoxiousness such that
when an official has to deal with him their attitude must surely be to tell the moron
whatever gets him to do what they want as soon as possible, so they don't have to spend any
more time than necessary in a room with him.
He lies all the time – the guy can't stop
lying – nobody wants to spend time with a person like that – even his wife can't
stand the sight of him – and it doesn't matter what it is that you tell him or show
him.
Trump doesn't give a toss about suffering children or suffering anyone else, so it's not
likely that he was persuaded by the kind of argument that runs from injured children to the
need for US diplomatic action.
The question is who was behind the anti-Russian side of the
Skripal story and why. Not much progress will be made without looking at the British
defence review and the huge increase in military spending that warfare interests have
moved Gavin Williamson's lips to call for.
"(E)xtremely clear CCTV footage of the duck feeding"? So there are fixed cameras watching
where the ducks swim in Queen Elizabeth's Park in Salisbury, are there? Because I haven't
been able to find even some lamp posts they might be secured to. (
Some images .) Which is not to say the Skripals weren't photographed. And how's the
Nikolai Glushkov inquest going?
Trump forgets he lies in minutes. He'd not heard about Julian Assange? If I was reporter I would have played him his words from my laptop and ask: Mr President
is this you or a fake President?
Actually he is a fake President as most US Presidents are. The man's a dunce. I thought after George W Bush US Presidents couldn't get any worse but know history hits
us up the backside with a banjo yet again.
Simple really: Show the video of the Skripal actively feeding the ducks – blank the
kids faces and we'll be able to see them in all of their pre poisoned glory.
All this has been done before by the MS – The London Bridge attackers – 7/7
and so on.
So why not show the video? Because it shows something(s) which they want to hide. I have my views as to why, as do others but once you start lying you have to develop a
good memory and ' British Intelligence ' is a misnomer.
Let us not for one moment forget: Yulia musty be alive somewhere. I reckon they did in
Sergei – serve him right for being a double (or triple) agent – but Yulia must
still be around. She TOLD US in her video she was fine and getting better.
Thank god for Craig Murray and the Off-Guardian, they have preserved our sanity over this mad
story, this maddest of British Intel cockups.
@Nicholas – I'd advise delaying the conclusion that it was a cockup, except in the
sense that in most military and intelligence operations something cocks up –
until we hear what happens with British military spending plans.
Someone said to me on Twitter that confirmation of Novichock was from a Mass Spec of the
nerve agent bound to some enzyme (probably acetyl cholinesterase). Is this really the
official line? If so it's rubbish. Whoever made such a claim was clearly no chemist. Acetyl
Cholinesterase weighs about 66700 Daltons and the nerve agent weighed, say between 200 and
400 daltons. Firstly a mass spectrum of the protein would be that of the protein plus or
minus anything upto about 300 water molecules Which makes the mass (69400 +/- 2700) and a
multitude of other possible ions or other factors bound to it. The error in the mass of the
protein clearly exceeds the mass of the nerve agent. Given that, because of the blinding
uncertainties as to what species are actually hitting the detector in the mass spectrometer,
no-one anywhere attempts to study ligands bound to proteins by mass spec and certainly not
one of this size, why would they do it in this case?
The CIA Director tells outright lies to her boss, who as a result approves a stern
national rebuke.
In a cartoon version of life where Dick Dastardly gets to be an intelligence supremo, and
a total dummy gets to be President, this would be highly likely. Needless to say, to believe
such a scenario would exist in the real world requires a massive suspension of logic.
More likely there's something coming down the track that requires Haspel, and or the CIA,
to be discredited prior to its becoming visible to the public ?
What could possibly be coming down the track that isn't comparable to what we already know
about Haspel and the CIA though?
If you can straight faced maintain support for an admitted and documented human rights
abuser who heads a non accountable government spy agency that has been extra judicially
torturing, assassinating and over throwing any who stands in its way for 70 years; what on
earth could be about to come out that's suddenly going to convince our bought and paid for
media, and by extension the general public, that these monsters have been discredited?
UK spooks are switching to damage limitation mode, with the help of the Deborah Haynes of
Sky and II:
"Update: UK security sources say they're unaware of children hospitalised because of
#novichok or wildlife killed in #Skripal attack. May have been a photo of a dead swan though
not evidence swan was killed by #Novichok. If that's true, I wonder what these images used by
CIA were! "
Therefore, where is a Western Solzhenitsyn to document artistically what transpires in
a society deeply in debt and in social & moral decline
well, Dmitry Orlov, for one, is doing yeoman service. from his latest
:
Then society breaks down. And only then, after all that, do people finally realize that
the problem was inside their heads all along (cultural collapse). Quickly adopting a better,
more right-thinking culture is, of course, a good idea. An alternative is to go through a
Dark Age followed by an extended period of mindless slaughter
The New York Times article is too tongue in cheek for carelessness (of course the CIA
director is NOT manipulating Trump ...). They had sent two reporters to Salisbury and indeed
Russia to get impressions on the ground - that means money. And somehow their interest was
very much
if the British government story sticks or not .
"Others fret about the ducks that used to gather on the Avon River near where the Skripals
collapsed, saying they must have been quietly culled. (Mr. Dean, the City Council head,
says they simply migrated downstream.) Others wonder why some places the Skripals went on
the day of the poisoning, but not others, were cordoned off for safety reasons."
So somehow ducks are a running feature in the New York Times reporting.
When Deripaska was hit with sanctions in April, the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign
Assets Control (OFAC) alleged that he and other rich and influential Russian oligarchs were
profiting off their ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin and from the state's "malign
activity" around the world.
The lawsuit questions whether Treasury can really back up those claims. It asks the
court to order OFAC to hand over evidence and other records and remove Deripaska from the
sanctions list.
The White House has received a long-awaited package of new sanctions on Russia, intended to
punish the Kremlin for a 2018 nerve-agent attack on a former Russian spy in the U.K.
U.S. officials at the State and Treasury departments have vetted the sanctions and are
awaiting approval from the White House to issue them, according to two people familiar with
the matter who discussed the internal deliberations on condition of anonymity.
Don't forget – a government minister told us (with a straight face!) that we've
captured a special, secret Russian manual, which details just how to apply poison to
door handles. Doubtless these spies had their own copy to refer to, in order to get the job
done right.
It was a dead duck from the moment they said the poison was on the door handle, which is
just stupid. The official narrative has been a catalogue of stupidities aimed at political
goals. Those who've taken it up are invested in the goals.
If anyone cared what had happened, the first point of enquiry would've been the guinea pigs,
the clue is in the name.
OBTW Who was responsible for the clean up of Salisbury, after which Dawn Sturgess met her
end ??
I would recommend to watch a drama series called "Killing Eve". It was written, produced
and released before the Skripal saga. There is a scene where a deadly poison is administered
on a door handle. Clearly it isn't as far fetched as you suggest.
Coincidentally (?) there was also the joint Sky/US drama series 'Strike Back' broadcast in
November 2017 featuring an attack by a Russian with 'Novichok'. But which came first? Fiction
or 'reality'? Think about it.
"... The Steele dossier is British, Orbis intelligence = British, Institute for statecraft / Integrity Initiative =
British, Skripal defection. Location, evidence, statements = British, the list goes on and on. ..."
"... The UK's propaganda machine rivals and even surpasses Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany. ..."
The Steele dossier is British, Orbis intelligence = British, Institute for statecraft / Integrity Initiative = British,
Skripal defection. Location, evidence, statements = British, the list goes on and on.
You'd think someone might have noticed something of a trend by now.
They just don't bother anymore, the level of double black psy-ops and gaslighting is a mine field of disinformation. That's what
you get when Washington - Obama, gives the green light to propagandizing their people. It's escalated, like we haven't noticed,
under Trump despite his pathetic attempts at assuring folks it's fake news.
The UK's propaganda machine rivals and even surpasses Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany. I watched about 10 minutes of a
documentary about Easter Island, as an example, and it was revisionist to the nth degree. Just absolute rubbish insinuating that
white European travelers destroyed the Island. This is what British kids are now being marinated in, "He who controls the past"
"Many in the USA have come to realize this stealth organization does not work on the behalf of the USA but rather to its own
ends."
CIA probably was involved in Skripals false flag operation as well. Because the behaviour of Theresa May suggest that she from
the very beginning was sure about the USA full and unconditional support and putting pressure on EU allies. Then now we know
that Gina Haspel, who was also involved in Steele dossier and handled most oversees assets involved in entrapment of Trump, misled
Trump and pervaded him to expel 80 Russian diplomats.
Notable quotes:
"... Then there is 9/11. This one also has a USA government narrative that defies logic. This time it is so blatant and egregious that an organization called "Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth" was founded by Richard Gage, an architect with vast experience in steel structured buildings and fire. The organization demands on official investigation by Congress into exactly how the buildings came down. ..."
"... According to a statement reported by the BBC , Loose Change film producer Dylan Avery thinks the destruction of the building was suspicious because it housed some unusual tenants, including a clandestine CIA office on the 25th floor, an outpost of the U.S. Secret Service, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and New York City's emergency command center." Wikipedia ..."
"... So now we have Prime Minister, Teresa May, accusing Putin and Russia of the May 4 nerve agent attack of Sergei V. Skripal (66) and his daughter, Yulia (33), in Salibury, England. Both are in critical condition after being found unconscious on a bench outside The Maltings Shopping Center in Salibury. As we all know Russia is the new Antichrist. The harbinger of all evil. The enemy we all must view with the utmost fear and loathing. Daily, the MSM in USA recoils as they report story after story of Russia meddling in our elections, shaking the very foundations of our democracy. ..."
"... Let's get this straight. Mr. Skripal was convicted of high treason in Russia in 2004. He was not tortured, killed or murdered, rather he was allowed to settle in Britain after a spy swap in 2010. Sounds pretty friendly to me, considering that Putin is portrayed as a sadistic monster out to settle scores with those who cross him, by the Western media. ..."
"... So, why now? Why this attempted assassination now? This is the question, dear reader. Why attempt to assassinate Mr. Skripal now? He was convicted of high treason 14 years ago. He has been in England for eight years. Russia knew at this point he was no threat to them with no new secrets to betray. What would be gained at this point by assassinating the man? ..."
"... None. However, if the CIA took him out, or paid unscrupulous foreign mercenaries to take him out, much could be gained. The narrative of big bad Putin, in his big bad Russia, would be reinforced. Now, not only is he meddling in elections, getting the dastardly Trump elected, he is using nerve gas to take out enemies on foreign soil. My god, what will be next? ..."
"... "If we don't take immediate concrete measures to address this now, Salisbury will not be the last place we see chemical weapons used," said Haley. "They could be used here in New York or in cities of any country that sits on this council." CNN Politics ..."
Many in the USA have come to realize this stealth organization does not work on the behalf
of the USA but rather to its own ends. And, in this realization, comes a jaded view of both the
CIA and the government it represents.
This realization may have begun with the assassination of John F. Kennedy. The Warren
Commission, a congressional investigation was convened. The commission concluded there was a
single lone shooter, a fringe outcast, Lee Harvey Oswald who acted alone in the assassination
of the president. Many felt, in light of the facts, that the Warren Commission was a cover up
of what really went down on November 22, 1963, in Houston, Texas.
In 1976, the Congress reopened the Kennedy investigation. They created The United States
House of Representatives Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) to investigate the
assassination of John F. Kennedy (and Martin Luther King Jr.).
The HSCA completed its investigation in 1978 and determined the Warren Commission was faulty
and there was more than one shooter and there was indeed a conspiracy to kill the president. So
much for the official narrative of the Warren Commission.
Why the Warren Commission cover up back then that even the Congress in 1976 (HSCA) reported
was bogus? One theory April 25, 1966, The New York Times wrote, "And, President Kennedy, as the
enormity of the Bay of Pigs disaster came home to him, said to one of the highest officials of
his Administration, that he wanted to splinter the C.I.A. in a thousand pieces and scatter it
to the winds."
Kennedy was no fan of the Director of the C.I.A. Allen Dulles or his agency, and in the
autumn of 1961 he purged the C.I.A. of Dulles and his entourage. This included Deputy Director
for Plans Richard M. Bissell Jr. and and Deputy Director Charles Cabell. You do not mess with
Allen Dulles and the C.I A. Let's leave it at that. Kennedy was dead within two years.
Then there is 9/11. This one also has a USA government narrative that defies logic. This
time it is so blatant and egregious that an organization called "Architects & Engineers for
9/11 Truth" was founded by Richard Gage, an architect with vast experience in steel structured
buildings and fire. The organization demands on official investigation by Congress into exactly
how the buildings came down.
By December 2014, over 2,300 architectural and engineering professionals had signed a
petition for this investigation. If one looks at controlled demolitions and how the buildings
actually came down it is obvious the collapse was not due to an airplane flying into the
buildings, but rather a controlled demolition. 2,300 architects and engineers with verified
credentials all testify that the narrative of the government is patently false and
scientifically implausible if not impossible.
At about nine a.m. the Twin Towers are crashed into and collapse. At about five twenty p.m.
that same day, Building Seven collapses. No planes fly into Building 7, it just collapses.
Again, the videos show a controlled demolition.
There are various theories as to why 7 WTC was taken down. Theories range from 7 WTC being
the operation center for the demolition of the Twin Towers to more nefarious motives. "
According to a statement reported by the BBC , Loose Change film producer Dylan Avery thinks the
destruction of the building was suspicious because it housed some unusual tenants, including a
clandestine CIA office on the 25th floor, an outpost of the U.S. Secret Service, the Securities
and Exchange Commission, and New York City's emergency command center." Wikipedia
What is important to remember is that NO STEEL FRAME HIGH RISE HAS EVER TOTALLY COLLAPSED
DUE TO FIRE.
These are but two examples of hundreds where we have been mislead by the official narrative
of the government and its MSM news. Remember the Trump Dossier that was leaked and printed as
fact? Or, the death of Seth Rich, a "botched" robbery? Or, the list of 200 news outlets in the
USA that were Russian Propaganda fronts? All reported as fact by the New York Times and
Washington Post. All fake news by the MSM fed to an unsuspecting American people.
So now we have Prime Minister, Teresa May, accusing Putin and Russia of the May 4 nerve
agent attack of Sergei V. Skripal (66) and his daughter, Yulia (33), in Salibury, England. Both
are in critical condition after being found unconscious on a bench outside The Maltings
Shopping Center in Salibury. As we all know Russia is the new Antichrist. The harbinger of all evil. The enemy we all
must view with the utmost fear and loathing. Daily, the MSM in USA recoils as they report story
after story of Russia meddling in our elections, shaking the very foundations of our
democracy.
Let's get this straight. Mr. Skripal was convicted of high treason in Russia in 2004. He was
not tortured, killed or murdered, rather he was allowed to settle in Britain after a spy swap
in 2010. Sounds pretty friendly to me, considering that Putin is portrayed as a sadistic
monster out to settle scores with those who cross him, by the Western media.
Teresa May called the act "reckless" and "indiscriminate", and basically said Putin put
innocent English bystanders at risk. She upped the ante by dismissing 23 Russian diplomats, the
largest such expulsion in thirty years.
On Thursday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov accused May of grandstanding in her
response to the incident. Russian news agency Interfax reported that The Kremlin denies
involvement in the nerve agent poisoning, insisting one motive was to complicate Russia's
hosting of the World Cup this summer. Ah, dear Kremin, the motive was much deeper than the
World Cup games, which were only a bonus to the attack.
So, why now? Why this attempted assassination now? This is the question, dear reader.
Why attempt to assassinate Mr. Skripal now? He was convicted of high treason 14 years ago. He
has been in England for eight years. Russia knew at this point he was no threat to them with no
new secrets to betray. What would be gained at this point by assassinating the man?
None. However, if the CIA took him out, or paid unscrupulous foreign mercenaries to take
him out, much could be gained. The narrative of big bad Putin, in his big bad Russia, would be
reinforced. Now, not only is he meddling in elections, getting the dastardly Trump elected, he
is using nerve gas to take out enemies on foreign soil. My god, what will be next?
Nikki Haley, Ambassador to the UN tells us, "The United States of America believes that
Russia is responsible for the attack on two people in the United Kingdom using a military-grade
nerve agent," Haley said in her remarks at a UN Security Council emergency session, blasting
the Russian government for flouting international law.
"If we don't take immediate concrete measures to address this now, Salisbury will not be
the last place we see chemical weapons used," said Haley. "They could be used here in New York
or in cities of any country that sits on this council." CNN Politics
The USA needs an enemy to foment fear to justify it's astronomical defense budget. It just
loves a good cold war. However, now that Russia is no longer a pinko commie nation to be
demonized, and is indeed a capitalist democracy, we have to resurrect a new straw man to
hate.
It is remarkable the degree to which the liberal left has bought into this
industrial-military-complex narrative. The USA always has to be bombing someone, droning
someone or napalming someone to keep the monies flowing into the defense budget. Take a look at
our spending compared to Russia or other nations.
Alas, it is certainly not out of the question that the CIA was behind the attack. After this
amount of time Mr. Putin had nothing to gain in assassinating Mr. Skripal and his daughter. In
fact, he had a lot to lose. The CIA? They had a lot to gain, and nothing to lose. Never
underestimate the CIA and its brilliance in setting the narrative for its agenda. And, never
underestimate Mr. Putin in his resolve not to become their lapdog.
Ms. Simpson was a radio personality in New York. She was a staff writer for The Liberty Report.
A PBS documentary was done on her activism for human rights. She is a psychotherapist and
political commentator.
B, here's a remarkable fact: The Skripal Novichok perfume bottle assassination story is is
eerily similar to episode 2 of BBC show 'Killing Eve' where an assassin uses a perfume bottle
to kill her target and where later an innocent person accidentally dies after coming into
contact with said perfume bottle.
The episode aired around a month after the Skripal attack but well before the other 2
people fell ill and the perfume bottle theory emerged.
"... The U.S. alone expelled 60 Russian officials. Trump was furious when he learned that EU countries expelled less than 60 in total. A year ago the Washington Post described the scene: ..."
"... Today the New York Times portraits Gina Haspel's relation with Trump. The writers seem sympathetic to her and the CIA's position. They include an anecdote of the Skripal expulsion decision that is supposed to let her shine in a good light. But it only proves that the CIA manipulated the president for its own purpose: ..."
"... Ms. Haspel showed pictures the British government had supplied her of young children hospitalized after being sickened by the Novichok nerve agent that poisoned the Skripals. She then showed a photograph of ducks that British officials said were inadvertently killed by the sloppy work of the Russian operatives. ..."
"... Ms Haspel was not the first to use emotional images to appeal to the president, but pairing it with her hard-nosed realism proved effective: Mr. Trump fixated on the pictures of the sickened children and the dead ducks. At the end of the briefing, he embraced the strong option. ..."
"... If the NYT piece is correct, the CIA director, in cooperation with the British government, lied to Trump about the incident. Their aim was to sabotage Trump's announced policy of better relations with Russia. The ruse worked. ..."
"... The NYT piece does not mention that the pictures Gina Haspel showed Trump were fake. It pretends that her lies were "new information" and that she was not out to manipulate him: ..."
"... The job of the CIA director is to serve the president, not to protect the agencies own policies. ..."
"... The 1970s movie 3 Days of The Condor is about the evils of the See Eye A. Also they create trial balloon in the movie about taking middle east oil. This later happens in real life with NeoCon See Eye A stooges - Poppy Bush then later GW Bush-Cheney, Clintons and Oboma all agency owned men. ..."
"... The head of the See Eye A is to serve the elites-Central banksters not the President. They did not serve JFK. Any President who crosses the central bankers aka roth-schilds ends up dead. ..."
"... It is interesting to see that nations that have traditionally been pro-American feel that the threat posed by American power is growing. ..."
"... Haspel was CIA station chief in London in 2016, when U.S. and Brit intel agencies conspired to stop Trump's candidacy. In her position, Haspel had to know about the plotting, more likely she participated in it. That Brennan supported her argues for the latter. ..."
"... Photos of fake dead ducks and fake sickened children confirm the Skripal story is, in turn, completely fake. It says a lot that the NY Times either does not know this or that its contempt for its readership matches the contempt by which the intelligence agencies hold for their putative boss. ..."
"... Thanks for bringing this Skripal segment to light, b, as most of us don't read the NY Times in any form. Haspel likely had a hand in the planning of the overall scheme of which the Skripal saga and Russiagate are interconnected episodes. Clearly, the Money Power sees the challenge raised by Russia/China/Eurasia as existential and is trying to counter hybridly as it knows its wealth won't save it from Nuclear War. ..."
"... after integrity initiative, we know the uk is full of shite on most everything... thus, the msm will not be talking about integrity initiative.. ..."
"... once Teresa May has spoken in Parliament, and Trump committed to expelling embassy staff, there is no way any alternative version of the truth is possible. ..."
"... Skripal of course was a colleague of Steele, and possibly the only person he asked to get info for the dossier beyond what Nellie Ohr had already given him. His evidence might have been crucial. The CIA and others have a strong motive to kill Skripal and a stronger one to blame the Russians. ..."
"... The fact that the 'Dirty Dossier' and the 'Skripal "story"' both originate in one and the same small town in the UK, tells you all you need to know about both. ..."
"... Haspel will not be fired. ..."
"... It is clear the USA, France, Israel and UK are fasting approaching ungovernable .. no one in government can keep the lies of the other hidden, and none of the governed believes anyone in government, the MSM, the MIC or the AIG (ATT, Intel and Google). .. ..."
"... The actors in government, their lawyers, playmates and corporations have become the laughing stock of the rest of the world. ..."
An ass kissing portrait of Gina Haspel,
torture
queen and director of the CIA, reveals that she lied to Trump to push for more
aggression against Russia.
In March 2018 the British government asserted, without providing any evidence, that the
alleged 'Novichok' poisoning of Sergej and Yulia Skripal was the fault of Russia. It urged
its allies to expel Russian officials from their countries.
The U.S. alone expelled
60 Russian officials. Trump
was furious when he learned that EU countries expelled less than 60 in total. A year
ago the Washington Post described the scene:
President Trump seemed distracted in March as his aides briefed him at his Mar-a-Lago
resort on the administration's plan to expel 60 Russian diplomats and suspected spies.
The United States, they explained, would be ousting roughly the same number of
Russians as its European allies -- part of a coordinated move to punish Moscow for the
poisoning of a former Russian spy and his daughter on British soil.
"We'll match their numbers," Trump instructed, according to a senior administration
official. "We're not taking the lead. We're matching."
The next day, when the expulsions were announced publicly, Trump erupted, officials
said. To his shock and dismay, France and Germany were each expelling only four Russian
officials -- far fewer than the 60 his administration had decided on.
The president, who seemed to believe that other individual countries would largely
equal the United States, was furious that his administration was being portrayed in the
media as taking by far the toughest stance on Russia.
The expulsion marked a turn in the Trump administration's relation with Russia:
The incident reflects a tension at the core of the Trump administration's increasingly
hard-nosed stance on Russia: The president instinctually opposes many of the punitive
measures pushed by his Cabinet that have crippled his ability to forge a close
relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
The past month, in particular, has marked a major turning point in the
administration's stance, according to senior administration officials. There have been
mass expulsions of Russian diplomats, sanctions on oligarchs that have bled billions of
dollars from Russia's already weak economy and, for the first time, a presidential tweet
that criticized Putin by name for backing Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad.
Today the New York Timesportraits Gina
Haspel's relation with Trump. The writers seem sympathetic to her and the CIA's position.
They include an anecdote of the Skripal expulsion decision that is supposed to let her
shine in a good light. But it only proves that the CIA manipulated the president for its
own purpose:
Last March, top national security officials gathered inside the White House to discuss
with Mr. Trump how to respond to the nerve agent attack in Britain on Sergei V. Skripal,
the former Russian intelligence agent.
London was pushing for the White House to expel dozens of suspected Russian
operatives, but Mr. Trump was skeptical. ... During the discussion, Ms. Haspel, then deputy C.I.A. director, turned toward Mr. Trump.
She outlined possible responses in a quiet but firm voice, then leaned forward and told
the president that the "strong option" was to expel 60 diplomats.
To persuade Mr. Trump, according to people briefed on the conversation, officials
including Ms. Haspel also tried to show him that Mr. Skripal and his daughter were not
the only victims of Russia's attack.
Ms. Haspel showed pictures the British government had supplied her of young children
hospitalized after being sickened by the Novichok nerve agent that poisoned the Skripals.
She then showed a photograph of ducks that British officials said were inadvertently
killed by the sloppy work of the Russian operatives.
Ms Haspel was not the first to use emotional images to appeal to the president, but
pairing it with her hard-nosed realism proved effective: Mr. Trump fixated on the
pictures of the sickened children and the dead ducks. At the end of the briefing, he
embraced the strong option.
The Skripal case was widely covered and we
followed it diligently (scroll down). There were no reports of any children affected by
'Novichok' nor were their any reports of dead ducks. In the official storyline the
Skripals, before visiting a restaurant,
fed bread to ducks at a pond in the Queen Elizabeth Gardens in Salisbury.
They also
gave duck-bread to three children to do the same. The children were examined and their
blood was tested.
No
poison was found and none of them fell ill . No duck died. (The duck feeding episode
also disproves
the claim that the Skripals were poisoned by touching a door handle.)
If the NYT piece is correct, the CIA director, in cooperation with the British
government, lied to Trump about the incident. Their aim was to sabotage Trump's announced
policy of better relations with Russia. The ruse worked.
The NYT piece does not mention that the pictures Gina Haspel showed Trump were
fake. It pretends that her lies were "new information" and that she was not out to
manipulate him:
The outcome was an example, officials said, of how Ms. Haspel is one of the few people
who can get Mr. Trump to shift position based on new information.
Co-workers and friends of Ms. Haspel push back on any notion that she is manipulating
the president. She is instead trying to get him to listen and to protect the agency,
according to former intelligence officials who know her.
The job of the CIA director is to serve the president, not to protect the agencies own
policies. Hopefully Trump will hear about the anecdote, recognize how he was had, and fire Haspel. He should not stop there but also get rid of her protector who likely had a role in
the game:
Ms. Haspel won the trust of Mr. Pompeo, however, and has stayed loyal to him. As a
result, Mr. Trump sees Ms. Haspel as an extension of Mr. Pompeo, a view that has helped
protect her, current and former intelligence officials said.
Posted by b on April 16, 2019 at 08:37 AM |
Permalink
I don't see how it's possible to manipulate someone (and especially the US president) into
doing something they don't want to do with lies like the ones described here. On the
contrary presidents, CEOs etc. favor the staffers who tell them the kind of lies they want
to hear in order to reinforce what they wanted to do in the first place.
I've never seen any reason to alter my first position on Trump, that like any other
president he does what he wants to do.
The 1970s movie 3 Days of The Condor is about the evils of the See Eye A. Also they create
trial balloon in the movie about taking middle east oil. This later happens in real life
with NeoCon See Eye A stooges - Poppy Bush then later GW Bush-Cheney, Clintons and Oboma
all agency owned men.
The joke 7in the final scene Robert Redford tells See Eye A man Cliff Robertson that he
gave all the evidence to the NY Times. What a joke. The NY Times and the Wash Post are the
mouthpieces for the SEE Eye A. The AP news sources most of their stories from those two
papers and other lackey See Eye A newspapers.
One final criticism in moon's story. The head of the See Eye A is to serve the elites-Central banksters not the
President. They did not serve JFK. Any President who crosses the central bankers aka roth-schilds ends up dead.
After this, she got the top job, so what is the real lesson here? Sociopathic liars get
promoted....or you can tell the truth, try to be honorable and fade into obscurity.. In a nest of psychos, you have to really be depraved to become the top psycho...
Nuke it for orbit, it's the only way to be sure...
Backing up Russ's point, when will you realise the "buck stops" on Trump's desk for any
and all departments he oversees, which are run by his appointees? Trump is dedicated to
creating a neoconservative foreign policy melded to a neoliberal economic policy favouring
his corporate fascist sponsors. Recently, you've been all over the Assange indictment,
Trump's relationship with Nuttyahoo and the related rollback of JCPOA. Is this what you
want to see continued into a second term?
There is much evidence to show Trump and the GOP working steadily towards a "democracy"
where Congress is castrated (one might say the system castrates Congress anyway), opposing
candidates are jailed, opposition votes are suppressed and the media is weakened to the
point where no one can tell the difference.
They haven't got there quite yet but once the judiciary is controlled by GOP ideologues
it's game over. And McConnell is dedicating his life to make that the reality ASAP.
Meanwhile back at the ranch we are dedicated to knocking down any and all potential
opposition to this GOP hostile takeover for some reason I've yet to fathom.
Hopefully Trump will hear about the anecdote, recognize how he was had, and fire
Haspel. He should not stop there but also get rid of her protector who likely had a role in
the game[Pompeo]
Hopefully yes to all four propositions. Why am I sceptical though (except conceivably
the first)?
The story veers into complete fiction when it claims that pictures of dead ducks had any
effect on Trump. He doesn't like, nor care about animals. He's the first POTUS in decades I
believe to not even pretend to like dogs by having an official White House dog and every
policy his Administration can take against animals, they have taken. I'm not even sure I
buy the spin that he cared about dead kids either. And NYT readers know this about him, so
I don't understand what the point of peddling this fiction is other than to paint Torture
Queen in some kind of good light (and we KNOW that she certainly doesn't care about dead
anything).
another example of trump's stupidity and pathological inability to think for himself. he
gets his views from fox and his policy from bolton. his equally vapid daughter and kushner
whine to him about sooper sad syria pictures they saw in a sponsored link while googling
for new tmz gossip.
even worse that this is the twat in charge of one of russiagate's main instigating "deep
state" agencies. he spent the entirety of his presidency railing against their various lies
then takes this wankery at face value. it's just like the "chinese soldiers in venezuela";
if those pictures were legit they'd have been splattered over every front page and
permanently attached to screeching cnn and msnbc segments demanding trump "finally get
tough" on "putin's russia".
my only surprise is that she didn't tell him about british babies ripped from incubators
and dipped in anthrax powder.
the nyt shilling for a soCIopAth? not that surprising.
The consultant in emergency medicine at Salisbury hospital wrote to The Times, shortly
after the Skripal incident. His choice of words was odd, and some have said they indicate
no novichok poisoning occurred. Leaving that to one side, his letter certainly puts paid to
the idea that more than three people (the Skripals and the policeman, DCI Bailey) were
poisoned.
https://www.onaquietday.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/DocSaysNoNerveAgentInSalisbury.jpg
" the nerve agent attack in Britain on Sergei V. Skripal, "
There was no attack on the Skripals. or on anyone else.
The Russophobia in whose context it falls, is of a higher order, in which a fabricated
narrative of a Skripal-like attack had an important function.
The Skripals were perfectly happy to lend their name to the fabrication, and are living
happily, probably in New Zealand.
The Daily Beast article that b linked to describes how many serious, well-informed people
felt that Haspel was unsuitable to lead the CIA. Even more strange and troubling was that Haspel was supported by Trump's nemesis,
John Brennan.
Despite all that, MAGA Trump still nominated her. Any notion that Trump is at odds with, or "manipulated" by, Haspel, Bolton, or Pompeo is
just propaganda. We've seen such reporting before (esp. wrt Bolton) and Trump has taken no
action.
I see that Trump derangement is alive and well here at MoA. Commenters talk as if Trump is
the first president stupid enough to be manipulated by the security agencies and shadow
government sometimes referred to as a "deep state". People don't have to be historians or
look back to Rome, just read the books about how the great general who "won WWII" was used
by the oligarchy which had full control of US foreign policy throughout Eisenhower's term in
office.
Works produced after WWII, C. Wright Mills, The Power elite was written in 1956,The
Brothers and The Divil's Chessboard each about the Dulles Brothers and how they operated US
foreign policy for the interests of the oligarchy, and the work Peter Phillips, GIANTS: The
Global Power Elite and the work of David Rothkopf which thoroughly describes the feudal
system under which the Western cultures are ruled.
The US government is a pantomime it is a show it has no power.
How many here can honestly say they understand that the US dollar itself and the ENTIRE
GLOBAL FINANCIAL SYSTEM is privately owned. Why do you think the "banks were bailed out"?
because the banks were in power not the government. The US is 22 trillion in debt - the
oligarchy is the creditor - take over the US gov. and you have a powerless pile of
debt.
Around 6,000 people control 85% of global assets until that changes nothing will change.
The oligarchy won virtually all the mines and control the price of all basic commodities
necessary for modern life, the internet, oil of course and more.
What is failing and what has failed over and over for 500 years is Western Civilization and
its three "great religions" which preach obedience, oppression, domination by a one god
suffocating mythology.
But the oligarchy doesn't own just the basic commodities, it owns the religions and it owns
the drugs and all illegal trade as well.
Western "civilization" is really nothing more than one vast feudal kingdom, with royal
courts in DC, Tel Aviv and Ryiadh. Wheather there is a god or not, religion is made of
flesh and blood not miracles. No Rabbi or Priest or Imam claims visitations by god to
instruct them on doctrine - they are flesh and blood and they want power so they behave
like sycophants to the money they need to expand their power...all for the good souls under
their care.
Haspel was CIA station chief in London in 2016, when U.S. and Brit intel agencies conspired
to stop Trump's candidacy. In her position, Haspel had to know about the plotting, more
likely she participated in it. That Brennan supported her argues for the latter.
What can we expect from a tv personality who became a US president? A man who ran with an
advertisement worthy of a business man like him, "Make America Great Again." How does he go
about doing it? Giving more money to the military industrial-Congressional complex, even
though we are really flat broke. Using aggressive tactics used by Wall Street in hostile
company takeovers to really intimidate other nations. And hire and place those he really
agrees with in important positions who really reflect his true feelings. I'm sure when he
spoke with Haspel before offering her the job, he brought up the topic of torture and
agreed with her on its use on terrorists.
I think there's a reasonable case to be made that they conspired not to stop Trump but
to further speculation of Trump's "collusion" with Russia (what would later be known as
Russiagate). The "collusion" and "Russia meddled" accusations are what fueled the new
McCarthyism.
I'll just add to Jerry's comment at #3 that the final line in the movie "Day of the Condor"
is something like "But will they print it?" which really spoke to the message of the film
in its entirety. The condor being an endangered bird for whom the hero is named, and the
beginning outrage being the brutal murder of book lovers researching useable plot details
for the 'company'makes this message current and applicable to what we see in the Skripal
case. And instead of librarians, we now have online commenters, a doughty breed, and we
have Assange.
Instead of 'Will they print it?' I am wondering 'Will they make another movie about
it?'
Remind me, where is Yulia Skripal these days? Well and truly 'disappeared' it seems. The
mask is off. the snarling face of the beast is there for all to see.
What a total waste of an article discussing a story published in NYT or WaPo.
b, the World has divided itself into those who consume alternative media such as this
and stupidos who consume MSM. There is nothing in-between that you are attempting to
discuss and dissect here. NYT = cognitive value zero.
Fake News not worth one millisecond of our time, not even to decode what the regime
wants us to know, we know all that already. Personally, I am only interested in the new
methods of domestic repression, what is next after the warning of Assange arrest, future
rendition and torture. The Deep Stare appears to be coming out into open, will it soon get
rid of the whole faux democracy construct and just use iron fist to rule? It already impose
its will as the rule of law. All of the Western block is heading in this direction.
Photos of fake dead ducks and fake sickened children confirm the Skripal story is, in turn,
completely fake. It says a lot that the NY Times either does not know this or that its
contempt for its readership matches the contempt by which the intelligence agencies hold
for their putative boss.
The story veers into complete fiction when it claims that pictures of dead ducks had any
effect on Trump. He doesn't like, nor care about animals. Mataman | Apr 16, 2019 9:45:30 AM
This assumes that Trump would primarily care about the ducks (and children) when he
approved a massive expulsion, rather that his image and "ah, in that case it would look bad
if we do not do something really decisive".
In any case, I was thinking why NYT would disclose something like that. The point is
that readers of Craig Murray (not so few, but mostly Scottish nationalists who are also
leftist and have scant possibilities and/or inclination to vote in USA) and MoonOfAlabama
would quickly catch a dead fish here, but 99.9% of the public is blissfully unaware of any
incongruences in the "established" Skripal narrative.
BTW, it is possible that the journalist who scribbled fresh yarn obtained from CIA did it
earnestly. Journalists do not necessarily follow stories that they cover -- scribbling from
given notes does not require overtaxing the precious attention span that can be devoted to
more vital cognitive challenges. I am lazy to find the link, but while checking for news on
Venezuela, I stumbled on a piece from Express, a British tabloid, where Guaido was named a
"figurehead of the oposition" supported by "450 Western countries". My interpretation was
that more literate journalists were moved for to more compelling stories as Venezuela went
to the back burner.
Yes, indeed, the Skripal Affair is one of the obviously contrived stunts we've seen.
Just outrageous in its execution. On a par with the US having a man who didn't even run for president of Venezuela swear
himself in and then pressure everyone to accept him as president.
Interesting, I had no idea Gina Haspel - aka, The Queen of Blood - played a role. I
thought it was all original dirty work by Britain's Theresa May. Boy, I hope people are through with the false notion that if women just get into
leadership, the world will become a better gentler place.
Macron was (afaik?) the only EU 'leader' who was quoted in the MSM as bruiting re. the
Skripal affair a message like:
.. no culpability in the part of Russia has been evidenced .. for now...
I suppose he was enjoined to shut his gob right quick (have been reading about brexit so
brit eng) as nothing more in that line was heard.
Hooo, the EU expelled a lot of Russ. diplomats, obeying the USuk, which certainly
created some major upsets on the ground.
Some were expelled, went into other jobs, other places, but then others arrived, etc.
The MSM has not made any counts - lists - of names numbers - etc. of R diplos on the job -
anywhere. As some left and then others arrived.
Once more, this was mostly a symbolic move, if extremely nasty, insulting, and
disruptive.
Theresa May's speech re. Novichok, Independent 14 March 2018:
.. on Monday I set out that Mr Skripal and his daughter were poisoned with a
Novichok: a military grade nerve agent developed by Russia. Based on this capability,
combined with their record of conducting state sponsored assassinations – including
against former intelligence officers whom they regard as legitimate targets – the UK
Government concluded it was highly likely that Russia was responsible for this reckless and
despicable act. ..
imo, the media has, once again, simply taken its lead from trump himself, & started
making things up completely. & you're absolutely correct in pointing out that, much
like trump's true believers, the msm's targeted audience never even notices...
Thanks for bringing this Skripal segment to light, b, as most of us don't read the NY
Times in any form. Haspel likely had a hand in the planning of the overall scheme of
which the Skripal saga and Russiagate are interconnected episodes. Clearly, the Money Power
sees the challenge raised by Russia/China/Eurasia as existential and is trying to counter
hybridly as it knows its wealth won't save it from Nuclear War.
after integrity initiative, we know the uk is full of shite on most everything... thus, the
msm will not be talking about integrity initiative..
what i didn't know is what @18 lysias pointed out.."Haspel was CIA station chief in
London in 2016, when U.S. and Brit intel agencies conspired to stop Trump's candidacy. In
her position, Haspel had to know about the plotting, more likely she participated in it.
That Brennan supported her argues for the latter." ditto jr's speculation @20 too...
so gaspel shows trump some cheap propaganda that she got from who??
my main problem with b's post - i tend to see it like kiza @23) is maintaining the idea
trump isn't in on all of this.. the thought trump is being duped by his underlings.. if he
was and it mattered, he would get rid of them.. the fact he doesn't says to me, he is in on
it - get russia, being the 24/7 game plan of the west here still..
Please stop listening to idiot libertarians and their "US is flat broke" meme.
The reality is that: so long as Americans transact in dollars, the United States government
can tax anytime it feels like by issuing new dollars via the Fed.
Equally, so long as 60% of the world's trade is conducted in dollars, this is tens to
hundreds of billions of dollars of additional taxation surface area.
The MMT people - I don't agree 100% with everything they say, but they do understand the
actual operation of fiat currency.
The people who want a hard currency are either wealthy (and understand that conversion to
hard currency cements their wealth) or are useful idiots who don't understand that currency
devaluation is the single easiest way to tax in a democracy.
I doubt Haspel knew the ducks were fake - she was probably just given stuff to pass up
the chain.
It is a lot like John Kerry who was shown convincing satellite data of the BUK launch that
hit MH17 - but no one could be bothered to pass on even the launch site coordinates to the
JIT. I'm sure this stuff goes on all the time, and of course, once Teresa May has spoken in
Parliament, and Trump committed to expelling embassy staff, there is no way any alternative
version of the truth is possible.
Skripal of course was a colleague of Steele, and possibly the only person he asked to
get info for the dossier beyond what Nellie Ohr had already given him. His evidence might
have been crucial. The CIA and others have a strong motive to kill Skripal and a stronger
one to blame the Russians.
The fact that the 'Dirty Dossier' and the 'Skripal "story"' both
originate in one and the same small town in the UK, tells you all you need to know about
both.
"The people who want a hard currency are either wealthy (and understand that conversion
to hard currency cements their wealth) or are useful idiots who don't understand that
currency devaluation is the single easiest way to tax in a democracy."
The useful idiocy is most surprising among US farmers. In the 19th century they broadly
understood that fiat money was good for chronic low-wealth debtors like themselves, while
hard money was bad and a gold standard lethal. This was the basis of the Populist movement.
Nothing has changed financially, but today's farmers, and the low-wealth debtor class in
general, seem more likely to be goldbuggers than to have any knowledge of economics or of
their own political history.
karlof1 36
Once a faction becomes submerged in the Mammon theocracy and becomes nothing but
mercenary nihilists, thinking is no longer necessary or desirable, except to come up with
attractive, pseudo-plausible lies.
This certainly characterizes "the right" (including liberals), but they have no monopoly
on it. By now "the left" is nearly as thoughtless and instrumental on behalf of Mammon,
except to the extent that a few people are starting to really grapple with what it means to
have an intrinsically ecocidal and therefore suicidal civilization. That's really the only
thought frontier left, all else has been engulfed in Mammon, productionism, scientism and
technocracy.
I remind that Mussolini wasted his legislature.. 1 balmy after noon @ a roadside spot.
it made his government stronger.?
It is clear the USA, France, Israel and UK are fasting approaching ungovernable .. no
one in government can keep the lies of the other hidden, and none of the governed believes
anyone in government, the MSM, the MIC or the AIG (ATT, Intel and Google). ..
The actors in
government, their lawyers, playmates and corporations have become the laughing stock of the
rest of the world. Everyone in the government is covering for the behaviors of someone else
in government, the MSM has raised the price of a pencil to just under a million, stock
markets are bags of hot thin air, and everyone in side and outside of the centers of power
at all levels of government have lied thru their teeth so much that their teeth are melting
from the continuous flow of hot deceitful air.
Corrupt is now the only qualification for
political office, trigger happy screwball the only qualification for the police and the
military and . making progress is like trying to conduct a panty raid at a female nudist
camp.
John Anthony La Pietra , Apr 16, 2019 3:47:03 PM |
link
Vindictiveness not always play in the vindictive party favour.
You may love Assange you may hate Assange for his WikiLeaks revelation (And Vault 7 was a
real bombshell), but it is clear that it will cost Trump some reputation out of tini share that
still left, especially in view of Trump declaration "I love Wikileaks"
For seven years, we have had to listen to a chorus of journalists, politicians and "experts"
telling us that Assange was nothing more than a fugitive from justice, and that the British and
Swedish legal systems could be relied on to handle his case in full accordance with the law.
Barely a "mainstream" voice was raised in his defence in all that time.
... ... ...
The political and media establishment ignored the mounting evidence of a secret grand jury
in Virginia formulating charges against Assange, and ridiculed Wikileaks' concerns that the
Swedish case might be cover for a more sinister attempt by the US to extradite Assange and lock
him away in a high-security prison, as had happened to whistleblower Chelsea Manning.
... ... ...
Equally, they ignored the fact that Assange had been given diplomatic status by Ecuador, as
well as Ecuadorean citizenship. Britain was obligated to allow him to leave the embassy, using
his diplomatic immunity, to travel unhindered to Ecuador. No "mainstream" journalist or
politician thought this significant either.
... ... ...
They turned a blind eye to the news that, after refusing to question Assange in the UK,
Swedish prosecutors had decided to quietly drop the case against him in 2015. Sweden had kept
the decision under wraps for more than two years.
... ... ...
Most of the other documents relating to these conversations were unavailable. They had been
destroyed by the UK's Crown Prosecution Service in violation of protocol. But no one in the
political and media establishment cared, of course.
Similarly, they ignored the fact that Assange was forced to hole up for years in the
embassy, under the most intense form of house arrest, even though he no longer had a case to
answer in Sweden. They told us -- apparently in all seriousness -- that he had to be arrested
for his bail infraction, something that would normally be dealt with by a fine.
... ... ...
This was never about Sweden or bail violations, or even about the discredited Russiagate
narrative, as anyone who was paying the vaguest attention should have been able to work out. It
was about the US Deep State doing everything in its power to crush Wikileaks and make an
example of its founder.
It was about making sure there would never again be a leak like that of Collateral Murder,
the military video released by Wikileaks in 2007 that showed US soldiers celebrating as they
murdered Iraqi civilians. It was about making sure there would never again be a dump of US
diplomatic cables, like those released in 2010 that revealed the secret machinations of the US
empire to dominate the planet whatever the cost in human rights violations.
Now the pretence is over. The British police invaded the diplomatic territory of Ecuador --
invited in by Ecuador after it tore up Assange's asylum status -- to smuggle him off to jail.
Two vassal states cooperating to do the bidding of the US empire. The arrest was not to help
two women in Sweden or to enforce a minor bail infraction.
No, the British authorities were acting on an extradition warrant from the US. And the
charges the US authorities have concocted relate to Wikileaks' earliest work exposing the US
military's war crimes in Iraq -- the stuff that we all once agreed was in the public interest,
that British and US media clamoured to publish themselves.
Still the media and political class is turning a blind eye. Where is the outrage at the lies
we have been served up for these past seven years? Where is the contrition at having been
gulled for so long? Where is the fury at the most basic press freedom -- the right to publish
-- being trashed to silence Assange? Where is the willingness finally to speak up in Assange's
defence?
It's not there. There will be no indignation at the BBC, or the Guardian, or CNN. Just
curious, impassive -- even gently mocking -- reporting of Assange's fate.
And that is because these journalists, politicians and experts never really believed
anything they said. They knew all along that the US wanted to silence Assange and to crush
Wikileaks. They knew that all along and they didn't care. In fact, they happily conspired in
paving the way for today's kidnapping of Assange.
They did so because they are not there to represent the truth, or to stand up for ordinary
people, or to protect a free press, or even to enforce the rule of law. They don't care about
any of that. They are there to protect their careers, and the system that rewards them with
money and influence. They don't want an upstart like Assange kicking over their applecart.
Now they will spin us a whole new set of deceptions and distractions about Assange to keep
us anaesthetised, to keep us from being incensed as our rights are whittled away, and to
prevent us from realising that Assange's rights and our own are indivisible. We stand or fall
together.
Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His books include
"Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East"
(Pluto Press) and "Disappearing Palestine: Israel's Experiments in Human Despair" (Zed Books).
His website is www.jonathan-cook.net .
This should be an uncomfortable time for the “journalists” of the
Establishment. Very few will speak up as does Mr. Cook. Watch how little is said about the
recent Manning re-imprisonment to sweat out grand jury testimony. Things may have grown so
craven that we’ll even see efforts to revoke Mr. Assange’s awards.
This is also a good column for us to share with those people who just might want not to
play along with the lies that define Exceptionalia.
… from the moment Julian Assange first sought refuge in the Ecuadorean embassy in
London, they have been telling us we were wrong, that we were paranoid conspiracy
theorists. We were told there was no real threat of Assange’s extradition to the
United States, that it was all in our fevered imaginations.
It all reminds me of Rod Dreher’s Law of Merited Impossibility: “That’ll
never happen. And when it does , boy won’t you deserve it!”
Equally, they ignored the fact that Assange had been given diplomatic status by Ecuador,
as well as Ecuadorean citizenship. Britain was obligated to allow him to leave the embassy,
using his diplomatic immunity, to travel unhindered to Ecuador. No “mainstream”
journalist or politician thought this significant either.
Why would they? They don’t even recognize diplomatic status for heads of state who
get in their way! Remember what they did to President Evo Morales of Bolivia back when he was
threatening to grant asylum to Ed Snowden? Here’s a refresher:
People who just watch corporate media think Julian Assange is a bad guy who deserves life
in prison, except those who watch the great Tucker Carlson. Watch his recent show where he
explains why our corporate media and political class hate Assange.
He is charged with encouraging Army Private Chelsea Manning to send him embarrassing
information, specifically this video of a US Army Apache helicopter gunning down civilians in
broad daylight in Baghdad.
But there is no proof of this, and Manning has repeatedly said he never communicated to
Assange about anything. Manning got eight years in prison for this crime; the Apache pilots
were never charged. and now they want to hang Assange for exposing a war crime. I have
recommend this great 2016 interview twice, where Assange calmly explains the massive
corruption that patriotic FBI agents refer to as the “Clinton Crime Family.”
This gang is so powerful that it ordered federal agents to spy on the Trump political
campaign, and indicted and imprisoned some participants in an attempt to pressure President
Trump to step down. It seems Trump still fears this gang, otherwise he would order his
attorney general to drop this bogus charge against Assange, then pardon him forever and
invite him to speak at White House press conferences.
“… they ignored the fact that Assange was forced to hole up for years in
the embassy, under the most intense form of house arrest, even though he no longer had a
case to answer in Sweden.”
Meh! Assange should have walked out the door of the embassy years ago. He might have ended
up in the same place, but he could have seized the moral high ground by seeking asylum in
Britain for fear of the death penalty in the US, which was a credible fear given public
comments by various US officials. By rotting away in the Ecuadorian embassy, be greatly
diminished any credibility he might have had to turn the UK judicial system inside out to his
favour. Now he’s just a creepy looking bail jumper who flung faeces against the wall,
rather than being a persecuted journalist.
@Johnny Rottenborough Millionaire politicians on both sides of the political fence get
very emotional about anything that impacts their own privacy & safety and the privacy
& safety of their kin, while ignoring the issues that jeopardize the privacy & safety
of ordinary voters. While corporate-owned politicians get a lot out of this game,
ordinary voters who have never had less in the way of Fourth Amendment privacy rights, and
whose First Amendment rights are quickly shrinking to the size of Assange’s, do not get
the consolation of riches without risk granted to bought-off politicians in this era’s
pay-to-play version of democracy. It’s a lose / lose for average voters.
Mr Cook’s criticism of the mainstream media (MSM) is absolutely justified.
It seems to me that their hatred of Mr Assange reflects the unfortunate fact that, while
he is a real journalist, they actually aren’t. Instead, they are stenographers for
power: what Paul Craig Roberts calls “presstitutes” (a very happy coinage which
exactly hits the bull’s eye).
The difference is that real journalists, like Mr Assange, Mr Roberts and Mr Cook, are
mainly motivated by the search for objective truth – which they then publish, as far as
they are able.
Whereas those people who go by the spurious names of “journalist”,
“reporter”, “editor”, etc. are motivated by the desire to go on
earning their salaries, and to gain promotion and “distinction” in society. (Sad
but true: social distinction is often gained by performing acts of dishonesty and downright
wickedness).
Here are some interesting quotations that cast some light on this disheartening state of
affairs. If you look carefully at their dates you may be surprised to find that nothing has
changed very much since the mid-19th century.
‘Marr: “How can you know that I’m self-censoring? How can you know that
journalists are…”
‘Chomsky: “I’m not saying you’re self censoring. I’m sure
you believe everything you’re saying. But what I’m saying is that if you believed
something different, you wouldn’t be sitting where you’re
sitting”’.
‘If something goes wrong with the government, a free press will ferret it out and it
will get fixed. But if something goes wrong with our free press, the country will go straight
to hell’.
‘There is no such a thing in America as an independent press, unless it is out in
country towns. You are all slaves. You know it, and I know it. There is not one of you who
dares to express an honest opinion. If you expressed it, you would know beforehand that it
would never appear in print. I am paid $150 for keeping honest opinions out of the paper I am
connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for doing similar things. If I should
allow honest opinions to be printed in one issue of my paper, I would be like Othello before
twenty-four hours: my occupation would be gone. The man who would be so foolish as to write
honest opinions would be out on the street hunting for another job. The business of a New
York journalist is to distort the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at
the feet of Mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread, or for what is
about the same — his salary. You know this, and I know it; and what foolery to be
toasting an “Independent Press”! We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind
the scenes. We are jumping-jacks. They pull the string and we dance. Our time, our talents,
our lives, our possibilities, are all the property of other men. We are intellectual
prostitutes’.
‘The press today is an army with carefully organized arms and branches, with
journalists as officers, and readers as soldiers. But here, as in every army, the soldier
obeys blindly, and war-aims and operation-plans change without his knowledge. The reader
neither knows, nor is allowed to know, the purposes for which he is used, nor even the role
that he is to play. A more appalling caricature of freedom of thought cannot be imagined.
Formerly a man did not dare to think freely. Now he dares, but cannot; his will to think is
only a willingness to think to order, and this is what he feels as his liberty’.
– Oswald Spengler, “The Decline of the West” Vol. II, trans. C.F.
Atkinson (1928), p. 462
‘How do wars start? Wars start when politicians lie to journalists, then believe
what they read in the press’.
Very good article. There is one point that I would like to make: Assange asked for asyl
before he went to the embassy of Ecuador and Ecuador gave him asylum. This meant that they
had an obligation to protect him. It’s really unbeliavable that a country gives asylum
to someone and half way tells that they have changed their mind and will let the person be
arrested. ” We told you you would be safe with us, but now we just changed our
mind”. Assange also became a citizen of Ecuador and this possibly means that Ecuador
couldn’t have let him been arrested in their embassy by the police of another country
without a process against him in Ecuador and without him having the right to defend himself
in a court. Many countries don’t extradit their citizens to other countries.
Another remark. For years there were uncountable articles about Assange in The Guardian.
Those articles were read by many people and got really many comments. There were very fierce
discussions about him with thousends of comments. With time The Guardian turned decisively
against him and published articles againt him. There were people there who seemed to hate
him. In the last days there were again many articles about him. They pronounce themselves
discretely against his extradition to the US even if showing themselves to be critical of him
as if trying to justify their years of attacks against him. But one detail: I didn’t
find even one article in The Guardian where you can comment the case. Today for instance you
can comment an article by Gaby Hinsliff about Kim Kardashian. Marina Hyde talks in an article
about washing her hair (whatever else she wants to say, with 2831 comments at this moment).
But you don’t find any article about Assange that you can comment. 10 or 8 or 5 years
ago there were hundreds of articles about him that you could comment.
UK PM May said about Assange – “no one is above the law” –
proving she is a weak sister without a clue.
No one is above the law except the British government, which ignored the provisions of the
EU Withdrawal Act requiring us to leave on March 29th.
No one is above the law except for the US and the UK which have illegally deployed forces
to Syria against the wishes of the government in Damascus.
And Tony Blair, a million dead thanks to his corruption. He should be doing time in a
Gulag for his evil crimes.
And of course, the black MP for Peterborough – Fiona Onasanya – served a mere
three weeks in jail for perverting the course of justice, normally regarded as a very serious
offence. But she was out in time – electronic tag and curfew notwithstanding – to
vote in the House of Commons against leaving the EU.
The fact that Glenn Greenwald proved to be a despicable pressitute cast a long shadow of
Snowden and Assange.
Notable quotes:
"... Not mentioned by any of the major news media is the fact that Bellingcat is funded by the National Endowment for Democracy (sic), renowned for its interference in foreign elections, funding terrorists and overthrowing governments the US doesn't approve of. ..."
A quick comment about the two Russian alleged assassins, exposed, we are told by the
'investigative' Website, Bellingcat. Not mentioned by any of the major news media is the fact
that Bellingcat is funded by the National Endowment for Democracy (sic), renowned for its
interference in foreign elections, funding terrorists and overthrowing governments the US
doesn't approve of.
Media Lens picked up on this awhile back in reference to another Western financed
outfit, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR), funded by the UK Foreign Office. I've
also expanded this by quoting from Media Lens' other article that deals with Western-funded
disinfo, ' Douma: Part 1
– Deception In Plain Sight':
Liberal corporate journalists and politicians have been impressed by the fact that SOHR
and White Helmets claims have been supported by ostensibly forensic analysis supplied by the
Bellingcat website, which publishes 'citizen journalist' investigations. As we noted
in a recent alert, Bellingcat is funded by the National
Endowment for Democracy (NED), which is funded by the US government and is 'a notorious
vehicle for US soft power'. – '
The Syrian Observatory – Funded By The Foreign Office ', Media Lens, June 4
2018
It's worth quoting more of the Media Lens article as it exposes the nature of Western
so-called lefties and their attachment to Western (funded) propaganda outfits:
In the New Statesman, Paul Mason
offered a typically nonsensical argument, linking to the anti-Assad website,
Bellingcat:
'Despite the availability of public sources showing it is likely that a regime Mi-8
helicopter dropped a gas container onto a specific building, there are well-meaning people
prepared to share the opinion that this was a "false flag", staged by jihadis, to pull the
West into the war. The fact that so many people are prepared to clutch at false flag theories
is, for Western democracies, a sign of how effective Vladimir Putin's global strategy has
been.'
Thus, echoing Freedland's reference to 'denialists and conspiracists', sceptics can only
be idiot victims of Putin's propaganda. US media analyst Adam Johnson of FAIR accurately
described Mason's piece as a 'mess', adding :
'I love this thing where nominal leftists run the propaganda ball for bombing a country 99
yards then stop at the one yard and insist they don't support scoring goals, that they in
fact oppose war.'
Surprisingly, the Bellingcat website, which publishes the findings of 'citizen journalist'
investigations, appears to be taken seriously by some very high-profile progressives.
In the Independent, Green Party leader Caroline Lucas also
mentioned the Syrian army 'Mi-8' helicopters. Why? Because she had read the same
Bellingcat blog as Mason, to which she linked:
'From the evidence we've seen so far it appears that the latest chemical attack was likely
by Mi-8 helicopters, probably from the forces of Syria's murderous President Assad.'
On Democracy Now!, journalist Glenn Greenwald said of
Douma:
'I think that it's -- the evidence is quite overwhelming that the perpetrators of this
chemical weapons attack, as well as previous ones, is the Assad government '
This was an astonishing comment. After receiving fierce challenges (not from us),
Greenwald partially retracted, tweeting :
'It's live TV. Something [sic – sometimes] you say things less than ideally. I think
the most likely perpetrator of this attack is Syrian Govt.'
We wrote to Greenwald asking what had persuaded him of Assad's 'likely' responsibility for
Douma. (Twitter, April 10, direct message)
The first piece of evidence he sent us (April 12) was the Bellingcat blog mentioning
Syrian government helicopters cited by Mason and Lucas. Greenwald also sent us a
report from Reuters, as well as a
piece from 2017, obviously prior to the alleged Douma event.
This was thin evidence indeed for the claim made. In our discussion with him, Greenwald
then completely retracted his claim (Twitter, April 12, direct message) that there was
evidence of Syrian government involvement in the alleged attack. [My emph. WB] – '
Douma: Part
1 – Deception In Plain Sight'
"... Then on 29 March, Salisbury District Hospital unexpectedly said that "Yulia Skripal is improving rapidly and is no longer in a critical condition." She was even "conscious and talking" at that stage, according to the BBC. ..."
"... A few days later, she was able to phone Viktoria, who said she sounded perfectedly normal, and a few days after that, Yulia was discharged from hospital. Around that time too, the hospital announced that Sergei's condition also improved rapidly. ..."
"... The whole thing was staged, and the script written months beforehand. ..."
"... Bizarrely, however, one day before Yulia's rapid recovery was announced, the British police presented a new version of events which begins with skin contact. This is the door handle story, where the Skripals first made contact with Novichok at the front door of Sergei's house. ..."
"... This breifing proceeds on the premise that the Skripal's were exposed to A-234. I can not see that this has been established beyond reasonable doubt. ..."
"... And hasn't it been suggested in many places, including the article above, that Skripal's apparent connection with the Steele Dossier could be a motive for some western spooks to want to silence him? ..."
"... So the revelation of Sergei Skripal's trips to Prague and Estonia actually supports the evidence for his connection with the dossier. However, they have been presented in the media as the opposite – as a motive for the Kremlin to try to kill him. ..."
"... These latest media reports smell a lot like damage limitation. What do you do if you cannot stop an embarrassing fact from being revealed? The best action is to spin it to completely change its significance, so that it shifts the blame onto your enemy ..."
timhayward The following briefing note is developed
by academics researching the use of chemical and biological weapons during the 2011-present war in Syria. The note reflects work
in progress. However, the substantive questions raised need answering, especially given the seriousness of the political situation
in the Middle East and UK-Russian relations. The authors welcome comments and corrections.
The Skripals were exposed to a phosphoroamidofluoridate compound named A-234, of high purity indicating that it was most likely
prepared for research purposes.
A-234 or similar compounds have been synthesized at bench scale by national chemical defence labs in Russia and the US in
the 1990s, and more recently in Iran and Czechia. A small quantity of A-234 from a Russian state lab was used in the murder of
Ivan Kivelidi and Zara Ismailova in 1995.
No data on the toxicity of A-234 are available in the public domain. The police statement that the Skripals were exposed through
contact with their front door is implausible as there are no known nerve agents that cause onset of symptoms delayed by several
hours, and it is improbable that absorption through the skin would cause both individuals to collapse later at exactly the same
time.
Although Russia is one of several countries that have synthesized A-234 or similar compounds, there is no evidence other than
Vil Mirzayanov's story that these compounds were ever developed (implying industrial-scale production and testing of munitions)
for military use. Mirzayanov's credibility as an independent whistleblower is undermined by his role in a Tatar separatist movement
during 2008-2009, backed by the US State Department.
There are multiple indications that the UK is hiding information:-
the withholding of the identity of the compound as A-234. For example, the
UK statement to the OSCE 12 April 2018 states only that ' the name and structure of that identified toxic chemical is contained
in the fall classified report to States Parties'.
See
also this briefing. The Chief Executive of Porton Down,
in his statement 3 April, referred to the compound only as 'Novichok'.
the withholding of information about its toxicity
the issue of a Defence Media Security Advisory notice on the identity of Skripal's MI6 handler and the attempt to conceal
or deny his role in Orbis Business Intelligence.
the sequestration of Yulia Skripal.
The UK government's case against Russia, stated in a letter to NATO, is based on asserting that "only Russia has the technical
means, operational experience and motive for the attack on the Skripals". Each of these points is open to question:-
Technical means : it is not seriously disputed that compounds such as A-234 can be produced at bench scale in any
modern chemistry lab.
Operational experience : it is alleged that Russia has a track record of state-sponsored assassination, but this
is not enough to support the assertion that "only Russia" could have enough experience to attempt unsuccessfully to assassinate
two unprotected individuals.
Motive : No other attempted assassinations of defectors from Russian intelligence services have been recorded. Even
if such an assassination campaign had been ordered, the Russian state would have good reasons not to initiate it in the first
half of 2018. In contrast there are obvious possible motives (outlined below) for other actors to have taken steps to silence
Sergei Skripal at this time.
What was the agent used?
An early report that the hospital was dealing with
poisoning caused by an opiate such as fentanyl was most likely based on the initial working diagnosis. Signs of organophosphate
poisoning – constricted pupils, vomiting, reduced consciousness and reduced breathing – could easily be mistaken for opiate overdose,
usually a more likely diagnosis. OPCW has stated that the BZ detected by the Swiss Federal Institute for Nuclear, Biological and
Chemical Protection in one of the samples sent by OPCW was not from Salisbury but was in a
control sample .
The Russian ambassador reported that on 12 March the Foreign Secretary
had told him that the nerve agent used against Mr and Ms Skripal had been identified as A-234. The
OPCW report issued on 12 April
did not identify the agent but stated that they had confirmed the identification made by the UK and that this identification had
been included in the confidential report provided to "States parties". On 14 April the Russian Foreign Minister
stated that A-234 had been reported by the Swiss Federal Institute for Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Protection that was one
of the four accredited labs used by OPCW to analyse the Salisbury samples.
Based on public reports, a ChemSpider record for
A-234 has been created which assigns it the IUPAC name ethyl [(1E)-1-(diethylamino)ethylidene] phosphoramidofluoridate. Its predicted
vapour pressure is very low indicating that it is predicted to be non-volatile. No information on its stability is available. The
OPCW director Uzumcu
stated in a newspaper
interview that the agent "seems to be very persistent," and "not affected by weather conditions". This was confirmed the next
day by an OPCW press statement that: "the chemical substance found was of high purity, persistent and resistant to weather conditions".
Ian Boyd, the chief scientific adviser at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, was
reported to have stated: "The chemical does not degrade quickly. You can assume it is not much different now from the day it
was distributed". No experimental studies of the stability of A-234 have been reported.
Who could have produced A-234 in bench-scale quantities?
It is no longer seriously disputed that,
as noted
in our earlier briefing , any well equipped university lab can synthesize and purify such chemicals at bench scale. OPCW r
eported that the agent
(presumably A-234) was of high purity with "almost complete absence of impurities". This suggests that it was from a batch that had
been synthesized for research, rather than for assassination purposes where it would be unnecessary to purify the agent.
Uzumcu stated in an
interview with the
New York Times that he had been told by UK officials that 50-100 grams of the agent was used.
"For research activities or protection you would need, for instance, five to 10 grams or so, but even in Salisbury it looks
like they may have used more than that. Without knowing the exact quantity, I am told it may be 50, 100 grams or so, which goes
beyondresearchactivities for protection"
OPCW quickly contradicted this in a
statement that "OPCW would not be able to estimate or determine the amount of the nerve agent that was used in Salisbury on 4
March 2018. The quantity should probably be characterized in milligrams".
Who has studied A-234 or similar compounds?
Bench-scale research on the toxicity of agents that might be used in chemical warfare is entirely legitimate under the Chemical
Weapons Convention, and does not have to be declared to OPCW.
Russia
Since our
last briefing
note , more material from
the investigation of the Kivelidi poisoning has been published by Novaya Gazeta, updating the earlier
article published on 22 March
. The second article includes an image of the mass spectrometry profile of the sample recovered from the telephone handset, which
matches that submitted by Edgewood to the NIST98 mass spectrometry database. The Russian experts who commented on the original result
appear not to have had access to the mass spectrometry profile of A-234, and to have incorrectly reconstructed the structure from
a best guess, based on the mass-charge ratios of the fragments, as something like the GV agent (both agents have molecular mass 224
daltons, and a 58-dalton fragment). This establishes that Russia had synthesized this compound at bench scale by the mid 1990s, but
does not confirm that it was ever developed for military use as alleged by Mirzayanov.
US
A 1997 newspaper article
refers to a secret US army intelligence report referring to Russian development of A-232 and its "ethyl analog" A-234, indicating
that the designation of these compounds and their structures was known to the US by this time. As noted in our last briefing note,
the Edgewood lab submitted a mass spectrometry profile for A-234 to the public database NIST98, which was current from 1998 to 2001.
A patent application submitted by a US government lab
in 2008 mentions "Novichoks", but examination shows that the structures given for these compounds were the dihaloformaldoxime structures
previously published as supposed "Novichoks", not the phosphoramidofluoridates published by Mirzayanov later in 2008. This does not
indicate that the applicants were studying these compounds – most likely they included them to make their patent as broad as possible.
Iran and Czechia
A study from Iran published in 2016 reported
synthesis for research purposes of a compound similar to A-234, differing from it only by the presence of methyl instead of ethyl
groups. In an
interview with Czech television , President Zeman stated that in November 2017 the related compound designated A-230 was studied
at the Brno Military Research Institute.
Other labs
The director of Porton Down has
declined to comment on whether Porton Down has stocks of A-234 for research purposes. The OPCW labs that identified A-234 in
the specimens from Salisbury were most likely matching it against a mass spectrometry profile in OPCW's Central Analytical Database.
What is known of the toxicity of A-234?
No data on the toxicity of A-234 are available in the public domain. The printout of the entry in the NIST 98 database appears
to cross-reference an entry in the database RTECS ( Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances) but no entry for this
compound now exists in RTECS.
Why was the structure of A-234 revealed?
The structure of A-234 was revealed in a book by Vil S Mirzayanov in 2008, some 13 years after he had emigrated to the US with
the story of a secret programme to develop chemical weapons of a class named "Novichoks". During 2008-2009 the US government, with
an active part for the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, was
encouraging the development
of a separatist movement in Tatarstan. As part of this, Mirzayanov was declared head of a Tatar government-in-exile in December
2008. The publication of his book may thus have been part of an effort to build up Mirzayanov's status as a dissident. His role in
this operation may explain why subsequent discussion of his book by OPCW delegates was closely
monitored (and discouraged) by the US State Department
. Mirzayanov's involvement in this operation undermines his credibility as an independent whistleblower.
When and where were the Skripals exposed to A-234?
A summary of the different versions on which journalists were apparently
briefed by security sources was given by the Russian embassy:-
– The Skripals could be sprayed with poison by attackers in the street (Daily Mail, 6 March, source: "Anti-terror police").
– The nerve agent could be planted in one of the personal items in Yulia Skripal's suitcase before she left Moscow for London.
According to this theory the toxin was impregnated in an item of clothing or cosmetics or else in a gift that was opened in the house
of Sergei Skripal in Salisbury, meaning Yulia Skripal was deliberately targeted to get at her father (The Telegraph, 15 March, source:
"Senior sources in the intelligence agencies").
– The nerve agent could be planted in the air conditioner of the car of Skripals (Daily Mail, 19 March, source: "Security expert
Philip Ingram").
– The Skripals could be poisoned through buckwheat that Yulia Skripal had asked her friend to buy and bring for her father,
because she had forgotten to pick up the grocery gifts herself (The Sun, 1 April, source: "British investigators").
On 28 March the police announced that "at this point in our investigation, we believe the Skripals first came into contact
with the nerve agent from their front door".
Although it is possible that a nerve agent could be prepared in a formulation that would be absorbed only slowly through the skin,
it is implausible that two individuals exposed through contact with the front door would have received doses that caused them to
collapse suddenly and so nearly simultaneously that neither had time to call for help, at least three hours later. It is more likely
that they were attacked shortly before they were found collapsed on the park bench.
Sergei Skripal's link with Orbis: possible motive for murder
In the first few days after the poisoning there were media reports that Sergei Skripal had been in
regular contact
with his MI6 handler, whose Linked-In profile had stated that he was a consultant for Orbis Business Intelligence. On 7 March this
profile was
deleted and a Defence and Security Media Advisory
Notice was issued to caution journalists against disclosing the identity of this consultant. However at Skripal's trial in 2007
his MI6 handler had been identified as Pablo Miller , and the
link between Skripal and Miller had been
described in detail
by Russian opposition media on 6 March.
This link between Skripal and Orbis may be relevant to the dossier compiled by Christopher Steele, the founder of Orbis, containing
derogatory information on Donald Trump's alleged ties to Russia. This dossier had been
used by the FBI
to apply for a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court order authorizing surveillance of Trump's campaign. By early 2018
the unravelling of this story was creating serious difficulties for Steele and for those he had worked with. These difficulties included
a
referral for criminal investigation by two US Senators , a libel case in the US against the publisher of the dossier which had
led to a court ruling
that Steele should be questioned in an English court, and a
libel case in
England against Orbis and Steele. It is not difficult to postulate a situation in which the potential for damage to US-UK relations
could have provided a motive for actors on both sides of the Atlantic to ensure that Sergei Skripal would not be available to give
evidence.
The UK government's position
This was summarized in a
letter from the National Security Adviser , Sir Mark Sedwill to the NATO Secretary-General on 13 April 2018. Sedwill's letter
made several assertions that were substantiated only by "intelligence":
By 1993, when Russia signed the Chemical Weapons Convention, it is likely that some Novichoks had passed acceptance testing,
allowing their use by the Russian military
Russia further developed some Novichoks after ratifying the convention
During the 2000s, Russia commenced a programme to test means of delivering chemical warfare agents and to train personnel
from special units in the use of these weapons. This programme subsequently included investigation of ways of delivering nerve
agents, including by application to door handles.
In the mid-2000s, President Putin was closely involved in the Russian chemical weapons programme
Within the last decade Russia has produced and stockpiled small quantities of Novichoks
Appearing before the House of Commons Defence Committee on 1 May, Sedwill
(11:39) extolled the government's
reaction to the Salisbury incident as "an example of the Fusion Doctrine in practice". The
Fusion Doctrine
brings other government departments under the National Security Council with "the introduction of senior officials as senior responsible
owners to deliver each of the NSC's priorities".
Sedwill's
involvement in the preparation of the now
widely discredited dossier 'Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction' , released in September 2002, calls into question his credibility
in making these uncorroborated assertions. The UK government's case as set out by Sedwill is based on asserting that "only Russia
has the technical means, operational experience and motive for the attack on the Skripals". Each of these points is open to serious
criticism:-
Technical means: it is not seriously disputed that A-234 can be produced at bench scale in any organic chemistry lab.
Operational experience: it is alleged that Russia has a track record of state-sponsored assassination, but this does not support
the assertion that only Russia has the operational experience for such an assassination. On the contrary, the failure of the assassination
attempt, against two unprotected individuals, suggests that the perpetrators lacked the operational experience and competence
that one would expect of state-directed assassins.
Motive: no other attempted assassinations of defectors from Russian intelligence services have been recorded. If the Russian
state had decided to begin assassinating these defectors, it is unlikely that they would have chosen to start in March 2018, just
before the presidential election and three months before the FIFA World Cup. However, as noted above, it is possible to identify
motives for other actors to silence Sergei Skripal at this time.
Awesome journalism. The kind we sourly lack in the msm. But I guess they are all "bought and paid for" This whole story has looked
like a farce from the start, especially in the msm. Like they were making it up while they were going along Sounded like: (
https://www.crisis-solutions.com/ ) Who do exactly that sort of
thing.
My question is: Is it even likely that two people will touch the same door handle, either on their way in or out of the house?
Two people and two door handles (inside and outside).
When you leave together, only ONE person will touch the outside door handle, when closing the door, usually the last one to
leave, right?
The authors say " there are no known nerve agents that cause onset of symptoms delayed by several hours, "
A publication from 2009 contradicts this, but it seems to suggest that the onset is gradual rather than sudden:
"Even a lethal drop may require 30 minutes, rather than seconds, to manifest clinically, and a small, nonlethal drop may develop
symptoms over 18 hours."
This delayed reaction still does not explain the unbelievable timeline of the symptoms in the official British version of the
Skripal case. As the authors point out, that version is unlikely to be true, as it would mean that the two victims collapsed suddenly
and almost simultaneously after a long delay.
It is all the more unlikely, as Yulia should have collapsed later than Sergei, due to the difference in the skin layers in
men and women. Because the subcutaneous layer is thicker in women, the nerve agent's transit time is longer, according to Newmark's
piece.
Those comments by Newmark refer to absorption of nerve agent through the skin. This is in contrast to what he says about inhalation
of a large amount of vapour:
"In a vapor challenge of sufficient magnitude, perhaps 0.5 LCt50 or higher, the sequence of symptoms can be so fast as to seem
clinically simultaneous. Many patients have been described who, after a large vapor challenge, lost consciousness, seized, and
developed all of the other symptoms essentially within seconds of exposure."
This sudden attack due to vapour appears very consistent with the Skripals' inability to call for help when they collapsed.
Furthermore, for more than three weeks after the incident, the only methods of poisoning that were taken seriously involved
the inhalation of nerve agent. First, it was supposed to have been sprayed on the Skripals in the park. Later, it was believed
that Novichok in powder form had been placed in the ventilation system of Sergei's car.
As well as the rapid onset of symptoms of vapour inhalation, Newmark also describes its possible long term effects, which he contrasts
with those resulting from skin contact:
"Vapor nerve casualties, if removed from the source of contamination, or masked, and treated aggressively, either die or improve
rapidly. Humans metabolize a circulating nerve agent quickly if it does not kill them. No depot effect is observed with vapor
casualties. The situation is quite different with the patient who gets a drop of liquid nerve agent on the skin."
The most important part of that section is "Vapor nerve casualties either die or improve rapidly." This is consistent with
the prognosis for the Skripals both before and after their recovery.
For three weeks, Sergei and Yulia were given little chance of recovery. On Monday 26 March, Prime Minister Theresa May told
Parliament "Sadly, late last week doctors indicated that their condition is unlikely to change in the near future and that they
may never recover fully."
In the two days after that, others – who were close to the Skripals – put it more bluntly.
Viktoria Skripal, who is Sergei's niece and Yulia's cousin, told the BBC that there was "maybe 1 percent of hope" and that they
had "a very small chance of survival".
Ross Cassidy, a close friend and former neighbour of Sergei, told Sky News: "We've already been told they will be severely
mentally impaired and I don't think they would want that. I think death would probably be merciful."
Then on 29 March, Salisbury District Hospital unexpectedly said that "Yulia Skripal is improving rapidly and is no longer in
a critical condition." She was even "conscious and talking" at that stage, according to the BBC.
A few days later, she was able to phone Viktoria, who said she sounded perfectedly normal, and a few days after that, Yulia
was discharged from hospital. Around that time too, the hospital announced that Sergei's condition also improved rapidly.
All of this indicates a much greater likelihood that Yulia and Sergei were poisoned by means of inhalation than skin contact.
Not only that, but the doctors treating them, and the UK authorities, must have believed that too.
Bizarrely, however, one day before Yulia's rapid recovery was announced, the British police presented a new version of events
which begins with skin contact. This is the door handle story, where the Skripals first made contact with Novichok at the front
door of Sergei's house.
This version gives the impression that the investigators had not noticed the Novichok on the front door during the weeks of
intensive investigation by hundreds of officers! This is in spite of the fact that it was known that their colleague, Detective
Nick Bailey, had been to the house before he suffered from the effects of the nerve agent.
The unexpected announcements of both the door handle story and Yulia's rapid recovery within a day of one another, three weeks
after the incident, appears to be a remarkable coincidence in timing.
It reminds us of another such example that was already mentioned – the Skripals' collapse at almost the same time, hours after
touching the Novichok. That's part of the same unbelievable door handle theory.
This is just speculation, but the timing of the shift in narrative indicates that the UK authorities were afraid of what Yulia
might reveal. Now that she was "conscious and talking", she might even be able to help to identify the attackers.
Because of this, they may have wanted to discredit what she might say about what she noticed in the centre of Salisbury on
the day of the poisoning. By moving the crime scene to Sergei's house, the police could dismiss any such statements by Yulia as
irrelevant, or maybe as the result of hallucination caused by the nerve agent.
Just a summary of some facts about the Skripal case that might point to the means of poisoning. These all indicate that it was
not by skin contact, but much more likely by inhalation, or possibly ingestion. The first two facts match what the literature
says about nerve agent vapour:
– Rapid (instead of gradual) onset of the poison's effects in both victims at the same time.
– Grim prognosis, followed by rapid improvement ("Vapor nerve casualties either die or improve rapidly").
– The investigators' belief for weeks that the poison was either in aerosol or powder form or was added to food. (we can see
these scenarios both in the leaks to the media and in the focus of investigation in Salisbury town centre).
– In contrast, the apparent complete lack of belief for weeks in the door handle theory, which involves skin contact.
– The strange timing of the first mention of this version. It was presented – almost as a fact – after three and a half weeks
of intensive investigation, approximately on the day of Yulia's unexpected recovery.
This breifing proceeds on the premise that the Skripal's were exposed to A-234. I can not see that this has been established beyond
reasonable doubt.
If the information referred to by Segei Lavrov is reliable, it must pertain to environmental samples and not
biomedical samples. Presumably A-234 is a fast acting nerve paralyzing agent, it would therefore seem incongruous that the Skripals
could have had any significant exposure to it but be recovering fully (apparently).
Not least if they were exposed to it and then
initially assessed and treated for fentanyl exposure.
And how prescient of the MD of UK CBRN respirator-maker, Avon Protection, to write a piece on the BBC pretty much predicting a
chemical attack on a NATO member, possibly involving 'new super chemicals many times more potent than nerve agents like Sarin
and VX', just days before the Salisbury incident
The latest story is that the Kremlin targeted Sergei Skripal because he travelled to Prague and Estonia in order to provide security
officers with information on Russian espionage.
But wait isn't Estonia the place where another Salisbury resident, Skripal's alleged handler, Pablo Miller was based for years
as an MI6 agent?
And wasn't Prague the location of a meeting between Trump's lawyer Michael Cohen and Russian officials, as alleged in the Steele
Dossier?
And wasn't that meeting – just a couple of months after Skripal's trip to Estonia in 2016 – monitored by the Estonian secret
service, according to Newsweek?
And hasn't it been suggested in many places, including the article above, that Skripal's apparent connection with the Steele
Dossier could be a motive for some western spooks to want to silence him?
So the revelation of Sergei Skripal's trips to Prague and Estonia actually supports the evidence for his connection with the
dossier. However, they have been presented in the media as the opposite – as a motive for the Kremlin to try to kill him.
These latest media reports smell a lot like damage limitation. What do you do if you cannot stop an embarrassing fact from
being revealed? The best action is to spin it to completely change its significance, so that it shifts the blame onto your enemy.
Full marks for your work here – are there any updates coming in the light of recent events?
The way you've gone about this is particularly impressive and useful – posing questions and answering them as and when you
can.
This stands in rather stark contrast to a few of the more prominent 'company-liners' on twitter.
I've had a diverting, but not entirely fruitful, few exchanges with @dankaszeta on the subject of Novichok persistence and
the delayed, simultaneous, rapid onset story (to my mind the most obvious flaw in the Governments yarn). In April he was happy
enough to state that all OP chemicals degrade in the presence of water as it suited him in his, ahem, Myth Busting piece for politics.co.uk.
Now, however, it's all actually rather persistent and down to viscosity and all that. I fully understand how it might be were
it enclosed in a vial or syringe or something, but it all looked a bit like he was having his cake and eating it when he'd used
the hydrolysis argument to explain why the Skripals weren't killed (or why, I assume PC Bailey wasn't either).
Philip Ingrm (@PhilipIngMBE) chimed in on a recent thread – informing me that the persistence was why they (I'm assuming he
meant the Russians) decided to use Novichoks.
When it came to the delayed collapse story he told me that this was answered in
his, Kaszeta's or Hamish DBG's threads. It's a tactic that certainly Kaszeta has deployed more than once – feign weariness when
questions get tricky and then refer people to tweets they're too busy or tired to dig out themselves.
I told Ingram that I thought
this was a little lame and pointed him to this site by way of example of good practice.
Money quote: "The Russian collusion investigation was based solely on the dodgy Steele Dossier that was discredited here from
the get-go. This was a product of British Intelligence Community. The intent was to keep and then to get Donald Trump out of the White
House. It failed but they did succeed in turning him into a neo-lib-con fellow traveler. There are clear parallels between the end stages
of the Soviet Union and the American Empire. My take since the Iraq Invasion is that they are insane. The ruling elite is detached from
reality, incompetent and arrogant. Sooner or later someone with their facilities still intact will lead a middle-class revolt against
the global plutocracy to restore democracy and reverse the rising inequality. We were lucky that the fall of the Soviet Union did not
lead to a nuclear war. The next time a nuclear armed Empire crashes we may not be so fortunate."
Notable quotes:
"... Among interesting dates, it appears that Stefan Halper was already trying to reach out to Lokhova in January-February 2016 – a lot earlier than his approaches to Papadopoulo s and Page. This was done through Professor Christopher Andrew, co-convenor with Halper and the former MI6 had Sir Richard Dearlove of the ‘Cambridge Intelligence Seminar.’ ..."
"... Meanwhile, Lokhova has set up a blog on which she has posted a some interesting relevant material, with perhaps more to come. It is very well worth a look.(See https://www.russiagate.co.uk .) ..."
"... Of particular interest, to my mind, is the full text of her – unpublished – May 2017 interview with the ‘New York Times.’ This points us back to is the fact – of which Lokhova shows no signs of awareness – that the idea that the Western powers and the Russians might have a common interest in fighting jihadist terrorism has been absolute anathema to many key figures on both sides of the Atlantic, with Dearlove certainly among them. ..."
"... ‘AN APOLOGY: Yesterday, I compared @nytimes journalists, who smeared @GenFlynn and accused me of being a Russian spy, to cockroaches. In good conscience, I must apologize to the cockroaches for the distress caused to them for being compared to @nytimes #Russiagate hoaxers. Sorry!’ ..."
"... The centerpiece of this is a proposal submitted to the FCO in August last year by what seems to be essentially the same consortium whose existence as a government contractor has now been made public. The ‘Institute for Statecraft’ has vanished, and one consortium member, ‘Aktis Strategy’, has gone into liquidation. But other key members are the same. ..."
"... A central underlying premise is that if anyone has any doubts as to whether the ‘White Helmets’ are a benevolent humanitarian organisation, or the Russians were responsible for the poisoning of the Skripals or the shooting down of MH17, the only possible explanation is that their minds have been poisoned by disinformation. ..."
"... In fact, what is at issue an ambitious project to co-ordinate and strengthen a very large number of organisations in different countries which are committed to a relentlessly Russophobic line on everything. (The possibility that it might not be very bright to push Russia into the arms of China, the obviously rising power, does not seem to have occurred to these people – perhaps they need less ons from Sir Halford Mackinder, or indeed Niccolò Machiavelli, on ‘statecraft.’) ..."
"... The clear close integration of other cyber people from the ‘Atlantic Council’ into Orwellian ‘information operations’ sponsored by the British Government simply puts these facts into sharp relief. ..."
"... There has to be a strong possible ‘prima facie’ case that anyone in authority prepared to accept the ‘digital forensics’ from ‘CrowdStrike’ is complicit in the conspiracy against the constitution, and/or the conspiracy to cover-up that conspiracy. This certainly goes for Comey, and I think it also goes for Mueller." ..."
"... I'd recommend for reading Alexei Yurchak's "Everything Was Forever, Until It was No More: The Last Soviet Generation." Its about a class of apparatchiks and bureaucrats and hangers on who spoke this arcane, abstract dogmatic language that anyone normal had long since given up trying to understand. It had long ceased to have any relevance or attachment to the lives lived by ordinary, increasingly suffering people, who started talking to each other in practical and direct language. ..."
"... The Russian collusion investigation was based solely on the dodgy Steele Dossier that was discredited here from the get-go. This was a product of British Intelligence Community. The intent was to keep and then to get Donald Trump out of the White House. It failed but they did succeed in turning him into a neo-lib-con fellow traveler. ..."
"... There are clear parallels between the end stages of the Soviet Union and the American Empire. My take since the Iraq Invasion is that they are insane. The ruling elite is detached from reality, incompetent and arrogant. Sooner or later someone with their facilities still intact will lead a middle-class revolt against the global plutocracy to restore democracy and reverse the rising inequality. We were lucky that the fall of the Soviet Union did not lead to a nuclear war. The next time a nuclear armed Empire crashes we may not be so fortunate. ..."
"Dan, Thanks for the reference, which I will follow up. Unfortunately, although Bongino has produced a lot of extremely valuable
material, a lot of it is buried in the 'postcasts', searching through which is harder than with printed materials. It would greatly
help if there were transcripts, but of course those cost money.
I am still trying to fit the exploding mass of information which has been coming out into a coherent timeline. Part of the
problem is that there is so much appearing in so many different places. In addition to trying to think through the implications
of the information in this post and the subsequent exchanges of comments, I have been trying to make sense of evidence coming
out about the British end of the conspiracy.
An important development here has been rather well covered by Chuck Ross, in a recent ‘Daily Caller’ piece headlined ‘Cambridge
Academic Reflects On Interactions With 'Spygate’ Figure’ and one on ‘Fox’ by Catherine Herridge and Cyd Upson, entitled ‘Russian
academic linked to Flynn denies being spy, says her past contact was “used” to smear him.’ However, the evidence involved has ramifications
which they cannot be expected to understand, as yet at least.
At issue is the attempt to use the – apparently casual – encounter between Lieutenant-General Flynn and Svetlana Lokhova at a
dinner in Cambridge (U.K.) in February 2016 to smear him by, among other things, portraying her as some kind of ‘Mata Hari’ figure.
Among interesting dates, it appears that Stefan Halper was already trying to reach out to Lokhova in January-February 2016
– a lot earlier than his approaches to Papadopoulo s and Page. This was done through Professor Christopher Andrew, co-convenor with
Halper and the former MI6 had Sir Richard Dearlove of the ‘Cambridge Intelligence Seminar.’
This suggests that this was not simply a case Halper acting on his own. It also I think brings us back to the central importance
of Flynn’s visit to Moscow in December 2015.
Meanwhile, Lokhova has set up a blog on which she has posted a some interesting relevant material, with perhaps more to come.
It is very well worth a look.(See https://www.russiagate.co.uk
.)
Of particular interest, to my mind, is the full text of her – unpublished – May 2017 interview with the ‘New York Times.’ This
points us back to is the fact – of which Lokhova shows no signs of awareness – that the idea that the Western powers and the Russians
might have a common interest in fighting jihadist terrorism has been absolute anathema to many key figures on both sides of the Atlantic,
with Dearlove certainly among them.
Some of Lokhova’s comments on ‘twitter’ are extremely entertaining. An example, with which I have much sympathy:
‘AN APOLOGY: Yesterday, I compared @nytimes journalists, who smeared @GenFlynn and accused me of being a Russian spy, to
cockroaches. In good conscience, I must apologize to the cockroaches for the distress caused to them for being compared to @nytimes
#Russiagate hoaxers. Sorry!’
Meanwhile, another interesting recent ‘tweet’ comes from Eliot Higgins, of ‘Bellingcat’ fame. He is known to some skeptics as
‘the couch potato’ – perhaps he should be rechristened ‘king cockroach.’ It reads:
‘Looking forward to gettin g things rolling with the Open Information Partnership, with @bellingcat, @MDI_UK, @DFRLab, and @This_Is_Zinc
https://www.openinformation...’
There is an interesting ‘backstory’ to this. The announcement of an FCO-supported ‘Open Information Partnership of European Non-Governmental
Organisations, charities, academics, think-tanks and journalists’, supposedly to counter ‘disinformation’ from Russia, came in a
written answer from the Minister of State, Sir Alan Duncan, on 3 April.
In turn this followed the latest in a series of releases of material either leaked or hacked from the organisations calling themselves
‘Institute for Statecraft’ and ‘Integrity Initiative’ by the group calling themselves ‘Anonymous’ on 25 March.
The centerpiece of this is a proposal submitted to the FCO in August last year by what seems to be essentially the same consortium
whose existence as a government contractor has now been made public. The ‘Institute for Statecraft’ has vanished, and one consortium
member, ‘Aktis Strategy’, has gone into liquidation. But other key members are the same.
A central underlying premise is that if anyone has any doubts as to whether the ‘White Helmets’ are a benevolent humanitarian
organisation, or the Russians were responsible for the poisoning of the Skripals or the shooting down of MH17, the only possible
explanation is that their minds have been poisoned by disinformation.
An interesting paragraph reads as follows:
‘An expanded research component could generate better understanding of the drivers (psychological, sociopolitical, cultural
and environmental) of those who are susceptible to disinformation. This will allow us to map vulnerable audiences, and build scenario
planning models to test the efficiency of different activities to build resilience of those populations over time.’
They have not yet got to the point of recommending psychiatic treatment for ‘dissidents’, but these are still early days. The
‘Sovietisation’ of Western life proceeds apace.
In fact, what is at issue an ambitious project to co-ordinate and strengthen a very large number of organisations in different
countries which are committed to a relentlessly Russophobic line on everything. (The possibility that it might not be very bright
to push Russia into the arms of China, the obviously rising power, does not seem to have occurred to these people – perhaps they
need less ons from Sir Halford Mackinder, or indeed Niccolò Machiavelli, on ‘statecraft.’)
Study of the proposal hacked/leaked by ‘Anonymous’ bring out both the ‘boondoggle’ element – there is a lot of state funding available
for people happy to play these games – and also the strong transatlantic links.
A particularly significant presence, here, is the ‘DFRLab’. This is the ‘Digital Forensic Research Lab’ at the ‘Atlantic Council’,
where Eliot Higgins is a ‘nonresident senior fellow.’ The same organisation has a ‘Cyber Statecraft Initiative’ where Dmitri Alperovitch
is a ‘nonresident senior fellow.’
It cannot be repeated often enough that it is difficult to see any conceivable excuse for the FBI to fail to secure access to
the DNC servers. One would normally moreover expect that, on an issue of this sensitivity, they would have the ‘digital forensics’
done by their own people.
There can be no conceivable excuse for relying on a contractor selected by the organisation which is claiming that there has been
a hack, when an alternative possibility is a leak: and the implications of the alternative possibility could be devastating for that
organisation.
To rely on a contractor linked to the notoriously Russophobic ‘Atlantic Council’ is even more preposterous.
The clear close integration of other cyber people from the ‘Atlantic Council’ into Orwellian ‘information operations’ sponsored
by the British Government simply puts these facts into sharp relief.
There has to be a strong possible ‘prima facie’ case that anyone in authority prepared to accept the ‘digital forensics’ from
‘CrowdStrike’ is complicit in the conspiracy against the constitution, and/or the conspiracy to cover-up that conspiracy. This certainly
goes for Comey, and I think it also goes for Mueller."
OT but related, just watched a former naval Intelligence officer, now working for the Hoover Institute interviewed on FOX about
the Rooshins in Venezuela. Said, the 100 Russians are there to protect Maduro because he cannot trust his own army. Maduro's days
are numbered because he is toxically unpopular.
Got me thinking, our Intelligence services are good at psy-ops and keeping our gullible MSM in line but God help us if we ever
actually needed real Intelligence about a country. I remember about a month ago how all of these 'Think Tank Guys' were predicting
how the only people loyal to Maduro were a few of his crony Generals, that the rank and file military hated him and there were
going to be mass defections.
It didn't happen and we are all just supposed to forget that.
[not a socialist, don't have any love for Maduro, I just know that I will never learn anything of about Venezuela from these think
tank dudes, we are just getting groomed]
Venezuela isn't about "socialism," or even Maduro--it's about the oil. They have the largest proven reserves in the world, though
much of it is non-conventional and would need a ton of investment to exploit. But it's their oil, not ours, and we have no right
to meddle in their internal affairs.
Venezuela is neither about socialism nor oil in my opinion. It is everything to do with the neocons. And Trump buying into their
hegemonic dreams. Notice the resurrection of Elliott Abrams of Iran-Contra fame as the man spearheading this in a triumvirate
with Bolton & Pompeo. IMO, a perfect foil for Putin & Xi to embroil the US in another regime change quagmire that further weakens
the US.
"There can be no conceivable excuse for relying on a contractor selected by the organisation which is claiming that there has
been a hack, when an alternative possibility is a leak: and the implications of the alternative possibility could be devastating
for that organisation.
To rely on a contractor linked to the notoriously Russophobic 'Atlantic Council' is even more preposterous."
True; and true. It is also true that the Clinton e-mail investigation was faux, a limp caricature of what an investigation
would look like when it is designed to uncover the truth. Allowing a subject's law firm to review the subject's e-mails from when
she was in government for relevancy is beyond preposterous. An investigation conducted in the normal way by apolitical Agents
in a field office would not walk away from a trove of evidence empty handed.
The inter-relatedness and overlapping of DoJ, CIA, and FBI personnel assigned to the Clinton e-mail case, the Russophobic nightmare
of a 'case' targeting Carter Page, and by extension, the Trump presidential campaign, and yes, the Mueller political op, all reek
of political bias and ineptitude followed by more political bias; and then culmination in a scorched earth investigation more
characteristic of something the STASI might have undertaken than American justice.
Early morning raids, gag orders, solitary confinements, show indictments that will never see adjudication in a court room - truly
unbelievable.
In your opinion was this surveillance, criminal & counter-intelligence investigation as well as information operations against
Trump centrally orchestrated or was it more reactive & decentralized?
There are so many facets. Fusion GPS & Nellie Ohr with her previous CIA connection. Her husband Bruce at the DOJ stovepiping
the dossier to the FBI. Brennan and his EC. Clapper and his intelligence assessment. Halper, Mifsud, Steele along with Hannigan
and the MI6 + GCHQ connection. Downer and the Aussies. FISA warrants on Page & Papadopolous. The whole Strzok & Page texting.
Comey, Lynch & the Hillary exoneration. McCabe. Then all the Russians. And the media leaks to generate hysteria.
I'd recommend for reading Alexei Yurchak's "Everything Was Forever, Until It was No More: The Last Soviet Generation." Its
about a class of apparatchiks and bureaucrats and hangers on who spoke this arcane, abstract dogmatic language that anyone normal
had long since given up trying to understand. It had long ceased to have any relevance or attachment to the lives lived by ordinary,
increasingly suffering people, who started talking to each other in practical and direct language.
And yet the chatterati
continued to chatter and invent ludicrously unreal worlds and analyses of the actual world they lived in until... bang... it was
no more.
I'd skip the first few chapters which are full of impenetrable marxist jargon.
The Russian collusion investigation was based solely on the dodgy Steele Dossier that was discredited here from the get-go.
This was a product of British Intelligence Community. The intent was to keep and then to get Donald Trump out of the White House.
It failed but they did succeed in turning him into a neo-lib-con fellow traveler.
There are clear parallels between the end stages of the Soviet Union and the American Empire. My take since the Iraq Invasion
is that they are insane. The ruling elite is detached from reality, incompetent and arrogant. Sooner or later someone with their
facilities still intact will lead a middle-class revolt against the global plutocracy to restore democracy and reverse the rising
inequality. We were lucky that the fall of the Soviet Union did not lead to a nuclear war. The next time a nuclear armed Empire
crashes we may not be so fortunate.
Some of Lokhova’s comments on ‘twitter’ are extremely entertaining. An
example, with which I have much sympathy:
‘AN APOLOGY: Yesterday, I compared @nytimes journalists, who smeared @GenFlynn
and accused me of being a Russian spy, to cockroaches. In good conscience, I must apologize
to the cockroaches for the distress caused to them for being compared to @nytimes #Russiagate
hoaxers. Sorry!’
"... "Fareed Zakaria '86 (center) former President of the Yale Political Union argued that Yale should not divest from its holdings in South Africa " ..."
Read the tweets. Vast majority are skewering the fascist Zakaria.
Best tweet of all: Angel Schatz tweeted some skeletons in Fareed's closet, like how this
tosser supported South African apartheid when he was at Yale University (class of '86).
"Fareed Zakaria '86 (center) former President of the Yale Political Union argued that Yale
should not divest from its holdings in South Africa "
In other words, Zakharia has ALWAYS been a racist pig! And now earns his bread slandering
Russia.
A close study of past experience could, however, be informative. One had to rely on
reasoning and discourse – recognizing that no individual had a monopoly on our
understandings of social organization. Out of this process emerged an appreciation that
governance institutions based on the rule of law, due process, and checks and balances, and
supported by foundational values like individual liberty and justice for all, are more likely
to produce good and fair decisions. These institutions may not be perfect, but they have been
designed so that it is more likely that flaws will be uncovered and eventually corrected.
That process of experimentation, learning, and adaptation, however, requires a commitment to
ascertaining the truth. Americans owe much of their economic success to a rich set of
truth-telling, truth-discovering, and truth-verifying institutions. Central among them are
freedom of expression and independent media. Like all people, journalists are fallible; but, as
part of a robust system of checks and balances on those in positions of power, they have
traditionally provided an essential public good.
Since Smith's day, it has been shown that a nation's wealth depends on the creativity and
productivity of its people, which can be advanced only by embracing the spirit of scientific
discovery and technological innovation. And it depends on steady improvements in social,
political, and economic organization, discovered through reasoned public discourse.
The attack by Trump and his administration on every one of the pillars of American society
– and his especially aggressive vilification of the country's truth-seeking institutions
– jeopardizes its continued prosperity and very ability to function as a democracy. Nor
do there appear to be checks on corporate giants' efforts to capture the institutions –
the courts, legislatures, regulatory agencies, and major media outlets – that are
supposed to prevent them from exploiting workers and consumers. A dystopia previously imagined
only by science fiction writers is emerging before our eyes. It should give us chills to think
of who "wins" in this world, and who or what we might become, just in the struggle to
survive.
Money quote: "Instead of protecting people, the Magnitsky case helps the "bad guys" to demonstrate to their Russian compatriots
that the West is rotten to the core, its policies are created by compliant stooges (lying thieves and useful idiots), and more rockets
should be built to confront America's injustice towards Russia and others. A lie can never really protect anyone, in my humble opinion.
But the problem is worse. It turns human rights into a hypocritical ideology to protect the interests of the powers that be, a bit like
the slogans about brotherhood and justice in the Soviet Union. "
Notable quotes:
"... Taught in tandem with William Browder's book Red Notice , this film can provide students with a real-life experience in the practice of critical thinking. The film also allows us to revive a discussion of Hayden White's penetrating analysis of the ways in which the structure of the form necessarily influences the content of any artistic or historical narrative. The vehicle of the docudrama that Nekrasov uses in his film, and the competing narratives about the circumstances leading to Magnitsky's death, merit literary and intellectual analysis, along with geopolitical commentary. ..."
"... The Magnitsky Act – Behind the Scenes is about the ways in which the notion of human rights is sometimes used as a fake alibi for white-collar crimes. Though I explore just one case, I think that I have managed to show that those ways are exceptionally sophisticated and efficient, and enlist all the major media, civil society, NGOs, governments, parliaments, and major international organizations. ..."
"... The Magnitsky Act, in my view, is not a weapon that can protect people. The Magnitsky Act was designed to punish those deemed murderers and torturers of Magnitsky. Well, if my film demonstrates that Magnitsky was not murdered (by the people Browder claims he was murdered by), nor was he tortured, the Magnitsky Act is nonsensical. You cannot punish someone for something that did not happen. Can you then say, never mind, human rights violations happen, and it's good to have a mechanism to punish violators even if there's no evidence that people named as violators are guilty? I don't think one can say "never mind". Neither legally, nor, morally. ..."
"... There is no evidence whatsoever that the government of the United States conducted independent investigations of the policemen and the judges who were supposedly involved in the death of Magnitsky. And no one seems to be concerned of course about the rights of those on the Magnitsky list, who can't even reply to the accusations, let alone have the accusations verified by an independent investigator or judge. ..."
In 2016, Andrei Lvovich Nekrasov, a well-known Russian film-maker, playwright, theater director, and actor, released a docudrama
entitled, The Magnitsky Act -- Behind the Scenes . Although the film won many artistic accolades, including a special commendation
from the Prix Europa Award for a Television Documentary, public screenings were abruptly canceled in both Europe and the United States.
Political pressure from various constituents and the threat of lawsuits from William Browder, the American-British billionaire and
human-rights activist, ensured the limitation of the film to a single website. To the knowledge of this author, there has been only
one public screening of The Magnitsky Act -- Behind the Scenes in the United States. In June 2016, Seymour Hersch, a renowned investigative
journalist, presided over a showing of the film at the Newseum in Washington, DC, that generated much controversy. The American press
has not been kind to either the film or the director, Andrei Nekrasov. The Washington Post, The New York Times, The New Yorker,
and The Daily Beast all seem to agree that the film is an overt work of Russian propaganda that aims to introduce confusion
about the circumstances leading to the death of tax accountant, Sergei Magnitsky, in the minds of the viewers. The Putin administration,
which has been the prime target of both the 2012 Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Accountability Act and the 2016 Global Magnitsky Human
Rights Accountability Act, has good reason to promote a film that questions the circumstances surrounding Magnitsky's untimely death
in Moscow's Butyrka Prison in 2009.
Despite a flood of persuasive articles and editorials by well-known journalists suggesting that this inconvenient film deserves
no more than a quick burial, I was drawn to reconsider both the film and the political controversy that it continues to create for
two main reasons. First, as the collapse of the Soviet Union and our own recent presidential campaigns show, we can never entirely
prohibit the intrusion of propaganda or politically slanted content into the public sphere. Instead, as a historian and faculty member
who serves at a public university, I believe that it is my job to teach our students how to diagnose an issue, and how to consider
the many sides that a story necessarily involves. As an intellectual process this has immense value both in and of itself. Source
criticism is a time tested and reliable means through which we can make sense of an event or a phenomenon. Our students need to learn
both the mechanics and the intellectual value of analyzing a source and should be able to evaluate the nature of political content
whether it is embedded in a Facebook post, a scholarly article, or a documentary.
The Magnitsky Act -- Behind the Scenes can serve as an important vehicle to introduce the contested nature of historical
truth, and as a prism, it allows us to view the multiple modes through which various versions of the truth are disseminated in the
twenty-first century. Taught in tandem with William Browder's book Red Notice , this film can provide students with a
real-life experience in the practice of critical thinking. The film also allows us to revive a discussion of Hayden White's penetrating
analysis of the ways in which the structure of the form necessarily influences the content of any artistic or historical narrative.
The vehicle of the docudrama that Nekrasov uses in his film, and the competing narratives about the circumstances leading to Magnitsky's
death, merit literary and intellectual analysis, along with geopolitical commentary.
Second, I am concerned by the fact that both critics and supporters have turned the debate about the film into a referendum on
William Browder, his business dealings as well as his global human rights activism, and the Putin administration. In this interview
with Andrei Nekrasov, I turn the spotlight back on the film-maker, his motivations for making the film, and on his political experiences
since the release of the film. It is important to remember that in the past Nekrasov has made several politically charged films including
Disbelief (2004), and Poisoned by Polonium: The Litvinenko File (2007) -- films that are extremely critical of the
Putin administration. Nekrasov, a student of philosophy and literature, is in the unique position of having experienced censorship
in the Soviet Union, Putin's Russia, and in the democratic countries of Western Europe and the United States.
1) Why did you want to make a film about the Magnitsky Act? What drew you to this project?
Andrei Nekrasov : I felt that the story of Magnitsky, in its accepted version, was very powerful and important. I thought that
Sergei Magnitsky was a hero, and I wanted to tell the story of the modern hero, my compatriot. His case seemed very special because
Magnitsky, a tax lawyer (in reality, an accountant) had come from the world of capitalism, to symbolize all that is good and moral
in modern Russia. I believed that Magnitsky did not surrender under torture and sacrificed his life fighting corruption.
2) Who has funded the making of this film and what motivated them to invest in this production?
AN : The film was produced by Piraya Film, a Norwegian company. There is a long list of funders, and none are from Russia. (Please
visit www.magnitskyact.com for further information). And they are all
very "mainstream." I believe in the United States and Russia it is easier to construe the specific reasons that motivate funders,
who are mostly private, to support a project. In Europe, where more public money is available for the arts, the state is more or
less obliged to fund the cultural process. So I submit an idea to a producer, and if they like it, they introduce it into a complex
system of funding that is supposed to be politically neutral. Only quality matters, in theory. In practice "quality" has political
aspects, and its interpretation is open to prejudices.
But it would be a simplification to say the film was funded because I had set out to tell Browder's version of the Magnitsky case.
Those funders who were (through their commissioning editors) monitoring the editing process, ZDF/ARTE, for example, became aware
of the inconsistencies in Browder's version and supported my investigation into the truth. What they did not realize was who, and
what, we were all dealing with. They did not realize that Browder was supported by the entire political system of North America and
Western Europe. They realized that only when they were told by politicians to stop the film. And they obeyed, contrary to what I
thought was their principles.
3) How has the role of censorship, both in Russia and the West, affected your artistic career?
AN : Censorship has had a very strong and damaging impact on my career. But while censorship in Russia had never been something
surprising to me, the way that the film T he Magnitsky Act – Behind the Scenes was treated by western politicians was totally
unanticipated and shocking. Yet, intellectually, the experience was very illuminating. The pro-Western intelligentsia of Russia,
a class to which I have belonged, idolizes the West and believes that the freedom of expression is an essential and even intrinsic
part of Western culture. The notion that the interests of economically powerful groups can set a geopolitical agenda and that easily
overrides democratic freedom of expression is considered to be a remnant of Soviet era thinking. So I had to have a direct and personal
experience of Western censorship to realize that that notion is rooted in reality.
The issue of censorship in Russia is, on the other hand, often misunderstood in the West. There is no direct political censorship
of the kind that existed in the Soviet Union, and that possibly exists in countries like China today. Many popular Russian news outlets
are critical of the government, and of Putin personally as evidenced by the content in media outlets such as Ekho Moskvy, Novaya
Gazeta, Dozhd TV, New Times, Vedomosti, Colta. ru, and others. The internet is full of mockery of Putin, his ministers and of
his party's representatives. There is neither a system nor the kind of wellresourced deep state structures that control the flow
of information. Many Russian media outlets, for example, repeat Browder's story of Magnitsky killed by the corrupt police with the
state covering it up. All that is perfectly "allowed" while Putin angrily condemns Browder as a criminal and Browder calls himself
Putin's number one enemy. In reality, it is not allowed but simply happens because of the lack of consistent political censorship.
However, you will hardly ever hear a proper analysis and criticism in the Russian media of the big corporations, and of the oligarchs
that make up the state. It is also true that such acute crises as military operations, such as Russian-Georgian war of 2008 produce
intolerance to the voices of the opposition. My film Russian Lessons (2008) about the suffering of the Georgians during that
short war and its aftermath wasbanned in Russia. But nationalism is not only a government policy. It's the prevailing mood. The supposedly
democratic leader of the opposition, that the West seems to praise and support, Alexei Navalny, was on the record insulting Georgians
in jingo-nationalistic posts during the war. The film industry is, of course, easier to steer in the "right direction" as films,
unlike articles and essays, are very expensive to produce. But Russia is a complex society, deeply troubled, but also misunderstood
by the West. If my films, such as Poisoned by Polonium: The Litvinenko File , and Russian Lessons (2010) were attacked
by pro-government media, then some of my articles were censored by the independent, "opposition" outlets, such as Ekho Moskvy
.
4) Did you actually begin filming the movie with an outcome of supporting Browder's story in mind, as you represent in the
film, or did you plan from the start of the filming process to end the film as it now stands?
AN : I started filming the story. I totally believed in the story that Browder had told me, and all the mainstream media repeated
after him.
5) You know that there are many more "disappeared" journalists and others listed in the formal US Congress Magnitsky Act
who have suffered from the effects of corrupt power in Russia. Why did you not address the fates of some of those others as well
in your film?
AN : I may be misunderstanding this question, but I do not see how addressing the fates of "disappeared" journalists and others'
would be relevant to the topic of my film in its final version. I obviously condemn the "disappearance" of journalists and others.
In Russia journalists disappear usually by being "simply" shot (not in "sophisticated" Saudi ways), and as far as I remember only
one is referred to in The Magnitsky Act , Paul Khlebnikov. He was the editor of Forbes, Russia , and was shot in 2004
when Bill Browder was a great fan of Vladimir Putin and continued to be for some time. I have not seen any evidence or even claim,
that Putin may have been behind that murder. I was a friend of Anna Politkovskaya, perhaps the most famous of all Russian journalists
who was assassinated in the recent past. She is featured in my film, Poisoned by Polonium .
The Magnitsky Act – Behind the Scenes is about the ways in which the notion of human rights is sometimes used as a
fake alibi for white-collar crimes. Though I explore just one case, I think that I have managed to show that those ways are exceptionally
sophisticated and efficient, and enlist all the major media, civil society, NGOs, governments, parliaments, and major international
organizations.
6) Does William Browder's role in the formulation of the Magnitsky Act invalidate its value and that of the Global
Magnitsky Act, in seeking to provide protection for those suffering from the effects of deadly and corrupt power such as the recently
deceased Saudi Arabian journalist, Jamal Khashoggi?
AN : Let me, for the argument's sake, pose myself what would seem like a version of your question: "Would Browder's role in creating
a weapon that could protect someone like Khashoggi from deadly and corrupt power invalidate that weapon?" My answer would be, no,
it would not invalidate that weapon. However, we are dealing with a fallacy here, in my humble opinion. The Magnitsky Act, in
my view, is not a weapon that can protect people. The Magnitsky Act was designed to punish those deemed murderers and torturers of
Magnitsky. Well, if my film demonstrates that Magnitsky was not murdered (by the people Browder claims he was murdered by), nor was
he tortured, the Magnitsky Act is nonsensical. You cannot punish someone for something that did not happen. Can you then say, never
mind, human rights violations happen, and it's good to have a mechanism to punish violators even if there's no evidence that people
named as violators are guilty? I don't think one can say "never mind". Neither legally, nor, morally.
There is no evidence whatsoever that the government of the United States conducted independent investigations of the policemen
and the judges who were supposedly involved in the death of Magnitsky. And no one seems to be concerned of course about the rights
of those on the Magnitsky list, who can't even reply to the accusations, let alone have the accusations verified by an independent
investigator or judge.
Instead of protecting people, the Magnitsky case helps the "bad guys" to demonstrate to their Russian compatriots that the West
is rotten to the core, its policies are created by compliant stooges (lying thieves and useful idiots), and more rockets should be
built to confront America's injustice towards Russia and others. A lie can never really protect anyone, in my humble opinion. But
the problem is worse. It turns human rights into a hypocritical ideology to protect the interests of the powers that be, a bit like
the slogans about brotherhood and justice in the Soviet Union.
Choi Chatterjee is a Professor of History at California State University, Los Angeles. Chatterjee, along with Steven Marks,
Mary Neuberger, and Steve Sabol, edited The Wider Arc of Revolution in three volumes (Slavica Publishers).
Fred - I don't think it's going to go away that easily. This is the BBC web site today, again
keeping alive much the same theme as your man of courage. We're moving on from whether Trump
was a Russian agent to whether Trump deliberately attempted to stop us finding out whether he
was a Russian agent -
"But Mr Mueller declined to draw a conclusion on whether Mr Trump had obstructed
justice, saying only that the president could not be exonerated.
Attorney General Barr, who was appointed by the president, concluded in his summary of
the report that there was not enough evidence to determine if the president had committed the
offence."
So it's too useful a theme to be let go entirely, and fits with the general suspicion of
Russian interference.
It's a difficult one, that. Looking at the Integrity Initiative and 77 Brigade it's clear
that information warfare at all levels - academia, the media, on down to the little
subsidized web sites and right on down to the individuals who are paid to insert comments on
social media - is now regarded in England as an integral part of Intelligence work.
Presumably everyone else is doing it too so why not the Russians? But to trace the huge
political movements of our time back to Moscow, as if they were due to sinister Russians
cleverly playing us via social media and other propaganda outlets, seems to me to be grossly
overdone. After all, if it were that easy it would have worked for the West too. Iran would
now be another Syria and Syria long since gone.
No, even the most ardent Russophobes on our side of the Atlantic might have to admit
sometimes that the reason we're screwed up in Europe at present is that we've screwed
ourselves up. We are not uniformly happy prosperous peoples who would continue to be
uniformly happy and prosperous were it not for Moscow. So it must be in the States.
Even so, the Russians are still the get-out for many. On English web sites "Putin done it"
surfaces regularly as the reason for us voting Brexit. There were suggestions that he had
stirred up the Yellow Vests in France. The Italians are sometimes viewed with suspicion for
the same reason.
And I got caught up in an unusual traffic hold-up just this morning. I can't prove to you
it was the Russians. But can you prove to me it wasn't?
Shadow banning (also called stealth banning, ghost banning or comment ghosting[1]) is the act of blocking or partially blocking
a user or their content from an online community such that it will not be readily apparent to the user that they have been banned.
By making a user's contributions invisible or less prominent to other members of the service, the hope may be that in the
absence of reactions to their comments, the problematic or otherwise out-of-favour user will become bored or frustrated and leave
the site.
< More and more "resistance" type Twitteratti get shadowbanned, that is, their posts dont appear in the Twitter feed though they
are visible on their profiles. Find out if you are shadowbanned here:>
Until recently I didn't know the word "shadowbanning", but that was what happened to me several years ago. The managers of
the Indianapolis Star had given their forum to the tender care of a mix of Libertarians, rightwingnuts, and devoted followers
of the Holy Cesspool south of Syria. Gradually I realized nobody was responding to my posts, and only by accident did I learn
those posts were invisible to everybody else. Only when I was logged in could I see them myself.
So that's why I have gone cold turkey on the only Indianapolis newspaper. I'd recommend it only for folks whose parakeets need
a lining for the bottom of the bird's cage. Their editorial page works best for that application.
Yeah I first encountered the phenom during the last days of the 2014 Euromaidan while reposting info on Facebook about sniper
fire coming from opp held rooftops. I couldnt understand why interaction on the subject stopped until someone confirmed via the
chat that none of my posts with the word "Ukraine" appeared in the feed. They must've triggered FBs early filter algorithm. I
have since left the Ministry of Truth..
Yes, "Trump was selling himself as a traitor to a corrupt class, someone who knew how soulless and greedy the ruling elite was because
he was one of them. " But he turned to be a fake, a marionette who is controlled by neocons like hapless Bush II.
Notable quotes:
"... Last weekend, I published a book chapter criticizing the Russiagate narrative, claiming it was a years-long press error on the scale of the WMD affair heading into the Iraq war. ..."
"... The overwhelming theme of that race, long before anyone even thought about Russia, was voter rage at the entire political system. ..."
"... The anger wasn't just on the Republican side, where Trump humiliated the Republicans' chosen $150 million contender , Jeb Bush (who got three delegates, or $50 million per delegate ). It was also evident on the Democratic side, where a self-proclaimed "Democratic Socialist" with little money and close to no institutional support became a surprise contender . ..."
"... Trump was gunning for votes in both parties. The core story he told on the stump was one of system-wide corruption, in which there was little difference between Republicans and Democrats. ..."
"... Perhaps just by luck, Trump was tuned in to the fact that the triumvirate of ruling political powers in America – the two parties, the big donors and the press – were so unpopular with large parts of the population that he could win in the long haul by attracting their ire, even if he was losing battles on the way. ..."
"... The subtext was always: I may be crude, but these people are phonies, pretending to be upset when they're making money off my bullshit . ..."
"... Trump was selling himself as a traitor to a corrupt class, someone who knew how soulless and greedy the ruling elite was because he was one of them. ..."
Faulty coverage of Donald Trump's 2016 campaign later made foreign espionage a more plausible explanation for his ascent to power
Last weekend, I published a book chapter criticizing the Russiagate
narrative, claiming it was a years-long press error on the scale of the WMD affair heading into the Iraq war.
Obviously (and I said this in detail), the WMD fiasco had a far greater real-world impact, with hundreds of thousands of lives
lost and trillions in treasure wasted. Still, I thought Russiagate would do more to damage the reputation of the national news media
in the end.
A day after publishing that excerpt, a
Attorney General
William Barr sent his summary of the report to Congress, containing a quote filed by Special Counsel
Robert Mueller : "[T]he investigation did not establish
that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."
Suddenly, news articles appeared arguing people like myself and Glenn Greenwald of the Intercept were
rushing to judgment
, calling us bullies whose writings were intended to leave reporters "cowed" and likely to "
back down from aggressive coverage of Trump ."
This was baffling. One of the most common criticisms of people like Greenwald, Michael Tracey, Aaron Mate, Rania Khalek, Max Blumenthal,
Jordan Chariton and many others is that Russiagate "skeptics" - I hate that term, because it implies skepticism isn't normal and
healthy in this job - were really secret Trump partisans, part of a "horseshoe" pact between far left and far right to focus attention
on the minor foibles of the center instead of Trump's more serious misdeeds. Even I received this label, and I once wrote a book
about Trump called Insane Clown President .
A typical social media complaint:
@mtaibbi and all his deplorable followers. The truth will come out
and your premature celebrations are embarrassing.
It's irritating that I even have to address this, because my personal political views shouldn't have anything to do with how I
cover anything. But just to get it out of the way: I'm no fan of
Donald Trump .
I had a well-developed opinion about him long before the 2016 race started. I once interned for Trump's nemesis-biographer, the
late, great muckraker Wayne Barrett
. The birther campaign
of 2011 was all I ever needed to make a voting decision about the man.
I started covering the last presidential race in 2015 just as I was finishing up a book about the death of Eric Garner called
I Can't Breathe . Noting that
a birther campaign started by "peripheral political curiosity and reality TV star Donald Trump" led to 41 percent of respondents
in one poll believing Barack Obama was "not even American," I wrote:
If anyone could communicate the frustration black Americans felt over Stop-and-Frisk and other neo-vagrancy laws that made
black people feel like they could be arrested anywhere, it should have been Barack Obama. He'd made it all the way to the White
House and was still considered to be literally trespassing by a huge plurality of the population.
So I had no illusions about Trump. The Russia story bothered
me for other reasons, mostly having to do with a general sense of the public being misled, and not even about Russia.
The problem lay with the precursor tale to Russiagate, i.e. how Trump even got to be president in the first place.
The 2016 campaign season brought to the surface awesome levels of political discontent. After the election, instead of wondering
where that anger came from, most of the press quickly pivoted to a new tale about a Russian plot to attack our Democracy. This conveyed
the impression that the election season we'd just lived through had been an aberration, thrown off the rails by an extraordinary
espionage conspiracy between Trump and a cabal of evil foreigners.
This narrative contradicted everything I'd seen traveling across America in my two years of covering the campaign. The overwhelming
theme of that race, long before anyone even thought about Russia, was voter rage at the entire political system.
The anger wasn't just on the Republican side, where Trump humiliated the Republicans' chosen
$150 million
contender , Jeb Bush (who got three delegates, or
$50 million per delegate ). It was also evident on the Democratic side, where a self-proclaimed "Democratic Socialist" with little
money and close to no institutional support became
a surprise contender
.
Because of a series of press misdiagnoses before the Russiagate stories even began, much of the American public was unprepared
for news of a Trump win. A cloak-and-dagger election-fixing conspiracy therefore seemed more likely than it might have otherwise
to large parts of the domestic news audience, because they hadn't been prepared for anything else that would make sense.
This was particularly true of upscale, urban, blue-leaning news consumers, who were not told to take the possibility of a Trump
White House seriously.
Priority number-one of the political class after a vulgar, out-of-work game-show host conquered the White House should have been
a long period of ruthless self-examination. This story delayed that for at least two years.
It wasn't even clear Trump whether or not wanted to win. Watching him on the trail, Trump at times went beyond seeming disinterested.
There were periods where it looked like South Park's "
Did I offend you? " thesis was true, and he was
actively trying to lose, only the polls just wouldn't let him.
Forget about the gift the end of Russiagate might give Trump by allowing him to spend 2020 peeing from a great height on the national
press corps. The more serious issue has to be the failure to face the reality of why he won last time, because we still haven't done
that.
... ... ...
Trump, the billionaire, denounced us as the elitists in the room. He'd call us "bloodsuckers," "dishonest," and in one line that
produced laughs considering who was saying it, "
highly-paid ."
He also did something that I immediately recognized as brilliant (or diabolical, depending on how you look at it). He dared cameramen
to turn their cameras to show the size of his crowds.
They usually wouldn't – hey, we don't work for the guy – which thrilled Trump, who would then say something to the effect of,
"See! They're
very dishonest people ." Audiences would turn toward us, and boo and hiss, and even throw little bits of paper and other things
our way. This was unpleasant, but it was hard not to see its effectiveness: he'd re-imagined the lifeless, poll-tested format of
the stump speech, turning it into menacing, personal, WWE-style theater.
Trump was gunning for votes in both parties. The core story he told on the stump was one of system-wide corruption, in which there
was little difference between Republicans and Democrats.
...
Perhaps just by luck, Trump was tuned in to the fact that the triumvirate of ruling political powers in America – the two parties,
the big donors and the press – were so unpopular with large parts of the population that he could win in the long haul by attracting
their ire, even if he was losing battles on the way.
...
The subtext was always: I may be crude, but these people are phonies, pretending to be upset when they're making money off my
bullshit .
I thought this was all nuts and couldn't believe it was happening in a real presidential campaign. But, a job is a job. My first
feature on candidate Trump was called "
How
America Made Donald Trump Unstoppable ." The key section read:
In person, you can't miss it: The same way Sarah Palin can see Russia from her house, Donald on the stump can see his future.
The pundits don't want to admit it, but it's sitting there in plain view, 12 moves ahead, like a chess game already won:
President Donald Trump
It turns out we let our electoral process devolve into something so fake and dysfunctional that any half-bright con man with
the stones to try it could walk right through the front door and tear it to shreds on the first go.
And Trump is no half-bright con man, either. He's way better than average.
Traditional Democratic audiences appeared thrilled by the piece and shared it widely. I was invited on scads of cable shows to
discuss ad nauseum the "con man" line. This made me nervous, because it probably meant these people hadn't read the piece, which among other things posited the failures
of America's current ruling class meant Trump's insane tactics could actually work.
Trump was selling himself as a traitor to a corrupt class, someone who knew how soulless and greedy the ruling elite was because
he was one of them.
...
The only reason most blue-state media audiences had been given for Trump's poll numbers all along was racism, which was surely
part of the story but not the whole picture. A lack of any other explanation meant Democratic audiences, after the shock of election
night, were ready to reach for any other data point that might better explain what just happened.
Russiagate became a convenient replacement explanation absolving an incompetent political establishment for its complicity in
what happened in 2016, and not just the failure to see it coming. Because of the immediate arrival of the collusion theory, neither
Wolf Blitzer nor any politician ever had to look into the camera and say, "I guess people hated us so much they were even willing
to vote for Donald Trump."
Post-election, Russiagate made it all worse. People could turn on their TVs at any hour of the day and see anyone from Rachel
Maddow to Chris Cuomo openly reveling in Trump's troubles. This is what Fox looks like to liberal audiences.
Worse, the "walls are closing in" theme -- two years old now -- was just a continuation of the campaign mistake, reporters confusing
what they wanted to happen with what was happening . The story was always more complicated than was being represented.
What sets disinformation apart from other forms of manipulative or persuasive
content
Why today's information environment amplifies disinformation
What is Disinformation? Is it Different from Propaganda?
Disinformation is a relatively new word. Most observers
trace it back to the Russian word dezinformatsiya , which Soviet planners in the
1950s defined as "dissemination (in the press, on the radio, etc.) of false reports intended
to mislead public opinion." Others suggest that the
earliest use of the term originated in 1930s Nazi Germany. In either case, it is much younger
(and less commonly used) than ' propaganda, ' which originated in
the 1600s and generally connotes the selective use of information for political effect.
Whether and to what degree these terms overlap is subject to debate. Some define propaganda
as the use of non-rational arguments to either advance or undermine a political ideal, and
use disinformation as an alternative name for undermining propaganda. Others consider
them to be separate concepts altogether. One popular distinction holds that disinformation
also describes politically motivated messaging designed explicitly to engender public
cynicism, uncertainty, apathy, distrust, and paranoia, all of which disincentivize citizen
engagement and mobilization for social or political change. "Misinformation," meanwhile,
generally refers to
the inadvertent sharing of false information.
Analysts generally
agree that disinformation is always purposeful and not necessarily composed of outright
lies or fabrications. It can be composed of mostly true facts, stripped of context or blended
with falsehoods to support the intended message, and is always part of a larger plan or
agenda. In the Russian context, observers
have described its use to pursue Moscow's foreign policy goals through a "4D" offensive:
dismiss an opponent's claims or allegations, distort events to serve political
purposes, distract from one's own activities, and dismay those who might
otherwise oppose one's goals.
Analysts generally agree that disinformation is always purposeful and not necessarily
composed of outright lies or fabrications. It can be composed of mostly true facts,
stripped of context or blended with falsehoods to support the intended message, and is
always part of a larger plan or agenda."
Disinformation in the Digital Age
The reemerging interest in disinformation is
not because such techniques are novel. There are similarities between the contemporary 4D
model and, for example, Soviet active
measures . Rather, a
growingconsensus
asserts that while the use of disinformation is not new, the digital revolution has
greatly enhanced public vulnerability to manipulation by information -- a trend which is
predicted to continue .
In part, these changes have been wrought by the advent of
new social media platforms and their growing dominance over advertising revenues.
This shift in the media funding environment has weakened traditional media gatekeepers,
changed incentives for content providers, and promoted the rise of unprofessional and/or
unscrupulous outlets capable of drawing large audiences at a low cost. As digital advertising
assumes an ever-larger role in shaping news consumption, targeted advertising allows for more
sophisticated forms of propaganda: for example, in September of 2017, Facebook
disclosed that roughly 3,000 ads related to divisive US political issues were purchased
by a network of 470 accounts and pages suspected to be run out of Russia. The company says
that at
least a quarter of those ads were geographically targeted. Twitter
later deleted two hundred accounts linked to those same Facebook accounts and pages and
revealed that in 2016, the Russian state-funded broadcaster RT spent $274,100 on advertising
targeting users in the United States.
Research suggests the total scale of "low quality political information" on those
platforms during the 2016 US elections was much larger, particularly in swing states. The
degree of Russian influence on this market for digital disinformation is unknown;
post-election, researchers are launching new efforts to track and analyze
it.
Although there is no universal definition, fake news generally refers to misleading
content found on the internet, especially on social media."
The Rise of 'Fake News'
The role of disinformation in recent elections has given rise to another distinct, but
related, term: '
fake news .'
Although there is no universal definition, fake news generally refers to misleading
content found on the internet, especially on social media. One analysis lays
out five types of fake news, including intentionally deceptive content, jokes taken at face
value, large-scale hoaxes, slanted reporting of real facts, and coverage where the truth may
be uncertain or contentious. These are not new: an
example of fake news from 2011 involves websites masquerading as real news organizations
to spread false information about the health benefits of acai berries.
Much of this content is produced by for-profit websites and Facebook pages
gaming the platform for advertising revenue. By producing tailored false content targeted
at the views, concerns, and preferences of social media users, these pages can generate tens
of thousands of interactions and thousands of dollars a month. In 2015, Facebook began
taking steps
to curtail this content, which it called a form of "news feed spam." By 2016, it became clear
the problem was growing out of control. Fabricated and fiercely partisan political content --
much of it
produced abroad for profit -- in some instances
outpaced engagement with credible mainstream news outlets.
Facebook initially downplayed the
potential influence of fake news, although it also pledged to pursue a response involving
expanded partnerships with fact-checkers, increased emphasis on detection and reporting,
warning labels for untrustworthy stories, and a crackdown on for-profit fake news pages.
Twitter
also reacted , developing an experimental prototype feature to allow users to report
"fake news" and exploring the use of machine learning to detect automated accounts spreading
political content.
Is Fake News Disinformation?
More often than not, fake news does not meet the definition of disinformation or
propaganda. Its motives are usually financial, not political, and it is usually not tied to a
larger agenda. One attempt to classify
various types of misleading and manipulative news content separates misinformation
(inadvertent sharing of false information) from disinformation, which is deliberate, and
arranges examples by motivation and degree of deception. Most of the fake news described
above falls somewhere in the middle: not inadvertent, but motivated by profit rather than
influence. To the degree that its purpose can be described as political, fake news begins to
resemble more insidious content.
Fake news' political prominence does have lessons for analysts of disinformation. Fake
news draws audiences because it validates their political preconceptions and worldviews,
capitalizing on media consumers' confirmation
bias . Many argue that because social media curates content according to user
preferences, it has a
polarizing effect that leaves consumers more vulnerable to manipulation in this way.
Political actors have been able to use this to their advantage by producing incendiary
content that spreads rapidly through grassroots online networks (some call this "
political astroturfing ").
More often than not, fake news does not meet the definition of disinformation or
propaganda. Its motives are usually financial, not political, and it is usually not tied to
a larger agenda."
Marketing, Public Affairs, Public Diplomacy, and other "Information
Campaigns"
Some analysts also differentiate
between various types of "information campaigns" -- organized attempts to communicate with
large groups of individuals -- which may include marketing, public affairs, and public
diplomacy. All of these terms are worth disentangling from each other and from propaganda and
disinformation writ large.
Marketing and public relations rely on a mix of facts, opinions, and emotional cues to
persuade audiences and build affinity between individuals and brands or organizations. As
promotional activities meant to augment or protect the reputation of the messenger, their
goals may be commercial or political, or they may simply aim to generate publicity. Similarly
promotional is public diplomacy, which states utilize to represent their viewpoints to
foreign audiences and promote positive associations with that country among foreign publics.
Done well, public diplomacy distinguishes
itself from propaganda by never intentionally spreading false information or relying on
non-rational means of persuasion (though marketing and public relations, of course, may rely
on such non-rational devices).
Marketing, public relations, public diplomacy, and similar information campaigns are all
related to the field of " strategic
communication ," broadly defined as the purposeful use of information and messaging to
advance the mission of a given organization, be it a corporate, government, non-profit, or
military actor. In the military context, a 2007 paper
from the U.S. Army War College emphasizes that strategic communication in a military
context aims to influence adversaries, reassure allies, and persuade publics. Because it may
be impossible to deceive one of these audiences without deceiving others, some
advocate that "deception should be rigorously forbidden in strategic communication" and
that the use of disinformation should never fall under the rubric of strategic
communication.
Done well, public diplomacy distinguishes itself from propaganda by never intentionally
spreading false information or relying on non-rational means of persuasion."
Intent as a Distinguishing Feature
Some
argue the intent of the messenger is crucial to distinguishing between different types of
messages. This makes it difficult to draw a bright, clear line between marketing, public
relations, and public diplomacy, on one side, and propaganda and disinformation on the other.
This is especially true when the content in question includes both objective fact and
subjective interpretation but no clear falsehood, because it may be unclear whether the
message reflects a genuine perspective or an intent to mislead. When content does include
falsehoods, it may be unclear whether they are accidental or purposeful.
If an information campaign uses falsehoods and emotional appeals not to persuade or
attract but to disrupt, divide, confuse, or otherwise damage target audiences' understanding
or political cohesion, it more closely aligns with disinformation and its undermining
function. This is not solely the realm of the state:
many activities undertaken by
non-state actors may also fit this description.
If an information campaign uses falsehoods and emotional appeals not to persuade or
attract but to disrupt, divide, confuse, or otherwise damage target audiences'
understanding or political cohesion, it more closely aligns with disinformation and its
undermining function."
Information Operations as a Tool of Political Influence
Information campaigns with these goals in mind are now sometimes referred to as
"information operations," a term until recently used primarily by defense officials in
referring broadly to the use of communications in military operations. In April 2017,
Facebook
described "information (or influence) operations" on the platform, which aim "to achieve
a strategic and/or geopolitical outcome" using "a combination of methods, such as false news,
disinformation, or networks of fake accounts (false amplifiers) aimed at manipulating public
opinion." In the run-up to the 2017 French presidential election, Facebook deleted 30,000
fake French accounts from the platform, providing a sense of the scale these operations can
reach.
In that election, an information operation (
likely of Russian origin ) released
hacked documents just before the beginning of a legally mandated election news blackout
in order to damage the campaign of Emmanuel Macron, the eventual winner. The manipulation of
information has been a
feature of Syria's civil war since the conflict's beginning.
Research from a diverse set of country case studies suggests that a wide array of
political, military, and private actors now routinely use social media to manipulate public
opinion. Italy's populist Five Star Movement, for instance,
is tied to a large constellation of online disinformation outlets. Taiwanese democracy
must grapple with both
domestic and cross-strait sources of disinformation. Information operations, including
those involving the use of disinformation during elections, are likely to remain a tool of
political influence well into the foreseeable future.
Brief prepared by Dean Jackson, International Forum for Democratic Studies.
It is now apparent with the
release
of the Mueller investigation findings
, that the great storm that has embattled the US
government and establishment since 2016 over supposed Russia-Trump collusion during the US
elections,
originates not from a genuine tangible source, but a constant stream of
rhetoric driven by partisan corporate media.
One certainty though is the Western
narrative of Russia as a 'malign influence' will not go away.
While America's liberal establishment continues to rage at Trump, Europe allies, under the
influence of Washington, maintain their aggressive stance towards Russia following the
catastrophic
US
meddling in Ukraine
in 2014 and the subsequent
reunification
of Crimea with Russia
.
The question is how can the narrative of 'malign Russian influence' be kept going?
Mainstream media will continue its role in this, but Western governments are also pouring
resources into promulgating certain narratives while containing others.
This week, hackers released more documents from the UK government-funded project
known as the
Integrity
Initiative
, revealing British government plans to build an umbrella network of
organisations across Europe to counter 'Russian disinformation'.
The following is a look at one of the EU projects already operating to ensure European
populations do not stray from this constructed narrative that at times crosses over into real
xenophobic racism, or Russophobia.
While researching this phenomenon, it was impossible not
to find some of the EU's counter-propaganda material quite funny.
If we want to know the meaning of disinformation, the American think tank known as the
National
Endowment for Democracy
which
funds
regime change
in the service of US corporate interests, has its own
definition
,
but it's not important – so long as we believe Russia or the Nazis invented the problem. In fact,
if we search the word 'disinformation,' a good number of the results tell us it originated in
Russia and is the baby of Stalin or the KGB. If we are not careful, we could end up thinking that
dishonesty is an inherent characteristic of Russians, a view actually
promoted
by
the former US Director of National Intelligence,
James Clapper
, who,
coincidentally was caught '
wilfully
'
lying
to
Congress.
The view of Russians being hard-wired for corruption was also promoted by the
New York Times
in
an article published in February,
The
Putin I knew; the Putin I know
, written by Franz J Sedelmeyer, exposing deep prejudice
behind the corporate media's shallow identity politics.
But this narrative fails to credit the CIA, which has spent decades crafting skills
carrying out the most grotesque deceptions in history targeted abroad and at home.
To
leave out the role of the CIA in disinformation must be the equivalent of writing an omelette
recipe and leaving out the eggs. In fact, the CIA doesn't just carry out disinformation campaigns,
as Victor Marchetti, former special assistant to the Deputy Director of the CIA described it:
the
CIA manufactures history
. Not to recognise American intelligence services or government in
the history of disinformation while painting Russia as its mother is to deprive America of the
recognition it deserves for one of its most notable institutions. Somewhat ironically, you can
learn all about the history of disinformation from both
Google
and
the
National
Endowment for Democracy
which are two entities which have received financial support from the
CIA.
What about the EU? Does Brussels think that Russia is an inherently dishonest nation? Are they
aware that the CIA could be manufacturing Europe's history this very moment? Members of the
European Parliament (MEPs) so concerned about disinformation might want to study the documented
atrocities
of
the CIA, some of which were carried out in Europe. Perhaps they are not aware of the
US
intelligence services' role
in the history of subterfuge in Europe:
memorandum, dated July 26, 1950, gives instructions for a campaign to promote a
fully fledged European parliament. It is signed by Gen William J Donovan, head of the American
wartime Office of Strategic Services, precursor of the CIA.
Paradoxically, given the probability rate of the CIA meddling in the EU, MEPs should consider
putting out a public warning:
The CIA is the most likely source of disinformation in Europe today. It manufactures
crises – and we've plenty of those.
But none of it. Instead, the European Parliament is fixated on ensuring its populations
fear
Russia
and are accepting of the narratives pushed on them. The EU released a new
report
this
month repeating the narratives it has been accumulating to justify increasing actions against
Russia, particularly since 2014 following the reunification of Crimea. It has passed a resolution
stating that Russia could no longer be considered a strategic partner of the EU:
While condemning the illegal occupation and annexation of Crimea, as well as Russia's
continued violation of the territorial integrity of Georgia and Moldova, Members stressed that
the EU cannot envisage a gradual return to business as usual until Russia fully implements the
Minsk Agreement and restores the territorial integrity of Ukraine
Members condemned Russia's involvement in the Skripal case, and in disinformation
campaigns and cyberattacks carried out by the Russian intelligence services aimed at
destabilising public and private communications infrastructure and at increasing tensions within
the EU and its Member States
They are concerned about the relations between the Russian government and the extreme
right-wing and populist nationalist parties and governments in the EU, such as in Hungary. They
also recalled that the interference of Russian state actors in the referendum campaign on Brexit
is currently under investigation by the UK authorities
As Russia can no longer be considered a strategic partner in the current circumstances,
Members believe that the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement should be reconsidered
As well as the coordinated strategic isolation of Russia by the EU, members of the G7 have
signed up to a
Rapid
Response Mechanism
(RRM) designed to:
see hostile states publicly 'called out' for their egregious behaviour – with coordinated
international attribution of cyber and other attacks.
The agreement involves
sharing intelligence
,
attribution of hostile activity
and
forming a
common narrative and response,
effectively a military-like propaganda
coordination between the countries that can be applied for a chosen agenda.
To protect its version of history the EU has created
mechanisms
to
fight off alternative realities, narratives, or truths – which ever word fits – claiming any fact
or opinion contrary to those of the stated EU decree must be condemned as pro-Kremlin, pro-Russian,
or 'Putinist', a derogatory depiction presently supported by the corporate media. The EU claims
these 'alternative narratives' are the product of a Russian disinformation campaign and has
developed resources to 'disprove' that disinformation. These are the EU vanguards of
truth
set
up and funded by the European Council in 2015: the
European External Action Service East
Stratcom Task Force
or unaffectionately known here as Team
East
Stratcom
. A brief study of their work only leads to further concerns about who is
manufacturing history, but also to the likely conclusion that Team East Stratcom is made up of
media studies students who drink beer and watch RT all day.
Here's how Team East Stratcom describes itself in a Q&A:
Does the team engage in counter-propaganda?
No. It identifies and corrects disinformation
Counter-propaganda vs correct disinformation (you say tomatto, I say tomayto).
Julian King, the EU's security commissioner, has described it as a
counter-propaganda
cell
. Come on Brussels, make up your mind.
What does Team East StratCom do, and what is the role of its website
EUVDisinfo
?
The Task Force reports on and analyses disinformation trends, explains and exposes
disinformation narratives, and raises awareness of disinformation coming from Russian State,
Russian sources and spread in the Eastern neighbourhood media space
RUSSIAN MEMES: Official EU conspiracy theory diagram explains how 'Russian disinfo'
permeates mainstream western discourse (
EU
External Action
2017)
Firstly, who defines what is disinformation? Is it just assumed that any information emanating
from a Russian media outlet is automatically disinformation?
Narratives and sources. Does this mean that any narrative which matches a Russian one is then
classed as
Russian
in origin? If a Western alternative media outlet publishes a narrative
which happens to match that of a Russian media outlet, does this then mean that the said
alternative media outlet is 'under Russian influence', or 'in league with the Kremlin'? Could such
a politicized method of labelling lead to potential McCarthyite targeting of independent
journalists?
The Task Force does not target opinions and does not seek to "blacklist" anyone. It
checks facts and identifies disinformation coming from Russian State, Russian language and
Eastern
Neighbourhood
media. It focuses on the disinformation message, not the messenger.
Yet, individual journalists are identified in many of these so-called 'disinformation cases' and
described as supporters of one leader or other on the EU's list of bogeymen. Team East StratCom –
there is no need to be shy about McCarthyism. Certain mainstream media stalwarts of establishment
narratives are more upfront about whom they do and do not want in the club, as Oliver Kamm of
The
Times
has demonstrated:
For an agency already struggling with the concept of truth, Team
East StratCom
is
not off to a great start.
So how does Team East StratCom protect EU narratives? The European Council made it
clear
in
2015 they wanted to counter narratives about
regime
change
in
Ukraine
and
its consequences. In fact, about half of its 'disinformation cases' are about Ukraine:
Ukraine tops the EUvsDisinfo database as the most frequent target with 461 references among
a total of 1,000 disinformation cases reported in the course of 2018.
So how does Team East StratCom counter propaganda sorry correct disinformation? The following
are a few case samples that help to illuminate their methodologies (although with a budget increase
from €1.1 million in 2018 to €3 million in 2019, it may find new and diverse ones):
Disinformation Example 1: Ukraine is the most corrupt country in Europe
Team East StratCom argues that undermining the credibility of Ukraine benefits Russia. It
reports that RT Deutsch described Ukraine as the most corrupt country in Europe. It then tries to
debunk this using
Transparency International
's
corruption perception index, a chart which is created and paid for by Western neoliberal
governments – the same ones that help to keep corrupt governments in power so long as they provide
opportunities to serve Western corporate interests.
Team East StratCom tries to disprove this case by drawing our attention away from corruption in
Europe to corruption worldwide. This puts 60 countries ahead of Ukraine. That is sneaky Team East
StratCom because, aside from Russia, which we must believe is the most corrupt country in Europe,
Ukraine actually tops the list. So why does the EU want to hide the extent of corruption in
Ukraine and is it the only thing being hidden about the country? According to Russian Foreign
Ministry Spokeswoman
Maria Zakharova
the West wants
to stop the world from recognising Crimea as part of Russia's territory. In order to do this it
must maintain a manufactured reality; the narrative of Ukraine being a victim of Russian aggression
and in no way a liability due, at least in part, to the West's meddling. This approach also entails
downplaying any suggestion that
the
West planned and orchestrated
a
coup d'etat
in Kiev in February 2014.
Disinformation Example 2: Far-right groups in Ukraine
This extract by Team East StratCom criticises the reporting of far-right groups in Ukraine:
Dehumanise, demoralise, make Ukraine the guilty party
Pro-Kremlin disinformation about Ukraine targets audiences in Russia, in Ukraine and in
third countries, including the West. Domestic audiences in Russia are e.g. faced with
narratives which dehumanise Ukrainians and show the authorities in Kyiv as a cynical modern heir
to 20th century Nazism. Such a strategy can turn Ukraine into an acceptable target of the
Kremlin's military aggression.
The involvement of far right groups in the run-up to and during 2014 Maidan events and
since
,
has already been widely reported across much of the global mainstream media, for example,
here
,
here
,
here
,
here
and
here
,
as well as in alternate media. To suggest that this narrative is Russian disinformation is
ludicrous. What's more, the
European
Parliament
have already recognised in 2012 the threat of the far-right parties like Svoboda and
Pravi Sektor in Ukrainian politics:
Parliament goes on to express concern about the rising nationalistic sentiment in
Ukraine, expressed in support for the Svoboda Party, which, as a result, is one of the two new
parties to enter the Verkhovna Rada. It recalls that racist, anti-Semitic and xenophobic views
go against the EU's fundamental values and principles and therefore appeals to pro-democratic
parties in the Verkhovna Rada not to associate with, endorse or form coalitions with this party.
Team East StratCom, you are implying the EU dehumanised Ukraine! But then the EU did later
drop
its
objection as members of the same racist, anti-Semitic and xenophobic party
gained
positions in Ukraine's government
, so perhaps you will be forgiven. Perhaps sowing a little
confusion of its own, is Brussels.
Disinformation Example 3: Russia is depicted as a 'defender' and a 'peacekeeper' and
the West – as the villain
.
Team East Stratcom likes using Twitter graphics as evidence when 'disproving pro-Kremlin
disinformation.' Never mind history, reason and common sense – just bring out a nice Twitter
graphic! According to disinfo mavens, any spike in Twitter activity with the words 'Russia'
'Moscow' or 'Putin' in reference to Venezuela is proof of a 'pro-Kremlin' disinformation campaign,
says Team East StratCom. Here is
their
graphical chart
of Twitter traffic:
But Russia is an ally of Venezuela so why would this not be reflected on Twitter when there is a
blatant attempt by a Western aggressor to impose its military and economic will on Venezuela? Such
was the situation in February when the US tried to pressure the Venezuelan government into allowing
in trucks, supposedly carrying humanitarian aid, into the country. Aid as a Trojan Horse for
weapons has historical context, especially with regards to the US and its new special envoy to
Venezuela,
Elliot Abrams
, a
convicted
war criminal
who illicitly supplied weapons to death squads in Nicaragua, El Salvador and
Guatemala on behalf of the Reagan presidency in the 1980s. Now that he is special envoy to
Venezuela, it is common sense to suspect foul play. Can such people really be seen as peacekeepers,
Team East Stratcom? And using a Twitter graphic to divert attention from a flagrant coup attempt by
an aggressive power is more than a little contemptible. What's more, a few days afterwards, one of
those trucks carrying supplies was found to contain nails and other materials useful for making
barricades:
And so to sum up the tactics used by Team East StratCom for 'disproving pro-Kremlin
disinformation', based on the above cases alone, a list could include for starters:
Categorical denial of any wrongdoing by Western powers or NATO members
Label any information emanating from a Russia media outlet as 'disinformation' or
'Kremlin propaganda'
Discredit alternate media journalists who stray from Official
Washington/London/Brussels position
Diversion and distraction – dazzle the public with colourful Twitter graphics
Remove any key political, geopolitical context
Obscure or erase history
Use of online tools like the Corruption Index promoted by same Western governments
that fund bloody imperialist wars
Use emotive, jingoistic themes
Associate perceived ideological opponents with leaders on Western bogeyman list
Repetition of pejorative terms and ad hominem smears such as 'pro-Kremlin' and'
'Putinist' to create division
Infer that any dissenter in the West is a 'traitor.'
But Team East StratCom can't erase history or delete context or bore us half to death
with those Twitter graphics and still expect to retain their credibility.
What's more, given the Russia-Trump collusion narrative has been exposed as a hoax, Team East
StratCom really ought to
let
that one go
.
Chickenhawks are usually more militaristic then people who served. This is kind of inferiority complex compensation. Trump
is a chichenhawk.
Notable quotes:
"... One set of moral priorities – a different one – would end our endless wars and use the vast wealth of this nation to end poverty and lead to true security for all of us. It would invest in healthcare, well-paying jobs, affordable higher education, safe drinking water and clean air for all of us. ..."
"... With this budget, Trump takes more than $1tn in taxpayer money and disperses fully $750bn to the military. Out of every taxpayer dollar , in other words, 62 cents go to the military and our militarized Department of Homeland Security. (Veterans' benefits take another seven cents.) ..."
"... The budget falsely claims to adhere to strict spending limits set by Congress for the military. But it hides an extra $174bn for the Pentagon in plain sight by adding it to a war spending account – despite the fact that the president has said he wants to bring back thousands of troops from Syria and Afghanistan. This gimmick brings total military spending all the way up to $750bn, even while the administration claims it is cutting the base Pentagon budget ..."
Donald Trump recently unleashed his dark vision for our
nation and our world, in the form of his
budget request to Congress
.
A budget shows our values more clearly than any
tweet, campaign speech or political slogan. It's what
marries detailed, dollar-and-cents policy decisions to
deeper political – and moral – priorities.
One set of moral priorities – a different one – would
end our endless wars and use the vast wealth of this
nation to end poverty and lead to true security for all
of us. It would invest in healthcare, well-paying jobs,
affordable higher education, safe drinking water and
clean air for all of us.
The proposed Trump budget drops bombs on that vision
– almost literally.
With this budget, Trump takes more than $1tn in
taxpayer money and disperses fully $750bn to the
military. Out of
every taxpayer dollar
, in other words, 62 cents go
to the military and our militarized Department of
Homeland Security. (Veterans' benefits take another
seven cents.)
... ... ...
At every turn, the Trump budget finds vast billions for
militarization, while it cuts much smaller poverty and
other programs, claiming the goal is to save money.
It
includes $164bn in war funding, but it cuts $4.7bn in
economic development and food assistance to other
nations. It finds $14bn for a vanity project military
branch called the space force, while it cuts $1.2bn for
a program that's built and preserved more than 1m
affordable homes. It includes $11bn for contractor
Lockheed Martin to build more F-35 jet fighters, but it
cuts $3.7bn in heating and cooling assistance for 6m
poor households.
And it includes more than $12bn for a wall at our
border, while it cuts $1bn for Job Corps, the program
that provides yearly training and work experience to
50,000 poor (and mostly black) youths.
The budget falsely claims to adhere to strict
spending limits set by Congress for the military. But it
hides
an extra $174bn
for the Pentagon in plain sight by
adding it to a war spending account – despite the fact
that the president has said he wants to bring back
thousands of troops from Syria and Afghanistan. This
gimmick brings total military spending all the way up to
$750bn, even while the administration claims it is
cutting the base Pentagon budget
"... What this implies is that the received wisdom amongst bourgeois Democrats -- the bosses, bank managers, academics, realtors and administrative class, looks to be what it is: a combination of class loathing that their 'lessors' didn't perceive the munificent blessing of their electoral choice; mass delusion on the part of self-styled 'high-information voters' about who really controls American 'democracy;' and studied ignorance of the consequences of the last half-century of bi-partisan neoliberal governance. ..."
"... Most damaging to the burgeoning left in the U.S. is the deeply ugly character assassination of poor and working-class voters carried out by the urban bourgeois, many from the self-described radical left. People I know and like, but with whom I disagree politically but am working hard to convert, have spent the last three years being derided as traitorous, marginally literate hicks too stupid to know they are pawns of the Kremlin. The irony, if you care to call it that, is that they knew the Russian interference story was cynical bullshit all along while the graduate degree crowd was following every twist and turn as if it were true knowledge. ..."
"... The New York Times and Washington Post have been publishing politically motivated 'fake news' in support of establishment interests since their inceptions. Their service to powerful interests is why they are still around. The FBI, CIA and NSA have been putting out politically motivated bullshit since their respective inceptions. They exist to serve the rich and powerful against all comers. To claim these as bastions of integrity was always a tough sell. To continue to claim it is the stuff from which revolutions are made. In this case, right-wing revolutions. ..."
"... While the urban bourgeois have long been dismissive of the 'burn it down' contingent of Trump voters, they seem incapable of seeing their own roles as defenders of the establishment as corrupt and ultimately, politically suicidal. ..."
"... . Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election because she is a corrupt, neoliberal, militaristic piece of shit ..."
"... Lying sacks of shit like James Clapper and John Brennan will tie their lots to whomever will fund their adventures in mal-governance as the world burns and species become extinct. The tragedy here is that there are real issues in need of resolution. ..."
Two years ago authors Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes
wrote in their book
Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton's Doomed Campaign that within 24 hours
of her 2016 electoral loss, Hillary Clinton's senior campaign staff decided
to blame the loss on Russian interference. Given the apparent source of the
charge in
opposition research
funded by the Clinton campaign , the move seemed both desperate and pathetic
-- a thread for Clinton's true believers to hang onto, an effort to keep campaign
contributions rolling in and a ploy to cleave liberals from the left through
red-baiting.
For perspective, from the time leading up to the 2016 election through today,
I chose to live amongst poor and working-class people of color, with occasional
forays into the rural working and middle classes and the urban bourgeois. What
became apparent early on is that the audience for the Russian interference story
was the urban and suburban bourgeois who had seen their lots by-and-large restored
by Barack Obama's bank bailouts and who had no knowledge of, or interaction
with, the 90% of the country that is living, by degree, hand-to-mouth.
What this implies is that the received wisdom amongst bourgeois Democrats
-- the bosses, bank managers, academics, realtors and administrative class,
looks to be what it is: a combination of class loathing that their 'lessors'
didn't perceive the munificent blessing of their electoral choice; mass delusion
on the part of self-styled 'high-information voters' about who really controls
American 'democracy;' and studied ignorance of the consequences of the last
half-century of bi-partisan neoliberal governance.
"Prior to the 2016 presidential election, if one were to ask what single
act could seal a new Cold War with Russia, align liberals and progressives
with the operational core of the American military-industrial-surveillance
complex, expose the preponderance of left-activism as an offshoot of Democratic
Party operations and consign most of what remained to personal invective
against an empirically dangerous leader, consensus would likely have it
that doing so wouldn't be easy."
The Clinton campaign's decision to blame her electoral loss on Russian interference
demonstrates why she was, and still is, unqualified to hold elected office.
In the first, the U.S. – Russian rivalry is backed-up by hair-trigger nuclear
arsenals that could end the world in a matter of minutes. Inciting tensions
based on self-serving lies is stunningly reckless. In the second, the claim
demonstrates utter contempt for her most loyal followers by feeding them purposely
misleading explanations of the loss. And most damagingly for political opponents
of Donald Trump, these actions give credence to the insurgent status of his
retro-Republicanism against liberal and left defenders of the political establishment.
Most damaging to the burgeoning left in the U.S. is the deeply ugly character
assassination of poor and working-class voters carried out by the urban bourgeois,
many from the self-described radical left. People I know and like, but with
whom I disagree politically but am working hard to convert, have spent the last
three years being derided as traitorous, marginally literate hicks too stupid
to know they are pawns of the Kremlin. The irony, if you care to call it that,
is that they knew the Russian interference story was cynical bullshit all along
while the graduate degree crowd was following every twist and turn as if it
were true knowledge.
The Democratic Party 'leadership' that pursued this story is as stupid as
it is corrupt. The purpose of Russia-gate was apparently to keep the Party faithful,
faithful. But as was demonstrated in 2016, the faithful alone can't win an election.
This leadership turned what could have been an effective 'give 'em enough rope'
strategy against arrogant jackass Trump back on itself. The establishment-left
had been in the process of giving self-described socialists someone to vote
for in 2020. Too-clever-by-half liberal twaddle about 'post-truth' now has liberals
-- universally conflated with the left, perceived as both idiots and liars.
And rightly so.
Democrats who spent the last three years making less than plausible (and
politically retrograde) accusations against Mr. Trump likely still don't understand
their current position. Their call for an exhaustive investigation carried out
by people they trust was honored. While the investigation was underway, the
mainstream press put one ludicrous fantasy after another forward as news. This
while a host of real issues affecting real people's lives were studiously ignored.
As incredulous as I am that it could be done, liberal Democrats have made corrupt
oligarch Trump appear to be righteously aggrieved. Who says these people have
no talent?
The New York Times and Washington Post have been publishing politically
motivated 'fake news' in support of establishment interests since their inceptions.
Their service to powerful interests is why they are still around. The FBI, CIA
and NSA have been putting out
politically motivated bullshit since their respective inceptions. They exist
to serve the rich and powerful against all comers. To claim these as bastions
of integrity was always a tough sell. To continue to claim it is the stuff from
which revolutions are made. In this case, right-wing revolutions.
While the urban bourgeois have long been dismissive of the 'burn it down'
contingent of Trump voters, they seem incapable of seeing their own roles as
defenders of the establishment as corrupt and ultimately, politically suicidal.
I voted for a woman for president and a black man for vice president in
2016. But they weren't Democrats. Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election
because she is a corrupt, neoliberal, militaristic piece of shit. Ironically,
or not, most of Trump voters I've spoken with know more about the Democrats'
actual record than the highly educated urban bourgeois pontificating on NPR
or in the New York Times.
A quick bet is that the 2020 presidential election is now Donald Trump's
to lose. Lying sacks of shit like James Clapper and John Brennan will tie
their lots to whomever will fund their adventures in mal-governance as the world
burns and species become extinct. The tragedy here is that there are real issues
in need of resolution. The Democrats' three-year adventure in red-baiting
served to legitimate a financial-military-industrial complex that apparently
intends to end the planet as it makes as many people miserable in the process
as is possible. Congratulations assholes.
Join the debate on Facebook More articles by:
Rob Urie
Rob Urie is an artist and political economist. His book
Zen Economics is published by CounterPunch Books.
CNN Worldwide president Jeff Zucker has all but admitted that the network is truly the "opposition
party" to President Trump -
telling the
New
York Times
he is "entirely comfortable" with CNN's Trump-Russia coverage
, while
brushing off the fact that they were
completely wrong
about collusion.
"
We are not investigators. We are journalists, and our role is to report the facts as we
know them
, which is exactly what we did," the unapologetic Zucker
wrote
in an email
. "A sitting president's own Justice Department investigated his campaign for collusion
with a hostile nation. That's not enormous because the media says so. That's enormous because it's
unprecedented."
Except that a
CNN producer on hidden camera admitted that
the Russia story was all for
ratings
, and the narrative is "mostly bullshit."
And in addition to CNN's hyperpartisan reporting against Trump,
they've gotten it wrong
several times
. As
Breitbart
's
Josh Caplan notes:
Last December,
CNN congressional correspondent Manu Raju
reported
that
Wikileaks emailed Donald Trump Jr. access to information nearly two weeks prior to their public
release. However, the network failed to verify the email's date -- September 14th, 2016 -- by which
time the emails had already been released.
In June, CNN reported former White House
communications director Anthony Scaramucci was being
investigated
for
meeting with a Russian banker ahead of President Trump's inauguration. Scaramucci denied the claim
and CNN eventually apologized for its inaccurate report. CNN Executive editor Lex Haris, editor
Eric Lichtblau, and journalist Thomas Frank resigned in shame over the story.
Further, CNN
claimed
in
July that Michael Cohen, President Trump's personal lawyer, was prepared to tell special counsel
investigators that the president possesses advanced knowledge of the Trump Tower meeting between
his son, Donald Trump Jr. and a Russia lawyer, and others. Cohen's lawyer, Lanny Davis, later told
CNN had "mixed up" its facts and denied claims that Cohen had any such knowledge about the meeting.
-
Breitbart
After more than two years of the FBI and DOJ probing every cavity they could, President Trump and
his campaign were found to have
not colluded with Russia -- according to a four-page
summary of Mueller's findings written by Attorney General William Barr and Deputy Attorney General Rod
Rosenstein, who oversaw most of the special counsel's investigation.
Doubling down is just stupid. And that war pig Rachel Maddow lost 500k viewers. That's why she cries. she
sries about lst money.
She does not cry about deceived and brainwashed public, which was subjected to unprecedented Neo-McCarthyism complagn for more
then a year.
Notable quotes:
"... The MSNBC host, who has devoted countless hours of airtime to gossiping about the alleged ties between President Donald Trump and the Kremlin, struggled to keep her composure while discussing the end of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation, which wrapped up on Friday without issuing any further indictments ..."
"... Maddow didn't succumb to this unexpected and shocking injustice, however, and reassured her viewers that Mueller's decision not to issue a single collusion-related indictment is the "start of something apparently, not the end of something." ..."
"... "Very rough night at MSNBC. Rachel Maddow looks like she's going to cry. Chris Hayes glasses are all fogged up," noted radio host Mark Simone. ..."
"... "This is what it looks like when you've deliberately misled your audience for two years, and then the music stops, and the bill comes due. @maddow," tweeted OANN White House Correspondent Emerald Robinson. ..."
"... "#Maddow either choking on kitty litter chunks or facing the hard cold reality she's the worst journalist in television history," quipped actor and conservative commentator James Woods. ..."
"... "So can those of us on the left criticize Trump on the actual issues now, and FINALLY give up on #Russiagate? For 2 years, @maddow has lead @MSNBC in selling us the narrative that Trump colluded w/ Russia What will @maddow do now? Double down or actually do journalism?" asked author and activist Dennis Trainor Jr. ..."
"... Later on Saturday, Maddow mocked the suggestion that she was watery-eyed and might have held back tears. ..."
Crying for indictments? Maddow 'holds backs tears' as she discusses end of Mueller probe (VIDEO)
The MSNBC host, who has devoted countless hours of airtime to gossiping about the alleged ties between President Donald Trump
and the Kremlin, struggled to keep her composure while discussing the end of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation, which
wrapped up on Friday without issuing any further indictments.
According to the Daily Caller, Maddow came
close to crying as she commented
on the Russiagate-deflating development. Many on Twitter insisted that she actually shed tears. A clip of the broadcast shows a watery-eyed
Maddow seemingly grappling with the reality that Donald Trump and his family will not be frog-marched out of the White House.
Maddow didn't succumb to this unexpected and shocking injustice, however, and reassured her viewers that Mueller's decision not
to issue a single collusion-related indictment is the "start of something apparently, not the end of something."
The internet laughed and laughed.
"Very rough night at MSNBC. Rachel Maddow looks like she's going to cry. Chris Hayes glasses are all fogged up," noted
radio host Mark Simone.
Very rough night at MSNBC. Rachel Maddow looks like she's going to cry. Chris Hayes glasses are all fogged up.
"This is what it looks like when you've deliberately misled your audience for two years, and then the music stops, and the
bill comes due. @maddow," tweeted OANN White House Correspondent Emerald Robinson.
This is what it looks like when you've deliberately misled your audience for two years, and then the music stops, and the bill
comes due. @maddowhttps://t.co/4bkBUEwx8y
"#Maddow either choking on kitty litter chunks or facing the hard cold reality she's the worst journalist in television history,"
quipped actor and conservative commentator James Woods.
"What's going on with Maddow? Has she been hospitalized? Sedated?" inquired journalist Michael Tracey.
Others expressed exasperation at Maddow's refusal to face the music, accusing the MSNBC host of ignoring real, pressing issues
as she leads her Russiagate crusade.
"So can those of us on the left criticize Trump on the actual issues now, and FINALLY give up on #Russiagate? For 2 years,
@maddow has lead @MSNBC in selling us the narrative that Trump colluded w/ Russia What will @maddow do now? Double down or actually
do journalism?" asked author and activist Dennis Trainor Jr.
So can those of us on the left criticize Trump on the actual issues now, and FINALLY give up on
#Russiagate ?
For 2 years, @maddow has lead
@MSNBC in selling us the narrative that Trump colluded
w/ Russia
What will @maddow do now? Double down or actually
do journalism?
This is the most grandiose False flag propaganda operation known to the mankind. McCarthyism while more vicious was just a blip
of the screen in comparison this this tide of disinformation and insinuations. Iraq WDM resulted in more casualties but was much
more short term. Damage for the USA from this false flag operation might even exceed the damage for Iraq WDM fiasco.
British government and intelligence serves were active participants and in this sense "Skripals poisoning" looks
like a perverted form of "witness protection:" program. A false flag operation on the top of a false flag operation
("Russiagate").
What is amazing is how unapt were the major players.
Notable quotes:
"... Nobody wants to hear this, but news that Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller is headed home without issuing new charges is a death-blow for the reputation of the American news media. ..."
"... A few weeks after that hearing, Steele gave testimony in a British lawsuit filed by one of the Russian companies mentioned in his reports. In a written submission , Steele said his information was "raw" and "needed to be analyzed and further investigated/verified." He also wrote that (at least as pertained to the memo in that case) he had not written his report "with the intention that it be republished to the world at large." ..."
"... That itself was a curious statement, given that Steele reportedly spoke with multiple reporters in the fall of 2016, but this was his legal position. This story about Steele's British court statements did not make it into the news much in the United States, apart from a few bits in conservative outlets like The Washington Times. ..."
"... The Steele report was the Magna Carta of #Russiagate. It provided the implied context for thousands of news stories to come, yet no journalist was ever able to confirm its most salacious allegations: the five year cultivation plan, the blackmail, the bribe from Sechin, the Prague trip, the pee romp, etc. In metaphorical terms, we were unable to independently produce Steele's results in the lab. Failure to reckon with this corrupted the narrative from the start. ..."
"... "Just called," Page said to McCabe. "Apparently the DAG [Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates] now wants to be there, and WH wants DOJ to host. So we are setting that up now. ... We will very much need to get Cohen's view before we meet with her. Better, have him weigh in with her before the meeting. We need to speak with one voice, if that is in fact the case." ..."
"... Someday I hope that Hillary has to be rolled up to testify about the Benghazi business. Grab the guns and the gold (and the oil). Ukraine gold: check. Libyan gold and weapons: check. ..."
The Iraq war faceplant damaged the reputation of the press. Russiagate just destroyed it...
Note to readers: in light of news that Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller's investigation is complete, I'm releasing this chapter
of Hate Inc. early, with a few new details added up top. Nobody wants to hear this, but news that Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller
is headed home without issuing new charges is a death-blow for the reputation of the American news media.
As has long been rumored
, the former FBI chief's independent probe will result in multiple indictments and convictions, but no "
presidency-wrecking
" conspiracy charges, or anything that would meet the layman's definition of "collusion" with Russia.
With the caveat that even this news might somehow turn out to be botched, the key detail in the many stories about the end of
the Mueller investigation was best expressed
by the New York Times :
A senior Justice Department official said that Mr. Mueller would not recommend new indictments.
The Times tried to soften the emotional blow for the millions of Americans trained in these years to place hopes for the overturn
of the Trump presidency in Mueller. Nobody even pretended it was supposed to be a fact-finding mission, instead of an act of faith.
The Special Prosecutor literally became a religious figure during the last few years, with
votive candles sold in his image and Saturday Night Live cast members
singing "
All I Want for Christmas is You " to him featuring the rhymey line: "Mueller please come through, because the only option is
a coup."
The Times story today tried to preserve Santa Mueller's reputation, noting Trump's Attorney General William Barr's reaction was
an "endorsement" of the fineness of Mueller's work:
In an apparent endorsement of an investigation that Mr. Trump has relentlessly attacked as a "witch hunt," Mr. Barr said Justice
Department officials never had to intervene to keep Mr. Mueller from taking an inappropriate or unwarranted step.
Mueller, in other words, never stepped out of the bounds of his job description. But could the same be said for the news media?
For those anxious to keep the dream alive, the Times published its usual graphic of Trump-Russia "contacts," inviting readers
to keep making connections. But in a
separate piece by Peter
Baker , the paper noted the Mueller news had dire consequences for the press:
It will be a reckoning for President Trump, to be sure, but also for Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel, for Congress,
for Democrats, for Republicans, for the news media and, yes, for the system as a whole
This is a damning page one admission by the Times. Despite the connect-the-dots graphic in its other story, and despite the astonishing,
emotion-laden editorial the paper also ran suggesting "
We don't need to read the Mueller
report " because we know Trump is guilty, Baker at least began the work of preparing Times readers for a hard question: "Have
journalists connected too many dots that do not really add up?"
The paper was signaling it understood there would now be questions about whether or not news outlets like themselves made a galactic
error by betting heavily on a
new, politicized approach , trying to be true to "history's judgment" on top of the hard-enough job of just being true. Worse,
in a brutal irony everyone should have
seen coming , the press has now handed Trump the mother of campaign issues heading into 2020.
Nothing Trump is accused of from now on by the press will be believed by huge chunks of the population, a group that (perhaps
thanks to this story) is now larger than his original base. As Baker notes, a full 50.3% of respondents in
a poll conducted this month said they agree with Trump the Mueller probe is a "witch hunt."
Stories have been coming out for some time now hinting Mueller's final report might leave audiences "
disappointed
," as if a President not being a foreign spy could somehow be bad news.
Openly using such language
has, all along, been an indictment. Imagine how tone-deaf you'd have to be to not realize it makes you look bad, when news does not
match audience expectations you raised. To be unaware of this is mind-boggling, the journalistic equivalent of walking outside without
pants.
There will be people protesting: the Mueller report doesn't prove anything! What about the 37 indictments? The convictions? The
Trump tower revelations? The lies! The meeting with Don, Jr.? The financial matters ! There's an ongoing grand jury investigation,
and possible sealed indictments, and the House will still investigate, and
Stop. Just stop. Any journalist who goes there is making it worse.
For years, every pundit and Democratic pol in Washington hyped
every new Russia headline like the Watergate break-in. Now, even Nancy Pelosi has said impeachment is out, unless something "so
compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan" against Trump is uncovered it would be worth their political trouble to prosecute.
The biggest thing this affair has uncovered so far is Donald Trump paying off a porn star. That's a hell of a long way from what
this business was supposedly about at the beginning, and shame on any reporter who tries to pretend this isn't so.
The story hyped from the start was espionage: a secret relationship between the Trump campaign and Russian spooks who'd helped
him win the election.
The betrayal narrative was not reported at first as metaphor. It was not "Trump likes the Russians so much, he might as well be
a spy for them." It was literal spying, treason, and election-fixing – crimes so severe, former NSA employee John Schindler told
reporters, Trump "
will die in jail ."
In the early months of this scandal, the New York Times said Trump's campaign had "repeated contacts" with Russian intelligence;
the Wall Street Journal told us our spy agencies
were withholding intelligence
from the new President out of fear he was compromised; news leaked out our spy chiefs had even told other countries like Israel
not to share their intel with us, because the Russians might have "leverages of pressure" on Trump.
CNN told us Trump officials had been in "constant contact" with "Russians known to U.S. intelligence," and the former director
of the CIA, who'd helped kick-start the investigation that led to Mueller's probe, said the President was guilty of "high crimes
and misdemeanors," committing acts "
nothing short of treasonous ."
Hillary Clinton insisted Russians "could not have known how to weaponize" political ads unless they'd been "guided" by Americans.
Asked if she meant Trump, she said, "
It's pretty hard not to ." Harry Reid similarly said he had "no doubt" that the Trump campaign was "
in on the
deal " to help Russians with the leak.
None of this has been walked back. To be clear, if Trump were being blackmailed by Russian agencies like the FSB or the GRU, if
he had any kind of relationship with Russian intelligence, that would soar over the "overwhelming and bipartisan" standard, and Nancy
Pelosi would be damning torpedoes for impeachment right now.
There was never real gray area here. Either Trump is a compromised foreign agent, or he isn't. If he isn't, news outlets once
again swallowed a massive disinformation campaign, only this error is many orders of magnitude more stupid than any in the recent
past, WMD included. Honest reporters like ABC's Terry Moran understand: Mueller coming back empty-handed on collusion means a "
reckoning for the media ."
Of course, there won't be such a reckoning. (There never is). But there should be. We broke every written and unwritten rule in
pursuit of this story, starting with the prohibition on reporting things we can't confirm.
#Russiagate debuted as a media phenomenon in mid-summer, 2016. The roots of the actual story, i.e. when the multi-national investigation
began, go back much further, to the previous year at least. Oddly, that origin tale has not been nailed down yet, and blue-state
audiences don't seem terribly interested in it, either.
By June and July of 2016, bits of the dossier compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele, which
had been funded by the Democratic National Committee through the law firm Perkins Coie (which in turn hired the opposition research
firm Fusion GPS), were already in the ether.
The Steele report occupies the same role in #Russiagate the tales spun by Ahmed Chalabi occupied in the WMD screwup. Once again,
a narrative became turbo-charged when Officials With Motives pulled the press corps by its nose to a swamp of unconfirmable private
assertions.
Some early stories, like a July 4, 2016 piece by Franklin Foer in Slate called "
Putin's Puppet ," outlined future Steele themes in "circumstantial" form. But the actual dossier, while it influenced a number
of pre-election Trump-Russia news stories (notably
one by Michael Isiskoff of Yahoo! that would be
used in a FISA warrant application ), didn't make it into print for a while.
Though it was shopped to
at least nine news organizations during the summer and fall of 2016, no one bit, for the good reason that news organizations
couldn't verify its "revelations."
The Steele claims were explosive if true. The ex-spy reported Trump aide Carter Page had been offered fees on a big new slice
of the oil giant Rosneft if he could help get sanctions against Russia lifted. He also said Trump lawyer Michael Cohen went to Prague
for "secret discussions with Kremlin representatives and associated operators/hackers."
Most famously, he wrote the Kremlin had kompromat of Trump "deriling" [sic] a bed once used by Barack and Michelle Obama by "employing
a number of prostitutes to perform a 'golden showers' (urination) show."
The piece didn't have pee, Prague, or Page in it, but it did say Russian intelligence had material that could "blackmail" Trump.
It was technically kosher to print because Corn wasn't publishing the allegations themselves, merely that the FBI had taken possession
of them.
A bigger pretext was needed to get the other details out. This took place just after the election, when four intelligence officials
presented copies of the dossier to both President-Elect Trump and outgoing President Obama.
From his own
memos , we know FBI Director James Comey, ostensibly evincing concern for Trump's welfare, told the new President he was just
warning him about what was out there, as possible blackmail material:
I wasn't saying [the Steele report] was true, only that I wanted him to know both that it had been reported and that the reports
were in many hands. I said media like CNN had them and were looking for a news hook. I said it was important that we not give
them the excuse to write that the FBI has the material or [redacted] and that we were keeping it very close-hold [sic].
Comey's generous warning to Trump about not providing a "news hook," along with a promise to keep it all "close-held," took place
on January 6, 2017. Within four days, basically the entire Washington news media somehow knew all about this top-secret meeting and
had the very hook they needed to go public. Nobody in the mainstream press thought this was weird or warranted comment.
Even Donald Trump was probably smart enough to catch the hint when, of all outlets, it was CNN that first broke the story of "Classified
documents presented last week to Trump"
on January 10 .
At the same time, Buzzfeed
made
the historic decision to publish the entire Steele dossier, bringing years of pee into our lives. This move birthed the Russiagate
phenomenon as a never-ending, minute-to-minute factor in American news coverage.
Comey was right. We couldn't have reported this story without a "hook." Therefore the reports surrounding Steele technically weren't
about the allegations themselves, but rather the journey of those allegations, from one set of official hands to another. Handing
the report to Trump created a perfect pretext.
This trick has been used before, both in Washington and on Wall Street, to publicize unconfirmed private research. A short seller
might hire a consulting firm to prepare a report on a company he or she has bet against. When the report is completed, the investor
then tries to get the SEC or the FBI to take possession. If they do, news leaks the company is "under investigation," the stock dives,
and everyone wins.
This same trick is found in politics. A similar trajectory
drove negative headlines in the scandal surrounding New Jersey's Democratic Senator Bob Menendez, who was said to be under investigation
by the FBI for underage sex crimes (although some
were skeptical
). The initial story didn't hold up, but led to other investigations.
Same with the so-called "
Arkansas project ," in which millions of Republican-friendly private research dollars produced enough noise about the Whitewater
scandal to create years of headlines about the Clintons. Swiftboating was another example. Private oppo isn't inherently bad. In
fact it has led to some incredible scoops, including Enron. But reporters usually know to be skeptical of private info, and figure
the motives of its patrons into the story.
The sequence of events in that second week of January, 2017 will now need to be heavily re-examined. We now know,
from his own testimony , that former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper had some kind of role in helping CNN do
its report, presumably by confirming part of the story, perhaps through an intermediary or two (there is some controversy over whom
exactly was contacted, and when).
Why would real security officials help litigate this grave matter through the media? Why were the world's most powerful investigative
agencies acting like they were trying to move a stock, pushing an private, unverified report that even Buzzfeed could see had factual
issues? It
made no sense at the time , and makes less now.
In January of 2017, Steele's pile of allegations became public, read by millions. "It is not just unconfirmed," Buzzfeed
admitted
. "It includes some clear errors."
Buzzfeed's decision exploded traditional journalistic standards against knowingly publishing material whose veracity you doubt.
Although a few media ethicists wondered
at it , this seemed not to bother the rank-and-file in the business. Buzzfeed chief Ben Smith is still
proud of
his decision today. I think this was because many reporters believed the report was true.
When I read the report, I was in shock. I thought it read like fourth-rate suspense fiction (I should know: I write fourth-rate
suspense fiction). Moreover it seemed edited both for public consumption and to please Steele's DNC patrons.
Steele wrote of Russians having a file of "compromising information" on Hillary Clinton, only this file supposedly lacked "details/evidence
of unorthodox or embarrassing behavior" or "embarrassing conduct."
We were meant to believe the Russians, across decades of dirt-digging, had an empty kompromat file on Hillary Clinton, to say
nothing of human tabloid headline Bill Clinton? This point was made more than once in the reports, as if being emphasized for the
reading public.
There were other curious lines, including the bit about Russians having "moles" in the DNC, plus some linguistic details that
made me wonder at the nationality of the report author.
Still, who knew? It could be true. But even the most cursory review showed the report had issues and would need a lot of confirming.
This made it more amazing that the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Adam Schiff, held hearings on March 20,
2017 that blithely read out Steele report details as if they were fact. From Schiff's opening statement:
According to Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer who is reportedly held in high regard by U.S. Intelligence,
Russian sources tell him that Page has also had a secret meeting with Igor Sechin (SEH-CHIN), CEO of Russian gas giant Rosneft
Page is offered brokerage fees by Sechin on a deal involving a 19 percent share of the company.
I was stunned watching this. It's generally understood that members of congress, like reporters, make an effort to vet at least
their prepared remarks before making them public.
But here was Schiff, telling the world Trump aide Carter Page had been offered huge fees on a 19% stake in Rosneft – a company
with a $63 billion market capitalization – in a secret meeting
with a Russian oligarch who was also said to be "a KGB agent and close friend of Putin's."
(Schiff meant "FSB agent." The inability of #Russiagaters to remember Russia is not the Soviet Union became increasingly maddening
over time. Donna Brazile still hasn't deleted her tweet about how "
The Communists are now dictating the
terms of the debate ." )
Schiff's speech raised questions. Do we no longer have to worry about getting accusations right if the subject is tied to Russiagate?
What if Page hadn't done any of these things? To date, he hasn't been charged with anything. Shouldn't a member of Congress worry
about this?
A few weeks after that hearing, Steele gave testimony in a British lawsuit filed by one of the Russian companies mentioned in
his reports. In a
written submission , Steele said his information was "raw" and "needed to be analyzed and further investigated/verified." He
also wrote that (at least as pertained to the memo in that case) he had not written his report "with the intention that it be republished
to the world at large."
That itself was a curious statement, given that Steele reportedly spoke with multiple reporters in the fall of 2016, but this
was his legal position. This story about Steele's British court statements did not make it into the news much in the United States,
apart from a few bits in conservative outlets like The Washington Times.
I contacted Schiff's office to ask if the congressman if he knew about Steele's admission that his report needed verifying, and
if that changed his view of it at all. The response (emphasis mine):
The dossier compiled by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele and which was leaked publicly several months
ago contains information that may be pertinent to our investigation. This is true regardless of whether it was ever intended for
public dissemination. Accordingly, the Committee hopes to speak with Mr. Steele in order to help substantiate or refute each of
the allegations contained in the dossier.
Schiff had not spoken to Steele before the hearing, and read out the allegations knowing they were unsubstantiated.
The Steele report was the Magna Carta of #Russiagate. It provided the implied context for thousands of news stories to come, yet
no journalist was ever able to confirm its most salacious allegations: the five year cultivation plan, the blackmail, the bribe from
Sechin, the Prague trip, the pee romp, etc. In metaphorical terms, we were unable to independently produce Steele's results in the
lab. Failure to reckon with this corrupted the narrative from the start.
For years, every hint the dossier might be true became a banner headline, while every time doubt was cast on Steele's revelations,
the press was quiet. Washington Post reporter Greg Miller went to Prague and led a team looking for evidence Cohen had been there.
Post reporters, Miller said, "literally spent weeks and months trying to run down" the Cohen story.
"We sent reporters through every hotel in Prague, through all over the place, just to try to figure out if he was ever there,"
he said, "and came away empty."
This was heads-I-win, tails-you-lose reporting. One assumes if Miller found Cohen's name in a hotel ledger, it would have been
on page 1 of the Post. The converse didn't get a mention in Miller's own paper. He only told the story during a discussion
aired by C-SPAN about a new book he'd published. Only The Daily Caller and a few conservative blogs picked it up.
It was the same when Bob Woodward said, "I did not find [espionage or collusion] Of course I looked for it, looked for it hard."
The celebrated Watergate muckraker – who once said he'd
succumbed to "groupthink"
in the WMD episode and added, "I blame myself mightily for not pushing harder" – didn't push very hard here, either. News that
he'd tried and failed to find collusion didn't get into his own paper. It only came out when Woodward was promoting his book Fear
in a discussion with conservative host Hugh Hewitt.
When Michael Cohen testified before congress and denied under oath ever being in Prague, it was the same. Few commercial news
outlets bothered to take note of the implications this had for their previous reports. Would a man clinging to a plea deal lie to
congress on national television about this issue?
Perhaps worst of all was the episode involving Yahoo! reporter Michael Isikoff. He had already been part of one strange tale:
the FBI double-dipping when it sought a FISA warrant to conduct secret surveillance of Carter Page, the would-be mastermind who was
supposed to have brokered a deal with oligarch Sechin.
In its FISA application, the FBI included both the unconfirmed Steele report and Isikoff's September 23, 2016 Yahoo! story, "
U.S. Intel Officials probe ties between Trump adviser and Kremlin ." The Isikoff story, which claimed Page had met with "high
ranking sanctioned officials" in Russia, had relied upon Steele as an unnamed source.
This was similar to a laundering technique used in the WMD episode called "stove-piping," i.e. officials using the press to "confirm"
information the officials themselves fed the reporter.
But there was virtually no non-conservative press about this problem apart from a Washington Post story pooh-poohing the issue.
(Every news story that casts any doubt on the collusion issue seems to meet with an instantaneous "fact check" in the Post .) The
Post insisted the FISA issue wasn't serious among other things because Steele was not the "foundation" of Isikoff's piece.
Isikoff was perhaps the reporter most familiar with Steele. He and Corn of Mother Jones , who also dealt with the ex-spy, wrote
a bestselling book that relied upon theories from Steele, Russian Roulette , including a rumination on the "pee" episode. Yet Isikoff
in late 2018 suddenly said he believed the Steele report would turn out to be "
mostly
false ."
Once again, this only came out via a podcast, John Ziegler's "Free Speech Broadcasting" show. Here's a transcript of the relevant
section:
Isikoff: When you actually get into the details of the Steele dossier, the specific allegations, you know, we have not seen
the evidence to support them. And in fact there is good grounds to think some of the more sensational allegations will never be
proven, and are likely false.
Ziegler: That's...
Isikoff: I think it's a mixed record at best at this point, things could change, Mueller may yet produce evidence that changes
this calculation. But based on the public record at this point I have to say that most of the specific allegations have not been
borne out.
Ziegler: That's interesting to hear you say that, Michael because as I'm sure you know, your book was kind of used to validate
the pee tape, for lack of a better term.
Isikoff: Yeah. I think we had some evidence in there of an event that may have inspired the pee tape and that was the visit
that Trump made with a number of characters who later showed up in Moscow, specifically Emin Agalarov and Rob Goldstone to this
raunchy Las Vegas nightclub where one of the regular acts was a skit called "Hot For Teacher" in which dancers posing as college
Co-Ed's urinated – or simulated urinating on their professor. Which struck me as an odd coincidence at best. I think, you know,
it is not implausible that event may have inspired...
Ziegler: An urban legend?
Isikoff: ...allegations that appeared in the Steele dossier.
Isikoff delivered this story with a laughing tone. He seamlessly transitioned to what he then called the "real" point, i.e. "the
irony is Steele may be right, but it wasn't the Kremlin that had sexual kompromat on Donald Trump, it was the National Enquirer.
"
Recapping: the reporter who introduced Steele to the world (his September 23, 2016 story was the first to reference him as a source),
who wrote a book that even he concedes was seen as "validating" the pee tape story, suddenly backtracks and says the whole thing
may have been based on a Las Vegas strip act, but it doesn't matter because Stormy Daniels, etc.
Another story of this type involved a court case in which Webzilla and parent company XBT sued Steele and Buzzfeed over the mention
their firm in one of the memos. It came out in court testimony that Steele had culled information about XBT/Webzilla from a
2009 post on CNN's "iReports"
page .
Asked if he understood these posts came from random users and not CNN journalists who'd been fact-checked, Steele replied, "
I do not ."
This comical detail was similar to news that the second British Mi6 dossier released just before the Iraq invasion had been
plagiarized in part from a thirteen year-old student thesis from California State University, not even by intelligence people,
but by mid-level functionaries in Tony Blair's press office.
There were so many profiles of Steele as an "
astoundingly
diligent " spymaster straight
out of LeCarre : he was routinely
described like a LeCarre-ian grinder like the legendary George Smiley, a man in the shadows whose bookish intensity was belied
by his "average," "neutral," "quiet," demeanor, being "more low-key than Smiley." One would think it might have rated a mention that
our "Smiley" was cutting and pasting text like a community college freshman. But the story barely made news.
This has been a consistent pattern throughout #Russiagate. Step one: salacious headline. Step two, days or weeks later: news emerges
the story is shakier than first believed. Step three (in the best case) involves the story being walked back or retracted by the
same publication.
That's been rare. More often, when explosive #Russiagate headlines go sideways, the original outlets simply ignore the new development,
leaving the "retraction" process to conservative outlets that don't reach the original audiences.
This is a major structural flaw of the
new fully-divided media
landscape in which Republican media covers Democratic corruption and Democratic media covers Republican corruption. If neither
"side" feels the need to disclose its own errors and inconsistencies, mistakes accumulate quickly.
This has been the main difference between Russiagate and the WMD affair. Despite David Remnick's post-invasion protestations that
"nobody got [WMD] completely right," the Iraq war was launched against the objections of the 6 million or more people who did get
it right, and protested on the streets
. There was open skepticism of Bush claims dotting the press landscape from the start, with people like
Jack Shafer tearing apart every Judith Miller story
in print. Most reporters are Democrats and the people hawking the WMD story were mostly Republicans, so there was political space
for protest.
Russiagate happened in an opposite context. If the story fell apart it would benefit Donald Trump politically, a fact that made
a number of reporters queasy about coming forward. #Russiagate became synonymous with #Resistance, which made public skepticism a
complicated proposition.
Early in the scandal, I appeared on To The Point, a California-based public radio show hosted by Warren Olney, with Corn of Mother
Jones. I knew David a little and had been friendly with him. He once hosted a book event for me in Washington. In the program, however,
the subject of getting facts right came up and Corn said this was not a time for reporters to be picking nits:
So Democrats getting overeager, overenthusiastic, stating things that may not be [unintelligible] true ? Well, tell me a political
issue where that doesn't happen. I think that's looking at the wrong end of the telescope.
I wrote him later and suggested that since we're in the press, and not really about anything except avoiding "things that may
not be true," maybe we had different responsibilities than "Democrats"? He wrote back:
Feel free to police the Trump opposition. But on the list of shit that needs to be covered these days, that's just not high
on my personal list.
Other reporters spoke of an internal struggle. When the Mueller indictment of the Internet Research Agency was met with exultation
in the media, New Yorker writer Adrian Chen, who broke the original IRA story, was
hesitant to come forward with some mild qualms about the way the story was being reported:
"Either I could stay silent and allow the conversation to be dominated by those pumping up the Russian threat," he said, "or I
could risk giving fodder to Trump and his allies."
"What I meant to write is, I wasn't skeptical," he said.
Years ago, in the midst of the WMD affair, Times public editor Daniel Okrent noted the paper's standard had moved from "Don't
get it first, get it right" to "Get it first and get it right." From there,
Okrent wrote , "the next devolution was an obvious one."
We're at that next devolution: first and wrong. The Russiagate era has so degraded journalism that even once "reputable" outlets
are now only about as right as politicians, which is to say barely ever, and then only by accident.
Early on, I was so amazed by the sheer quantity of Russia "bombshells" being walked back, I started to keep a list. It's well
above 50 stories now. As has been noted by Glenn Greenwald of the Intercept and others, if the mistakes were random, you'd
expect them in both directions , but Russiagate errors uniformly go the same way.
In some cases the stories are only partly wrong, as in the case of the famed "
17 intelligence agencies said Russia was behind the hacking " story (it was actually four: the Director of National Intelligence
"hand-picking" a team from the FBI, CIA, and NSA).
In other cases the stories were blunt false starts, resulting in ugly sets of matching headlines:
" Trump
Campaign Aides had repeated contacts with Russian Intelligence ," published by the Times on Valentine's Day, 2017, was an important,
narrative-driving "bombshell" that looked dicey from the start. The piece didn't say whether the contact was witting or unwitting,
whether the discussions were about business or politics, or what the contacts supposedly were at all.
Normally a reporter would want to know what the deal is before he or she runs a story accusing people of having dealings with
foreign spies. "Witting" or "Unwitting" ought to be a huge distinction, for instance. It soon after came out that people like former
CIA chief John Brennan don't think this is the case. "Frequently, people who are on a treasonous path do not know they're on a treasonous
path,"
he said, speaking of Trump's circle.
This seemed a dangerous argument, the kind of thing that led to trouble in the McCarthy years. But let's say the contacts were
serious. From a reporting point of view, you'd still need to know exactly what the nature of such contacts were before you run that
story, because the headline implication is grave. Moreover you'd need to know it well enough to report it, i.e. it's not enough to
be told a convincing story off-the-record, you need to be able to share with readers enough so that they can characterize the news
themselves.
Not to the Times, which ran the article without the specifics. Months later, Comey blew up this "contacts" story in public, saying,
" in the
main, it was not true ."
As was the case with the "17 agencies" error, which only got fixed when Clapper testified in congress and was forced to make the
correction under oath, the "repeated contacts" story was only disputed when Comey testified in congress, this time
before the
Senate Intelligence Committee . How many other errors of this type are waiting to be disclosed?
Even the mistakes caught were astounding. On December 1, 2017, ABC reporter Brian Ross claimed Trump "as a candidate" instructed
Michael Flynn to contact Russia. The news caused the Dow to plummet 350 points. The story was retracted almost immediately and
Ross was suspended .
Bloomberg reported Mueller subpoenaed Trump's Deutsche Bank accounts; the subpoenas turned out to be of
other
individuals' records. Fortune said C-SPAN
was hacked after Russia Today programming briefly interrupted coverage of a Maxine Waters floor address. The New York Times
also ran the story, and it's
still up, despite C-SPAN insisting its own "internal routing error" likely caused the feed to appear in place of its own broadcast.
CNN has its own separate sub-list of wrecks. Three of the network's journalists
resigned after a story purporting to tie Trump advisor Anthony Scaramucci to a Russian investment fund was retracted. Four more
CNN reporters (Gloria Borger, Eric Lichtblau, Jake Tapper and Brian Rokus) were bylined in a story that claimed Comey was expected
to refute Trump's claims he was told he wasn't the target of an investigation. Comey blew that one up, too.
In another CNN scoop gone awry, "
Email pointed Trump campaign to WikiLeaks documents ," the network's reporters were off by ten days in a "bombshell" that supposedly
proved the Trump campaign had foreknowledge of Wikileaks dumps. "It's, uh, perhaps not as significant as what we know now," offered
CNN's Manu Raju in a painful on-air retraction .
The worst stories were the ones never corrected. A particularly bad example is "
After Florida School Shooting,
Russian 'Bot' Army Pounced ," from the New York Times on Feb 18, 2018. The piece claimed Russians were trying to divide Americans
on social media after a mass shooting using Twitter hashtags like #guncontrolnow, #gunreformnow and #Parklandshooting.
The Times ran this quote high up:
"This is pretty typical for them, to hop on breaking news like this," said Jonathon Morgan, chief executive of New Knowledge,
a company that tracks online disinformation campaigns. "The bots focus on anything that is divisive for Americans. Almost systematically."
About a year after this story came out, Times reporters Scott Shane and Ann Blinder
reported that the same outfit,
New Knowledge , and in particular that same Jonathon Morgan, had participated in a cockamamie scheme to fake Russian troll activity
in an Alabama Senate race. The idea was to try to convince voters Russia preferred the Republican.
The Times quoted a New Knowledge internal report about the idiotic Alabama scheme:
We orchestrated an elaborate 'false flag' operation that planted the idea that the Moore campaign was amplified on social media
by a Russian botnet
The Parkland story was iffy enough when it came out, as Twitter
disputed
it, and another of the main sources for the initial report, former intelligence official Clint Watts, subsequently
said he was "not convinced" on the whole "bot thing."
But when one of your top sources turns out to have faked exactly the kind of activity described in your article, you should at
least take the quote out, or put an update online. No luck: the story remains up on the Times site, without disclaimers.
Russiagate institutionalized one of the worst ethical loopholes in journalism, which used to be limited mainly to local crime
reporting. It's always been a problem that we publish mugshots and names of people merely arrested but not yet found guilty. Those
stories live forever online and even the acquitted end up permanently unable to get jobs, smeared as thieves, wife-beaters, drunk
drivers, etc.
With Russiagate the national press abandoned any pretense that there's a difference between indictment and conviction. The most
disturbing story involved Maria Butina. Here authorities and the press shared responsibility. Thanks to an indictment that initially
said the Russian traded
sex for favors, the Times and other outlets flooded the news cycle with breathless stories about a redheaded slut-temptress come
to undermine democracy, a "real-life Red Sparrow," as ABC put it.
But a judge threw out the sex charge after "five minutes" when it turned out to be based on a
single joke text to a friend who had taken Butina's car for inspection.
It's pretty hard to undo public perception you're a prostitute once it's been in a headline, and, worse, the headlines are still
out there. You can still find stories like "
Maria Butina, Suspected
Secret Agent, Used Sex in Covert Plan " online in the New York Times.
Here a reporter might protest: how would I know? Prosecutors said she traded sex for money. Why shouldn't I believe them?
How about because, authorities have been lying their faces off to reporters since before electricity! It doesn't take much investigation
to realize the main institutional sources in the Russiagate mess – the security services, mainly – have extensive records of deceiving
the media.
As noted before, from World War I-era tales of striking union workers being German agents to the "missile gap" that wasn't (the
"gap" was leaked to the press before the Soviets had even one operational ICBM) to the Gulf of Tonkin mess to all the smears of people
like Martin Luther King, it's a wonder newspapers listen to whispers from government sources at all.
In the Reagan years National Security Adviser John Poindexter spread false stories about Libyan terrorist plots to The Wall Street
Journal and other papers. In the Bush years, Dick Cheney et al were selling manure by the truckload about various connections between
Iraq and al-Qaeda, infamously including a story that bomber Mohammed Atta met with Iraqi intelligence officials in Prague.
The New York Times
ran a story that Atta was in Prague in late October of 2001, even giving a date of the meeting with Iraqis, April 8, or "just
five months before the terrorist attacks." The Prague story was another example of a tale that seemed shaky because American officials
were putting the sourcing first on foreign intelligence, then on reporters themselves. Cheney cited the Prague report in subsequent
TV appearances, one of many instances of feeding reporters tidbits and then selling reports as independent confirmation.
It wasn't until three years later, in 2004, that Times reporter James Risen definitively killed the Atta-in-Prague canard (why
is it always Prague?) in a story entitled "
No evidence of meeting with Iraqi ." By then, of course, it was too late. The Times also
held a major dissenting piece by Risen about the WMD case, "C.I.A. Aides Feel Pressure in Preparing Iraqi Reports," until days
after war started. This is what happens when you start thumbing the scale.
This failure to demand specifics has been epidemic in Russiagate, even when good reporters have been involved. One of the biggest
"revelations" of this era involved a story that was broken first by a terrible reporter (the Guardian's Luke Harding) and followed
up by a good one (Jane Mayer of the New Yorker ). The key detail involved the elusive origin story of Russiagate.
Mayer's piece, the March 12, 2018 "
Christopher
Steele, the Man Behind The Trump Dossier " in the New Yorker , impacted the public mainly by seeming to bolster the credentials
of the dossier author. But it contained an explosive nugget far down. Mayer reported Robert Hannigan, then-head of the GCHQ (the
British analog to the NSA) intercepted a "stream of illicit communications" between "Trump's team and Moscow" at some point prior
to August 2016. Hannigan flew to the U.S. and briefed CIA director John Brennan about these communications. Brennan later testified
this inspired the original FBI investigation.
When I read that, a million questions came to mind, but first: what did "illicit" mean?
If something "illicit" had been captured by GCHQ, and this led to the FBI investigation (one of several conflicting public explanations
for the start of the FBI probe, incidentally), this would go a long way toward clearing up the nature of the collusion charge. If
they had something, why couldn't they tell us what it was? Why didn't we deserve to know?
I asked the Guardian: "Was any attempt made to find out what those communications were? How was the existence of these communications
confirmed? Did anyone from the Guardian see or hear these intercepts, or transcripts?"
Their one-sentence reply:
The Guardian has strict and rigorous procedures when dealing with source material.
That's the kind of answer you'd expect from a transnational bank, or the army, not a newspaper.
I asked Mayer the same questions. She was more forthright, noting that, of course, the story had originally been broken
by Harding , whose
own report said "the precise nature of these exchanges has not been made public."
She added that "afterwards I independently confirmed aspects of [Harding's piece] with several well-informed sources," and "spent
months on the Steele story [and] traveled to the UK twice for it." But, she wrote, "the Russiagate story, like all reporting on sensitive
national security issues, is difficult."
I can only infer she couldn't find out what "illicit" meant despite proper effort. The detail was published anyway. It may not
have seemed like a big deal, but I think it was.
To be clear, I don't necessarily disbelieve the idea that there were "illicit" contacts between Trump and Russians in early 2015
or before. But if there were such contacts, I can't think of any legitimate reason why their nature should be withheld from the public.
If authorities can share reasons for concern with foreign countries like Israel, why should American voters not be so entitled?
Moreover the idea that we need to keep things secret to protect sources and methods and "tradecraft" (half the press corps became
expert in goofy spy language over the last few years, using terms like "SIGINT" like they've known them their whole lives), why are
we
leaking news of our ability to hear Russian officials cheerin g Trump's win?
Failure to ask follow-up questions happened constantly with this story. One of the first reports that went sideways involved a
similar dynamic: the contention that some leaked DNC emails were forgeries.
MSNBC's "Intelligence commentator" Malcolm Nance, perhaps the most enthusiastic source of questionable #Russiagate news this side
of Twitter conspiracist Louise Mensch,
tweeted on October 11, 2016: " #PodestaEmails
are already proving to be riddled with obvious forgeries &
#blackpropaganda not even professionally done."
As noted in The Intercept and elsewhere, this was re-reported by the likes of
David Frum (a key member of the club that has now contributed to both the WMD and Russiagate panics) and MSNBC host
Joy Reid . The reports didn't stop until roughly October of 2016, among other things because the Clinton campaign kept suggesting
to reporters the emails were fake. This could have been stopped sooner if examples of a forgery had been demanded from the Clinton
campaign earlier.
Another painful practice that became common was failing to confront your own sources when news dispositive to what they've told
you pops up. The omnipresent Clapper told Chuck Todd on March 5, 2017, without equivocation, that there had been no FISA application
involving Trump or his campaign. " I can deny it ," he
said.
It soon after came out this wasn't true. The FBI had a FISA warrant on Carter Page. This was not a small misstatement by Clapper,
because his appearance came a day after Trump claimed in a tweet he'd had his "
wires tapped ." Trump was widely ridiculed for this claim, perhaps appropriately so, but in addition to the Page news, it later
came out there had been a FISA warrant of Paul Manafort as well, during which time Trump may have been the subject of "
incidental " surveillance.
Whether or not this was meaningful, or whether these warrants were justified, are separate questions. The important thing is,
Clapper either lied to Todd, or else he somehow didn't know the FBI had obtained these warrants. The latter seems absurd and unlikely.
Either way, Todd ought to been peeved and demanded an explanation. Instead, he had
Clapper back on again within months and gave him the usual softball routine, never confronting him about the issue.
Reporters repeatedly got burned and didn't squawk about it. Where are the outraged stories about all the scads of anonymous "people
familiar with the matter" who put reporters in awkward spots in the last years? Why isn't McClatchy demanding the heads of whatever
"four people with knowledge" convinced them to
double down on the Cohen-in-Prague story ?
Why isn't every reporter who used "New Knowledge" as a source about salacious
Russian troll stories
out for their heads (or the heads of the congressional sources who passed this stuff on), after reports they faked Russian trolling?
How is it possible NBC and other outlets continued to use
New Knowledge as a source in stories identifying antiwar Democrat Tulsi Gabbard as a Russian-backed candidate?
How do the Guardian's editors not already have Harding's head in a vice for hanging them out to dry on the most
dubious un-retracted story in modern history – the tale that the most watched human on earth, Julian Assange, had somehow been
visited in the Ecuadorian embassy by Paul Manafort without leaving any record? I'd be dragging Harding's "well placed source" into
the office and beating him with a hose until he handed them something that would pass for corroborating evidence.
The lack of blowback over episodes in which reporters were put in public compromised situations speaks to the overly cozy relationships
outlets had with official sources. Too often, it felt like a team effort, where reporters seemed to think it was their duty to take
the weight if sources pushed them to overreach. They had absolutely no sense of institutional self-esteem about this.
Being on any team is a bad look for the press, but the press being on team FBI/CIA is an atrocity, Trump or no Trump. Why bother
having a press corps at all if you're going to go that route?
This posture all been couched as anti-Trump solidarity, but really, did former CIA chief John Brennan – the same Brennan who should
himself have faced charges for
lying to congress about hacking the computers of Senate staff – need the press to
whine on his behalf when Trump yanked his security clearance? Did we need the press to hum Aretha Franklin tunes, as ABC did,
and chide Trump for lacking
R-E-S-P-E-C-T for the CIA? We don't have better things to do than that "work"?
This catalogue of factual errors and slavish stenography will stand out when future analysts look back at why the "MSM" became
a joke during this period, but they were only a symptom of a larger problem. The bigger issue was a radical change in approach.
A lot of #Russiagate coverage became straight-up conspiracy theory, what Baker politely called "connecting the dots ." This was
allowed because the press committed to a collusion narrative from the start, giving everyone cover to indulge in behaviors that would
never be permitted in normal times.
Such was the case with Jonathan
Chait's #Russiagate opus , "PRUMP TUTIN: Will Trump be Meeting With his Counterpart – or his Handler?" The story was also pitched
as "What if Trump has been a Russian asset since 1987," which recalls the joke from The Wire: "
Yo, Herc, what if your mother and father never met ?" What
if isn't a good place to be in this business.
This cover story (!) in New York magazine was released in advance of a planned "face-to-face" summit between Trump and Putin,
and posited Trump had been under Russian control for decades. Chait noted Trump visited the Soviet Union in 1987 and came back "fired
up with political ambition." He offered the possibility that this was a coincidence, but added:
Indeed, it seems slightly insane to contemplate the possibility that a secret relationship between Trump and Russia dates back
this far. But it can't be dismissed completely.
I searched the Chait article up and down for reporting that would justify the suggestion Trump had been a Russian agent dating
back to the late eighties, when, not that it matters, Russia was a different country called the Soviet Union.
Only two facts in the piece could conceivably have been used to support the thesis: Trump met with a visiting Soviet official
in 1986, and visited the Soviet Union in 1987. That's it. That's your cover story.
Worse, Chait's theory was first espoused in Lyndon Larouche's "
Elephants and Donkeys " newsletter
in 1987, under a headline, "Do Russians have a Trump card?" This is barrel-scraping writ large.
It's a mania. Putin is literally in our underpants. Maybe, if we're lucky, New York might someday admit
its report claiming Russians set up an anti-masturbation hotline to trap and blackmail random Americans is suspicious, not just
because it seems absurd on its face, but because its source is the same "New Knowledge" group that admitted to faking Russian influence
operations in Alabama.
This ultimately will be the endgame of the Russia charade. They will almost certainly never find anything like the wild charges
and Manchurian Candidate theories elucidated in the Steele report. But the years of panic over the events of 2016 will lead to radical
changes in everything from press regulation to foreign policy, just as the WMD canard led to torture, warrantless surveillance, rendition,
drone assassination, secret budgets and open-ended, undeclared wars from Somalia to Niger to Syria. The screw-ups will be forgotten,
but accelerated vigilance will remain.
It's hard to know what policy changes are appropriate because the reporting on everything involving the Russian threat in the
last two to three years has been so unreliable.
I didn't really address the case that Russia hacked the DNC, content to stipulate it for now. I was told early on that this piece
of the story seemed "solid," but even that assertion has remained un-bolstered since then, still based on an "
assessment " by the intelligence services that
always had issues, including the use of things like RT's "anti-American" coverage of fracking as part of its case. The government
didn't even examine the DNC's server, the kind of detail that used to make reporters nervous.
We won't know how much of any of this to take seriously until the press gets out of bed with the security services and looks at
this whole series of events all over again with fresh eyes, as journalists, not political actors. That means being open to asking
what went wrong with this story, in addition to focusing so much energy on Trump and Russia.
The WMD mess had massive real-world negative impact, leading to over a hundred thousand deaths and trillions in lost taxpayer
dollars. Unless Russiagate leads to a nuclear conflict, we're unlikely to ever see that level of consequence.
Still, Russiagate has led to unprecedented cooperation between the government and Internet platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and
Google, all of which are censoring pages on the left, right, and in between in the name of preventing the "sowing of discord." The
story also had a profound impact on the situation in places like Syria, where Russian and American troops have sat across the Euphrates
River from one another, two amped-up nuclear powers at a crossroads.
As a purely journalistic failure, however, WMD was a pimple compared to Russiagate. The sheer scale of the errors and exaggerations
this time around dwarfs the last mess. Worse, it's led to most journalists accepting a radical change in mission. We've become sides-choosers,
obliterating the concept of the press as an independent institution whose primary role is sorting fact and fiction.
We had the sense to eventually look inward a little in the WMD affair, which is the only reason we escaped that episode with any
audience left. Is the press even capable of that kind of self-awareness now? WMD damaged our reputation. If we don't turn things
around, this story will destroy it
Taibbi is spot on, and in depth with this writing. The main stream media sold Americans on the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Almost 2 decades later, we have spent 6 trillion dollars, 8 millions lives have been lost, and millions of refugees have flooded
out of those countries, causing instability in Europe and beyond. For the past 2 years, 24/7, we have not been able to escape
the claims of Russiagate. He does not mention how the very same media gave Trump 24/7 coverage long before he was elected, and
in fact this free publicity, is probably why Trump is in the White House today. Without the constant press coverage of his campaign,
coverage that was not provided to other candidates, he would most likely not have found his way to the White House. Taibbi does
not go on to tell us what the motivation of the press is, or what he thinks can be done. News shows in the US have become little
more than entertainment. Many of us no longer rely on main stream press for any real news. The mass media has become irrelevant
at it's best, and dangerous, at it's worst. The driving force behind the so called news today, is the advertising dollars, and
the politics of the owners of the networks. How can we have a "free press" when just a few individuals own all the major news
outlets? We are not going to get the real news on tv of from the big newspapers, as long as the power is in the hands of a few
rich and powerful individuals, who decide what is news.
"Fools rush in where angels fear to tread" - Alexander Pope
The rash or inexperienced will attempt things that wiser people are more cautious of.
Finally the libs will agree that guns do have their place in society. These crazy zealots may just blow their own brains out
or just find the nearest cliff. Ace Hardware is loading up on rope.
hmmm....just imagine if - sleyers money contribution fo impeach trump was turned into a movie where a "sponsor" drew up a hit
list of batshit crazy MSM "personalities" to include late night "comfuckedupedians"
Even if you were stupid enough to believe Trump was getting dirt on Hillary from the Russians, what is wrong with that? Is
there a law against that? Why is it OK for Obama and the FBI to get away with wiretapping Trump during the election? Why is it
OK for NSA to wiretap All Americans and store all their conversations and internet traffic on hard drives?
Steele, Orbis, Pablo Miller, Salisbury, Porton Down, golden-shower dossier supposedly written by a native Russian speaker with
an intelligence background....it all makes me wonder what happened to Skripal.
"Skripalgate" is suppressed by UK law. All russians are evil in the UK. The fact that (as with tony Bliar and yellowcake Iraq)
any sitting government can prosecute another country without a trial, witnesses or evidence - as in the Skripals and within the
FUKUS cabal that bombed syria because of - "chlorine barrel bomb attacks on civilians" who later showed up unscathed in Den Haag.
UK governments cannot be held to account for their actions domestically or overseas.
Both parties have been playing up the threat from Russia for decades. The Military Industrial Complex was built on creating
fear about the possibility of war with Russian. The military industrial complex owns Congress, so of course Congress is going
to play up this threat. " The reason why media is working so hard to create the impression that Russia is actively conspiring
against is because conflict with the former Soviet Union is good for business." We can expect this to continue in one form or
another. If Americans were not afraid of Russia, we would not support a defense budget that is equal to all other countries in
the world combined.
Right. The depth of your analysis is impressive. You seem to have an unlimited knowledge of world and national affairs too.
Other than some stalking tendencies, why do you post on ZH? You don't really seem to have any interest in the content, or the
discussion.
I dont want to type up everything that led me to believe this. But the racism, his empathy towards certain muslims groups and
how he treated the war, the prisoner release, the sailors broadcasted on tv about drifting into territorial waters, I mean it
was so obvious how he felt about America.
Pile on his efforts to interfere in the election and eavesdrop, unmasking with Hillary getting and receiving emails from her
home brew server not to mention her foundation pulling in 145 million from Russia.
The CIA is sickening to what has developed over the last 20 years
Blind: If so, it just means it will not be reported on in the MainStream Media(MSM) and soon forgotten.
The same people who own the private central bank and currency, also own the MSM, and they control the narrative on ALL TOPICS.
And control of narrative mean control of what people think.
Control of money and mind means TOTAL control of a country.
Nothing will change until control of minds is returned to the people, then issuance of currency can be returned to the government.
Alex Jones' of Infowars got it right when he said "There's a war on for your mind!" ... even though he became a turncoat himself,
soon after.
Hillary lost a freaking election. After almost 3 freaking years of coup d'état the left deserves mocking humiliation. Mock
them ruthlessly. Never, ever let them forget the horrible thing that they did.
Never stop making fun of them and reminding them how stupid and crazy they acted during this humiliating period of US history.
Never let them forget what they did to the nation or what they cost us all. Never let Democrats forget how much time and energy
they wasted, how very, very wrong they were.
Every politician, every media figure, every Twitter pundit and everyone who swallowed this moronic load of Russia! Russia!
Russia! has utterly discredited themselves for life. They executed and failed to accomplish a coup d'état. These are the very
last people anyone should ever listen to ever again when determining the future direction of our world or an ice cream truck.
Refuse them, laugh at them, ignore them. They earned it and deserve nothing but the greatest disdain.
Without Russia, ASSAD would be long gone and IRAN would have been bombed to oblivion, and Greater Israhell would have been
fulfilled and ruling over the MidEast.
There was never real gray area here. Either Trump is a compromised foreign agent, or he isn't.
Of course there isn't. But this doesn't mean that a prosecutor like Mueller can prove this beyond any reasonable doubt. In
fact it is quite likely that he cannot. The only charge that should be fairly easy to establish is obstruction of justice.
Without knowing what is in the report, Taibbi really jumps the gun here. Especially given the comparison to WMDs.
I knew there were no WMDs in Iraq before the invasion because I followed, and chose to believe, a credible diplomat like Hans
Blix over the dog and pony show that Colin Powell put on. But WMDs are very tangible you either find the hardware or you do not.
Yet, what Putin and Trump discuss without a single other American in the room nobody knows but the Kremlin and Trump.
"It has been people, individuals who have banded together, ordinary people who simply saw what needed to be done and came
together and supported those ideals who have made the difference.
They've marched, they've bled and yes, some of them died. This is hard. Every good thing is. We have done this before. We
can do this again ."
Hardly the call for violent civil war at which it has been portrayed.
The most coiffed, manicured, made up sacks of **** ever to glorify the airwaves tell US what THEY think and get paid handsome
salaries for their effort to overthrow the American system. Freedom of Speech? That'll be gone in a heartbeat if THEY get power.
We have an obligation to not just protect it but a greater one to preserve it.
"I didn't really address the case that Russia hacked the DNC, content to stipulate it for now." - exce
The State Department paused its investigation of the Secretary's emails so as not to interfere with the Mueller investigation.
Here we see Taibbi writes an exhaustive condemnation of the Western press while leaving out the very crux of the story, the very
source of the stolen DNC emails was Clapper and Brennan pretending to be Guccifer 2.0.
Pitiful attempt at redemption there Matt. Seriously, go **** your self.
"After reading several articles, it seemed clear that key difficulties for Russians communicating in English include: definite
and indefinite articles, the use of presuppositions and correct usage of say/tell and said/told. Throughout 2017, I
constructed a corpus of Guccifer 2.0's communications
and analyzed the frequency of different types of mistakes. The
results of this work
corroborate Professor Connolly's assessment.
Overall, it appears Guccifer 2.0 could communicate in English quite well but chose to use inconsistently broken English at
times in order to give the impression that it wasn't his primary language. The manner in which Guccifer 2.0's English was broken,
did not follow the typical errors one would expect if Guccifer 2.0's first language was Russian.
To date, Connolly's language study has not drawn any significant objections or criticism."
Here's the goddam thing IMO. There is this thing called freedom of the press, it's constitutionally protected, no different
than the right to bear arms.
But just because I have the right to carry an M+A 9mm around, that doesn't mean I can point it at the guy who cut me off in
traffic. In that case, I go to jail.
For almost three years now, I've been hearing "bombshell" after unsourced "bombshell" from CNN/MSNBC/WaPo/NPR/NYT et. al. Here's
how it usually goes:
"NPR has been unable to independently confirm, but other major news organizations are reporting that . . ."
"CNN is working to confirm a bombshell report from the Washington Post . . ."
"The New York Times, echoing other major news outlets, is reporting that . . ."
And now let's turn to our panel of experts to "unpack" this latest revelation . . .
These people have criminally abused their rights, and those rights need to be taken away.
Otschelnik,
If Rachel Maddow, Chris Mathews, Judy Woodruff, Chuck Todd, Anderson Cooper, Brian Stelter, Chris Hayes, Mika Brzezinski,
Don Lemon, Alysin Camerota, Lawrence O'Donnell had the slightest inkling of professional integrity, and human conscience -
they'd commit seppuku on national live TeeVee to restore their honor.
A rope leash, 3 hours ago
In his effort to cleanse himself of the slimy residue of his profession, Tiabbi has written a fine piece here, a nice
little documentation of press collusion with government spooks and political operatives.
If a little honest reporting will offer some redemption to damned journalists, his name was Seth Rich.
hooligan2009, 3 hours ago
don't forget that Obama was PERSONALLY and DIRECTLY involved in all aspects of Russiagate.
read between these lines
On Oct. 14, 2016, Page again wrote to McCabe, this time concerning a meeting with the White House.
"Just called," Page said to McCabe. "Apparently the DAG [Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates] now wants to be there,
and WH wants DOJ to host. So we are setting that up now. ... We will very much need to get Cohen's view before we meet with
her. Better, have him weigh in with her before the meeting. We need to speak with one voice, if that is in fact the case."
newworldorder, 3 hours ago
The simple truth here is that most Americans no longer have any critical thinking skills, - all media realized this a long
time ago, and catered to their audience.
The Benjamin Franklin famous quote in answer to the question of "what kind of government have you given us?" rings very hollow
after 240+ years. The "Republic" exists in name only, because its people have not protected it, after the passing of the WW2
generation.
Unrestricted, open borders invasion disguised as alleged migration, and the legalization of an eventual 100+ million new
"migrant" voters will be the final nail on the coffin of the US Republic by 2030.
Mob rule will finally destroy the greatest Republic ever conceived by the mind of men.
Mike Rotsch, 3 hours ago (Edited)
If "open borders" is your measuring stick on Americans' critical-thinking skills, then where does that place Europeans?
They actually have them officially.
Paracelsus, 3 hours ago
Someday I hope that Hillary has to be rolled up to testify about the Benghazi business. Grab the guns and the gold (and
the oil). Ukraine gold: check. Libyan gold and weapons: check.
Ghaddafi actually warned the west that after him would come a deluge of illegals (okay refugees: young males, black, often
Islamic, with little respect for women or experience with western society).
While I have reservations about Trump and his policies, the MSM owe him a huge mea culpa.
"... The bent cops at the FBI and the madmen like Brennan, Clapper and Comey, who treacherously used the government's forces against the Constitution, must be punished so severely as to make an example that will dissuade other midgets on horseback from making similar attempts to overturn the results of elections. ..."
"... At the bottom of the cauldron overflowing with political misdeeds shines the face of Hillary Clinton and the army of clever people who ran her 2016 campaign. They devised the clever, clever idea of creating the Steele Dossier in cahoots with Washington co-conspirators and the even more clever idea of marketing it back into the US political bloodstream through British intelligence channels by feeding it to the erratic and spiteful senator from Arizona whose staff peddled it all over Washington and New York. There must be retribution for this. ..."
"... I would be most interested if one of the legally competent members of this Committee – Robert Willman perhaps? – could give us us an idea of what charges could be leveled against Christopher Steele under U.S. law in relation to his clearly central role in this conspiracy. ..."
"... It also seems reasonably clear that he was not acting in isolation, and that there is a strong 'prima facie' case that senior figures in the British 'intelligence community' – notably Robert Hannigan and probably Sir Richard Dearlove – were involved, in which case the complicity is likely to have gone very much further. ..."
"... They devised the clever, clever idea of creating the Steele Dossier in cahoots with Washington co-conspirators and the even more clever of marketing it back into the US political bloodstream through British intelligence channels, by feeding it to the erratic and spiteful senator from Arizona whose staff peddled it all over Washington and New York. ..."
"... Both sides were furiously engaged in throwing mud at each other. Situation normal. Then an odd thing happens. A particularly foolish piece of mud comes along. All that Golden Showers nonsense. Regard that as normal if we please. I expect worse comes along sometimes. Then it turns out that that piece of mud comes from an Intelligence source. Situation no longer normal. ..."
"... The coup may be over, but the witch hunt will continue; ..."
"... Col. Lang is absolutely correct that those involved in attempting to reverse the results of the 2016 election, de-legitimize an elected president, and remove him should be thoroughly pursued through all avenues and procedures of the civil and criminal law. ..."
"... It's a dirty business. If half this stuff is true, and not just layers of increasingly unbelievable cover stories (I mean, a tangential example, is the whole Skripal thing a weirdly, too obviously fake cover show for what was in reality a "witness protection" operation? A witness who could and would reveal much? On this matter even, perhaps. Such obvious deceptions are harmful to respect for authority and the law.) ..."
There were no major disagreements between Mueller and his managers at the U.S. Department of
Justice (DOJ).
The Russians who tried to interfere in the 2016 election were exposed and charged -- but no
American was charged with any effort to conspire with Moscow and hijack the election.
the "Steele dossier" that was the main FISA evidence was paid for with funds
from Hillary Clinton
's campaign and the Democratic Party;
Christopher Steele, the dossier's author, had told a senior DOJ official he was desperate to
defeat Trump;
most of the dossier was not verified before it was used as evidence of alleged Trump-Russia
collusion; and
agents collected statements from key defendants such as Papadopoulos and Carter Page during
interactions with an FBI informant that strongly suggested their innocence.
Such omissions are so glaring as to constitute defrauding a federal court. And each and
every participant to those omissions needs to be brought to justice.
An upcoming DOJ inspector general's report should trigger the beginning of that
accountability in a court of law, and President Trump can assist the effort by declassifying
all evidence of wrongdoing by FBI, CIA and DOJ officials. " The Hill
------------
Pilgrims, the seditious conspiracy to depose the elected president of the United States for
conspiracy to commit treason with the Government of the Russian Federation has been
defeated.
The bent cops at the FBI and the madmen like Brennan, Clapper and Comey, who treacherously
used the government's forces against the Constitution, must be punished so severely as to make
an example that will dissuade other midgets on horseback from making similar attempts to
overturn the results of elections.
At the bottom of the cauldron overflowing with political misdeeds shines the face of Hillary
Clinton and the army of clever people who ran her 2016 campaign. They devised the clever,
clever idea of creating the Steele Dossier in cahoots with Washington co-conspirators and the
even more clever idea of marketing it back into the US political bloodstream through British
intelligence channels by feeding it to the erratic and spiteful senator from Arizona whose
staff peddled it all over Washington and New York. There must be retribution for this.
The leftist press is already discounting the results of Mueller's investigation while
gloating over how long the Democratic held House of Representatives can continue to search
through Trump's life trying to find criminality.
AG Barr should stand Mueller up next to him at a press conference to make clear the results
of his report and to answer questions about it. After that the prosecutions should begin.
pl
I would be most interested if one of the legally competent members of this Committee –
Robert Willman perhaps? – could give us us an idea of what charges could be leveled
against Christopher Steele under U.S. law in relation to his clearly central role in this
conspiracy.
It also seems reasonably clear that he was not acting in isolation, and that there is a
strong 'prima facie' case that senior figures in the British 'intelligence community' –
notably Robert Hannigan and probably Sir Richard Dearlove – were involved, in which
case the complicity is likely to have gone very much further.
The argument that declassification of relevant documentation would harm the intelligence
relationship between the U.S. and U.K. has clearly been made with great emphasis from this
side.
In fact, it is pure bollocks. A serious investigation on your side, which could lead to
the kind of clean-out which should have happened when the scale of the corruption of
intelligence in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq became clear, might pave the way for us
to reconstruct reasonably functional intelligence services.
Doing this on both sides of the Atlantic might pave the way for a reconstruction of an
intelligence relationship which was actually beneficial to both countries, as in recent years
it patently has not been.
Whether there is a realistic prospect of people on your side opening the cans of worms on
ours, as well as your own, of course remains a moot point.
I'm glad the Steele affair has been examined at the American end -
"They devised the clever, clever idea of creating the Steele Dossier in cahoots with
Washington co-conspirators and the even more clever of marketing it back into the US
political bloodstream through British intelligence channels, by feeding it to the erratic and
spiteful senator from Arizona whose staff peddled it all over Washington and New York.
"
What about the UK end? We're fussing over some little local difficulties in the UK at the
moment and at our end the questions still remain - Who in the UK authorised it and how high did it go?
The problem with criminal prosecution is one must cite a Brit or US law which was violated.
The only ones in US law that I am aware of stipulate that the plotting must be by means of
violence, "by force". All this appears to me to be only the propagation of rumors.
I think it might be more the investigation of the propagation of rumours. Think back to that election campaign, and to the period before the inauguration.
Both sides were furiously engaged in throwing mud at each other. Situation normal. Then an
odd thing happens. A particularly foolish piece of mud comes along. All that Golden Showers
nonsense. Regard that as normal if we please. I expect worse comes along sometimes. Then it
turns out that that piece of mud comes from an Intelligence source. Situation no longer normal.
With respect it is not propagating rumours to ask how that happened. As for my own
interest in the affair, it is not propagating rumours to ask how a senior UK ex-Intelligence
Officer comes to be mixed up in it all. I suppose I started to look on it as rather more than a prank or a few cogs slipping when
that senior UK ex-Intelligence Officer got whisked away to a safe house. We're a penny
pinching lot over here and we don't run to that sort of thing for nothing.
An investigation could certainly be predicated on the reasonable suspicion that Steele, et
al, conspired to defraud the United States, in this case a purposeful and knowing smear of a
candidate for office; also, another potential violation could be lying to the FBI, T 18 USC
1001.
The problem, as I see it, is sorting out the malignant from the merely incompetent. As I've
argued many times, the dossier should have been dismissed from the outset as a pile of
garbage, empty of actionable content, because the ultimate sources could not be vetted: the
information could not be said to be either credible or reliable. The information was acted on
by screening it behind the reliabilty and credibility, so called, of Steele. So it would be
necessary to show that Steele knew that the information, point by point, was false. This
could be difficult. Steele's first line of defense would be that he threw everything that he
heard from anyone at all into the mix in the expectation that the "professionals" would
figure it out.
Yes, they were all partisan, Steele, his sources, his bosses, the so called
professionals, and their partisanship would be easy to prove; and yes, almost assuredly their
partisanship contributed, perhaps even explained, their defective judgement as to how to
handle the scurrilous information, especially on the part of the so called professionals, but
proving they actually knew the materials to be false would be difficult.
They couldn't know
that it was false because they had no ability to run down the sources. The professionals
would defend themselves by saying they had no ability to vet the sources but the information
represented such a serious security threat that they had no alternative but to try to vet the
information by launching the investigation against the targets. This puts the cart before the
horse, represents an astonishing lack of judgement, especially considering the "exalted"
positions in the Intel Community the people exercising the bad judgement occupied, but there
it is - "we thought we were doing the right thing."
Perhaps this defense could be overcome by
demonstrating that people at such high and important heights of government could not possible
be so stupid... maybe.
And of course we have the orchestrated leaks to various media, the orchestrated unmaskings,
all of which kept the media frenzy fired up. All in all, it was the greatest political dirty
trick ever attempted in American Politics, and did devastating damage to both domestic
tranquility and national security. Trump survived, but the damage done is incalculable.
So It pains me greatly to think that the reckoning will likely have to be political rather
than criminal because the malice that can be demonstrated is so admixed and even overshadowed
by incompetence and judgement flaws; and even a political reckoning given the state of the
country is so uncertain.
I hope that I am wrong and that some kind of prosecution can be fashioned because of the
sheer enormity of violence that was done to our electoral system, surpassing by far the
chickenshit case Mueller brought against the Russian troll farm; but I fear that I am right.
It hurts to think that so much damage can be caused by scheming little political weasels and
that they all may well walk away scot free; and even be lionized by their political confreres
as having tried to do the right thing. This is the state of American politics today!!!
I see that some of the midgets on horseback are saying that they will bring Mueller before
congress to explain himself. Their knight in shining armor has failed to return with the holy
grail. A couple even suggested that perhaps Mueller has been influenced by the Russians or
somehow intimated by Trump.
The coup may be over, but the witch hunt will continue;
and that
+ all the crazy Marxism (social and economic), bad immigration policy and Green New Deal is
going to doom the Democrats in 2020. They look like they are jumping off a final sake fueled
banzai charge. Maybe they think the best defense is a good offense re; the prosecutions that
should happen. What is the chance that Mueller will pass *all* he has learned to help get the
criminal cases under way?
On 13 July 2018, when announcing the indictment of 12 Russian military officers by the
Mueller group for "conspiring to interfere" in the 2016 presidential election, Deputy
Attorney General Rod Rosenstein admitted that no "interference" actually happened. In this
video of his announcement, starting at 5 minutes, 52 seconds into it and ending at the 6
minute, 5 second mark, he says--
"There is no allegation in this indictment that any American citizen committed a crime.
There is no allegation that the conspiracy changed the vote count or affected any election
result."
Col. Lang is absolutely correct that those involved in attempting to reverse the results
of the 2016 election, de-legitimize an elected president, and remove him should be thoroughly
pursued through all avenues and procedures of the civil and criminal law.
However, I am concerned that the new attorney general, William Barr, will not do so based
on his past associations and work. I hope I am wrong about that, but I am not optimistic.
It's a dirty business. If half this stuff is true, and not just layers of increasingly
unbelievable cover stories (I mean, a tangential example, is the whole Skripal thing a
weirdly, too obviously fake cover show for what was in reality a "witness protection"
operation? A witness who could and would reveal much? On this matter even, perhaps. Such
obvious deceptions are harmful to respect for authority and the law.)
I'm wrestling with the idea that 'twas ever thus and now with the internet its workings
are revealed to a "lay" audience with no connection to the dark arts of the spy business. But
I am curious, with the good Colonel's indulgence, if the new tools of the trade have made
things which should be secret not possible to be kept secret?
Amen to the prosecutions. If there is seen to be no accountability for this fraud then we are
seriously damaging what's left of democracy. Who, in their right mind, is going to publicly
support and assist a political candidate who is not "Swamp approved" if they face the threat
of thereby triggering their own, and their family's destruction by the judicial system?
I suggest that even a pardon is not enough for those entrapped in this mess. There needs
to be restitution.
To put that another way, in my opinion, "birther" allegations could be passed off as
political tactics. Nobody got hurt. It is just good luck that Russiagate hasn't resulted in
suicide or worse - so far.
I certainly agree that consequences must be brought to bear: lying politicians without a
shred of evidence, nor did they offer any for their lies; press for their utter and complete
malfeasance and corruption without a shred of evidence, the doj/fbi corrupted and coup
plotting officials,and finally the shame to all who shrieked about "evil" putin, russia the
aggressor, etc. It has set our discourse back decades, forced any critics of this insanity
into the shadows, and completely killed any attempt at normal diplomacy between nations.
I noted one astute writer as equating this russiagate insanity to the lies surrounding wmd
and the destruction of iraq. Close. The damage from this criminality is incalculable!
Will the shrillest of all in the press lose their jobs? Nah, not a chance. Prob get raise
or promotion.Will the brennans, clintons, clappers, et al do the perp walk. Nah, not a
chance. High paid lawyers will tie the courts up for years if not decades.
And america has the institutional memory of a gnat. And of course, the question is as to
high up did this criminality go? I personally do not believe it is a question-it is obvious
to me. The major question for me is how high up the prosecution, if any, will go.
Problem is...who's going to do the prosecuting?
The DOJ - protector of the swamp - has become thoroughly corrupted as an arm of the
Democrat-media party.
Should (can) Trump appoint a special prosecutor as far as possible from the DOJ?
The president might use this and any Republican-led prosecutions as leverage to work out
deals that will allow him to achieve his agenda. I think he'll need to given how the
Democrats intend to use their house majority to launch investigations and hearings to find
something, anything to howl about and impede his agenda.
Still need to see the full report. I hope it is releasable. Otherwise the conspiracy theories
or leaks will never let up. The article cited is a partisan opinion piece, not a news report.
It accepts the fallback stance that yes, crimes were committed but collusion by Trump was not
among them. This actually seems possible if only in light of the chaotic condition of the
campaign.
That said, I would not be surprised to find collusion discounted. Not that the Russians
didn't interfere. That would be entirely in character. But I don't know any reason for
supposing that they would have a better understanding of American political dynamics than the
Americans who make good livings being the best in that arena. The Russians seem to have been
doing the same things as numerous other players. They shouldn't have been in that game, but
there is no strong reason for according them Superman status. Their strongest feature seems
to have been sheer quantity. Outrage over their actions often seems to flow from a poor grasp
of the real nature of normal political process.
"The Russians seem to have been doing the same things..."
Multiple members of the FBI and DOJ seem to have been interfering in the 2016 Presidential
election. How many other federal and state elections did they interfere with?
Can you cite a single piece of hard evidence, not simply allegation, that proves the Russians
interfered in the 2016 election? If so, please cite it, since I know of none. Thank you.
"... No one says Trump is a saint. But the deep state wanted to cover its tracks. Dems and deep state hated that their preferred candidate didn't win. They ended up achieving their goal of delegitimizing 2016 and distracting the country for 2 years. ..."
"... They tried to delegitimize the 2016 Election but failed to do so. ..."
The Mueller investigation is complete and this is a simple fact that will never go away: not one single American was charged,
indicted or convicted for conspiring with Russia to influence the 2016 election - not even a low-level volunteer. The number is zero.
Compare what cable hosts (let's leave them unnamed) & Democratic operatives spent two years claiming this would lead to - the
imprisonment of Don, Jr., Jared, even Trump on conspiracy-with-Russia charges - to what it actually produced. A huge media reckoning
is owed.
Don't even try to pretend the point of the Mueller investigation from the start wasn't to obtain prosecutions of Americans guilty
of conspiring with Russia to influence the outcome of the election or that Putin controlled Trump through blackmail. Nobody will
believe your denials.
Are we now ready to rid ourselves of the thrilling espionage fantasy that Trump is controlled by Putin and the Kremlin using blackmail?
There's no way Robert Mueller would have gone 18 months without telling anyone about this if it were true, right? How could that
be justified?
Perhaps now we can focus on the actually consequential actions the Trump administration is taking and finally move past the deranged
conspiracy theories that have drowned US discourse for 2+ years. A side benefit will be not ratcheting up tension between 2 nuclear-armed
powers.
Giving up these exciting conspiracy theories about international blackmail & convening panels to decipher all the genius hidden
maneuvers of Mueller will be bad for cable ratings, book sales & the Patreon accounts of online charlatans. But it'll be very healthy
in all other ways.
The desperate attempts to salvage something from this debacle by the Mueller dead-enders are just sad. Yes, the public hasn't
read the Mueller report. But we *know* he ended his investigation without indicting a single American for conspiring with Russia
to influence the election
Trump, Jr. testified for hours and hours before Congress, including about the Trump Tower meeting. If he lied there, or to Mueller,
why didn't Mueller indict him for perjury, lying to Congress or obstruction? Same questions for Kushner. Stop embarrassing yourselves.
If Mueller found evidence that Putin controls Trump & forces him to act against US interests & in favor of Russia - not just with
a pee-pee tape but with financial blackmail - what could possibly justify keeping that a secret through the end of the investigation?
It's ludicrous.
US discourse has been drowned for 2+ years with conspiratorial, unhinged, but highly inflammatory and unhinged idiocy - playing
games with two nuclear-armed powers because of anger over the 2016 election. It's time to stop. Mueller ended his work. We see the
public indictments.
So many in the media devoted endless airtime & print & pixels misleading people to believe Mueller was coming to arrest & prosecute
Trump, Jr, Kushner & so many others for conspiring with Russia over the election & obstruction. None of that happened. You can't
pretend it away.
They was never the point. No one says Trump is a saint. But the deep state wanted to cover its tracks. Dems and deep state hated
that their preferred candidate didn't win. They ended up achieving their goal of delegitimizing 2016 and distracting the country
for 2 years.
Credibility of the US government and Justice system was greatly undermined, if not destroyed
by the Russiagate. Inability to investigate more plausible election interference by British an,
Saudi and Israeli actors by Mueller paints him as a despicable political operative working for
Clintons, not an independent Prosecutor, who diligently investigate the foreign interference in
elections.
The role of Rosenstein is the role of co-conspirator in a plot to deprive Trump of the
Presidency or, at least, for force him to pursue the Deep State foreign policy, which is totally
bankrupt policy. And they succeeded in this. Trump wet kiss with neocons was probably the part of
the deal.
Notable quotes:
"... When even Trump who was the victim of the machinations cares only to tweet witch hunt, why would anyone expect that any of those involved in the attempted "coup" would be held to account? ..."
"... I wondered about that myself. When I was doing clan work in Europe, recruiting UK citizens was absolutely forbidden. I needed special dispensation from Bonn Station to not declare my Russian assets to the Brits when they merely traveled to the UK. I think Steele's relationship with the FBI was not as a standard recruited asset or informer. It was a business contract. An article from a year ago sheds some light on that relationship. The first instance concerns his assistance in the FIFA investigation. ..."
When even Trump who was the victim of the machinations cares only to tweet witch hunt, why
would anyone expect that any of those involved in the attempted "coup" would be held to
account?
No one is going to face any consequences - legal or other. Hell, most of them will make money
from writing books about their "dedicated service." When was the last time the swamp applied
the laws to one of it's own. Answer: never.
The laws are enforced on us - the "deplorables out there," not the swamp creature
"elite." We are not governed, we are ruled.
And sadly that situation is as much the result of an indifferent and ignorant populace as
the behavior of the ruling class.
"One other important sidetone--there has been a longstanding agreement among the 5 Eyes
(i.e., US, UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand) to NOT recruit as assets each other's
spies. Christopher Steele's employ with the FBI violates this policy."
I see Steele's surfacing again. Might I put in a minor query. Does this longstanding
agreement cover retired personnel?
I wondered about that myself. When I was doing clan work in Europe, recruiting UK citizens
was absolutely forbidden. I needed special dispensation from Bonn Station to not declare my
Russian assets to the Brits when they merely traveled to the UK. I think Steele's
relationship with the FBI was not as a standard recruited asset or informer. It was a
business contract. An article from a year ago sheds some light on that relationship. The
first instance concerns his assistance in the FIFA investigation.
"Steele might have been expected to move on once his investigation of the bidding was
concluded. But he had discovered that the corruption at FIFA was global, and he felt that it
should be addressed. The only organization that could handle an investigation of such scope,
he felt, was the F.B.I. In 2011, Steele contacted an American agent he'd met who headed the
Bureau's division for serious crimes in Eurasia. Steele introduced him to his sources, who
proved essential to the ensuing investigation. In 2015, the Justice Department indicted
fourteen people in connection with a hundred and fifty million dollars in bribes and
kickbacks."
The second instance of Steele's cooperation with the FBI even had a peripheral
relationship with Trump. "Several years ago, the FBI hired Steele to help crack an
international gambling and money-laundering ring purportedly run by a suspected Russian
organized-crime figure named Alimzhan Tokhtakhounov. The syndicate was based in an apartment
in Trump Tower. Eventually, federal officials indicted more than thirty co-conspirators for
financial crimes. Tokhtakhounov, though, eluded arrest, becoming a fugitive. Interpol issued
a "red notice" calling for his arrest. But, in the fall of 2013, he showed up at the Miss
Universe contest in Moscow -- and sat near the pageant's owner, Donald Trump."
According to the New Yorker magazine article, it was standard Orbis procedure to warn
authorities about national security threats. Steele warned German authorities about IS
militants using the refugee flow to infiltrate Europe. "When Steele took his suspicions about
Trump to the FBI in the summer of 2016, it was in keeping with Orbis protocol, rather than a
politically driven aberration."
Within the FBI, I'm sure Steele was coded as a source in some way as a standard procedure
to use his information. We did the same with our non-asset sources in DOD. Hell, I was even
coded as an intelligence asset when I was a SMU operative/case officer. This was different
from the reporter number all case officers are given.
Philip Giraldi, on March 13, 2018, has an essay about this New Yorker article: 'Christopher
Steele as seen by the New Yorker. Liberal fantasies beatify the messenger.' This is in the
Unz Review.
www.unz.com/pgiraldi/christ... .
Mayer doesn't mention that Steele was almost certainly identified as MI6 during the
years (possibly 1990-1993) that he was stationed in Moscow under diplomatic cover. Russian
counterintelligence agents broke into his apartment, used the toilet, left it unflushed; they
stole his wife's best shoes. He was definitely identified by 1999 when he was in Paris. There
was a DSMA notice. Too late. Then, in 2006, when Steele is said to have had the Russia desk,
there was the highly embarrassing electronic spy rock in a Moscow park. Surely he held some
responsibility for that? And if Steele was a Russian expert why were his talents being wasted
in Afghanistan?
John Helmer quotes some old intelligence hands who deny that he was a particularly
impressive agent or was deeply knowledgeable about Russia. Steele never went back to Russia
after 1992 or 1993. Mayer, in the New Yorker article, makes no mention of what surely were
setbacks for British intelligence regarding Russia in which Steele likely was playing a large
part.
We've been here before in this discussion. The question remains-- was Steele an unwitting
puppet of a Russian master counterstrike, an aikido throw which has badly shaken and
distracted America? DH, we await your comments. Has TTG gone wobbly?
I'm also fairly certain RIS was aware of Steele's status as an MI6 officer when he was
stationed in Moscow. I would think anyone working out of a diplomatic embassy is first
assumed to be an intelligence officer by the host nation. I stayed away from embassies and
other government facilities just to avoid that taint. The one time I was summoned to an
embassy, I conducted extensive surveillance detection measures both before and after the
visit and I wore a disguise.
It was a normal matter for intelligence officers to be cycled through Afghanistan and Iraq
post 9-11, no matter what their former expertise. I did my turn. CIA's "Russia House" was
bitter about their fall from the pinnacle to be replaced by all things CT during that
time.
Was some of the raw information in Steele's dossier planted by RIS? That's very possible.
Several experienced former US intelligence officers have voiced that possibility, especially
about the more salacious bits of the dossier.
That's a nice piece in the New Yorker. They mention the golden shower episode in Moscow,
however, left out Loretta Lynch. "In was in her role as district attorney that her
involvement in the Fifa investigation began. Over the course of five years in Brooklyn..."
See the BBC article on FIFA from 2015: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-32912118
So did Loretta Lynch talk to Christopher Steele during this case or did Steele just
talk to the FBI agent who was years later in London? When did then US attorney for New York's
Eastern District Lorretta Lynch get informed and by which FBI agent? Who did that agent tell
about the Steele dossier, when did it get to the AG's ears, and when did she tell
Obama?
"On January 5, 2017, it became clear that at least two Washingtonians remained in the dark
about the dossier: the President and the Vice-President. " Oh, apparently AG Lynch never told
Obama, because????????
Another New Yorker Enigma: "Robert Hannigan, then the head of the U.K.'s intelligence
service the G.C.H.Q., had recently flown to Washington and briefed the C.I.A.'s director,
John Brennan, on a stream of illicit communications between Trump's team and Moscow that had
been intercepted. (The content of these intercepts has not become public.) "
So the UK has been spying on US Presidential candidates? Oh, they said they were "illicit"
communications. What does that mean? Who was communicating with Whom? And how did G.C.H.Q.
decide these communications were "illicit" but others, well they'd have to have them all to
make a comparison, wouldn't they? Put a ribbon on top of that one. DId they also intercept
any of Hilary's communications?
Given that Steele played an important role in at least two major FBI investigations
leading to multiple indictments, I would assume Lynch knew about Steele. Whether they ever
conversed, I don't know.
Comey was not at all sure about Lynch's impartiality. It would not surprise me if he kept
details of the Russian investigation, including the dossier, from her. She probably learned
about it shortly before Obama and Trump were briefed on the dossier. Obama knew enough about
the Russian investigation, without the dossier, to warn Putin to knock it off in September
2016.
I don't know if the Brits spied on our Presidential candidates. I wouldn't doubt it. We
bugged Merkel's phone. What I am sure of is that the Brits spy on every Russian of importance
within their capabilities. If Trump's campaign was in contact with those Russians, the Brits
would know about it. They obviously thought those conversations were illicit enough to inform
their US counterparts and reveal that they did monitor members of the Trump campaign. They
wouldn't have done that just for shits and giggles.
"They obviously thought those conversations were illicit enough to inform their US
counterparts and reveal that they did monitor members of the Trump campaign."
They thought it illicit? Listening is one thing, giving information to aid your country's
government's preferred candidate is interference in an election process - ours. How many
times has our ally the UK interfered with US elections? They had plenty of help from the FBI
and DOJ here in the US in 2016. Who elected GCHQ to be arbiters of US elections? I can't
find them in the US Constitution. Using the FBI and DOJ to sabatouge your party's political
opponents, that's third world government standards.
If the Brits wanted to directly influence the election, they would have publicly released
their information about "illicit' contacts. Keeping it within intelligence channels does
nothing to influence an election. I would hope the Brits would never hold back on information
concerning a possible CI threat.
TTG - thank you for your reply above. The picture one gets of Steele is no longer that of
a loose canon who somehow got himself involved in a presidential election campaign. It is
that of an experienced and respected professional working in tandem, if perhaps
unconventionally, with other professionals.
And perhaps thinking that he or his contacts back home had stumbled over important
information showing that a presidential candidate was compromised. That information possibly
being the tip of the iceberg and urgently demanding further investigation.
But that makes what happened all the more unusual -
1. Why didn't the further investigation happen? Surely the fact that such an important
matter wasn't thoroughly investigated, and that using all possible resources in the States
and abroad, shows that it was no serious investigation in the first place?
And more to the point here -
2. If those involved were professionals working away soberly at a necessary investigation,
what were they doing suddenly branching out into a smear campaign?
For none, even the originators of the dossier, are claiming that the more discreditable
part of the Steele dossier is true. That is not Intelligence material. It is sensationalised
smear material.
This objection has been met in part with the claim that the dossier was all raw unsifted
Intelligence and therefore was released as is.
But surely experienced Intelligence professionals don't suddenly pitch raw unsifted
Intelligence into the middle of the political arena while they are supposed to be still
assessing that intelligence?
Irrespective of the question of whether Trump was compromised the question therefore
arises - what were American officials doing running a smear campaign against a presidential
candidate?
Which leads back to the original question. What officials this side of the Atlantic were
also involved, and how high did the authorisation for their involvement go in England.
.
On a matter I'm better informed about, I don't see the Colonel quietly farming away in
Kent. I see him striding across the limitless expanse of a Scottish grouse moor. If our lot
had known their business they'd have worked that into their offer.
The counterintelligence investigation was in progress through the lead up to the 2016
election and is still in progress. Through 2016, it was done in a remarkably quiet fashion.
That's how these investigations are supposed to work. No one hears about them until there is
an arrest or indictment. That's how Mueller is running his investigation. We hear nothing
from him except for the indictments already issued. And they are characteristically slow and
methodical, usually spanning years before an arrest is made.
None of this investigation, including Steele's reporting was used in a pre-election smear
campaign. In my opinion, the reason the Obama administration did not publicize the idea of
Russian interference with the election and possible involvement of Trump campaign officials
is that it would surely have been seen as a partisan smear campaign. The public did not hear
of the Steele dossier until well after the election was over.
It was not just British intelligence involved in collecting on Russian interference in
the election. The Estonians, the Dutch, the Australians and probably others contributed to
the intelligence picture. We may not learn the full extent of that cooperation for many
years. Given the changing nature of information warfare and social media manipulation, I
sincerely wish the full extent of that intelligence is made public quickly. Sure that would
probably also cramp Western media manipulation capabilities, of which we are far from
innocent, but the sunlight would help inoculate all of us against this malignant
phenomenon.
The retirement farm and the big stipend sounds pretty good. I could do without the best club
and the career assistance. Sounds like they appreciated you a lot more than DIA.
DIA made me an SES-4 with presidential rank (Distinguished). Looks like the Brits expected me
to have a lot of access. They claimed these guys were off the reservation. and that they were
not authorized to pitch me.
Off the reservation my ass. I would say those Brits were a bunch of cheeky blokes who did not
do a thorough enough job of assessing your susceptibility to recruitment.
You seem more upset over this than I was. We accepted their false statements of innocence
betrayed by their own and went right on working with them. Why would they try this? Simple.
As we do they wanted to know what we were not telling them. everyone does it. A basic
principle. Recruit your liaison.
You're right. I never worked out of an embassy or in any long term liaison function. If I was
the target of such a pitch, it would have meant that I was blown along with any operations I
was involved with. For me, it would have been life altering.
Thanks for this. I am wondering what Larry Johnson and the other members of this Committee of
Correspondence make of the possible connection between Christopher Steele, Pablo Miller, and
Sergei Skripal?
Some of Craig Murray's speculations in his latest post on the Skripal incident
regarding the coordinated role of Orbis Intelligence, the BBC, and the British state (which
issued a DSMA notice prohibiting press mention of Pablo Miller) are quite plausible. Murray
is, like the members of this committee, a veteran of the game....
Was Skripal coerced/encouraged by Miller to serve as one of Steele's unattributed
Russian "sources"? Did he later get cold feet? Or did he later attempt to buy his way back
into Russia with the claim that he could provide proof that the Dossier was a fraud? Or was
he working as a triple agent the whole time? Were the two sightseeing Russians "Borishov" and
"Petrov" sent to retrieve something from Skripal?
Try this. This theory ties together all the incoherencies of the official explanation better
than anything I have seen. And, I'm pleased to see it is getting reprinted here and
there.
https://michaelantonyblog.w...
I concur. This is the most plausible explanation of what really happened in Salisbury that I
have read so far.
Colonel - might this theory be worth a dedicated SST post? It is 5,000 words, so perhaps
Patrick, David Habakkuk, or another interested member of the committee would be happy to
summarize the salient details (e.g. that Borisov & Petrov intended to return to Russia
with Sergei Skripal). The author's contact details are in the comments section re reprint
rights.
"... There are numerous clues that point to the 2016 US Presidential Election as having been a set-up. Few seem willing to take a close look at these facts. But it is necessary for an understanding of the world we live in today. ..."
"... Sanders as sheep-dog Black Agenda Report called Sanders a sheep-dog soon after he entered the race . ..."
"... "Enough with the emails!" ..."
"... Not pursuing Hillary's 'winning' of 6 coin tosses in Iowa ..."
"... Virtually conceding the black and female vote to Hillary ..."
"... Not calling Hillary out about her claim to have NEVER sold her vote ..."
"... Endorsing Hillary despite learning of Hillary-DNC collusion ..."
"... Continuing to help the Democratic Party reach out to Bernie supports even after the election ..."
"... As one keen observer noted: Sanders is a Company Man . ..."
There are numerous clues that point to the 2016 US Presidential Election as having been a set-up. Few seem willing to take a
close look at these facts. But it is necessary for an understanding of the world we live in today.
Trump's first 100 days has come and gone and he has proven to be every bit the faux populist that Obama was (as I explained in
a previous post). In hind-sight we can see how a new faux populist was installed.
Sanders made it clear from the start that he ruled
out the possibility of running as an independent. That was only the first of many punches that Sanders pulled as he led his 'sheep'
into the Democratic fold.
Others were:
; "Enough with the emails!"
; Not pursuing Hillary's 'winning' of 6 coin tosses in Iowa;
; Virtually conceding the black and female vote to Hillary;
; Not calling Hillary out about her claim to have NEVER sold her vote;
; Endorsing Hillary despite learning of Hillary-DNC collusion;
; Continuing to help the Democratic Party reach out to Bernie supports even after the election.
"... A study of the Syria war coverage by nine leading European newspapers clearly illustrates these issues: 78% of all articles are based in whole or in part on agency reports, yet 0% on investigative research. Moreover, 82% of all opinion pieces and interviews are in favor of the US and NATO intervention, while propaganda is attributed exclusively to the opposite side... ..."
"In a remarkable report by British Channel 4, former CIA officials and a Reuters correspondent spoke candidly about the
systematic dissemination of propaganda and misinformation in reporting on geopolitical conflicts:"
Many thanks, and much respect to you Sir for bringing this important piece to my attention.
I apologize for another somewhat off topic posting, but I have not seen it posted here earlier, and I think that this should be
seen by as many eyes as possible.
It is one of the most important aspects of our media system -- and yet hardly known to the public: most of the international
news coverage in Western media is provided by only three global news agencies based in New York, London and Paris.
The key role played by these agencies means that Western media often report on the same topics, even using the same wording.
In addition, governments, military and intelligence services use these global news agencies as multipliers to spread their messages
around the world.
A study of the Syria war coverage by nine leading European newspapers clearly illustrates these issues: 78% of all articles
are based in whole or in part on agency reports, yet 0% on investigative research. Moreover, 82% of all opinion pieces and interviews
are in favor of the US and NATO intervention, while propaganda is attributed exclusively to the opposite side...
Can you trust the BBC news? How many journalists are working for the security services?
Notable quotes:
"... Can you trust the BBC news? How many journalists are working for the security services? ..."
"... "Most tabloid newspapers - or even newspapers in general - are playthings of MI5." ..."
"... Bloch and Fitzgerald, in their examination of covert UK warfare, report the editor of "one of Britain's most distinguished journals" as believing that more than half its foreign correspondents were on the MI6 payroll. ..."
"... The heart of the secret state they identified as the security services, the cabinet office and upper echelons of the Home and Commonwealth Offices, the armed forces and Ministry of Defence, the nuclear power industry and its satellite ministries together a network of senior civil servants. ..."
"... As "satellites" of the secret state, their list included "agents of influence in the media, ranging from actual agents of the security services, conduits of official leaks, to senior journalists merely lusting after official praise and, perhaps, a knighthood at the end of their career". ..."
"... Stephen Dorril, in his seminal history of MI6, reports that Orwell attended a meeting in Paris of resistance fighters on behalf of David Astor, his editor at the Observer and leader of the intelligence service's unit liasing with the French resistance. ..."
Can you trust the BBC news? How many journalists are working for the security services? The following extracts are from
an article at the excellent Medialens
And so to Nottingham University (on Sunday 26 February) for a well-attended conference...
I focus in my talk on the links between journalists and the intelligence services: While it might be difficult to identify precisely
the impact of the spooks (variously represented in the press as "intelligence", "security", "Whitehall" or "Home Office" sources)
on mainstream politics and media, from the limited evidence it looks to be enormous.
As Roy Greenslade, media specialist at the Telegraph (formerly the Guardian), commented:
"Most tabloid newspapers - or even newspapers in general - are playthings of MI5."
Bloch and Fitzgerald, in their examination of covert UK warfare, report the editor of "one of Britain's most distinguished
journals" as believing that more than half its foreign correspondents were on the MI6 payroll.
And in 1991, Richard Norton-Taylor revealed in the Guardian that 500 prominent Britons paid by the CIA and the now defunct
Bank of Commerce and Credit International, included 90 journalists.
In their analysis of the contemporary secret state, Dorril and Ramsay gave the media a crucial role. The heart of the secret
state they identified as the security services, the cabinet office and upper echelons of the Home and Commonwealth Offices, the armed
forces and Ministry of Defence, the nuclear power industry and its satellite ministries together a network of senior civil servants.
As "satellites" of the secret state, their list included "agents of influence in the media, ranging from actual agents of
the security services, conduits of official leaks, to senior journalists merely lusting after official praise and, perhaps, a knighthood
at the end of their career".
Phillip Knightley, author of a seminal history of the intelligence services, has even claimed that at least one intelligence agent
is working on every Fleet Street newspaper.
A brief history
Going as far back as 1945, George Orwell no less became a war correspondent for the Observer - probably as a
cover for intelligence work. Significantly most of the men he met in Paris on his assignment, Freddie Ayer, Malcolm Muggeridge, Ernest
Hemingway were either working for the intelligence services or had close links to them.
Stephen Dorril, in his seminal history of MI6, reports that Orwell attended a meeting in Paris of resistance fighters on behalf
of David Astor, his editor at the Observer and leader of the intelligence service's unit liasing with the French resistance.
The release of Public Record Office documents in 1995 about some of the operations of the MI6-financed propaganda unit, the
Information Research Department of the Foreign Office, threw light on this secret body - which even Orwell aided
by sending them a list of "crypto-communists". Set up by the Labour government in 1948, it "ran" dozens of Fleet Street journalists
and a vast array of news agencies across the globe until it was closed down by Foreign Secretary David Owen in 1977.
According to John Pilger in the anti-colonial struggles in Kenya, Malaya and Cyprus, IRD was so successful that the journalism
served up as a record of those episodes was a cocktail of the distorted and false in which the real aims and often atrocious behaviour
of the British intelligence agencies was hidden.
And spy novelist John le Carré, who worked for MI6 between 1960 and 1964, has made the amazing statement that the British secret
service then controlled large parts of the press – just as they may do today.
In 1975, following Senate hearings on the CIA, the reports of the Senate's Church Committee and the House of Representatives'
Pike Committee highlighted the extent of agency recruitment of both British and US journalists.
And sources revealed that half the foreign staff of a British daily were on the MI6 payroll.
David Leigh, in The Wilson Plot, his seminal study of the way in which the secret service smeared through the mainstream media
and destabilised the Government of Harold Wilson before his sudden resignation in 1976, quotes an MI5 officer: "We have somebody
in every office in Fleet Street"
Leaker King
And the most famous whistleblower of all, Peter (Spycatcher) Wright, revealed that MI5 had agents in newspapers and publishing
companies whose main role was to warn them of any forthcoming "embarrassing publications".
Wright also disclosed that the Daily Mirror tycoon, Cecil King, "was a longstanding agent of ours" who "made it clear
he would publish anything MI5 might care to leak in his direction".
Selective details about Wilson and his secretary, Marcia Falkender, were leaked by the intelligence services to sympathetic Fleet
Street journalists. Wright comments: "No wonder Wilson was later to claim that he was the victim of a plot". King was also closely
involved in a scheme in 1968 to oust Prime Minister Harold Wilson and replace him with a coalition headed by Lord Mountbatten.
Hugh Cudlipp, editorial director of the Mirror from 1952 to 1974, was also closely linked to intelligence, according
to Chris Horrie, in his recently published history of the newspaper.
David Walker, the Mirror's foreign correspondent in the 1950s, was named as an MI6 agent following a security
scandal while another Mirror journalist, Stanley Bonnet, admitted working for MI5 in the 1980s investigating the Campaign for Nuclear
Disarmament.
Maxwell and Mossad
According to Stephen Dorril, intelligence gathering during the miners' strike of 1984-85 was helped by the fact that during the
1970s MI5's F Branch had made a special effort to recruit industrial correspondents – with great success.
In 1991, just before his mysterious death, Mirror proprietor Robert Maxwell was accused by the US investigative
journalist Seymour Hersh of acting for Mossad, the Israeli secret service, though Dorril suggests his links with MI6
were equally as strong.
Following the resignation from the Guardian of Richard Gott, its literary editor in December 1994 in the wake of allegations that
he was a paid agent of the KGB, the role of journalists as spies suddenly came under the media spotlight – and many of the leaks
were fascinating.
For instance, according to The Times editorial of 16 December 1994: "Many British journalists benefited from CIA or MI6 largesse
during the Cold War."
The intimate links between journalists and the secret services were highlighted in the autobiography of the eminent newscaster
Sandy Gall. He reports without any qualms how, after returning from one of his reporting assignments to Afghanistan, he was asked
to lunch by the head of MI6. "It was very informal, the cook was off so we had cold meat and salad with plenty of wine. He wanted
to hear what I had to say about the war in Afghanistan. I was flattered, of course, and anxious to pass on what I could in terms
of first-hand knowledge."
And in January 2001, the renegade MI6 officer, Richard Tomlinson, claimed Dominic Lawson, the editor of the Sunday Telegraph
and son of the former Tory chancellor, Nigel Lawson, provided journalistic cover for an MI6 officer on a mission to the Baltic to
handle and debrief a young Russian diplomat who was spying for Britain.
Lawson strongly denied the allegations.
Similarly in the reporting of Northern Ireland, there have been longstanding concerns over security service disinformation. Susan
McKay, Northern editor of the Dublin-based Sunday Tribune, has criticised the reckless reporting of material from "dodgy security
services". She told a conference in Belfast in January 2003 organised by the National Union of Journalists and the Northern Ireland
Human Rights Commission: "We need to be suspicious when people are so ready to provide information and that we are, in fact, not
being used." (www.nuj.org.uk/inner.php?docid=635)
Growing power of secret state
Thus from this evidence alone it is clear there has been a long history of links between hacks and spooks in both the UK and US.
But as the secret state grows in power, through massive resourcing, through a whole raft of legislation – such as the Official
Secrets Act, the anti-terrorism legislation, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act and so on – and as intelligence moves into
the heart of Blair's ruling clique so these links are even more significant.
Since September 11 all of Fleet Street has been awash in warnings by anonymous intelligence sources of terrorist threats.
According to former Labour minister Michael Meacher, much of this disinformation was spread via sympathetic journalists by
the Rockingham cell within the MoD.
A parallel exercise, through the office of Special Plans, was set up by Donald Rumsfeld in the US. Thus there have been constant
attempts to scare people – and justify still greater powers for the national security apparatus.
Similarly the disinformation about Iraq's WMD was spread by dodgy intelligence sources via gullible journalists.
Thus, to take just one example, Michael Evans, The Times defence correspondent, reported on 29 November 2002: "Saddam Hussein
has ordered hundred of his officials to conceal weapons of mass destruction components in their homes to evade the prying eyes of
the United Nations inspectors." The source of these "revelations" was said to be "intelligence picked up from within Iraq". Early
in 2004, as the battle for control of Iraq continued with mounting casualties on both sides, it was revealed that many of the lies
about Saddam Hussein's supposed WMD had been fed to sympathetic journalists in the US, Britain and Australia by the exile group,
the Iraqi National Congress.
Sexed up – and missed out
During the controversy that erupted following the end of the "war" and the death of the arms inspector Dr David Kelly (and the
ensuing Hutton inquiry) the spotlight fell on BBC reporter Andrew Gilligan and the claim by one of his sources that the government
(in collusion with the intelligence services) had "sexed up" a dossier justifying an attack on Iraq.
The Hutton inquiry, its every twist and turn massively covered in the mainstream media, was the archetypal media spectacle that
drew attention from the real issue: why did the Bush and Blair governments invade Iraq in the face of massive global opposition?
But those facts will be forever secret.
Significantly, too, the broader and more significant issue of mainstream journalists' links with the intelligence services was
ignored by the inquiry.
Significantly, on 26 May 2004, the New York Times carried a 1,200-word editorial admitting it had been duped in its coverage of
WMD in the lead-up to the invasion by dubious Iraqi defectors, informants and exiles (though it failed to lay any blame on the US
President: see Greenslade 2004). Chief among The Times' dodgy informants was Ahmad Chalabi, leader of the Iraqi National Congress
and Pentagon favourite before his Baghdad house was raided by US forces on 20 May.
Then, in the Observer of 30 May 2004, David Rose admitted he had been the victim of a "calculated set-up" devised to foster the
propaganda case for war. "In the 18 months before the invasion of March 2003, I dealt regularly with Chalabi and the INC and published
stories based on interviews with men they said were defectors from Saddam's regime." And he concluded: "The information fog is thicker
than in any previous war, as I know now from bitter personal experience. To any journalist being offered apparently sensational disclosures,
especially from an anonymous intelligence source, I offer two words of advice: caveat emptor."
Let's not forget no British newspaper has followed the example of the NYT and apologised for being so easily duped by the intelligence
services in the run up to the illegal invasion of Iraq.
~
Richard Keeble's publications include Secret State, Silent Press: New Militarism, the Gulf and the Modern Image of Warfare (John
Libbey 1997) and The Newspapers Handbook (Routledge, fourth edition, 2005). He is also the editor of Ethical Space: The International
Journal of Communication Ethics. Richard is also a member of the War and Media Network.
"... In Orwell's imagination, society was ruled in the future by Big Brother. It wasn't a computer, but rather the collective expression of the Party. But not like the Republicans; this Party was an autonomous bureaucracy and advanced surveillance state interested only in perpetuating itself as a hierarchy. In this dystopia, "the people" had become insignificant, without the power of "grasping that the world could be other than it is." ..."
"... Concepts like freedom were perverted by a ruthless Newspeakperpetuated by the Party through the media. A Goodthinker was someone who followed orders without thinking. Crimestop was the instinctual avoidance of any dangerous thought, and Doublethink was the constant distortion of reality to maintain the Party's image of infallibility. ..."
"... Writing in 1948, Orwell was projecting what could happen in just a few decades. By most measures, even 70 years later we're not quite there yet. But we do face the real danger that freedom and equality will be seriously distorted by a new form of Newspeak, a Trumpian version promoted by the administration and its allies through their media. We already have Trumpian Goodthinkers -- the sychophantic surrogates who follow his lead without thinking, along with Crimestop -- the instinctual avoidance of "disloyal" thought, and Doublethink -- the constant distortion of reality to maintain Trump's insatiable ego and image of infallibility. Orwellian ideas are simply resurfacing in a post-modern/reality TV form. ..."
"... As community life unravels and more institutions fall into disrepute, media have become among of the few remaining that can potentially facilitate some social cohesion. Yet instead they fuel conflict and crisis. It's not quite Crimestop, but does often appeal to some of the basest instincts and produce even more alienation and division. ..."
"... In 1980, Ralph Nader called the race for president at that time -- between Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan -- a choice between mediocrity and menace. It was funny then, but now we can see what real menace looks like. Is Trump-ism what Orwell warned us about? Not quite, though there are similarities. Like Trump, you can't talk to Big Brother. And he rarely gives you the truth, only doublespeak. But Trump is no Big Brother. More like a Drunk Uncle with nukes. ..."
"... Security is tight and hard to avoid, on or offline. There are cameras everywhere, and every purchase and move most people make is tracked by the state. Still, there are four bombings in the first week of the Games. There is also another kind of human tragedy. Four runners collapse during preliminary rounds as a result of a toxic mix -- heat and pollution. ..."
"... Greg Guma is the Vermont-based author of Dons of Time, Uneasy Empire, Spirits of Desire, Big Lies, and The People's Republic: Vermont and the Sanders Revolution. ..."
"... This article was originally published by Greg Guma: For Preservation & Change . ..."
More people are becoming alienated, cynical, resentful or resigned, while too much of
mass and social media reinforces less-than-helpful narratives and tendencies. The frog's in the
frying pan and the heat is rising.
On the big screens above us beautiful young people demonstrated their prowess. We were
sitting in the communications center, waiting for print outs to tell us what they'd done before
organizing the material for mass consumption. Outside, people were freezing in the snow as they
waited for buses. Their only choice was to attend another event or attempt to get home.
The area was known as the Competition Zone, a corporate state created for the sole purpose
of showcasing these gorgeous competitors. Freedom was a foreign idea here; no one was more free
than the laminated identification card hanging around your neck allowed.
Visitors were more restricted than anyone. They saw only what they paid for, and had to wait
in long lines for food, transport, or tickets to more events. They were often uncomfortable,
yet they felt privileged to be admitted to the Zone. Citizens were categorized by their
function within the Organizing Committee's bureaucracy. Those who merely served -- in jobs like
cooking, driving and cleaning -- wore green and brown tags. They could travel between their
homes and work, but were rarely permitted into events. Their contact with visitors was also
limited. To visit them from outside the Zone, their friends and family had to be screened.
Most citizens knew little about how the Zone was actually run, about the "inner community"
of diplomats, competitors and corporate officials they served. Yet each night they watched the
exploits of this same elite on television.
The Zone, a closed and classified place where most bad news went unreported and a tiny elite
called the shots through mass media and computers, was no futuristic fantasy. It was Lake
Placid for several weeks in early 1980 -- a full four years before 1984.
In a once sleepy little community covered with artificial snow, the Olympics had brought a
temporary society into being. Two thousand athletes and their entourage were its royalty, role
models for the throngs of spectators, townspeople and journalists. This convergence resulted in
an ad hoc police state, managed by public and private forces and a political elite that
combined local business honchos with an international governing committee. They dominated a
population all too willing to submit to arbitrary authority.
Even back then, Lake Placid's Olympic "village" felt like a preview of things to come. Not
quite George Orwell's dark vision, but uncomfortably close.
In Orwell's imagination, society was ruled in the future by Big Brother. It wasn't a
computer, but rather the collective expression of the Party. But not like the Republicans; this
Party was an autonomous bureaucracy and advanced surveillance state interested only in
perpetuating itself as a hierarchy. In this dystopia, "the people" had become insignificant,
without the power of "grasping that the world could be other than it is."
Concepts like freedom were perverted by a ruthless Newspeakperpetuated by the Party through
the media. A Goodthinker was someone who followed orders without thinking. Crimestop was the
instinctual avoidance of any dangerous thought, and Doublethink was the constant distortion of
reality to maintain the Party's image of infallibility.
Writing in 1948, Orwell was projecting what could happen in just a few decades. By most
measures, even 70 years later we're not quite there yet. But we do face the real danger that
freedom and equality will be seriously distorted by a new form of Newspeak, a Trumpian version
promoted by the administration and its allies through their media. We already have Trumpian
Goodthinkers -- the sychophantic surrogates who follow his lead without thinking, along with
Crimestop -- the instinctual avoidance of "disloyal" thought, and Doublethink -- the constant
distortion of reality to maintain Trump's insatiable ego and image of infallibility. Orwellian
ideas are simply resurfacing in a post-modern/reality TV form.
Our fast food culture is also taking a long-term toll. More and more people are becoming
alienated, cynical, resentful or resigned, while too much of mass and social media reinforces
less-than-helpful narratives and tendencies. The frog's in the frying pan and the heat is
rising.
Much of what penetrates and goes viral further fragments culture and thought, promoting a
cynicism that reinforces both rage and inaction. Rather than true diversity, we have the mass
illusion that a choice between polarized opinions, shaped and curated by editors and networks,
is the essence of free speech and democracy. In reality, original ideas are so constrained and
self-censored that what's left is usually as diverse as brands of peppermint toothpaste.
When the Bill of Rights was ratified, the notion that freedom of speech and the press should
be protected meant that the personal right of self-expression should not be repressed by the
government. James Madison, author of the First Amendment, warned that the greatest danger to
liberty was that a majority would use its power to repress everyone else. Yet the evolution of
mass media and the corporate domination of economic life have made these "choicest privileges"
almost obsolete.
As community life unravels and more institutions fall into disrepute, media have become
among of the few remaining that can potentially facilitate some social cohesion. Yet instead
they fuel conflict and crisis. It's not quite Crimestop, but does often appeal to some of the
basest instincts and produce even more alienation and division.
In general terms, what most mass media bring the public is a series of images and anecdotes
that cumulatively define a way of life. Both news and entertainment contribute to the illusion
that competing, consuming and accumulating are at the core of our aspirations. Each day we are
repeatedly shown and told that culture and politics are corrupt, that war is imminent or
escalating somewhere, that violence is random and pervasive, and yet also that the latest
"experts" have the answers. Countless programs meanwhile celebrate youth, violence, frustrated
sexuality, and the lives of celebrities.
Between the official program content are a series of intensely packaged sales pitches. These
commercial messages wash over us, as if we are wandering in an endless virtual mall, searching
in vain for fulfillment as society crumbles.
In 1980, Ralph Nader called the race for president at that time -- between Jimmy Carter and
Ronald Reagan -- a choice between mediocrity and menace. It was funny then, but now we can see
what real menace looks like. Is Trump-ism what Orwell warned us about? Not quite, though there
are similarities. Like Trump, you can't talk to Big Brother. And he rarely gives you the truth,
only doublespeak. But Trump is no Big Brother. More like a Drunk Uncle with nukes.
So, is it too late for a rescue? Will menace win this time? Or can we still save the
environment, reclaim self-government, restore communities and protect human rights? What does
the future hold?
It could be summer in Los Angeles in 2024, the end of Donald Trump's second term. The
freeways are slow-moving parking lots for the Olympics. Millions of people hike around in the
heat, or use bikes and cycles to get to work. It's difficult with all the checkpoints, not to
mention the extra-high security at the airports. Thousands of police, not to mention the
military, are on the lookout for terrorists, smugglers, protesters, cultists, gangs, thieves,
and anyone who doesn't have money to burn or a ticket to the Games.
Cash isn't much good, and gas has become so expensive that suburban highways are almost
empty.
Security is tight and hard to avoid, on or offline. There are cameras everywhere, and every
purchase and move most people make is tracked by the state. Still, there are four bombings in
the first week of the Games. There is also another kind of human tragedy. Four runners collapse
during preliminary rounds as a result of a toxic mix -- heat and pollution.
... ... ...
Greg Guma is the Vermont-based author of Dons of Time, Uneasy Empire, Spirits of Desire,
Big Lies, and The People's Republic: Vermont and the Sanders Revolution.
"... General Electric, the world's largest military contractor, still controls the message over at the so-called "liberal" MSNBC. MSNBC's other owner is Comcast, the right wing media conglomerate that controls the radio waves in every major American Market. Over at CNN, Mossad Asset Wolf Blitzer, who rose from being an obscure little correspondent for an Israeli Newspaper to being CNN's Chief "Pentagon Correspondent" and then was elevated to supreme anchorman nearly as quickly, ensures that the pro-Israeli Message is always in the forefront, even as the Israeli's commit one murderous act after another upon helpless Palestinian Women and Children. ..."
"... Every single "terrorism expert", General or former Government Official that is brought out to discuss the next great war is connected to a military contractor that stands to benefit from that war. Not surprisingly, the military option is the only option discussed and we are assured that, if only we do this or bomb that, then it will all be over and we can bring our kids home to a big victory parade. I'm 63 and it has never happened in my lifetime--with the exception of the phony parade that Bush Senior put on after his murderous little "First Gulf War". ..."
"... The Generals in the Pentagon always want war. It is how they make rank. All of those young kids that just graduated from our various academies know that war experience is the only thing that will get them the advancement that they seek in the career that they have chosen. They are champing at the bit for more war. ..."
"... the same PR campaign that started with Bush and Cheney continues-the exact same campaign. Obviously, they have to come back at the apple with variations, but any notion that the "media will get it someday" is willfully ignorant of the obvious fact that there is an agenda, and that agenda just won't stop until it's achieved-or revolution supplants the influence of these dark forces. ..."
"... The US media are indeed working overtime to get this war happening ..."
"... In media universe there is no alternative to endless war and an endless stream of hyped reasons for new killing. ..."
"... The media machine is a wholly owned subsidiary of the United States of Corporations. ..."
"... Oh, the greatest propaganda arm the US government has right now, bar none, is the American media. It's disgraceful. we no longer have journalists speaking truth to power in my country, we have people practicing stenography, straight from the State Department to your favorite media outlet. ..."
"... But all that research from MIT, from the UN, and others, has been buried by the American media, and every single story on Syria and Assad that is written still refers to "Assad gassing his own people". It's true, it's despicable, and it's just one example of how our media lies and distorts and misrepresents the news every day. ..."
The American Public has gotten exactly what it deserved. They have been dumbed-down in our poor-by-intention school systems. The
moronic nonsense that passes for news in this country gets more sensational with each passing day. Over on Fox, they are making
the claim that ISIS fighters are bringing Ebola over the Mexican Border, which prompted a reply by the Mexican Embassy that won't
be reported on Fox.
We continue to hear and it was even reported in this very fine article by Ms. Benjamin that the American
People now support this new war. Really? I'm sorry, but I haven't seen that support anywhere but on the news and I just don't
believe it any more.
There is also the little problem of infiltration into key media slots by paid CIA Assets (Scarborough and brainless Mika are
two of these double dippers). Others are intermarried. Right-wing Neocon War Criminal Dan Senor is married to "respected" newsperson
Campbell Brown who is now involved in privatizing our school system. Victoria Nuland, the slimey State Department Official who
was overheard appointing the members of the future Ukrainian Government prior to the Maidan Coup is married to another Neo-Con--Larry
Kagan. Even sweet little Andrea Mitchell is actually Mrs. Alan Greenspan.
General Electric, the world's largest military contractor, still controls the message over at the so-called "liberal" MSNBC.
MSNBC's other owner is Comcast, the right wing media conglomerate that controls the radio waves in every major American Market.
Over at CNN, Mossad Asset Wolf Blitzer, who rose from being an obscure little correspondent for an Israeli Newspaper to being
CNN's Chief "Pentagon Correspondent" and then was elevated to supreme anchorman nearly as quickly, ensures that the pro-Israeli
Message is always in the forefront, even as the Israeli's commit one murderous act after another upon helpless Palestinian Women
and Children.
Every single "terrorism expert", General or former Government Official that is brought out to discuss the next great war is
connected to a military contractor that stands to benefit from that war. Not surprisingly, the military option is the only option
discussed and we are assured that, if only we do this or bomb that, then it will all be over and we can bring our kids home to
a big victory parade. I'm 63 and it has never happened in my lifetime--with the exception of the phony parade that Bush Senior
put on after his murderous little "First Gulf War".
Yesterday there was a coordinated action by all of the networks, which was clearly designed to support the idea that the generals
want Obama to act and he just won't. The not-so-subtle message was that the generals were right and that the President's "inaction"
was somehow out of line-since, after all, the generals have recommended more war. It was as if these people don't remember that
the President, sleazy War Criminal that he is, is still the Commander in Chief.
The Generals in the Pentagon always want war. It is how they make rank. All of those young kids that just graduated from our
various academies know that war experience is the only thing that will get them the advancement that they seek in the career that
they have chosen. They are champing at the bit for more war.
Finally, this Sunday every NFL Game will begin with some Patriotic "Honor America" Display, which will include a missing man
flyover, flags and fireworks, plenty of uniforms, wounded Vets and soon-to-be-wounded Vets. A giant American Flag will, once again,
cover the fields and hundreds of stupid young kids will rush down to their "Military Career Center" right after the game. These
are the ones that I pity most.
Let's be frank: powerful interests want war and subsequent puppet regimes in the half dozen nations that the neo-cons have been
eyeing (Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan). These interests surely include industries like banking, arms and oil-all of
whom make a killing on any war, and would stand to do well with friendly governments who could finance more arms purchases and
will never nationalize the oil.
So, the same PR campaign that started with Bush and Cheney continues-the exact same campaign. Obviously, they have to come
back at the apple with variations, but any notion that the "media will get it someday" is willfully ignorant of the obvious fact
that there is an agenda, and that agenda just won't stop until it's achieved-or revolution supplants the influence of these dark
forces.
IanB52, 10 October 2014 6:57pm
The US media are indeed working overtime to get this war happening. When I'm down at the gym they always have CNN on (I can
only imagine what FOX is like) which is a pretty much dyed in the wool yellow jingoist station at this point. With all the segments
they dedicate to ISIS, a new war, the "imminent" terrorist threat, they seem to favor talking heads who support a full ground
war and I have never, not once, heard anyone even speak about the mere possibility of peace. Not ever.
In media universe there
is no alternative to endless war and an endless stream of hyped reasons for new killing.
I'd imagine that these media companies have a lot stock in and a cozy relationship with the defense contractors.
Damiano Iocovozzi, 10 October 2014 7:04pm
The media machine is a wholly owned subsidiary of the United States of Corporations. The media doesn't report on anything but
relies on repeating manufactured crises, creating manufactured consent & discussing manufactured solutions. Follow the oil, the
pipelines & the money. Both R's & D's are left & right cheeks of the same buttock. Thanks to Citizens United & even Hobby Lobby,
a compliant Supreme Court, also owned by United States of Corporations, it's a done deal.
Oh, the greatest propaganda arm the US government has right now, bar none, is the American media. It's disgraceful. we no longer
have journalists speaking truth to power in my country, we have people practicing stenography, straight from the State Department
to your favorite media outlet.
Let me give you one clear example. A year ago Barack Obama came very close to bombing Syria to
kingdom come, the justification used was "Assad gassed his own people", referring to a sarin gas attack near Damascus. Well, it
turns out that Assad did not initiate that attack, discovered by research from many sources including the prestigious MIT, it
was a false flag attack planned by Turkey and carried out by some of Obama's own "moderate rebels".
But all that research from
MIT, from the UN, and others, has been buried by the American media, and every single story on Syria and Assad that is written
still refers to "Assad gassing his own people". It's true, it's despicable, and it's just one example of how our media lies and
distorts and misrepresents the news every day.
Blooming Barricade , Mar 14, 2019 5:36:22 PM |
link
Pierre Omidyar opens up new Integrity Initiative
Omidyar's Democracy Fund has also helped to finance the "News Integrity Initiative," a
name that evokes the U.K.'s notorious Integrity Initiative. The latter group claimed to be an
independent charity battling foreign disinformation until it was exposed by hackers as a
propaganda mill run by military officers and covertly funded by the British Foreign Office to
cultivate public opinion in support of heightened conflict with Russia. Leaked communications
revealed how the Integrity Initiative mobilized clusters of journalists, self-styled
disinformation experts, academics and political figures throughout the West to advocate for a
long-term war footing against the Russian menace.
For its part, the News Integrity Initiative is a murky $14 million operation intended to
"combat media manipulation" through a network of "journalists, technologists, academic
institutions, non-profits, and other organizations." The set-up is eerily evocative of the
influence clusters developed by the British Integrity Initiative. Few specifics are provided,
however, on what the group actually does.
A hint about the agenda of the News Integrity Initiative lies in a grant of $1 million it
made to an outlet called Internews in 2017. The bulk of Internews' money -- some 80 percent
of it -- comes from the U.S. government. It has also received backing from liberal financier
George Soros and USAID, which provided the group with seed money for a Russian-language
television network, helped drive the pro-NATO color revolution in the Republic of Georgia,
and published footage of Russian casualties in Chechnya to erode Russian public support for
the war.
In countries that are considered official and semi-official enemies of the United States,
Internews has organized de facto boot camps for opposition journalists. "In the Middle East,"
says Internews founder David Hoffman, "training sessions often begin with discussion of
whether Internews is really U.S. propaganda or the CIA." However Hoffman answers the
question, it is abundantly clear that his outlet has advanced Washington's priorities abroad
behind the guise of independent journalism.
In November 2017, the News Integrity Initiative hosted a workshop alongside Internews and
the Omidyar-backed First Draft News in Kiev, Ukraine, according to the initiative's managing
director, Molly de Aguiar. Kiev is today a nexus for intelligence-connected media crusaders
and a launch pad for projects ostensibly aimed at countering Russia's "information warfare."
But, what exactly the News Integrity Initiative was doing there was left unsaid.
While Omidyar ploughs his fortune into organizations that claim to be countering
"disinformation," especially of the Russian variety, he has established a culture factory to
publicize the supposed feats of the journalists often hyped up by the cartel of media
transparency groups and fact-checking sites he funds.
Thanks for this. I am wondering what Larry Johnson and the other members of this Committee of
Correspondence make of the possible connection between Christopher Steele, Pablo Miller, and
Sergei Skripal?
Some of Craig Murray's speculations in his latest post on the Skripal incident regarding
the coordinated role of Orbis Intelligence, the BBC, and the British state (which issued a
DSMA notice prohibiting press mention of Pablo Miller) are quite plausible. Murray is, like
the members of this committee, a veteran of the game....
Was Skripal coerced/encouraged by Miller to serve as one of Steele's unattributed Russian
"sources"? Did he later get cold feet? Or did he later attempt to buy his way back into
Russia with the claim that he could provide proof that the Dossier was a fraud? Or was he
working as a triple agent the whole time? Were the two sightseeing Russians "Borishov" and
"Petrov" sent to retrieve something from Skripal?
On the NYT story, you have to love how transparent the propaganda is, and yet they (Bolton, Pompeo, Rubio) don't care whatsoever.
Oh, and not one critical word about people throwing Molotov cocktails. Like that's a perfectly normal, non-violent means of protest.
I'm 72 and I don't watch any main stream news. All they do is "spin" the whatever the
"party line" of the so called "right" or "left". Oh yes, US Government, keep your bloody
hands off of South America.
I❤You Jimmy. You tell us the truth. And the truth is so hard to come by. So on
behalf of the rest of us...THANK YOU! Hugs and many many kisses on your cheeck. I send you my
love and respect.
No accident I spend most of my time on YouTube, at least I know where they are coming from
at the moment. I got pushed out of Common Dreams, Truth Out and Truth Dig by Hillary bots
during the 2016 primary. You couldn't have a conversation there anymore. It was all Bernie
hate all the time and everyday. I sought news and conversation here on YouTube then.
I am neither a Millienal nor am I Russian but I am a critical thinker who doesn't fall for
the CIA narrative of MSM. Keep doing what your doing Jimmy.
I'm 72 and I don't watch any main stream news. All they do is "spin" the whatever the
"party line" of the so called "right" or "left". Oh yes, US Government, keep your bloody
hands off of South America.
I❤You Jimmy. You tell us the truth. And the truth is so hard to come by. So on
behalf of the rest of us...THANK YOU! Hugs and many many kisses on your cheeck. I send you my
love and respect.
Why won't Twitter and Facebook ban Liars like Jake Tapper for telling lies about
Healthcare and other issues in the United States? He is nothing more than a
propagandist.
No accident I spend most of my time on YouTube, at least I know where they are coming from
at the moment. I got pushed out of Common Dreams, Truth Out and Truth Dig by Hillary bots
during the 2016 primary. You couldn't have a conversation there anymore. It was all Bernie
hate all the time and everyday. I sought news and conversation here on YouTube then. Plus
when I need to recharge I can find kitten and puppy videos.
Facebook, Twitter and YouTube may be privately owned, but they are the public square. So
this stuff is a violation of the first amendment. We need the ACLU to take this to the
Supreme Court (I can't stand him, but Alex Jones is an ideal test case). With respect to
funding, we should always expect the worst (even progressive media like TYT, just look at how
they have treated Tulsi - TYT is obviously compromised by some pro-establishment funding
source).
When Al Franken said to Greg Palast, "If it happened then why didn't I see it in the New
York Times," Greg should have responded with, "You answered your own question Mr.
Franken."
Corporate journos with a conscience have to go through pathological contortions to live
with themselves. That's why so many are narcissistic sociopaths.
Was watching Bill Maher last night and his panel was asked " who do you think can take on
Trump in 2020 " ... they all said with one voice.....Biden !!!! Can't you just tell that Bill
is trying to sellThe Corporate Dems . Disgusting Bernie and Tulsi ALL THE WAY !!
😊
So Hillary's lawyers knew Russia wasn't to blame for her loss in Michigan but she pushed
phony Russiagate anyway and her minions have been smearing Jimmy and every other progressive
that tells the truth as conspiracy theorists, just when you thought you knew every evil thing
crooked Hillary and the Clinton machine did, a brand new crime pops up!
When the truth about Tapper and his vile wife becomes public they will try to hide but
will never escape being held accountable for their crimes. Pure evil.
While the democrats are at the front door looking for Russians, the gopers sneak in
through the back and cheat in elections. Having worked elections, thee only people who can
cheat and defraud elections are the people inside the system. Not some Russian sitting at a
cheap computer in St. Petersburg.
This is the country that wants to teach Russia how to live. Russia had women's voting
rights in 1917 and a functioning social state in the 60s while US bus passengers were still
segregated by skin color. This is only 50-60 years ago. And hearing all this, seems like pure
racism is still alive and well in many places there.
We have to change our system - before it's too late. We destroy the environment and we
might even start some stupid war(?). Thankfully, many educated people are trying their best
to educate people what is going on. Those below are, some, of those I really trust - to do a
really great job! * Peter Joseph * Chris Hedges * Jacque Fresco (unfortunately died, 101
years old two years ago) * Noam Chomsky * Rickard Wolff (Democracy at work) * Jimmy Dore *
Kyle Kulinski * Abby Martin * Lee Camp (Redacted tonight) * And: "Jonathan Pie" (fictional
reporter who delivers many "beautiful" thoughts). :) * Edward Snowden * Julian Assange *
Yanis Varoufakis * Alex O'Connor (CosmicSkeptic) * Roland Paulsen (from Sweden) And here is a
great video from Roland Paulsen "commenting" Hans Rosling: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoIcsj9ysvs
Jimmy, please allow Greg to talk, you keep interrupting him to tell what they do to you,
we know what they do to you,please let us hear Greg, please. I don't mean to be rude, I'm your
loyal fan, but let Greg speak, he's trying to point out how he's not allowed to talk....but
you sometimes talk over him. Jordan at Status Coup is a great interviewer he lets his guests
speak for awhile without interrupting at all. Please don't see this as anything but positive
feedback. You're the best, Jimmy.
Yes, in a slightly modified form this is a very true statement: "Disinformation destroys
reality. The USA is master of this -- they have built a parallel reality."
But the real issues here is the neoliberalism is in decline, and to compensate for loss of power of neoliberal propaganda
Western MSM now use neo-McCarthyism. That is a very sad but pretty understandable story.
Just as disturbing is an analysis of Russia's worldwide fake news
campaign , which spreads contradictory reports and Kremlin-friendly propaganda.
"The Russians understand Western media far better than the Western media understands
itself," one interviewee says. "And they play to the Western media's short attention span."
Another says: "Disinformation destroys reality. The Russians are masters of this -- they
have built a parallel reality."
Yes, in a slightly modified form this is a very true statement: "Disinformation destroys
reality. The USA is master of this -- they have built a parallel reality."
Just as disturbing is an analysis of Russia's worldwide fake news
campaign , which spreads contradictory reports and Kremlin-friendly propaganda.
"The Russians understand Western media far better than the Western media understands
itself," one interviewee says. "And they play to the Western media's short attention span."
Another says: "Disinformation destroys reality. The Russians are masters of this -- they
have built a parallel reality."
The "neoliberal establishment" (aka Washington Swamp) is deeply unpopular with American
people. Trump is not that popular, but he definitely less unpopular. Such statements s of "the
national media is the enemy" would be unthinkable a decade or two ago.
The National Media is the enemy. They are minor birds, repeaters of what the establishment
wants parroted. They can no longer be considered American citizen friendly. They are indeed
part of the Swamp to be drained.
Like former, despise current president matters not. We are still a nation of laws. The
people have spoken. We want the laws followed period. CNN, MSNBC, and others who continue to
go after our president will be met with an unbridled wave of conservative determination to
restore law and order.
The son of Dawn Sturges, who died in 2018 as a result of poisoning in Amesbury, has
written to Russian President Vladimir Putin an open letter in which he asks him to help in
the investigation.
"I'm desperate. Putin is the only person that can make it so that justice will prevail.
I need his help to pay tribute to my mum. I'm counting on it", Evan Hope told the British
tabloid "The Mirror". The publication presents the full text of the message:
"It's been almost a year since my mother, Dawn, was killed by Novichok in Salisbury,
and my pain, like the pain of my family members, does not pass. The British police believe
that at least two Russian citizens are responsible for her death, but it seems that they are
under the protection of your state. I'm asking you as a person, to allow our officers to
question these people about the murder of my mother. She at least deserves
somejustice."
Mr. Hope told the publication that the UK government has not provided any support for
his family. "I feel betrayed by the government", he said. He stated that it endorsed the
support of Sergei and Yulia Sripal, who was poisoned by the same substance. "But my family
has had no such support, and we are the ones who have lost our mother. She was an innocent
victim, but we have never heard from Theresa May nor the government -- no phone call, no
letter, nor anything else", he said.
Unsubstanttiated allegations taken as gospel. Wonder who put Evan up to writing to
"Pyutin"?
Zakharova is already girding her loins for the 1st anniversary (tomorrow) of the diabolical nerve agent
attack by Pyutin's agents that took place in Salisbury on March 4, 2018.
"Caroline's friend told "The Sun" that Dawn had switched from being a popular pupil at Durrington school
in Wiltshire to a homeless alcoholic due to post-natal depression when her son Aidan was born.
Her personality changed. She became like a zombie."
It's clearly very wrong for members of the British establishment to exploit members of Dawn Sturges's family
in this way. What they should get help in pressing for is a proper non-politicised investigation into what
exactly happened to her.
The relative clause "
who died in 2018 as a result of poisoning in Amesbury
" should not have had
commas separating it from the main clause "
The son of Dawn Sturges has written to Russian President
Vladimir Putin an open letter in which he asks him to help in the investigation
", in that it is a
defining relative clause whose antecedent is "Dawn Sturges" and not the subject of the main clause, "Ewan
Hope".
As a result of mistakenly placing commas before and after the relative clause in question, that clause is
a non-defining relative clause, adding, in parentheses as it were, additional information about the subject
of the main clause.
Ewan Hope is alive: his mother, who was Dawn Sturges, is the woman who died of unnatural causes in
Amesbury last year. (Two relative clauses in the preceding sentence, each having "who" as its relative
pronoun, the first relative clause being non-defining and having "mother" as its antecedent, the second
being defining, having "woman" as its antecedent.)
Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa!
Perhaps I have lived too long here: all relative clauses, be they defining or non-defining, are separated
by commas in Russian.
It is ironic that almost every week I have to point out to Russians the very different English
punctiation rules as regards relative clauses, an English grammar topic that Russians often find hard to
grasp.
Wrong usage of commas in contracts drawn up in English can sometimes have unforeseen and very costly
results.
I often ask Russians what information is given about the subject (the passengers) in the following two
sentences, which are, apart from their punctuation, identical:
The passengers who could speak Russian had few problems at immigration control.
The passengers, who could speak Russian, had few problems at immigration control.
In each instance, how many passengers had few problems?
Are your impressive grammatical skills typical of English folks of your generation? Us Americans (see
what I did?) can hardly put two words together without screwing up a grammatical rule.
In London staged a Shenderovich play "To See
Salisbury". The heroes are two gay men who want to save the world
The theatrical production company StageRC has announced the premiere of a play by the writer Viktor
Shenderovich "To see Salisbury", which will be held in late March in London.
The comedy is built on the fact that Boshirov and Petrov are really two gays who went to England to see the
cathedral. At the end of the play, an apocalypse takes place.
Shenderovich himself also spoke about his new work. "The play 'To See Salisbury' began with my bold assumption
that these people (Petrov and Boshirov) were telling the truth. This is a couple who love each other, and, keeping
it secret from their families, just went off to London. One of them, in addition to loving his partner, also loves
Gothic architecture. And I have assumed that this is true. And this assumption seemed to me so touching", said the
writer.
The company website informs that the premiere performances in Russian and English will be held on March 30 and
31.
The play, balancing between the Theatre of the Absurd and farce, ends on the verge of apocalypse -- the
insane Dementia Petrovna being ready to start a nuclear war.
The drunk feller she defended shakes her hand in gratitude. Notice that two other guys come from around the
corner and take the bully's place in the queue.
Darren Till who posted that video is a mixed martial arts practitioner. Wonder if he'll offer the woman a
place in his training camp?
A few of his followers have fallen in love with her.
The latest media outrage is driven by a Washington Post story about intelligence
disclosures based on claims by anonymous sources. The Post 's big hit pieces are mainly
based on anonymous sources.
Its latest hit piece runs a quote from, "a former senior U.S. official who is close to
current administration officials." That's an anonymous source quoting hearsay from other
anonymous sources.
This isn't journalism. It's a joke.
Last week, the Washington Post unveiled a story based on "the private accounts of
more than 30 officials at the White House." The fake news story falsely claimed that Deputy
Attorney General Rod Rosenstein threatened to resign.
Rod
had a simple answer when asked about that piece of fake news. "No."
So much for 30 anonymous sources and for the Washington Post's credibility. But the
media keeps shoveling out pieces based on anonymous sources and confirmed by anonymous sources
while ignoring the disavowals by those public officials who are willing to go on the
record.
The Comey memo story is based on, according to the New York Times , "two people who
read the memo." And then "one of Mr. Comey's associates read parts of it to a Times
reporter."
The Times hasn't seen the memo. No one has seen the memo except the anonymous sources
that may or may not exist. The media's fake news infrastructure relies heavily on anonymous
sources. And anonymous sources are the media's way of saying, "Just trust us."
The question is why would anyone trust the media?
Comey fake news is popular on the left because it is convinced that he is the key to
reversing their election defeat. Recently CNN got its fake news fingers burned with a story
claiming that the former FBI Director had asked for more resources for the Russia investigation
before he was fired.
Where did CNN get its story from? Anonymous sources. Or, as the story put it, "two sources
familiar with the discussion."
Sources "familiar with the discussion" is up there with "a former senior U.S. official who
is close to current administration officials." And their neighbor's dog who barks exclusively
to CNN.
Rod Rosenstein and Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe both shot down CNN's fake news. CNN's
headline was, "New Acting FBI Director Contradicts White House on Comey." Its fake news was
referenced only as, "Amid reports that Comey had asked for more resources for the Russia
investigation, McCabe testified that he believed the bureau had adequate resources to complete
the job."
CNN did not acknowledge that the fake reports had come from it. It phrased it in passive and
vague language. And it left out a crucial part of McCabe's response. "When we need resources,
we make those requests here. So I'm not aware of that request and it's not consistent with my
understanding of how we request additional resources. That said, we don't typically request
resources for an individual case. And as I mentioned, I strongly believe that the Russian
investigation is adequately resourced."
CNN didn't just push fake news. It covered up its crime. And it's the cover-up that proves
the crime.
Media outlets like CNN and the Washington Post often knows that they're pushing lies.
WaPo's fact checkers shot down the claim that rape is a pre-existing condition. But the paper
ran a piece titled, "I Was Raped. Thanks to Republicans, I Could Be Denied Insurance." The
editors know quite well which of these pieces will have more of an impact.
But the Post has a dozen stories mentioning the Comey resources fake
news.
The Washington Post isn't in the news business. After its takeover by Amazon boss
Jeff Bezos, it's in the business of manufacturing viral Trump hit pieces. It got a viral fake
news hit with its lie that Press Secretary Sean Spicer was hiding in the bushes to avoid them.
There was an equally snarky correction issued that was largely irrelevant. Having manufactured
a piece of fake news fit for a Saturday Night Live skit, the Post then dutifully
reported on the Saturday Night Live skit featuring its fake news item.
In the past there would have been a world of difference between the Washington Post
and Saturday Night Live. Today they are part of the same lefty echo chamber. The media, all the
various parts of it, is now one big influence operation. The machine works by developing and
taking fake news attacks viral. WaPo and SNL are in the same business. There isn't even much of
a stylistic difference.
The Washington Post's "Trump fired Comey because he's taller" could easily have come
from Saturday Night Live, The Onion or the Daily Show.
The truly damning epitaph of American journalism is that there isn't much of a difference.
Saturday Night Live isn't doing comedy and the Washington Post isn't doing journalism.
They're both manufacturing viral Trump attacks.
Getting your news from the Washington Post is as worthless as getting it from
Saturday Night Live.
While more respectable papers like the Post and the Times occupy the top rung
of the fake news ladder, CNN has become the National Enquirer of Trump bashing. No story is too
petty or fake to get airtime or site space. Recent examples that
have gone viral include , "Is
the President Afraid of Stairs" and "President Gets 2 Scoops of Ice Cream, Everyone Else
1."
CNN's fake news is constantly being shot down by the facts. But it just doubles down on its
lies.
"We will not insult your intelligence by pretending it's legitimate. Nor will we aid and
abet the people trying to misinform you," CNN's Don Lemon had blustered when trying to suppress
the Rice spying story.
CNN insults the intelligence of its viewers every minute that they watch it. It offers up a
stream of misinformation while trying to suppress legitimate news. Much of this misinformation
takes the form of spreading lefty fake news memes whether it's rape as a preexisting condition
or Republican beer.
And even when corrections appear, they exist only for the purpose of plausible deniability.
The original fake news gets rolled into multiple news stories, blog posts and editorials that
never get updated or corrected.
And even if they were to be, the damage would be done. That's the way fake news works.
CNN and the Washington Post are throwing mud and assuming that some of it will stick.
And even when it's officially corrected, it still sticks around. Months later, the Post
site still carries an uncorrected reference to the AP fake news story which claimed that Trump
had threatened to invade Mexico even after it had been denied by both governments and had been
pulled for being unverifiable.
It's a safe bet that rape as a preexisting condition and Comey's Russian resources will also
stick around.
"Applying the fake news label is an attack on the truth. It's reckless and corrosive to
democracy, and elected officials attempt to deliberately and systematically erode the
credibility of news organizations because they object to factually accurate reporting," the CEO
of the Washington Post insisted last month.
But it's the media that is reckless and corrosive to democracy. It has eroded its
credibility with fake news. Factually accurate reporting has become too difficult and
unrewarding. The idea of waiting months or years for an investigation to pay off is alien to
the nanosecond news cycle. That's why every fake Trump scandal is the new Watergate. And fake
news is constantly being manufactured.
News organizations are throwing away their credibility to reverse the results of a
democratic election. And it's not only their own credibility that they are throwing away. The
marketplace of ideas was based on reason and objectivity. Without them, there was no longer a
public square we could all live in.
Media bias began to corrupt the marketplace. But bias meant the selective reporting of
facts. Falsehoods could creep in. But generally the media would not just casually run stories
that were completely false. It would happen from time to time. But it wouldn't be a constant
practice.
And then a tipping point was reached.
Historians of journalism will argue over when the dam broke. Was it the age of Obama or of
Trump? But the day arrived. The sun rose over the CNN Center in Atlanta, the K Street digs of
the Washington Post and the offices of other media organizations. And it was no longer a
question of selective reporting. We were no longer arguing about the injection of opinion into
news stories or journalistic double standards.
The age of fake news had arrived. We no longer have a free press. All we have is a fake
press.
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative
journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.
On Friday the Washington Post sparked a wave of fear when it ran the breathless
headline
"Russian hackers penetrated U.S. electricity grid through a utility in Vermont, U.S. officials say." The
lead sentence offered "A code associated with the Russian hacking operation dubbed Grizzly Steppe by the Obama
administration has been detected within the system of a Vermont utility, according to U.S. officials" and continued
"While the Russians did not actively use the code to disrupt operations of the utility, according to officials who
spoke on condition of anonymity in order to discuss a security matter, the penetration of the nation's electrical
grid is significant because it represents a potentially serious vulnerability."
Yet, it turns out this narrative was false and as the chronology below will show, illustrates how effectively
false and misleading news can ricochet through the global news echo chamber through the pages of top tier newspapers
that fail to properly verify their facts.
The
original
article was posted online on the Washington Post's website at 7:55PM EST. Using the Internet Archive's
Wayback Machine
, we can see that sometime between 9:24PM and 10:06PM the Post
updated
the article to indicate that multiple computer systems at the utility had been breached ("computers"
plural), but that further data was still being collected: "Officials said that it is unclear when the code entered
the Vermont utility's computers, and that an investigation will attempt to determine the timing and nature of the
intrusion." Several paragraphs of additional material were added between 8PM and 10PM, claiming and contextualizing
the breach as part of a broader campaign of Russian hacking against the US, including the DNC and Podesta email
breaches.
Despite the article ballooning from 8 to 18 paragraphs, the publication date of the article remained unchanged and
no editorial note was appended, meaning that a reader being forwarded a link to the article would have no way of
knowing the article they were seeing was in any way changed from the original version published 2 hours prior.
Yet, as the Post's story ricocheted through the politically charged environment, other media outlets and
technology experts began questioning the Post's claims and the utility company itself finally issued a formal
statement
at 9:37PM EST, just an hour and a half after the Post's publication, pushing back on the Post's claims:
"We detected the malware in a single Burlington Electric Department laptop not connected to our organization's grid
systems. We took immediate action to isolate the laptop and alerted federal officials of this finding."
From Russian hackers burrowed deep within the US electrical grid, ready to plunge the nation into darkness at the
flip of a switch, an hour and a half later the story suddenly became that a single non-grid laptop had a piece of
malware on it and that the laptop was not connected to the utility grid in any way.
However, it was not until almost a full hour after the utility's official press release (at around 10:30PM EST)
that the Post finally
updated
its article, changing the headline to the more muted "Russian operation hacked a Vermont utility, showing
risk to U.S. electrical grid security, officials say" and changed the body of the article to note "Burlington
Electric said in a statement that the company detected a malware code used in the Grizzly Steppe operation in a
laptop that was not connected to the organization's grid systems. The firm said it took immediate action to isolate
the laptop and alert federal authorities." Yet, other parts of the article, including a later sentence claiming that
multiple computers at the utility had been breached, remained intact.
The following morning, nearly 11 hours after changing the headline and rewriting the article to indicate that the
grid itself was never breached and the "hack" was only an isolated laptop with malware, the Post still had not
appended any kind of editorial note to indicate that it had significantly
changed
the focus of the article.
This is significant, as one driving force of fake news is that as much of
60%
of the links shared on social media are shared based on the title alone, with the sharer not actually reading
the article itself. Thus, the title assigned to an article becomes the story itself and the Post's incorrect title
meant that the story that spread virally through the national echo chamber was that the Russians had hacked into the
US power grid.
Only after numerous outlets called out the Post's changes did the newspaper finally
append
an editorial note at the very bottom of the article more than half a day later saying "An earlier version
of this story incorrectly said that Russian hackers had penetrated the U.S. electric grid. Authorities say there is
no indication of that so far. The computer at Burlington Electric that was hacked was not attached to the grid."
Yet, even this correction is not a true reflection of public facts as known. The utility indicated only that a
laptop was found to contain malware that has previously been associated with Russian hackers. As many
pointed out
, the malware in question is actually available for purchase online, meaning anyone could have used it
and its mere presence is not a guarantee of Russian government involvement. Moreover, a malware infection can come
from many sources, including visiting malicious websites and thus the mere presence of malware on a laptop computer
does not necessarily indicate that Russian government hackers launched a coordinated hacking campaign to penetrate
that machine - the infection could have come from something as simple as an employee visiting an infected website on
a work computer.
Moreover, just as with the Santa Claus and the dying child
story
, the Post story went viral and was widely reshared, leading to embarrassing situations like CNBC tweeting
out the story and then having to go back and
retract
the story.
Particularly fascinating that the original Post story mentioned that there were only two major power utilities in
Vermont and that Burlington Electric was one of them, meaning it would have been easy to call both companies for
comment. However, while the article mentions contacting DHS for comment, there is no mention of any kind that the
Post reached out to either of the two utilities for comment. Given that Burlington issued its formal statement
denying the Post's claims just an hour and a half later, this would suggest that had the Post reached out to the
company it likely could have corrected its story prior to publication.
When I reached out to Kris Coratti, Vice President of Communications and Events for the Washington Post for
comment, she responded that regarding the headline change, "Headlines aren't written by story authors. When editors
realized it overreached, as happens from time to time with headlines, it was corrected." She also indicated that
posting the editor's note at the bottom of the article instead of the top was a mistake and indeed this was corrected
shortly after my email to her inquiring about it.
Ms. Coratti's response regarding the article headline is a fascinating reminder of just how many different people
and processes combine to produce a single article in a newspaper – that contrary to popular belief, a reporter
doesn't sit down and write a story, choose a headline and then hit "Publish" and have the story go live on the
newspaper website. Most newspapers, like the Washington Post, either employ dedicated headline writers or have their
editors write the headlines for each piece and articles typically go through an elaborate review process designed to
catch these sorts of issues prior to publication.
It is also interesting to note that the Post said it was an error for the editorial note to be buried at the very
bottom of the page instead of at the top of the article, as was done for the Santa Claus
story
. This reflects the chaotic nature of newsrooms in which an editorial note is frequently added by an editor
simply logging into a CMS portal and updating a live page, rather than a templated system which automatically places
all editorial notes in the same place with the same style and formatting to ensure consistency.
Equally fascinating, neither Ms. Coratti nor Post Public Relations responded to any of my remaining queries
regarding the article's fact checking process. In particular, the Post did not respond when I asked how headlines are
fact checked and if headline writers conduct any form of fact checking to ensure their summarized version is
consistent with known facts. The Post also did not respond to a request for comment on why it took nearly half a day
from the time the article was rewritten until an editorial note was finally appended acknowledging that the
conclusions of the original article were false and that the article had been substantively rewritten to support a
different conclusion, nor did the Post comment on why the editor's note was originally placed at the bottom of the
article and only moved after I inquired about its location.
Yet, perhaps most intriguing is that, as with the Santa Claus story, the Post did not respond to repeated requests
for comment regarding how it conducts fact checking for its stories. This marks twice in a row that the Post has
chosen not to respond in any fashion to my requests for more detail on its fact checking processes. Given the present
atmosphere in which trust in media is in freefall and mainstream outlets like the Post are positioning themselves as
the answer to "fake news" it certainly does not advance trust in the media when a newspaper will not even provide the
most cursory of insight into how it checks its facts.
As with the Santa Claus story, the Post appears to have run this story without even attempting to perform the most
basic of fact checks before publication. The original story noted that there were only two utilities in Vermont and
yet the article states that the Post only attempted to contact DHS and does not mention any attempt to contact either
of the utilities. Standard journalistic practice would have required that the Post mention that it attempted to reach
either utility even if neither responded. The Post did not respond to a request for comment when I asked if it had
attempted to reach either utility for comment prior to publication.
Putting this all together, what can we learn from this? The first is that, as with the Santa Claus and PropOrNot
stories, the journalism world tends to rely far more on trust than fact checking. When one news outlet runs a story,
the rest of the journalism world tends to follow suit, each writing their own version of the story without ever going
back to the original sources for verification. In short – once a story enters the journalism world it spreads without
further restraint as each outlet assumes that the one before performed the necessary fact checking.
The second is that the news media is overly dependent on government sources. Glenn Greenwald raises the fantastic
point
that journalists must be more cautious in treating the word of governments as absolute truth. Indeed, a
certain fraction of the world's false and misleading news actually comes from the mouths of government spokespeople.
Yet, in the Post's case, it appears that a government source tipped off the post about a sensational story of
Russians hacking the US power grid and instead of reaching out to the utilities themselves or gathering further
detail, the Post simply published the story as fed to them by the government officials.
The third is that breaking news is a source of a tremendous amount of false and misleading news as rumors and
falsehoods spread like wildfire in the absence of additional information. Top tier newspapers like the Washington
Post are supposed to be a bulwark against these falsehoods, by not publishing anything until it has been thoroughly
fact checked against multiple sources. Yet, it appears this is not the case – in the rush to be the first to break a
story and not be scooped, reporters even at the nation's most prestigious news outlets will take shortcuts and rush a
story out the door. What would have happened in the Post had waited another day or two to collect responses from all
involved, including Burlington Electric? It would have avoided publishing false information, but it also likely would
have been scooped by another newspaper who wanted to be the first to break the story.
Indeed, "breaking news" is a tremendous problem for mainstream outlets in which they frequently end up propagating
"fake news" in their rush to be the first to break a story. In a world beset by false and misleading news, do top
tier news outlets have a professional responsibility to step back from breaking stories and only report on them after
all details are known and they have had an opportunity to speak with all parties involved and understand more
definitively what has happened? Financially this would likely be devastating in a share-first click-first world in
which to the victor go the advertising dollars, but it would seem the only way to truly stop "fake news" from
spreading.
It may be possible to partly unravel the Skripal affair, after all.
I first thought the Skripals were food poisoned, or were somehow accidentally
'contaminated.' I changed my mind when Dawn Sturgess and Charlie Rowley were 'poisoned' - I
will explain why much later on.
Two assumptions are taken on board for now.
-- The photo of the perfume package published by the Met on the internet is of an object
found in the Rowley home, or said to be so, by the Met. / Scotland Yard / anti-terror force /
PTB.
-- The photo of the bottle + dispenser is that of objects truly or allegedly found in the
Rowley home, or a fair facsimile. (The original bottle and dispenser, if they exist, are
evidence, might be contaminated, etc.)
Imho the box package counterfeit is quite, even startlingly, convincing. The surface,
color, sheen, graphics, organization, text, font, closely resemble the box of Eau de Parfum
*Premier Jour* by Nina Ricci, 50ml. With one glaring difference.
The quantity on the true box (boxes, these vary some with year, country..) is
50ml - 1.7 FL OZ
or
e50ml - 1.7 FL. OZ. (e is a certification)
The Rowley box sports
5.5 ml - 17FL OZ
The forger is telling us that there is about a teaspoon of XXX in the package. Conversion
to fluid ounces isn't made - the creator can't be bothered, so just removed the decimal
point, making nonsense of that. The introduction of the decimal point, a different number, an
extra space, to conventionally signal that quantity, cannot be ignorant, careless copy errors
such as LFOZ or 500 mL might be. Particularly in view of the great care taken with the
rest.
Premier Jour bottles of 50ml or more are of special style and shape and never come with a
separate dispenser / vaporiser / nozzle to attach so as to be able to spray. No high-end
perfumes or fragrances do, as the containers and spray mechanisms (if any) are an integral
part of the object, certifying the brand, its 'look', etc. as well as its working order.
(Fakes often have non-functioning sprays.)
Smaller quantities of Premier Jour such as 33ml exist, the box is completely different.
The bottles are longish thin vials with a spray mechanism attached to the top, always such
for small quantities of designer fragrances - made to be carried in handbags.
Great care was taken to produce a convincing or in-your-face box, sealed correctly with
cellophane. Inside it a bottle that might pass for genuine via cursory inspection, as it is
inscribed *Premier Jour - Nina Ricci* in the same (correct) fonts as on the box. Plus a
dispenser, ensuring that its first use would be a deliberate act, and possibly to ensure a
tight seal.
No scammer hawking fake perfumes would ever produce this.
links in sep post
In Part II we examine its alleged handling by Dawn and Charlie and trace it back in
time.
Addition: Imho the Rowley box is smaller than the real one(s). The text / letters etc. are
too large, take up too much space, I can't measure it at present, don't have a real box to
hand.
Frances at 65 -- yes the perfume bottle could be a plant as you suggest (not photoshop) by
MI5 (or whomever), sure . i did write 'allegedly', 'assumed' or clear words to that
effect.... the trick is to figure out if so, or not. anyway never mind. these details aren't
on their own of much interest with grand debates on the menu --:
One way the PTB fool and trick ppl is to get them all riled up about side issues.
Like vaccines. This gets the public, particularly parents, mothers, loving their littles,
into crazy hyper mode, absorbing their energy to 'contest' in any way, question other
matters, such as crap schools, heath care, corrupt pols, etc.
They get involved in groups, stick to their principled guns, argue to the death (sic),
watch pols for attention to 'their issue', and on and on. They have been deprived of even the
most basic rights in a just society (ex. basic health care) and are shunted to the corridors
of the losers, they don't realise it, yes they are viewed with cynical, and calculated,
disdain.
MoA is famous yet again, cited by RT in a story this morning about how the Washington Post
has quietly edited its number of attendees at the Branson concert, without of course
informing its readers. The original Wurlitzer lies of course still exist in caches and
screenshots.
"Using the few available aerial shots taken throughout the day, and some standard crowd
calculations for the occasion, alternative news site Moon of Alabama estimated an
attendance of about 18,000."
It may be possible to partly unravel the Skripal affair, after all.
I first thought the Skripals were food poisoned, or were somehow accidentally
'contaminated.' I changed my mind when Dawn Sturgess and Charlie Rowley were 'poisoned' - I
will explain why much later on.
Two assumptions are taken on board for now.
-- The photo of the perfume package published by the Met on the internet is of an object
found in the Rowley home, or said to be so, by the Met. / Scotland Yard / anti-terror force /
PTB.
-- The photo of the bottle + dispenser is that of objects truly or allegedly found in the
Rowley home, or a fair facsimile. (The original bottle and dispenser, if they exist, are
evidence, might be contaminated, etc.)
Imho the box package counterfeit is quite, even startlingly, convincing. The surface,
color, sheen, graphics, organization, text, font, closely resemble the box of Eau de Parfum
*Premier Jour* by Nina Ricci, 50ml. With one glaring difference.
The quantity on the true box (boxes, these vary some with year, country..) is
50ml - 1.7 FL OZ
or
e50ml - 1.7 FL. OZ. (e is a certification)
The Rowley box sports
5.5 ml - 17FL OZ
The forger is telling us that there is about a teaspoon of XXX in the package. Conversion
to fluid ounces isn't made - the creator can't be bothered, so just removed the decimal
point, making nonsense of that. The introduction of the decimal point, a different number, an
extra space, to conventionally signal that quantity, cannot be ignorant, careless copy errors
such as LFOZ or 500 mL might be. Particularly in view of the great care taken with the
rest.
Premier Jour bottles of 50ml or more are of special style and shape and never come with a
separate dispenser / vaporiser / nozzle to attach so as to be able to spray. No high-end
perfumes or fragrances do, as the containers and spray mechanisms (if any) are an integral
part of the object, certifying the brand, its 'look', etc. as well as its working order.
(Fakes often have non-functioning sprays.)
Smaller quantities of Premier Jour such as 33ml exist, the box is completely different.
The bottles are longish thin vials with a spray mechanism attached to the top, always such
for small quantities of designer fragrances - made to be carried in handbags.
Great care was taken to produce a convincing or in-your-face box, sealed correctly with
cellophane. Inside it a bottle that might pass for genuine via cursory inspection, as it is
inscribed *Premier Jour - Nina Ricci* in the same (correct) fonts as on the box. Plus a
dispenser, ensuring that its first use would be a deliberate act, and possibly to ensure a
tight seal.
No scammer hawking fake perfumes would ever produce this.
links in sep post
In Part II we examine its alleged handling by Dawn and Charlie and trace it back in
time.
"... When we suggest turning to universally approved OSCE documents that reject as unacceptable any obstacles standing in the way of the public or journalists getting access to information, we are told that this was the case in 1990 and should remain there. ..."
"... It wasn't us that bombed Libya and turned it into a "black hole." It still remains such and through it bandits, terrorists and arms traffickers travel to the Sahara-Sahel zone whereas migrants are heading to the north. Therefore, we leave it up to them to deal with those who are responsible for this. ..."
"... Apparently, the international legal space is being fragmented – the US is doing this all along the way while the EU is isolating itself when it comes to a number of issues. The processes that are taking place in Eurasia may also be interpreted as isolation at some point but in reality we want to launch something that will become all-embracing. ..."
"... Maybe, there is a rational idea in everything that is taking place. As Vladimir Lenin used to say, "before uniting it is necessary resolutely to draw lines of demarcation." Maybe, we should be fragmented to understand who the main global players are. ..."
We are now saying that the world is changing and the interdependence of states is growing. Do you think international regulation,
for instance, in communications, can be radically improved in perspective? Because of fake news navigation in the sea of information
leaves much to be desired. Is it possible to regulate a host of other things related to migration flows and capital management?
Is it possible to raise international regulation to a new level or is this altogether impossible? Will countries continue to strike
unstable alliances for shorter or longer periods of time or are there grounds to hope for an improvement of this situation?
Sergey Lavrov:
This question is fairly controversial. In brief, currently this regulation that should be ideally based on universal principles
of international law is being replaced with narrowly interpreted rules elaborated in a narrow circle of states.
As for fake news, France, for example, adopted a law that filters the media space the way it wants. The Russian media Russia Today
and Sputnik are political outcasts. They are not allowed to visit the Elysee Palace or attend any special events. When we address
French officials in this context, they tell us that everything is correct because in their view these are propaganda instruments
rather than news agencies. This is what regulation is all about.
When we suggest turning to universally approved OSCE documents that reject as unacceptable any obstacles standing in the way
of the public or journalists getting access to information, we are told that this was the case in 1990 and should remain there.
There are other examples as well. When France failed to use the OPCW exclusively for passing remotely a verdict on who is guilty
and who is not in violation of all conceivable norms of the Chemical Weapons Convention, it took the initiative to establish an International
Partnership against Impunity for the Use of Chemical Weapons that was not linked with any international structures. A few months
later the EU made a decision to the effect that if the new structure reveals violators, Brussels will impose sanctions on them. This
is, of course, regulation but this regulation is based on the narrow interpretation of broad interests by an individual group of
countries.
As for the internet, the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) has been talking for years, if not decades, about the way
the internet should function so as to not offend anyone. No results have been produced and there will not be any in the foreseeable
future for obvious-to-all reasons. I have practically no doubts about this. Likewise, for the same reason virtually not a single
Western country supported our proposals that were endorsed by the UN General Assembly at the onset of work on the rules of responsible
conduct in cyberspace.
You mentioned migration. There is the Global Compact for Migration that was adopted last year. The West was fighting for it to
include a provision on the equal and divided responsibility for the migration crisis. Russia and other countries objected. It
wasn't us that bombed Libya and turned it into a "black hole." It still remains such and through it bandits, terrorists and arms
traffickers travel to the Sahara-Sahel zone whereas migrants are heading to the north. Therefore, we leave it up to them to deal
with those who are responsible for this.
We are now talking about the formation of the multipolar international order. Its development was preceded by a whole historical
era.
Apparently, the international legal space is being fragmented – the US is doing this all along the way while the EU is isolating
itself when it comes to a number of issues. The processes that are taking place in Eurasia may also be interpreted as isolation at
some point but in reality we want to launch something that will become all-embracing.
Maybe, there is a rational idea in everything that is taking place. As Vladimir Lenin used to say, "before uniting it is necessary
resolutely to draw lines of demarcation." Maybe, we should be fragmented to understand who the main global players are.
Not those that established the UN in 1945 but those that are playing today, in the middle of the 21 st century. Only
after this we should think what to do next, for instance, with the UN. It is absolutely clear that the UN Security Council requires
a reform because the world's developing regions of Asia, Africa and Latin America are not properly represented in it. Today, up to
one third of the UN Security Council is represented by EU countries. I don't think that if more countries from the historical West
are added to this structure, it will gain the diversity we want to see in it.
Analytic piece on staged chemical attacks " ... weaponized disinformation campaigns,
staged videos and fake news are common approaches used by the US military and special services
to promote their own agenda around the world. The US was actively using these tools during its
intervention in Iraq and after it.
According to the later revelations, the employed programs were varying from placing
Pentagon-provided articles in Iraqi newspapers as "unbiased news" to producing footage, which
were made to look as if they had been "created by Arabic TV," and CDs with fake al-Qaeda
videos, which then distributed through various channels.
The employed propaganda approaches are constantly evolving. Therefore, propaganda coverage
of the conflict in Syria has some differences with those which were observed in Iraq. Now,
mainstream media, the Pentagon, the intelligence services and diplomats are actively using
Hollywood-style approaches. This style of the coverage is based on providing catchy, even if
horrible, pictures and videos influencing the emotions of the audience rather than convincing
it with logical conclusions.
Just like with Hollywood movies, the mainstream news has increasingly been turning away from
the logical narration of stories with realistic motivations to emotional judgements based on
anonymous sources, non-verified images, pocket citizen journalists and even open speculation.
The content developed within the framework of this approach is usually based on the results of
social and psychological research. This allows results to be maximised by the targetted
development of content and appropriate segmentation of the audience. An interesting and
successful example of this audience reaction modelling can be seen in the mainstream media
coverage of the Salisbury incident, which gave rise to large-scale hysteria in Western
countries about Russian spies." SF
-------------
Well, pilgrims, you heard it first here and often over the last years. This piece speaks for
itself. pl
"mainstream news... to emotional judgements based on anonymous sources, non-verified images,
pocket citizen journalists and even open speculation. " That fits the latest news events from
the Right to Life March or the Jussie Smollett hate hoax.
"weaponized disinformation campaigns" I was thinking of writing something along the lines
of "Where have all the good communists gone". It sure seems their agitprop tactics are alive
and well.
The media in most countries report the news in a neutral manner. Since the Judaists bought
the media, they turned media into weapons of terror, by:
a. Fake news -- outright lies (eg. calling alien invaders "migrants").
b. Manufacturing scandals that THEY make up eg. blackface.
c. Harassing and abusing patriots and others and calling them racists, getting them fired from
jobs, etc.
None of these are legitimate jobs of the media. The New York Times and most Zionists
controlled media in this country are therefore criminal enterprises and terrorist organizations
and these criminals belong in prison.
See the real connection between the fake Steele Dossier and the Skipal hoax.
The UK MI6 is behind everything with Australia and Nato. War with Russia is coming to
avoid the Brexit. It has been planned 5 years ago. The Brexit is just a good excuse.
The continued NATO harassment, sanctions and campaigns of lies and false accusations
against Russia, including the blatant war rhetoric of the British Defence Secretary, do not
bode well for the future. For the US to tear up nuclear arms treaties and then blame Russia
is beyond shameful: it is destroying all possibility of negotiations to avert war. The Kerch
Strait incident staged by the puppet regime in Kiev, sending gunboats into the Kerch Strait
without observing the 2003 Protocol requiring them to notify in advance the Port of Kerch (a
protocol observed by the dozens of ships that go through the Strait peacefully every day) was
clearly part of a NATO plan to set up a major naval clash in the Black Sea.
That clash (followed by an attempt to recapture Crimea or at least blow up its magnificent
bridge, a reproach to a man who cannot even build a wall) may be expected in coming months,
perhaps as a distraction from Brexit or a way of derailing it. NATO, in short, is on a clear
trajectory towards war with Russia, which their deluded worldview convinces them they can
win.
Their initial use of Russia as a scapegoat and bogeyman to unite the NATO vassals against
a common threat, keeping Europe in subjection to America, has got out of hand, and is
heading, under the impetus of hysterical rhetoric, towards actual war. Unless decent people
unite to stop this escalation then the nuclear catastrophe will occur.
Exposing the barefaced lie of the Skripal false flag attack may be a step towards averting
that global cataclysm.
Yes CNN, the walls are closing in ... on the mainstream media.
Meanwhile perhaps it's time for CNN's "media janitor", Brian Stelter, who is oh so quick to
point out the bias in every other network except his own, tackle the most difficult and embarrassing
question : why were the mainstream - and fringe - journalists who were skeptical of
Smollett's claims, attacked and forced to self-censor when the case was unfolding, and will
continue to self-censor knowing that if they criticize Smollett directly they would be accused
of homophobia and racism?
congress passed the "magnitsky act" that allows the seizure of assets of anyone deemed to
be a political enemy of libtard socialist welfare statists (despite the fact that Magnitsky
did the books for Browder who evaded Russian taxes in the hundreds of millions of dollars as
part of a western conspiracy to strip mine the Russian economy - even Magnitsky mother said
that he was not murdered by the Russian police).
there needs to be a "smollett act" that penalizes anyone that publicly demonizes a race,
color, creed or religion by inciting malice/hatred/discrimination against another
race/color/religion/creed without proof.
blacks/whites/yellows/browns can be racist, sexist, agist, mithandristic, mysogynistic or
any other form of discrimination. 95% of all people are not that way. positive discrimination
is just as evil as negative discrimination.
time to enforce and strengthen race hate laws.
the penalties should start with a BAN on using social media or the MSM to further their
views that "guilty by gossip, conjecture and fomentation of societal discord (aka. disturbing
the peace) " overturns the basic legal tenet of "innocent until proven guilty".
Fact is partisanship is a mental disease that affects the Left and Right - ends justify
the means. Obvious example: if Obama were to use a National Emergency to take action Congress
expressly rejected and Obama signed into law, people on the right would call for impeachment
and make all kinds of nasty accusations; when Trump does it, they cheer. There is no
principle there, it's pure partisanship.
Perfect example also is the Fox news clip linked above. The Fox pundit asks increduously
"why would these women smear him? what do they have to gain?", but I can guarantee you he
wasn't asking those same questions when Kavanaugh was being accused.
This is a classic Christ-killing *** tactic straight from Saul Alinsky (Hillary's mentor).
Since the kikes control all U.S. media from print media to broadcast media to Internet social
media, they will never be called to account. They simply either make up the lie or they
spread/broadcast/'retweet' the lie until it is a meme. If they are caught in the act, they
merely let it drop or issue some half-assed mea culpa, but the damage is done/the innocent
are tarred until the next lie is fabricated or spread. Of course, the lies/mendacity are
against only white Christian Heritage Americans. Kikery at its most demonic. Someone once
said that 'A lie has made its way around the world, before the truth has gotten out of
bed.'
Oh, off topic but important to note that the *** press also spikes/stifles relevant facts
in stories such as the fact that yesterday's Aurora, Illinois shooter (who killed five white
people and shot and injured five police officers) was a ******. If he had been white, the
guy's face would be plastered over every page and screen in America with the *** media
screaming for gun control.
"... This is the behavior of a media class that is interested in selling narratives, not reporting truth. And yet the mass media talking heads are all telling us today that we must continue to trust them. ..."
"... More accountability in media than in politics, Chuck? Really? Accountability to whom? Your advertisers? Your plutocratic owners? Certainly not to the people whose minds you are paid exorbitant sums to influence; there are no public elections for the leadership of the mass media. ..."
"... CNN, for the record, has been guilty of an arguably even more embarrassing Russiagate flub than Buzzfeed 's when they wrongly reported that Donald Trump Jr had had access to WikiLeaks' DNC email archives prior to their 2016 publication, an error that was hilariously due to to the simple misreading of an email date by multiple people ..."
"... The mass media, including pro-Trump mass media like Fox News, absolutely deserves to be distrusted. It has earned that distrust. It had earned that distrust already with its constant promotion of imperialist wars and an oligarch-friendly status quo, and it has earned it even more with its frenzied promotion of a narrative engineered to manufacture consent for a preexisting agenda to shove Russia off the world stage. ..."
"... The mainstream media absolutely is the enemy of the people; just because Trump says it doesn't mean it's not true. The only reason people don't rise up and use the power of their numbers to force the much-needed changes that need to happen in our world is because they are being propagandized to accept the status quo day in and day out by the mass media's endless cultural engineering project . ..."
"... They are the reason why wars go unopposed, why third parties never gain traction, why people consent to money hemorrhaging upward to the wealthiest of the wealthy while everyone else struggles to survive. The sooner people wake up from the perverse narrative matrix of the plutocratic media, the better. ..."
Following what the Washington Post
has described as "the highest-profile misstep yet for a news organization during a period
of heightened and intense scrutiny of the press," mass media representatives are now flailing
desperately for an argument as to why people should continue to place their trust in mainstream
news outlets.
On Thursday Buzzfeed News delivered
the latest "bombshell" Russiagate report to fizzle within 24 hours of its publication, a
pattern that is now so consistent that I've personally made a practice of declining to comment
on such stories until a day or two after their release. "BOOM!" tweets were issued by
#Resistance pundits on Twitter, "If true this means X, Y and Z" bloviations were made on mass
media punditry panels, and for about 20 hours Russiagaters everywhere were riding the high of
their lives, giddy with the news that President Trump had committed an impeachable felony by
ordering Michael Cohen to lie to Congress about a proposed Trump office tower in Moscow, a
proposal which died within weeks
and the Kremlin never touched .
There was reason enough already for any reasonable person to refrain from frenzied
celebration, including the fact that the story's two authors, Jason Leopold and Anthony
Cormier, were giving the press two very different accounts of
the information they'd based it on, with Cormier telling CNN that he had not personally seen
the evidence underlying his report and Leopold telling MSNBC that he had. Both Leopold and
Cormier, for the record, have already previously suffered a
Russiagate faceplant with the clickbait viral story that Russia had financed the 2016
election, burying the fact that it was a Russian election .
Then the entire story came crashing down when Mueller's office took the extremely rare step
of issuing an
unequivocal statement that the Buzzfeed story was wrong , writing simply, "BuzzFeed's
description of specific statements to the special counsel's office, and characterization of
documents and testimony obtained by this office, regarding Michael Cohen's congressional
testimony are not accurate."
According to journalist and economic analyst Doug Henwood, the print New York Times covered
the Buzzfeed report on its front page when the story broke, but the report on Mueller's
correction the next day was shoved back to page 11 .
This appalling journalistic malpractice makes it very funny that NYT's Wajahat Ali had the gall
to tweet , "Unlike the Trump
administration, journalists are fact checking and willing to correct the record if the Buzzfeed
story is found inaccurate. Not really the actions of a deep state and enemy of the people,
right?"
This is the behavior of a media class that is interested in selling narratives, not
reporting truth. And yet the mass media talking heads are all telling us today that we must
continue to trust them.
"Those trying to tar all media today aren't interested in improving journalism but
protecting themselves," tweeted NBC's Chuck Todd.
"There's a lot more accountability in media these days than in our politics. We know we
live in a glass house, we hope the folks we cover are as self aware."
More accountability in media than in politics, Chuck? Really? Accountability to whom? Your
advertisers? Your plutocratic owners? Certainly not to the people whose minds you are paid
exorbitant sums to influence; there are no public elections for the leadership of the mass
media.
"Mueller didn't do the media any favors tonight, and he did do the president one,"
griped
the odious Chris Cuomo on CNN. "Because as you saw with Rudy Giuliani and as I'm sure
you'll see with the president himself, this allows them to say 'You can't believe it! You can't
believe what you read, you can't believe what you hear! You can only believe us. Even the
Special Counsel says that the media doesn't get it right.'"
"The larger message that a lot of people are going to take from this story is that the
news media are a bunch of leftist liars who are dying to get the president, and they're
willing to lie to do it, and I don't think that's true" said Jeffrey Toobin on a CNN panel , adding "I
just think this is a bad day for us."
"It does reinforce bad stereotypes about the news media," said Brian Stelter on the same CNN
panel.
"I am desperate as a media reporter to always say to the audience, judge folks
individually and judge brands individually. Don't fall for what these politicians out there
want you to do. They want you to think we're all crooked. We're not. But Buzzfeed now, now
the onus is on Buzzfeed. "
CNN, for the record, has been guilty of an arguably
even more embarrassing Russiagate flub than Buzzfeed 's when they wrongly reported that
Donald Trump Jr had had access to WikiLeaks' DNC email archives prior to their 2016
publication, an error that was hilariously due to to the simple misreading of an email date by
multiple people.
The mass media, including pro-Trump mass media like Fox News, absolutely deserves to be
distrusted. It has earned that distrust. It had earned that distrust already with its constant
promotion of imperialist wars and an oligarch-friendly status quo, and it has earned it even
more with its frenzied promotion of a narrative engineered to manufacture consent for a
preexisting agenda to shove Russia off the world stage.
The mainstream media absolutely is the enemy of the people; just because Trump says it
doesn't mean it's not true. The only reason people don't rise up and use the power of their
numbers to force the much-needed changes that need to happen in our world is because they are
being propagandized to accept the status quo day in and day out by the mass media's endless
cultural engineering project .
They are the reason why wars go unopposed, why third parties
never gain traction, why people consent to money hemorrhaging upward to the wealthiest of the
wealthy while everyone else struggles to survive. The sooner people wake up from the perverse
narrative matrix of the plutocratic media, the better.
"... Cohen said the censorship that he has faced in recent years is similar to the censorship imposed on dissidents in the Soviet Union. ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... "Katrina and I had a joint signed op-ed piece in the New York Times ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... "The alternatives have been excluded from both. I would welcome an opportunity to debate these issues in the mainstream media, where you can reach more people. And remember, being in these pages, for better or for worse, makes you Kosher. This is the way it works. If you have been on these pages, you are cited approvingly. You are legitimate. You are within the parameters of the debate." ..."
"... "When I lived off and on in the Soviet Union, I saw how Soviet media treated dissident voices. And they didn't have to arrest them. They just wouldn't ever mention them. Sometimes they did that (arrest them). But they just wouldn't ever mention them in the media." ..."
"... "And something like that has descended here. And it's really alarming, along with some other Soviet-style practices in this country that nobody seems to care about – like keeping people in prison until they break, that is plea, without right to bail, even though they haven't been convicted of anything." ..."
"... "That's what they did in the Soviet Union. They kept people in prison until people said – I want to go home. Tell me what to say – and I'll go home. That's what we are doing here. And we shouldn't be doing that." ..."
"... Russell Mokhiber is the editor of the Corporate Crime Reporter.. ..."
Cohen has largely been banished from mainstream media.
"I had been arguing for years -- very much against the American political media grain --
that a new US/Russian Cold War was unfolding -- driven primarily by politics in Washington, not
Moscow," Cohen writes in War with Russia. "For this perspective, I had been largely
excluded from influential print, broadcast and cable outlets where I had been previously
welcomed."
On the stage at Busboys and Poets with Cohen was Katrina vanden Heuvel, the editor of
The Nation magazine, and Robert Borosage, co-founder of the Campaign for America's
Future.
Cohen said the censorship that he has faced in recent years is similar to the censorship
imposed on dissidents in the Soviet Union.
"Until some period of time before Trump, on the question of what America's policy toward
Putin's Kremlin should be, there was a reasonable facsimile of a debate on those venues that
had these discussions," Cohen said. "Are we allowed to mention the former Charlie Rose for
example? On the long interview form, Charlie would have on a person who would argue for a very
hard policy toward Putin. And then somebody like myself who thought it wasn't a good idea."
"Occasionally that got on CNN too. MSNBC not so much. And you could get an op-ed piece
published, with effort, in the New York Times or Washington Post ."
"Katrina and I had a joint signed op-ed piece in the New York Times six or
seven years ago. But then it stopped. And to me, that's the fundamental difference between this
Cold War and the preceding Cold War."
"I will tell you off the record – no, I'm not going to do it," Cohen said. "Two
exceedingly imminent Americans, who most op-ed pages would die to get a piece by, just to say
they were on the page, submitted such articles to the New York Times , and they were
rejected the same day. They didn't even debate it. They didn't even come back and say –
could you tone it down? They just didn't want it."
"Now is that censorship? In Italy, where each political party has its own newspaper, you
would say – okay fair enough. I will go to a newspaper that wants me. But here, we are
used to these newspapers."
"Remember how it works. I was in TV for 18 years being paid by CBS. So, I know how these
things work. TV doesn't generate its own news anymore. Their actual reporting has been
de-budgeted. They do video versions of what is in the newspapers."
"Look at the cable talk shows. You see it in the New York Times and Washington
Post in the morning, you turn on the TV at night and there is the video version. That's
just the way the news business works now."
"The alternatives have been excluded from both. I would welcome an opportunity to debate
these issues in the mainstream media, where you can reach more people. And remember, being in
these pages, for better or for worse, makes you Kosher. This is the way it works. If you have
been on these pages, you are cited approvingly. You are legitimate. You are within the
parameters of the debate."
"If you are not, then you struggle to create your own alternative media. It's new in my
lifetime. I know these imminent Americans I mentioned were shocked when they were just told no.
It's a lockdown. And it is a form of censorship."
"When I lived off and on in the Soviet Union, I saw how Soviet media treated dissident
voices. And they didn't have to arrest them. They just wouldn't ever mention them. Sometimes
they did that (arrest them). But they just wouldn't ever mention them in the media."
"Dissidents created what is known as samizdat – that's typescript that you circulate
by hand. Gorbachev, before he came to power, did read some samizdat. But it's no match for
newspapers published with five, six, seven million copies a day. Or the three television
networks which were the only television networks Soviet citizens had access to."
"And something like that has descended here. And it's really alarming, along with some
other Soviet-style practices in this country that nobody seems to care about – like
keeping people in prison until they break, that is plea, without right to bail, even though
they haven't been convicted of anything."
"That's what they did in the Soviet Union. They kept people in prison until people said
– I want to go home. Tell me what to say – and I'll go home. That's what we are
doing here. And we shouldn't be doing that."
Cohen appears periodically on Tucker Carlson's show on Fox News. And that rankled one person
in the audience at Busboys and Poets, who said he worried that Cohen's perspective on Russia
can be "appropriated by the right."
"Trump can take that and run on a nationalistic platform – to hell with NATO, to
hell with fighting these endless wars, to do what he did in 2016 and get the votes of people
who are very concerned about the deteriorating relations between the U.S. and Russia," the
man said.
Cohen says that on a personal level, he likes Tucker Carlson "and I don't find him to be a
racist or a nationalist."
"Nationalism is on the rise around the world everywhere," Cohen said. "There are
different kinds of nationalism. We always called it patriotism in this country, but we have
always been a nationalistic country."
"Fox has about three to four million viewers at that hour," Cohen said. "If I am not
permitted to give my take on American/Russian relations on any other mass media, and by the
way, possibly talk directly to Trump, who seems to like his show, and say – Trump is
making a mistake, he should do this or do that instead -- I don't get many opportunities
– and I can't see why I shouldn't do it."
"I get three and a half to four minutes," Cohen said. "I don't see it as consistent with my
mission, if that's the right word, to say no. These articles I write for The Nation ,
which ended up in my book, are posted on some of the most God awful websites in the world. I
had to look them up to find out how bad they really are. But what can I do about it?"
The key question is how strong is Maduro support within Venezuela? When oil is in stake,
imperial powers usually take gloves off pretty quickly.
All this rhetoric of Eric Zuesse does not answer the key question: does Maduro movement
propose sustainable alternative to neoliberalism in Venezuela and has unwavering support of armed
forces and population in view of this externally driven aggression? Because if the model is
unsustainable (iether for internal or external reasons -- presence of neoliberal 3000 pound
guerilla on the continent) it will eventually be crushed. What is the plan and what Maduro is
trying to built? Left government in several other countries of LA were recently deposed by openly
neoliberal puppets: Argentina and Brazil are two recent examples.
"Progressive regimes" all run into problems in economics (which are given due to neocolonial
nature of the current World order) which in turn creates social problems and the precondition for
neoliberal coup d'état sponsored from Washington. So there is a Neoliberal Catch 22 for all countries who want to
excape dependence on the USA: neoliberals new order guarantee that economic condition of peripheral countries do not improve; that
creates social discontent that allows to propose population a neoliberal carrot -- elect a neoliberal leader and your standard of
living "soon" will be like in the USA. neoliberal coup d'état can now succeed. Further impoverishing follows but it is
too late -- the train has left the station.
While convention to to more extreme
version of neoliberalism does not solve the problems in economics (Argentina here is nice example
of "What happens next after neoliberals came back to power") and impoverishment of population is
given. But at the same time the civil war is prevented and the support of the USA guarantee a
certain period of political stability.
In other words this struggle is about alternatives to neoliberalism and anti-neoliberal
governments have a huge handicap in a form of the USA presence on the continent. It looks like
Canada is just another neoliberal puppet of the USA in this game/
Notable quotes:
"... Venezuelan soldiers have blocked the crossing ahead of a delivery arranged by opposition leader Juan Guaidó, who has declared himself interim president ..."
Today, we have been joined by our Lima Group partners, from Argentina, Brazil, Chile,
Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, and Saint Lucia.
We have also been joined in our conversations with our partners from other countries, for
this Lima Group ministerial meeting. These include Ecuador, the European Union, France,
Germany, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States."
She, along with U.S. President Donald Trump, had, all along, been the actual leaders of this
international diplomatic effort, to violate
the Venezuelan Constitution blatantly , so as to perpetrate the coup in Venezuela. Her active effort to replace Venezuela's Government began with her formation of the Lima
Group, nearly two years ago.
Canada's Ottawa Citizen headlined on 19 August 2017,
"Choosing Danger" , and their reporter Peter Hum interviewed Canada's Ambassador to
Venezuela, Ben Rowswell, who was then retiring from the post. Rowswell said that Venezuelans
who wanted an overthrow of their Government would continue to have the full support of Canada's
Government : "'I think that some of them were sort of anxious that it (the
embassy's support for human rights and democracy in Venezuela) might not
continue after I left,' Rowswell said. 'I don't think they have anything to worry
about because Minister (of Foreign Affairs Chrystia) Freeland has Venezuela way at the top
of her priority list.'"
Maybe it wasn't yet at the top of Trump's list, but it was at the top of hers. And she and
Trump together chose whom to
replace Venezuela's President, Nicholas Maduro, by: Juan Guaido . Guaido had secretly
courted other Latin American leaders for this, just as Freeland had already done, by means of
her secretly forming the Lima Group.
On 25 January 2019, the AP bannered "AP
Exclusive: Anti-Maduro coalition grew from secret talks" and reported that the man who now
claims to be Venezuela's legitimate President (though he had never even run for that post),
Juan Guaido, had secretly visited foreign countries in order to win their blessings for what he
was planning:
In mid-December, Guaido quietly traveled to Washington, Colombia and Brazil to
brief officials on the opposition's strategy of mass demonstrations to coincide with Maduro's
expected swearing-in for a second term on Jan. 10 in the face of widespread international
condemnation, according to exiled former Caracas Mayor Antonio Ledezma, an ally.
Playing a key role behind the scenes was Lima Group member Canada, whose Foreign Minister
Chrystia Freeland spoke to Guaido [9 January 2019] the night before Maduro's swearing-in
ceremony [on 10 January 2019] to offer her government's support should he confront the
socialist leader [Maduro], the Canadian official said. Also active was Colombia, which
shares a border with Venezuela and has received more than two million migrants fleeing economic
chaos, along with Peru and Brazil's new far-right President Jair Bolsonaro.
To leave Venezuela, he sneaked across the lawless border with Colombia, so as not to raise
suspicions among immigration officials who sometimes harass opposition figures at the airport
and bar them from traveling abroad, said a different anti-government leader, speaking on
condition of anonymity to discuss security arrangements.
During the last days in office of Canada's Ambassador to Venezuela Rowswell, U.S. President
Donald Trump went public with his overt threat to invade Venezuela. On 11 August 2017,
McClatchy's Miami Herald bannered "Trump
was making friends in Latin America -- before he raised Venezuela 'military option'" , and
Patricia Mazzei reported that "President Donald Trump's unexpected
suggestion Friday that he might rely on military force to deal with Venezuela's pressing
political crisis was an astonishing statement that strained not only credulity but also the
White House's hard-won new friendships in Latin America."
Even a spokesperson from the Atlantic Council (which is the main PR agency for NATO) was
quoted as saying that "U.S. diplomats, after weeks of carefully building the groundwork for
a collective international response, suddenly find their efforts completely undercut by a
ridiculously over the top and anachronistic assertion. It makes us look imperialistic and
old-time. This is not how the U.S. has behaved in decades!" However, Peru's Foreign
Minister, Ricardo Luna, was just as eager for a coup in Venezuela as were Trump and
Freeland.
On 26 October 2017,
Peru's Gestion TV reported that Luna was the co-chair of the meeting of the Lima Group in
Toronto, which Freeland chaired, and that (as translated into English here) "Luna added that
the objective of the meeting of the Group of Lima 'is to create a propitious situation' so that
the regime of Nicolás Maduro 'feels obligated to negotiate' not only an exit to the
crisis, 'but also an exit to his own regime'."
This gang was going to make Maduro an offer that he couldn't refuse. So, the Lima Group,
which was founded by Luna and by Freeland, was taking the initiative as much and as boldly as
Trump was, regardless of what NATO might think about it. The topic of that news-report, and its
headline, was "Peru proposes Grupo de Lima to involve the UN to face the Venezuelan
crisis." Four days later, Freeland and Luna met privately at the U.N., in New York, with
the Secretary General, Antonio Guterres.
Inner City
Press reported that"The title of the meeting is 'the situation in Venezuela and efforts
by regional organizations to resolve the crisis per Chapter VIII of the UN Charter' [see it
here ] and the briefer will be not USG [Under Secretary General] Jeffrey Feltman but his
Assistant, ASG [Assistant Secretary-General for Political Affairs] Miroslav Jenca."
Jeffrey Feltman was the person who, in the secretly recorded 27 January 2014
phone-conversation in which U.S. President Barack Obama's agent, Victoria Nuland -- planning
and overseeing the February 2014 coup that overthrew Ukraine's democratically elected President
-- instructed the U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, that, after Ukraine's President is ousted,
Arseniy "Yats" Yatsenyuk was to be appointed as Ukraine's 'interim' leader as the new Prime
Minister, to replace the President. She also
said :
"I talked to Jeff Feltman this morning; he had a new name for the UN guy Robert Serry.
He's now gotten both Serry and Ban ki-Moon to agree that Serry could come in Monday or
Tuesday. That would be great, I think, to help glue this thing, and to have the UN help glue
it, and, you know, fuck the EU."
So, the still Under Secretary General of the U.N, Mr. Feltman, is still America's fixer
there, who "glues" whatever the U.S. President orders the U.N. to do, and his Assistant was
filling in for him that day. Therefore, if Trump and Freeland turn out to be as successful as
Obama was, then the U.N. will "glue" the outcome. Chrystia Freeland happens also to be a friend
of Victoria Nuland, and a passionate supporter of her coup in Ukraine.
... ... ...
Of course, the man whom the U.S. and Canadian regimes and the Lima Group are trying to
install as Venezuela's President, Juan Guaido, had been well-groomed for that job, but not by
political and electoral experience, of which he has almost none, but by his foreign sponsors.
On 29 January 2019 the Gray Zone Project bannered
"The Making of Juan Guaidó: How the US Regime Change Laboratory Created Venezuela's Coup
Leader" , and their two star investigative journalists, Dan Cohen and Max Blumenthal,
opened: "Juan Guaidó is the product of a decade-long project overseen by Washington's
elite regime change trainers. While posing as a champion of democracy, he has spent years at
the forefront of a violent campaign of destabilization."
This report also noted that "The 'real work' began two years later, in 2007, when
Guaidó graduated from Andrés Bello Catholic University of Caracas. He moved to
Washington, DC to enroll in the Governance and Political Management Program at George
Washington University, under the tutelage of Venezuelan economist Luis Enrique Berrizbeitia,
one of the top Latin American neoliberal economists. Berrizbeitia is a former executive
director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) [and the IMF is a central part the operation
that's described in John Perkins's now-classic Confessions of an Economic Hit Man] who spent
more than a decade working in the Venezuelan energy sector, under the old oligarchic regime
that was ousted by Chávez."
Moreover, "Stratfor and CANVAS – key advisors of Guaidó and his
anti-government cadre – devised a shockingly cynical plan to drive a dagger through the
heart of the Bolivarian revolution. The scheme hinged on a 70% collapse of the country's
electrical system by as early as April 2010." Etc. This is how 'democracy' now functions.
It's not democracy -- it is fascism. The euphemisms for it are "neoliberalism" and
"neoconservatism."
Regardless of whether or not the Trump-Freeland-Luna program for Venezuela succeeds,
democracy and human rights won't be advanced by it; but, if it succeeds, the fortunes of
US-and-allied billionaires will be . It's part of their global
privatization program .
Sidebar: If you want to understand what was the historical
context where Inner City Press reported that
"The title of the meeting is 'the situation in Venezuela and efforts by regional
organizations to resolve the crisis per Chapter VIII of the UN Charter'" ; then Luk Van Langenhove has
summarized that context , by saying:
Few invocations of Chapter VIII's provisions were made during the cold war period. But
when the bipolar world system collapsed and spawned new global security threats, the
explosion of local and regional armed conflicts provoked a renewed interest in regional
organizations and their role in the maintenance of regional peace and security. The United
Nations was forced to acknowledge its inability to solely bear the responsibility for
providing peace and security worldwide."
So, "during the cold war period," this provision of the UN Charter remained virtually
inactive. Then, suddenly, after 1991, when the Soviet Union and its communism and its Warsaw
Pact military alliance to counter America's NATO military alliance, all ended (with
no concessions being made on the American side ), America could no longer use 'communism'
as a 'justification' to invade or perpetrate coups against foreign governments that were
friendly toward or else allied with Russia.
So, now, this provision of the U.N.'s Charter became activated by the U.S. and its
allies, in order to be able to say that The West's coups and invasions aren't actually to
build-out the U.S. empire, but are instead for (in the terms of this part of the U.N.'s
Charter) "the maintenance of international peace and security" -- so as to 'authorize' coups
and international invasions by the U.S. and its vassal nations, such as are the members of
NATO.
This is what U.S. President G.H.W. Bush had in mind to rely upon, when he told the leaders
of the U.S. regime's vassal states, secretly at Camp David, on the night of 24 February 1990,
that the 'Cold War' would now continue secretly on the U.S.-allied side, against Russia and
against any nation's leaders (such as Saddam Hussein, Muammar Qaddafi, Bashar al-Assad, and
Viktor Yanukovych) that aren't hostile toward Russia, by Bush's saying then to them, that no
compromise must ever be allowed "with Moscow," because
"To hell with that! We prevailed, they didn't."
In other words, whereas the U.N. had been set up by FDR to evolve ultimately into the global
democratic federation of nation-states -- a democratic world-government -- so as to become the
sole possessor of control over all strategic weaponry, and thus to become the democratic
republic of the entire world authorized to settle international disputes peacefully, the
subterranean Nazis and other fascists whom U.S. President Truman and the Bilderberg group
represented, were determined that the U.S. and its vassal nations would ultimately become the
dictatorship over all nations, the entire world. That's what Ukraine, and now Venezuela, and
many other U.S. coups and invasions, are -- and have been -- really about. It's about the
'peace' of the graveyard, NOT any democracy, anywhere at all.
That's their dream. They want to monopolize the corruption everywhere, not to end it,
anywhere. And that's why they distort and blatantly lie about
Venezuela's democratic constitution now , just as they did about Ukraine's
democratic constitution in February 2014. It's, essentially, a lawless international gang
of billionaire thugs. It is the international
Deep State . It consists of the under 2,000 people who are international billionaires in
the U.S. and secondarily in the U.S.-allied countries, and of those billionaires' millions of
hirees.
585 of those under-2,000 are Americans .
But the wealthiest person on the planet isn't even listed on any of the standard lists of
billionaires, and
he is the King of Saudi Arabia . That person is the U.S. aristocracy's #1 international
ally, because ever since the 1970s when gold no longer backed the U.S. dollar but instead oil
did, that person's decisions have enabled the U.S. dollar to continue as being the world's
reserve currency, no matter how big the U.S. economy's trade deficits are, and no matter how
high the U.S. Government's fiscal deficits are.
Below those billionaires (and trillionaire), and below their millions of hirees, are the
billions of serfs; and, below those, at the very bottom, are the approximately 40 million slaves , and the many
millions imprisoned -- virtually all of whom have extremely low (if any) net worth at all,
since slavery and imprisonment are, in the real world, only for the very poor, not at all for
the international gangsters, except for a very few exceptions (such as, perhaps, "El
Chapo").
The billionaires command, and the governments obey; that's 'democracy', and it's 'the rule
of law', today. Everything to the contrary is propaganda, such as that what Trump-Freeland-Luna
want for Venezuela is to decrease corruption and to increase democracy and human rights.
At least the more blatant fascist John Bolton was honest when
he said on January 28th : "It will make a big difference to the United States
economically if we could have American oil companies invest in and produce the oil capabilities
in Venezuela." But he would have been lots more honest if he had acknowledged, instead,
that "It will make a big difference to the United States billionaires economically if we
could have American oil companies invest in and produce the oil capabilities in
Venezuela."
This is all that the fascists ever really cared about. Mussolini called it "corporationism."
Now, decades in the wake of the Allies' supposed 'victory against fascism' -- against the Axis
powers -- in WW II, we all (at least the realists) are acknowledging that we clearly are
staring in the face the raw fact that fascism has finally won, or at least very nearly totally
won, in the world.
Hitler, Mussolini, and Hirohito, died; but their ideological followers today rule the world,
and FDR would be turning in his grave.
Unfortunately the Orange one is being wagged again by those who are most seriously plotting his demise and
over reach in Venezuela may be just as much part of the plan as it was in pushing him into launching an attack
on Syria. It is true that the global elites are at a loss what to do, as the fracturing of the global
oligarchies is proving Marx right . capitalist are just a band of warring brothers [brigands, robbers, pirates
– all!]. As there is no serious ideological threat to their hegemony at the moment they fight amongst
themselves with imperial designs.
The threat to the imperium is the chaos which ensues when the elite power struggles fracture their hegemony
and an uncontrollable uprising ensues. Who shapes that revolution will be central to this. Where it will come
from is not evident yet but let's hope it's a grass roots one!
Yes, they will never stop. Just think of this brand-new propaganda lie of Maduro allegedly preventing aid
shipment to come into Venezuela. See BBC:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-47143492 : "Venezuelan soldiers have blocked the crossing
ahead of a delivery arranged by opposition leader Juan Guaidó, who has declared himself
interim president".
Notice the word "ahead" in this sentence. This word
appears because there was never a "delivery" (truck) with aid shipment at the bridge!
The Venezuelan government ("Maduro") blocked the bridge only because of war-threatening Columbia and USA.
If you want to send aid shipment to Venezuela you can send as much as you want anytime. Of course you have to
respect the regulations of the custom (like in every other country!). But that's all!
Whets foul with this story?
Well, this aid "delivery" cannot have been collected in Colombia – and thus being taken away from the
people of Colombia, who are much poorer than the people of Venezuela. So it would have to come from other
country (USA, Europe, China, Japan). And then you would not land this aid shipment in Columbia (a harbour, an
airport), drive it, in hot-humid air, through half of Colombia to the border crossing bridge of Cúcuta. Then
cross the bridge and then drive it through half of Venezuela!
Instead aid shipments for Venezuela would be landed directly in Venezuela – in an Venezuelan harbour or
airport.
"... The Guardian's Latin America correspondent, Tom Phillips, an inveterate liar-by-omission , could easily have included this information. He chose not to, if paid propagandists can ever be said to have a choice in what they print. ..."
This website started as a way to air opinions that The Guardian would not allow in their
comments section. Over time it evolved into fact-checking. Rarely has it been so simple. This
is The Guardian's
latest story on the unfolding crisis in Venezuela, it is headlined:
Venezuela: Maduro accuses US of trying to 'get hands on our oil'
That headline is technically true. Nicolas Maduro – the beseiged Venezuelan
President and the MSM's current "monster of the week" – did accuse the USA of wanting
to control Venezuela's vast crude oil deposits. He cited Iraq and Libya as recent examples of
similar behaviour.
What The Guardian did NOT mention is that John Bolton, Donald Trump's neocon National
Security Advisor, admitted that Maduro was right. He told Fox Business that
Venezuela's oil was a big motivation for Trump's admin:
We're in conversation with major american companies now I think we're trying to get to the
same end result here it will make a BIG difference to the American economy if we could have
American oil companies invest in, and produce, Venezuela's oil capabilities."
There you have it – straight from the Walrus' mouth. The US is interested in
Venezuela's oil. He also refered to it as a "big
business opportunity" . (Here is a second
link to it , just in case Fox News decided to take the (embarrassing) admission off their
website.)
This fact clashes with the false narrative The Guardian , and their co-conspirators
in the media, are trying to push on their public. The state-sponsored narrative is that Maduro
is lying or crazy. A paranoid dictator desperately clinging to power, and spinning fairy tales
to defend himself. John Bolton's admission smashes that lie to pieces. So, of course, it is not mentioned.
The Guardian's Latin America correspondent, Tom Phillips, an inveterate
liar-by-omission , could easily have included this information. He chose not to, if paid
propagandists can ever be said to have a choice in what they print.
The Guardian: Mouthpiece for the liberal wing of British imperialism.
Of course, the USA wants to gain control of Venezuelan oil–note control does not
mean merely accessto but more importantly control over the currency that this oil is sold in
so as to maintain the American Empire's Holiest of Holies: the American PetroDollar.
But then again, the Guardian would also have you believe that America and its (snicker)
Free World allies are really fighting a War on Terrorism–even though they have been
arming and sponsoring jihadist terrorism like the Libyan Islamic Fight Group (against Libya)
and similar groups like Al-Nusra Front (the Al-Queda affiliate in Syria) for years.
So it's not surprising that the Guardian would regurgitate American and Western regime war
propaganda.
USAma Bin Laden: and that's exactly what the Guardian is for: disseminators of pro war, pro
imperialist, pro humanitarian intervention . To save the targeted countries from themselves.
And install an Empire friendly puppet who will bend over for his/her master's. Sheer
coincidence that nearly every country that needs 'saved' also has large amounts of oil and
gas.
Quite right. I also find it depressingly unsurprising that the Graun is not concerned about
the appointment of Elliot Abrams as Trump's lead man in Venezuela. Once upon a time the Graun cared about things like Iran
Contra. Now, who knows where it hides its principles, if it hasn't simply sold them all.
"Everything (to the contrary) is propaganda"
Yes, they will never stop. Just think of this brand-new propaganda lie of Maduro allegedly
preventing aid shipment to come into Venezuela. See BBC: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-47143492
: " Venezuelan soldiers have blocked the crossing ahead of a delivery arranged by
opposition leader Juan Guaidó, who has declared himself interim president ".
Notice the word " ahead " in this sentence. This word appears because there was
never a " delivery " (truck) with aid shipment at the bridge!
The Venezuelan government ("Maduro") blocked the bridge only because of war-threatening
Columbia and USA.
If you want to send aid shipment to Venezuela you can send as much as you want anytime. Of
course you have to respect the regulations of the custom (like in every other country!). But
that's all!
Whets foul with this story?
Well, this aid " delivery " cannot have been collected in Colombia – and thus
being taken away from the people of Colombia, who are much poorer than the people of
Venezuela. So it would have to come from other country (USA, Europe, China, Japan). And then
you would not land this aid shipment in Columbia (a harbour, an airport), drive it, in
hot-humid air, through half of Colombia to the border crossing bridge of Cúcuta. Then
cross the bridge and then drive it through half of Venezuela!
Instead aid shipments for Venezuela would be landed directly in Venezuela – in an
Venezuelan harbour or airport.
I ran into Dan Kazeta a number of times at Bellingcat because of his dodgy claims about
Khan Sheikhoun and chemical weapons (Why has the green tube involved in delivering the
alleged chemical weapon never appeared in the west? Because it ain't what the jihadists
claimed it was and forensic tests would prove that?)
BTW, with Skripal, there can only be conspiracy theorists out in the wild because the
British government has made very little of the evidence behind its stupid claims public, and
what they have made public doesn't add up.
"... "Am I crazy?" -Bari Weiis Well Bari Weiis you're either crazy or you're a yet another worthless establishment shill whose job is spread deliberate misinformation about the most genuine anti-war candidate running at a time when the entire MSM, MIC, and the neoliberal rightwing establishment (including AIPAC) is deliberately smearing her to immediately kill her campaign. And you didn't come across as crazy so... ..."
This woman had NO CLUE what she was talking about. She thought she was on a show that would just tow the party line and let
her get away with wrong statements. She's just repeating what critics say with no idea of the truth. What a fool. As a woman,
THIS IS WHY I WON'T JUST VOTE FOR ANY WOMAN. We are just as capable of being stupid as anyone else.
Bari: "I think Tulsi Gabbard is an Assad toadie." Joe: "What do you mean by toadie?" Bari: "Oh, I don't know what that means."
Joe: "Okay, I looked it up, and it's like a sycophant." Bari: "Then Tulsi is like an Assad sycophant." Joe: "So what do you mean
by that?" Bari: "I'm not sure what sycophant means either." Joe: "I looked up the definition, it's like a suck-up." Bari: "All
right, Tulsi is an Assad suck-up." Joe: "Could you explain that further?" Bari: "I don't know what suck means." Joe: "It's what
you're doing right now."
"Am I crazy?" -Bari Weiis Well Bari Weiis you're either crazy or you're a yet another worthless establishment shill whose job
is spread deliberate misinformation about the most genuine anti-war candidate running at a time when the entire MSM, MIC, and
the neoliberal rightwing establishment (including AIPAC) is deliberately smearing her to immediately kill her campaign. And you
didn't come across as crazy so...
I will be very surprised if neocons would not frame her Putin toady as well. This is how this
system works. It eliminates undesirable to the neoliberals candidates with 100% efficiency.
They
serve as local STASI and some former STASI official might well envy neocons efficiency of
silencing opponents (with much less blood and overt repression, by pure magic of neocon
propaganda ).
Notable quotes:
"... She has "monstrous ideas, she's an Assad toady," Weiss tells Rogan. ..."
"... Rogan then reads the definition: "Toadies. The definition of toadies: A person who flatters or defers to others for self-serving reasons." "A sycophant. So I did use it right!" Weiss exclaims. "So she's an Assad sycophant? Is that what you're saying?" "Yeah, that's, proven -- known -- about her." ..."
"... When Rogan asks what Gabbard has said that qualifies her as a sycophant, Weiss replies: "I don't remember the details." ..."
"... Gabbard, who announced her presidential campaign on January 11, has drawn incredible amounts of ire from mainstream Democrats tripping over themselves for war with Syria because in January 2017, Gabbard met with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and denounced the opposition rebels in the country's civil war as "terrorists." ..."
"... She has also expressed skepticism about accusations that Assad's government has used chemical weapons during the conflict and spoken out against cruise missile attacks by the US and its allies against the country. ..."
Monday to discuss current events, but
things got embarrassing when she went in on Gabbard, a progressive Democrat whose foreign
policy positions have turned more than a few heads.
Neocon NY Times columnist Bari Weiss smeared Tulsi Gabbard (who bravely opposed regime
change and US support for Salafi-jihadist contras) as an "Assad toady," then couldn't
spell/define toady or offer any evidence to prove her smear. Embarrassingly funny pic.twitter.com/m0MLaHFPiX
When Rogan asks for clarification, she says, "I think that I used that word correctly." She
then asks someone off camera to look up what toady means. "Like toeing the line," Rogan says,
"is that what it means?" "No, I think it's like, uh " and Weiss drones off without an answer.
She then attempts to spell it, and can't even do that. "T-O-A-D-I-E. I think it means what I
think it means "
Rogan then reads the definition: "Toadies. The definition of toadies: A person who flatters
or defers to others for self-serving reasons." "A sycophant. So I did use it right!" Weiss
exclaims. "So she's an Assad sycophant? Is that what you're saying?" "Yeah, that's, proven --
known -- about her."
When Rogan asks what Gabbard has said that qualifies her as a sycophant,
Weiss replies: "I don't remember the details."
"We probably should say that before we say that about her -- we should probably read it,
rather, right now, just so we know what she said," Rogan notes. "I think she's, like, the
motherlode of bad ideas," Weiss then says. "I'm pretty positive about that, especially on
Assad. But maybe I'm wrong. I don't think I'm wrong." It seems to us here at Sputnik that such
claims should be made with a bit more confidence than this. So let's set the record
straight.
Gabbard, who announced her presidential campaign on January 11, has drawn incredible amounts
of ire from mainstream Democrats tripping over themselves for war with Syria because in January
2017, Gabbard met with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and denounced the opposition rebels in
the country's civil war as "terrorists."
She has also expressed skepticism about accusations that Assad's
government has used chemical weapons during the conflict and spoken out against cruise missile
attacks by the US and its allies against the country.
"Initially I hadn't planned on meeting him," Gabbard, an Iraq War veteran, told CNN's Jake
Tapper following the meeting. "When the opportunity arose to meet with him, I did so, because I
felt it's important that if we profess to truly care about the Syrian people, about their
suffering, then we've got to be able to meet with anyone that we need to if there is a
possibility that we could achieve peace. And that's exactly what we talked about."
"I have seen this cost of war firsthand, which is why I fight so hard for peace," Gabbard
said. "And that's the reality of the situation that we're facing here. It's why I have urged
and continue to urge [US President Donald] Trump to meet with people like Kim Jong Un in North
Korea, because we understand what's at stake here. The only alternative to having these kinds
of conversations is more war."
Moreover, in a March 2016 speech before Congress, Gabbard called Assad
"a brutal dictator," noting that her opposition to what she called a "war bill" was over the
legal ramifications that she feared would lead to the overthrow of Assad, which she opposes on
anti-interventionist grounds.
"[T]oppling ruthless dictators in the Middle East creates even more human suffering and
strengthens our enemy, groups like ISIS and other terrorist organizations, in those countries,"
Gabbard
said at the time.
Gabbard has been thoroughly demonized for her pro-peace views by global liberal media, as
Trump has been for his moves to end the war in Syria and avoid another on the Korean Peninsula.
For example, The Daily Beast's
article announcing her candidacy called Gabbard "Assad's Favorite Democrat" in its
headline; a Haaretz
headline from last week say she had "Tea With Assad," and the Washington Post has
called her "Assad's Mouthpiece in Washington." The UK Independent
called her a "defender of dictators."
It's not clear what Weiss had in mind when she called Gabbard a "sycophant" and a "toady,"
since the congresswoman's rhetoric about Assad has consisted of skepticism and opposition to
intervention, and she hasn't hesitated to call the Syrian president a "brutal dictator." What
Gabbard's treatment has demonstrated is that a Democrat who steps out of line from the party's
pro-regime change agenda in Syria and who condemns Muslim extremists associated with Daesh and
al-Qaeda should be prepared to suffer for it in the mainstream media.
I love Tulsi; her ad was great. She's the only dem I would vote for at this point. Kamala is an evil hypocrite. And Tulsi's
right, love is the most powerful force in the planet.
Wake up folks -Tulsi would not have run if Bernie was going run. Bernie will endorse her early on and she will have a much
tougher fight than he did, because while Sanders caught the corporate establishment sleeping in 2016, they are now frightened
and see Gabbard coming. They will use every dirty trick at their disposal to keep her from catching fire -and that begins with
dividing progressives like us. Tulsi is not perfect because no one is perfect. But she is young, bright and fucking fearless compared
to other politicians about putting the long term good of the American people above the moneyed interests who think they own our
media and our government. This is why the establishment despises her more than even Sanders. 2020 will reveal weather or not we
can retake ownership of our media and our government. That fight will require all of us - so Kyle get on the bus!
Tulsi is an amazing candidate in her own right, but IMO she would be a perfect VP pick for Bernie. She has the amazing foreign
policy cred and would really shore up Bernie's weakest areas.
Tulsa Gabbard's ad doesn't mention the people who die in the countries we invade. That's 600k people in Iraq for example. A
significant omission me thinks.
The Aloha Spirit Law is a big deal in Hawaii. Government officials are required to approach dignitaries from other countries
or states with the spirit of aloha. "Aloha" means mutual regard and affection and extends warmth in caring with no obligation
in return. Aloha is the essence of relationships in which each person is important to every other person for collective existence.
I think that's what we want in a President or a diplomat.
She's great and unique as she doesnt fall back to identity politics and sjwism as much as the standard left politicians. I
hope she doesnt bend her ethics when the sjws come for her. I'm putting my trust in her. I hope she wins. And if she isn't in
the race, i wont be voting.
The question I would love her to address specifically is will her campaign focus on decreasing military spending like Bernie
Sanders? She has a military background and the US loves war. This ad is good but it is tip toing around the MIC ( military industrial
complex) She can be non interventionist but not decrease military spending is what worries me
This is why we need Gabbard on the debate stage. She will push the Overton window on revealing to the public what our military
is actually doing overseas. She's also a staunch progressive. Bernie/Tulsi 2020. Their weakness match well with each other, and
Tulsi was one of the first to jump ship on the sinking DNC ship when Hillary got caught cheating being the DNC. Keep small donations
going into your favorite progressive candidates to hear their voice. It doesn't work any other way folks.
Intervention isn't only an issue about morality. As Dwight Eisenhower put it (even though he himself was far from an anti imperialist),
you can't have an endless stream of money dedicated to military endeavors AND a sufficient investment in domestic public priorities.
This easily explains why we have increasingly decrepit infrastructure, increasingly worse performing education, increasingly worse
performing health care, absurdly insufficient regulation between government and business (although the pay to play system certainly
is the top reason) and a generally decaying public atmosphere. Beyond the fact that getting involved everywhere creates humanitarian
crises, countless dead people, hopelessly destroyed countries, and so much more, even if other countries haven't in return bombed
our shores from sea to sea, even if generally speaking those who consider not only the US but Americans the "enemies" haven't
overwhelmed with non stop attacks, this non stop and ever growing appetite for more money for more war priorities has created
the very decline we see in our country today. Until there is a change in priorities in general, these problems in the US will
only continue to get worse.
Man, Tulsi made me tear up. She's my girl. This message reminds me more of the message of Jesus than many of the fundamentalists.
She's not even Christian, yet represents Christ very well. I love this woman.
Prepare for BAE, Systems, Boeing, Lockheed Martin and other weapons corporations and their bum lickers to launch a viscous
smear campaign against her suggesting she's somehow a Neo Nazi communist anti Semitic islamophobic islamist.
Tulsi 2020 she's saying some of the same things Trump said in his 2016 campaign. Unfortunately, he didn't deliver. Per the
corporate Democrates, making America better is a bad thing.
Tulsi can actually beat Trump...if she gets the nomination. The wars are the elephant in the room, and whoever is willing to
take that on full force, can win.
Remember the almost universal reaction of horror when Bolton was appointed as National
Security Advisor? Well, apparently, either the Neocons completely missed that, which I doubt,
or they did what they always do and decided to double-down by retrieving Elliott Abrams from
storage and appointing him US Special Envoy to Venezuela. I mean, yes, of course, the Neocons
are stupid and sociopathic enough not to ever care about others
But in this case I think that
we are dealing with a "Skripal tactic": do something so ridiculously stupid and offensive that
it places all your vassals before a stark choice: either submit and pretend like you did not
notice or, alternatively, dare to say something and face with wrath of Uncle Shmuel (the
Neocon's version of Uncle Sam).
And it worked, in the name of "solidarity" or whatever else,
the most faithful lackeys of the Empire immediate fell in line behind the latest US aggression
against a sovereign nation in spite of the self-evident fact that this aggression violates
every letter of the most sacred principles of international law.
This is exactly the same
tactic as when they make you clean toilets with a toothbrush or do push-ups in the mud during
basic training: not only to condition you to total obedience, but to make you publicly give up
any semblance of dignity.
On subject of Venezuela and propaganda - Excellent article about pattern of propaganda from
NYT.
Article at TruthDig
But the above article is limited in background - WIKI article
on Yellow Journalism Pulitzer himself was know for/sort of invented "Yellow
Journalism".
Individuals (as in author of the 1st article) may speak contrary to the status quo, but no
organization can for long and no individual within an organization. I've tried speaking
against my boss on occasions - did not pan out well career-wise.
In short, it's not a bug, it's a feature. It's not to express dismay about but to know and
understand and proceed accordingly.
The alt media does well to educate the public on this issue but also needs to present a
positive alternative.
"... The Guardian has lost all sense of proportion – mention Tommy Robinson and the entire staff through themselves to floor and roll round like dying flies – yet for when it comes to US neocons they go all misty eyed, redolent of a broody couple when they come across a particularly adorable baby. ..."
"... I would wager a medium sum that Tisdall is on a payroll other than the Grauniad's, or he's an actual asset per Ulfkötte's books and media appearances. ..."
"... George Bush spent his adult life organizing operations and wars that killed a few million people. Anyone who has spiritual beliefs must wonder how it is to die with so much killing on your record or conscience (if you have one). ..."
"... That's something I've wondered about many times. If you review John McCain's actions and comments before he died, it seems these people don't have a conscience. ..."
"... Reagan was primarily a mantle piece for the banking, oil and defense sectors to run wild. Is it really so hard to believe GHW Bush was running the National Security Council? It was a CIA wet dream come true (especially after the alligator-armed "investigations" of the 70's. ..."
"... The Deep State Guardian. Why don't they just change their name to 'The Daily Thatcherite' and have done with it. ..."
"... They should just show it's full title: The Guardian Of The Establishment ..."
"... well, yeah. but for us mad people it goes deeper even than that: https://geopolitics.co/2018/12/02/in-memoriam-george-h-scherff-jr-aka-george-hw-bush-sr/ ..."
British and most western media are either in the direct or indirect pay of their governments. What journalist can expose this
for us? Any of you willing to make the biggest scoop of the 21st century? Tom Bradbury at ITN must be on the spook payroll, for
starters? MI6 had foreign correspondents for years, but domestic mouthpieces must now be on the take too? All paid to demonise
Russia and Putin.
The Guardian has lost all sense of proportion – mention Tommy Robinson and the entire staff through themselves to floor and
roll round like dying flies – yet for when it comes to US neocons they go all misty eyed, redolent of a broody couple when they
come across a particularly adorable baby.
Simon 'white helmets' Tisdall is especially egregious – one can imagine him throwing darts at a picture of Putin while
producing his latest homily to the murderous actions of gangsters like Bush and his crime family.
Its hard not to despair now this has become the official face of Britains so-called liberal media.
I would wager a medium sum that Tisdall is on a payroll other than the Grauniad's, or he's an actual asset per Ulfkötte's
books and media appearances. As with Michael White, with whom I had a very illuminating argument via email a few years back.
He *is* an asset, not a journalist (and a massive dick, to boot)
I thought the attitude of the Bush family to their fellow Americans was best illustrated by Barbara's response to the plight of
the homeless victims of Katrina who had been transported to the Houston domed stadium. They spent their nights there sleeping
on hard benches and when good ole Babs heard of it, she opined that they probably had never had it so good so why were they complaining.
Could Mother Theresa have had greater generosity of spirit?
Not just one article, the awful Guardian is full of contents eulogising [yet another] mongrel of a president.
But look at conservative media. The crazy Infowars.com described this Bush as an Anti-American Globalist and Traitor!! .. and
zerohedge.com is celebrating: "The Evil Has Died" and "In 2016 he voted for Hillary Clinton, because the Deep State Swamp sticks
together". https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-12-02/exploring-dark-side-bush-41
Just tell me, who is the rabid neo-con right-wing rag that is glorifying wars and mass murderers?
The late Robert Parry, sad to say. Maybe that now both the 'MacBeths' are stains on the tarmac – Parry's notes of the bloodstained
legacy of that dynasty can finally be displayed? That Barbara was one cold blooded mother! Would have happily pulled a trigger
on JFK, MLK herself (some think).
Just about the whole century from the setup of the Fed, the two world wars, the depression,
Hitler, Korea, Cuba all of it, had a a Bush hand in it. He was the self crowned Caesar having publicly executed the whole of Camelot
and left us with a poison toad, reminds us how low the Bush's took the USA.
George Bush spent his adult life organizing operations and wars that killed a few million people. Anyone who has spiritual
beliefs must wonder how it is to die with so much killing on your record or conscience (if you have one).
That's something I've wondered about many times. If you review John McCain's actions and comments before he died, it seems
these people don't have a conscience. If you surround yourself with people of similar mindset and in a climate where war
is considered obligatory for US Presidents, you go into self denial. Wars are probably like an addiction for these people and
once you get to that stage you no longer have a conscience.
During John McCain's funeral where all living ex-presidents were in attendance, someone remarked on Twitter, 'Quick, lock the
church doors and hold the war crimes trial in the church!'. This was a far more realistic observation than the sickening McCain
apologist BBC coverage we were subjected to.
At the weekend I went to the place where Oliver Cromwell lived. There was an American tourist who told us she was shocked about
Oliver Cromwell being dug up from his grave and his head stuck on a pike. She said it was gruesome. I was tempted to say that
at least that was 350 years ago, and similar things are happening today in Iraq, Syria and Libya – all places where the US has
instigated the chaos and supports the perpretators. I resisted the temptation.
I note that Cromwell thought he was chosen by God to do what he did. But again that was in different times and there were some
redeeming factors in what he did, Probably on par with Obama – who wreaked havoc on the Middle East but reached agreements on
Iran and Cuba. Plus Obama looked cool while killing and droning.
But what goes around comes around. I sense the pure evil involved in the current regime change wars, government, media etc
will pay a heavy price – whether in this life or the next.
The state controlled BBC has just done another puff piece on McCain saying what a splendid chap and great statesman and all round
good egg he was.
The MSM likes to slag off Vlad The Bad by droning on about how he was in the KGB. But Bush wasn't just IN the CIA, he was the
BOSS of the CIA, at a time when hundreds of thousands of Central American peasant farmers and Indians were being killed by CIA
trained and orchestrated death squads.
Mark: jayzus Mark, don't you just want to projectile vomit when you see all this absolute bullshit, just straight out revising
of history, just the lies, on and on . I was involved in a Central American solidarity group in the 1980s – early 90s here in
Aussie, found out then all about U.S style 'democracatic values' and 'human rights concerns' and death squads and various fascists
fully supported by the United States, and places like Guatemala and Nicaragua. Its all an illusion for 'polite society' and the
gullible to believe in. Sigh
I can't remember the exact figures but I think it was over 200,000 murdered in Guatemala out of a population of 4 million. It
was the same story in El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua and Colombia. And of course the CIA satrap Noriega was hauled off in chains
when that country was invaded. But Uncle Sam is finally paying a price for his antics south of the border. Those societies were
wrecked and brutalised beyond repair. There is now an unbelievably high murder rate of women in Guatemala. Millions of those people
have sought some kind of refuge in the belly of the beast, causing an immigration crisis, with an illegal immigrant population
that may be as high as 30 million. Hence all the uproar over Trump's wall. The immigration crisis was a factor in Trump's election,
just as the tidal wave of migrants from the destroyed countries of the Middle East was a factor in Brexit. Cameron, Sarko and
Clinton thought it was a spiffing idea and quite a wizard wheeze to bomb Libya back to the Stone Age. So we now have a Mad Max
failed state complete with warlords and slave markets just across the Med. What goes around, comes around. You can't expect to
export violence and mayhem abroad and remain immune to it at home.
Mark: after Efrain Rios Montt seized power in a coup in Guatemala in 1982, US Ambassador Frederick Chapin declared that thanks
to the coup of Rios Montt "the Guatemalan Govt has come out of the darkness into the light". That sums it up in one sentence,
and you're probably aware of the mass killing and disappearances under his genocidal tyranny. Reagan kindly submitted that Rios
Montt was 'getting a bum rap on human rights, the same Reagan who declared the Contra's were 'The moral equal of our founding
fathers'. In El Salvador, the same mass slaughter, the same mass upheaval, and even murdering Archbishop Romero. You only need
to look at what happened in Central & South America to understand what the United States really represents.
That's entirely right. People understandably despise and revile people like Brady and Hindley, Sutcliffe, Dahmer, Bundy and the
like. But they killed a handful of people and were often very damaged individuals to begin with. And at least they did their own
dirty work. Subhuman scum sucking filth like Bush, Bush 2, Obama, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rice, Blair, Straw and Campbell
are a thousand times worse. They kill millions without getting their hands dirty, and preen and posture as great statesmen and
public servants, expecting deference and state funerals and puff piece obituaries from nauseating, loathsome, lickspittle media
hacks like Tisdall.
Nailed it Kit. The attempt at revionism and rewriting history by these craven creatures, these sycophantic slimebag shills for
Imperialism and War and the Anglo Zionist Empire. They don't speak truth to power, they protect and grovel to the powerful. The
eulogising and fawning of Bush was stomach churning, as it was for the arch Imperialist McCain when he croaked. Thank God for
alternative news sites, and yeah Caitlin Johnston @ medium nailed it as well, as Fair Dinkum mentioned. Where's John Pilger when
you need him?
What no one seems to realize is that the VP often takes charge of the US National Security Council when POTUS is not able to attend
meetings, which are held weekly. Under Eisenhower it was Richard Nixon who often took charge of the meetings -- Tim Weiner's book
"Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA" gives some details on this. Reagan was primarily a mantle piece for the banking,
oil and defense sectors to run wild. Is it really so hard to believe GHW Bush was running the National Security Council? It was
a CIA wet dream come true (especially after the alligator-armed "investigations" of the 70's.
I don't know but as a fairly apolitical individual, I never much bothered with the Kennedy Assasination. All that changed when
during the fiftieth anniversary, BBC Radio Four ran a program which included an interview with the Dallas police officer who was
handcuffed to Lee Harvey Oswald when he was shot by Jack Ruby. The consensus of that program was that the case was open shut and
Oswald did it. Around that time, several newspapers in the UK featured articles claiming that Oswald acted alone.
Whether or not anyone actively involved still lives, their descendants still do and the probable organising body too. There
still appears to be determination in some quarters to spread disinformation about the case. Given that as long ago as the late
seventies the House of Representatives Assassination Committee concluded that JFK's death was probably the consequence of a conspiracy,
determination amongst the mainstream media to lay Kennedy's death at the hands of Oswald alone suggests that there is still determination
that the truth never becomes public.
I'm sickened by the Guardian's and BBC's obedience to the US neocon project to seek, or create, and destroy "enemies" and whilst
ignoring all the disgusting atrocities that arise as a consequence.
The Guardian is not even worth the paper it's printed on. It's become The Guardian Of The Establishment rather than of the
Truth which it used to proclaim.
It is in danger of losing its budgie-cage-liner status. If budgies can talk they may refuse to evacuate on it. What kind of person
maintains ties to such a a poor excuse for cage toiletry. The moral crunch time for their journalists (actually their opinionists)
came and went a long time ago.
What a great piece. My parents knew them in New York and they came over once and left behind an embossed packet of White House
cigs. I asked my father (before he died) what he thought of them and all he ever said was he thought that Barbara was the intellect
in the family.
Bloody annoying, thanks Pater.
"The induction of DU weapons in 1991 in Iraq broke a 46-year taboo. This Trojan Horse of nuclear war continues to be used more
and more. DU remains radioactive longer than the age of the earth (estimated at 4.5 billion years). The long-term effects from
over a decade of DU exposures are devastating. The increased quantities of radioactive material used in Afghanistan are 3 to 5
times greater than Iraq, 1991. In Iraq, 2003, they are already estimated to be 6 to 10 times 1991, and will travel through a larger
area and affect many more people, babies and unborn. Countries within a 1000-mile radius of Baghdad and Kabul are being affected
by radiation poisoning
"DU remains radioactive longer than [ ] 4.5 billion years." It's worse than that. It loses half of its radioactivity in that time.
The good news is that that slow release means "D"U doesn't zap you much. The bad news is it's chemically toxic, like a heavy metal
(which it is).
Also no mention of the body of circumstantial evidence linking Bush to JFK's murder, though Bush repeatedly insisted that he couldn't
recall his whereabouts that day (I can precisely recall where I was, and I was 9 years old in 1963), in spite of the fact that
solid documentary evidence exists that puts him in Dallas on Nov 22, 1963.
The very first Google Search I did was this, (George H.W. Bush+November 22, 1963) and it yielded a page like the following link,
which began my research into the JFK Assassination.
"... Throughout the day, the New York Times, the Washington Post and Google News all led with breathless stories about Russian efforts to "sway American opinion and divide the country" (in the words of the Times). The propaganda barrage was based on a set of reports submitted to the Senate Intelligence Committee by organizations with close ties to the US state and intelligence apparatus. ..."
"... Like countless other stories about alleged Russian "disinformation," Monday's media blast followed a script. ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... The first of two reports submitted to the Senate Intelligence Committee, "The Tactics & Tropes of the Internet Research Agency," was published by an organization known as New Knowledge, which purports to be a cybersecurity company, but whose primary public presence consists in advocacy for internet censorship. ..."
"... Ryan Fox, the co-founder of New Knowledge and a co-author of the report, worked for the National Security Agency (NSA) for 15 years. New Knowledge's website notes that "prior to his civilian roles as a Counter Terrorism Fellow and NSA Representative European SIGINT partners, he served under US Joint Special Operation Command (JSOC) as a CNO Analyst for the US Army." His partner, the company's CEO, is Jonathon Morgan, who has published for the state-connected Brookings Institution and worked as a special advisor to the State Department. ..."
"... The second report, "The IRA and Political Polarization in the United States," published under the imprimatur of Oxford University's Computational Propaganda Project, in collaboration with the social media analysis firm Graphika, was likewise authored by figures with deep connections to the state and the military. Graphika staffer Camille Francois, a co-author, served as chief technical officer to the French prime minister and worked at the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). ..."
"... Democratic Senator Ron Wyden, like Warner a member of the Intelligence Committee, appeared on the Public Broadcasting evening news program to chastise Facebook and demand that it be more "aggressive" in shutting down "disinformation." ..."
"... Commenting on the New Knowledge report, the New York Times ..."
"... The orchestrated hysteria over "disinformation" is itself a gigantic disinformation campaign, and the narrative about the sinister spread of "fake news" is an example of real "fake news." ..."
"... First all the anti Russian hysteria is concentrated in MSM media, completely absent from grassroots political discourse across kitchen table as it is dominated by economy-stupid daily struggle reality ( as Dems internal pols showed) , and is methodically debunked by most of alternative media except for blatant political hacks who fuel the nonsense on internet. ..."
"... The major reason for all they prefapaos and war mongering is as WSWS numerous times documented is because oligarchic policies of mass pauperization of population resulted in skyrocketing of class struggle and they just pull old worn down card of nationalism and war, Luxemburg warned over hundred years ago. ..."
"... "The new "proof" of Russian subversion is then used to demand even more sweeping measures to censor the internet, in the name of securing "our democracy." With each successive wave of stories, foreign "disinformation" is more directly identified with opposition to social inequality, police brutality and the capitalist system." ..."
"... It's the "War on Terrorism" brought to a whole new level . But it's the same class (in the service of the same class interests) bringing it. ..."
"... "It is highly significant that the posts cited by the reports as responsible for manipulating public opinion and undermining American democracy are predominantly left-wing in character." Against the same material interests of the working class. "These left-wing pages expressed "antiwar opposition" and "objections to US involvement in another country's affairs." ..."
"... The more things change, the more they stay the same: "The Black Panther party, without question, remains the greatest threat to the internal security of the country." -- J. Edgar Hoover, 1969 ..."
"... All Russia is doing ( if it even is Russia) is holding up a big mirror to the US, and big military industrial recipients like Mark Warner hate it. The criteria should be truth itself not the source of the truth. ..."
"... I simply call it NeoMcCarthyism propaganda. What they as me being disinformed, lol, then they would have had to start on me when I was in grammar school in the early to mid 1960s, and I don't recall there being a social media way back then. I formed own opinion way back then when, on my own I decided what I was getting the 6o'clock news was B.S. ..."
"... The USA is a hopeless war mongering terrorist state. It should, and must be, coming to an end. And, there are signs that the USA with all its weapons and lies is creeping toward that situation. ..."
"... The fact that Russia and China are starting to get rid of the worthless USA dollar is a major blow to the USA. The latest appointments of the neocon Bolton, and the CIA blowhard Pompous Pompeo is an indication that the only thing USA has to offer to the world is threats of war by these, and all their filthy war dogs! ..."
"... America survival is dependent upon its lies and misinformation it delivers each day through cable news and sports which also fetishsize militarism. The only situation that lies on the horizon is more of the same. ..."
"... America doesn't have "defense" spending. We have offense spending. ..."
Amid new exposures of Wall Street criminality, the White House's mass imprisonment of immigrant children, and growing demands
by US workers for decent wages, the US media was preoccupied Monday with the supposed efforts of Russian President Vladimir Putin
to make people believe that life in America is not a paradise.
Throughout the day, the New York Times, the Washington Post and Google News all led with breathless stories
about Russian efforts to "sway American opinion and divide the country" (in the words of the Times). The propaganda barrage
was based on a set of reports submitted to the Senate Intelligence Committee by organizations with close ties to the US state
and intelligence apparatus.
Like countless other stories about alleged Russian "disinformation," Monday's media blast followed a script. Reports and testimony
from nominally independent organizations, which are, in reality, mouthpieces for the intelligence agencies, are commissioned by
Congress. They are "leaked" to the New York Times, which publishes a front-page article promoting them as "independent,"
scientific and authoritative, without, however, presenting any serious analysis of the actual evidence or the social and political
forces behind the studies. The reports in the Times (or the Washington Post) are then cited by countless media
outlets and politicians as new and irrefutable "evidence" of Russian "meddling" and "fake news."
The new "proof" of Russian subversion is then used to demand even more sweeping measures to censor the internet, in the name
of securing "our democracy." With each successive wave of stories, foreign "disinformation" is more directly identified with opposition
to social inequality, police brutality and the capitalist system.
The first of two reports submitted to the Senate Intelligence Committee, "The Tactics & Tropes of the Internet Research Agency,"
was published by an organization known as New Knowledge, which purports to be a cybersecurity company, but whose primary public
presence consists in advocacy for internet censorship.
Ryan Fox, the co-founder of New Knowledge and a co-author of the report, worked for the National Security Agency (NSA) for
15 years. New Knowledge's website notes that "prior to his civilian roles as a Counter Terrorism Fellow and NSA Representative
European SIGINT partners, he served under US Joint Special Operation Command (JSOC) as a CNO Analyst for the US Army." His partner,
the company's CEO, is Jonathon Morgan, who has published for the state-connected Brookings Institution and worked as a special
advisor to the State Department.
New Knowledge was established with a $1.9 million grant from Moonshots Capital. Moonshots' founders are Kelly Perdew, who,
according to the biography on the company's website, "served in the US Army as a military intelligence officer," and Craig Cummings,
who "spent 17 years in the Army, most of that time as an intelligence officer serving in support of the National Security Agency."
The second report, "The IRA and Political Polarization in the United States," published under the imprimatur of Oxford University's
Computational Propaganda Project, in collaboration with the social media analysis firm Graphika, was likewise authored by figures
with deep connections to the state and the military. Graphika staffer Camille Francois, a co-author, served as chief technical
officer to the French prime minister and worked at the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).
In line with the by now well-established playbook, Democratic Senator Mark Warner, the leading advocate of internet censorship
in the US Senate, took to the airwaves to proclaim that these "independent" reports were a "wake up call." He continued: "These
attacks against our country were much more comprehensive, calculating and widespread than previously revealed." He added that
"addressing this challenge" was "going to require some much-needed and long-overdue guardrails when it comes to social media."
Democratic Senator Ron Wyden, like Warner a member of the Intelligence Committee, appeared on the Public Broadcasting evening
news program to chastise Facebook and demand that it be more "aggressive" in shutting down "disinformation."
In regard to their content, both reports are highly dubious and clearly politically motivated. The raw data is based on information
turned over to the Senate Intelligence Committee last year by Facebook, YouTube, Instagram and Twitter. After initially rejecting
as "crazy" claims that "Russian meddling" helped swing the election to Trump, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, together with the
leaders of other major technology companies, provided a list of accounts that they asserted-without providing any details on how
this conclusion was reached-were controlled by Russian operatives.
Even if one were to assume that this data and the content of the reports were accurate, whatever Russia may or may not have
done pales in comparison to the operations of US intelligence agencies all over the world, including within the United States
itself, not to mention the billions of dollars spent by the corporate and financial elite to manipulate US elections and determine
their outcome.
The claim, moreover, that Russian Twitter and Facebook posts are responsible for social discontent in the United States-the
most unequal country in the world-is beyond ludicrous.
It is highly significant that the posts cited by the reports as responsible for manipulating public opinion and undermining
American democracy are predominantly left-wing in character.
The New Knowledge report attempts to muddle this reality by categorizing content opposing police brutality as neither left-wing
or right-wing, but "Black." It states that of 62 Facebook pages allegedly tied to Russia, "Overall, 30 targeted Black audiences
and amassed 1,187,810 followers; 25 targeted the Right and amassed 1,446,588 followers, and 7 targeted the Left and amassed 689,045
followers."
The content of the accounts labeled by New Knowledge as targeting "Black audiences" is made clear in a subsequent section dealing
with the video streaming service YouTube. Of 1,063 videos turned over to the committee, the majority "related to the police and
focused on police abuses."
Commenting on the New Knowledge report, the New York Times declared that the Russian government's "tactics echo Soviet
propaganda efforts from decades ago that often highlighted racism and racial conflict in the United States."
Here, the Timesdemonstrates the utterly reactionary pedigree of the campaign against "Russian meddling." During the
American civil rights movement, Southern segregationists claimed that African American workers were being stirred up by "communists"
and "outside agitators." The strivings of African Americans for equal rights were denounced as a Soviet plot.
Now, too, the deeply-felt hatred by American workers and youth of all races for police brutality and the epidemic of police
murders is presented as a "Russian" plot to "sow division" among "Black audiences."
"Left-leaning [Russian-inspired] pages," the report states, "criticized mainstream, established Democratic leaders as corporatists
or too close to neo-cons, and promoted Green Party and Democratic Socialist themes." These left-wing pages expressed "antiwar
opposition" and "objections to US involvement in another country's affairs."
The clear intent of the campaign by Warner and his co-thinkers is to de-legitimize such views as the product of "foreign meddling,"
and to effectively criminalize them. Their concern is not with Russia, but with the American working class.
As the year 2018 concludes, the intensification of the global economic crisis and heightening of war preparations are accompanied
by a renewed upsurge of the class struggle throughout the world.
The American ruling elite has made clear its intention to respond to this growing movement of the working class with censorship
and repression. Writing about the recent "yellow vest" protests in France, the New York Timeswarned that "the power of
social media to quickly mobilize mass anger, without any mechanism for dialogue or restraint, is a danger to which a liberal democracy
cannot succumb." The implication of such statements is clear: the campaign to censor the internet must be intensified.
The orchestrated hysteria over "disinformation" is itself a gigantic disinformation campaign, and the narrative about the sinister
spread of "fake news" is an example of real "fake news."
The ruling class and the corporate media are frustrated that their claims have had little impact on popular consciousness,
and very few people really believe that Russia is responsible for social discontent in the United States. But this only intensifies
their efforts to uphold and strengthen the grip of the "guardians" of information-that is, themselves.
The growth of working class opposition provides the means to counter these efforts to censor the internet. As workers enter
into struggle, they must take up the fight to defend freedom of expression on the internet as inseparable from the fight for social
equality.
see the brilliant Margaret Kimberley's article (and give some love to the BAR by subscribing and supporting the BAR): US and
UK Psy-op collusion
https://blackagendareport.c...
Another great report but I would like to push back on myth not necessarily proliferated in this report but widely present in
the media including alternative media about the McCarthyite anti Russian propaganda.
One of myths is that still too many Americans believe the MSM blatant lies even without any shred of evidence.
First all the anti Russian hysteria is concentrated in MSM media, completely absent from grassroots political discourse
across kitchen table as it is dominated by economy-stupid daily struggle reality ( as Dems internal pols showed) , and is methodically
debunked by most of alternative media except for blatant political hacks who fuel the nonsense on internet.
It is the very independent media which in some part like WSWS became in fact media of record diligently analyzing not as
much lies themselves, although they do, easily debunking them but to analyzing context of that public mostly black propaganda
campaign and what all those tabloid like productions including #metoo aim to obfuscate which is mostly preprogrammed economic
collapse of working class as well as peddling and funding fascism under guise of all used up trick of threat of foreign enemy
and unity under flag of nationalism.
In fact this lack of true conviction one way or another among Americans is simply due to, already observed by Mills, Tocqueville
referenced by Marx and in last three decades formulated by Chomsky, deep despotic totalitarian culture that underlies seemingly
open society of US as many Americans are conditioned to believe what they are told to believe without any intellectual curiosity
of what it is they must believe in today as they truly believe in money and power only, associated with whatever political
or religious mumbo jumbo like Russia Gate they do not bother to remember as long as their service to rulers paychecks arrive
regularity.
Many understand it as simple confession of state religion of Americanism and (similarly to exceptionalism of Orthodox Jews
or Hegel or Hitler) exceptionalism of American Nation, itself nothing but state religion nonentity used to stir up internal
divisions between those called by rulers Americans and others called by rullers un-American.
Such a curious division not existing in any other country founded on inclusive nationalism, is simply because there is no
reality or premise of American nation beyond those fantasies described in lying school textbooks.
And hence it is that totalitarian culture that MSM peddles as a primary counterrevolutionary measure of $billion a day propaganda
aimed at suppression of class struggle that itself repudiated that culture of submission to ruling elites for culture of unity
among all working class in US and elsewhere rejecting nationalism and exceptionalism and embracing internationalism devoid
of foreign enemies instead.
By the same token another myth that such belligerent anti Russia and anti Chinese propaganda by the West in any way weakens
grip of local rulers of global oligarchy (what ISO peddles) is also repudiated as their very political legitimacy is founded
on nationalism as a tool against class struggle and socialist revolution that would dispose of their power and political base
of saviors of nations via its inherent creed of internationalism.
In fact in spite of normal family infighting none of members of global oligarchy seems to be even slightly hurt so far and
even they appreciate such US belligerence as incentive to consolidate their local powers around nationalist fervent of suppose
siege while for example exports of China, Russia and even Iran to US increased since 2014 and oligarchy of those countries
while inconvenied are well compensated by loss of their visible roles in western corporates while they maintain control by
The major reason for all they prefapaos and war mongering is as WSWS numerous times documented is because oligarchic policies
of mass pauperization of population resulted in skyrocketing of class struggle and they just pull old worn down card of nationalism
and war, Luxemburg warned over hundred years ago.
Let's no fall for that bogus foreign boogeyman threats as this is all about vicious and brutal class war waged over working
class by global oligarchy. And for real boogyman mask we should check Buffet, Soros, Gates, Bezos, Brin, Cook Ellison or Musk
or Trump lower drawer of their executive desks, not abroad as other bogeymen in Russia China and EU will be taken care of by
our working class brothers and sisters when socialist revolution comes, very shortly.
"The new "proof" of Russian subversion is then used to demand even more sweeping measures to censor the internet, in the name
of securing "our democracy." With each successive wave of stories, foreign "disinformation" is more directly identified with
opposition to social inequality, police brutality and the capitalist system."
It's the "War on Terrorism" brought to a whole new level . But it's the same class (in the service of the same class
interests) bringing it.
"It is highly significant that the posts cited by the reports as responsible for manipulating public opinion and undermining
American democracy are predominantly left-wing in character." Against the same material interests of the working class. "These left-wing pages expressed "antiwar opposition" and "objections to US involvement in another country's affairs."
"The content of the accounts labeled by New Knowledge as targeting 'Black audiences' is made clear in a subsequent section
dealing with the video streaming service YouTube. Of 1,063 videos turned over to the committee, the majority 'related to the
police and focused on police abuses.'
Commenting on the New Knowledge report, the New York Times declared that the Russian government's 'tactics echo Soviet propaganda
efforts from decades ago that often highlighted racism and racial conflict in the United States.' "
The more things change, the more they stay the same: "The Black Panther party, without question, remains the greatest threat to the internal security of the country." -- J.
Edgar Hoover, 1969
The American Public's reaction to the lying disinformation campaign of the capitalist "press" should be as "The Dude's" reaction
to Sam Elliot's. Question in the great American classic film, "The Big Lebowski": Sam: "Tell me Dude; do you really have to
use that bad language?" The Dude: " WTF are you talking about?"
Let's just picket the HQ of this New Knowledge and demand that they shut down or retract their lies. Those who can't attend,
spam their FB or corporate contact page with a Photoshop of their logo and have it read something like "Old Lies, paid for
by the CIA". Or, register similar domain names and create a similar looking websites to theirs, but with the modified logos
exposing their leaders as cronies, containing links to the news they try to censor and then link the copycat sites to all your
friends. Best bet is if we can hack them and replace everything with our stuff every now and then. Force Google's algorithm
to ban their own ally or admit that our copycat sites have more popularity.
All Russia is doing ( if it even is Russia) is holding up a big mirror to the US, and big military industrial recipients like
Mark Warner hate it. The criteria should be truth itself not the source of the truth.
To add to Vivek Jain's welcome recommendations of "Moon of Alabama"'s ongoing incisive analysis of the massive Western anti-Russian
propaganda campaign, here's still another MOA post:
I simply call it NeoMcCarthyism propaganda. What they as me being disinformed, lol, then they would have had to start on me
when I was in grammar school in the early to mid 1960s, and I don't recall there being a social media way back then. I formed
own opinion way back then when, on my own I decided what I was getting the 6o'clock news was B.S.
Here's a list of the top things I would absolutely love if not for those evil Russians whispering in my ear:
Stagnant wages. I have been working for the same crap pay for over 10 years.
Ever-increasing rent. Unlike my wages, my rent increases every single year.
Health care with a $6500 deductible.
4) The constant warning threats from the spokespeople of the ruling-class that Social Security will soon run out of money.
Funny how they never issue warning threats that the military will soon run out of money.
5) Never-ending war. Oh man, I love death and destruction so much! We all do!
6) $1.5 trillion tax cuts for the super-rich. They are so deserving.
7) Our lord and savior Hillary Clinton and her love for the super-rich, imperialist wars, savage killing, and our military
killing machine.
8) Doing absolutely nothing about climate change as utter catastrophe draws ever closer. I don't want to save humanity.
I just want our richest capitalists to keep raking in huge yearly incomes.
9) The fact that in our beloved democracy, every major policy passed is always a boon for the super-rich 1% and a total
screwing up the backside for the 99%. Now THAT'S true democracy. We don't want those evil Russians getting in the way of that.
10) The prison industrial complex and the fact that capitalists have found brilliant ways to get rich off of war, killing
people, and putting millions of people in prison for decades. In fact, I read an article yesterday that points out that capitalists
are already busy investigating genius ways to get rich off of climate change and the potential deaths of billions of people.
11) The fact that I have no pension; that even as I've worked a labor job for the same company for 20 years, I'm classified
as an "independent contractor", which basically means that when they don't need me, I sit home and don't get paid while receiving
no benefits. Hey, who wants to survive retirement anyway? What lazy, greedy worker wants vacation pay? I sure don't. I just
want to leave this world knowing that rich people got a lot richer from my having been here.
Indeed, if not for evil Russians, I would be totally oblivious to all of the screwing up the ass I get from our universally-beloved
American capitalist daddies. That's right! None of that would have ever occurred to me. Nope. Damn you Russia! Damn you all
to hell!
Oh yes and the Yellow Vest protests are now being attributed to Russian control/influence. So yes the left is being targeted,
to be blamed overall, down the line. Because we all know Russia is still run by the Bolsheviks!
You'll notice that New Knowledge -- about as Orwellian a name as can be -- brags about its connections to the military-intelligence
apparatus as though it were a good thing. We're supposed to think that makes them credible. Scary.
it's a good thing for them, isn't it ? but for us continue the horrors of war and lack of rent money : a psychological projection
from the obtuse neo-fascist elites, but also the propaganda they're trained in, the elites all believe in, and it will be effective
with us because we are stupid, we are the vietnam peasant again ,reveling in the primitve of past centuries, and so we will
believe ! we must believe for we are not them --
and good comment : the word 'Scary' at the end resonates
The other Orwellian aspect is that the intelligence agencies are the Democratic Party's new best friend. Back in the 70's the
Church Committee investigated the unlawful infiltration of the CIA in the mainstream media. Now it's welcomed with open arms.
We've come along way baby into a reactionary right-wing political system which is no longer even a duopoly. It's a a one party
system controlled by the military/ security/ surveillance state.
As is the theme of the upper middle class liberal TDS, a sudden, unthinking, blind loyalty to and worship of the intelligence
agencies and characters with blood soaked hands from the depths of the swamp like Muller and Hayden and Bush. Anything, anyone
to desperately cling to, to protect them from owning up to true nature of their beloved status quo, and the shadowy sources
of their class privilege. Such are the lengths one goes to to justify the unjustifiable and defend the indefensible when the
other choice is self reflection and responsibility.
So important that WSWS is doing the work of exposing this propaganda attempt to create a moral panic about Russian meddling,
as a means to justify the censorship of the internet. One thing I'm sure of: academics will be buying the New York Times' and
Democratic Party's claims lock, stock, and barrel and will be further amplifying them. And any attempt to argue with this within
the universities will lead to one being oneself labeled as a peddler of Russian influence. It's a total closed loop.
Yes...but consider this: the fact that ruling class front people (like Mark Warner) are reduced to making such transparently
unsound arguments-based on such completely relativist notions of truth-betrays just how afraid and weak they are becoming.
Yes, they keep running the same circular scam -- running the same weak data from the intelligence community through this or
that shiny new think-tank, thence to the media, culminating in proposed legislation by some co-opted politicians -- it's a
strategy of diminishing returns.
At this point, they merely reflect ever-greater light back upon their own intellectual and political bankruptcy.
And, meanwhile, revolutionary social forces continue to grow.
Viva la revolucion!
yeah ! and Mark Warner ? what is he, some kind of nano-robot, a creature whipped up in nano-technology labs, some AI fabricated
to be a moron, whose only purpose is devotion to the intelligence agencies and to Capital ? if he had to, can he tie his own
shoelaces in the mornings ? on his athletic shoes ? i look at him and think : major trauma there -- and he murders us and all
those caught in our Imperialist wars !
Excellent antidote to mainstream corporate propaganda. Would suggest supplement with : "Racist 'Russians' Targeted African-Americans;
in 2016 election ploy, report claims" @https://
www.rt.com
(Also, just as an editing note, WSWS might want to clarify the notation "CNO"; according to the rt article it stands for "Computer
Network Officer".)
The only people that they are fooling is themselves.... and most likely not even that....
They haven't come and said the posts are not true...they just say that you should not believe them because they are propaganda.
That's really a bad strategy.
You know what would help the capitalist cause? Making life in America more equal. But that's not on your plate .
'Reports and testimony from nominally independent organizations, which are, in reality, mouthpieces for the intelligence agencies,
are commissioned by Congress. They are "leaked" to the New York Times, which publishes a front-page article promoting them
as "independent," scientific and authoritative, without, however, presenting any serious analysis of the actual evidence or
the social and political forces behind the studies. The reports in the Times (or the Washington Post) are then cited by countless
media outlets and politicians as new and irrefutable "evidence" of Russian "meddling" and "fake news."
This is the method that's always used to demonize political figures or a leader of a sovereign country which the intelligence
agencies have targeted for elimination. It's an insidious but clever way to influence public opinion. All mainstream media
news proliferates the same nonstop propaganda using each other as sources to substantiate a CIA fable.
All these efforts will intensify prior to the Dems taking control of the House in January. It's like watching the last phase
of a fireworks display as the pyrotechnic crescendo reaches it apex. Trump's impeachment might be imminent, but internet censorship
will have a greater and longer lasting impact on the remaining vestiges of our democracy.
Thank you, Mr. Damon, for showing us what proper journalism looks like. Unfortunately not enough people will read this excellent
exposé, and will simply assume that all the fuss has some basis in reality, while our right to the truth suffers further erosion.
I am endlessly amazed at how many of my friends and colleagues are blinded by their Dem partisanship and unwilling to see
how dangerous this conscious and blatant manipulation of the facts is to our chances of preserving a relatively open society.
I will post this piece everywhere I can and hope for the best.
For me, this theme, this Russian propaganda theme, is infantile, and nothing of this is of interest to those who work for a
living, as opposed to the elites: in all my life riding close to politics in Washington DC, never has the elite class presented
to our country such an immature and juvenile thesis, such an outrageous and laughable spectacle of projection, such a certitude
of vision in which the vision is absurd, irrelevant, with the seeming simple logic of a child in her belief that some bear
speaks to her, but these are adults ! do we laugh ? do we scorn ? do we hate ? yes, all 3, but do these elite politicians and
editors at the Times, do they really believe in talking bears ? fascists wallow in their propaganda --
I don't think they actually believe this BS but they believe that the public will believe it! As you said, it is ridiculous
and infantile but they obviously think the power of propaganda will prevail. They don't realize they are becoming more irrelevant
and ludicrous with each new "bombshell." People have more important things on their minds. Like survival.
Thanks for this important anaylisis of what the ruling class is thinking though what amazes me is that "Russian Interference"
is the only argument these highly educated people can come up with. With the fall of the Soviet Union the Capitalists were
in a position to further advance their cause which they did brutally and without mercy. They were like kids taking over a candy
store repeatedly gorging themselves and sharing none of it. In fact the Oligarchs began an assault on the working class all
over the world and the crisis of inequality is seething and bubbling over to open revolt.
That they used the fight against fascism by Captain America as an example of Russian interference shows the true nature
of these Rulers,corrupt,incompetent and total reactionaries.
I can't stand to read any of those papers but I'm glad someone does. The reporters for WSWS who read the NYT are like that
guy Mike on the show "Dirty Jobs" where he takes on the nastiest jobs in America. To immerse yourself in their caldron of lies
is truly a Dirty Job and you folks should get a Purple Heart for the wounds you've incurred.
After reading about the attack on the tune"Baby it's cold outside" and similar articles may I suggest the WSWS start a new
section "Socialist News of the Weird" as the maneuvers of the bourgeois though dangerous empty and delusional are truly weird.
An excerpt from a World Socialist Web Site 2010 obituary tribute to Howard Zinn, author of " A People's History of the United
States " ( by Tom Eley ) :
" People's History grew out of, and in turn contributed to, a growing skepticism of the democratic pretensions of the
American ruling class -- particularly among the youth. These characteristics of Zinn's work earned him the hatred of those
who wish to see college and high school curriculum more tightly controlled; after Zinn's death, right-wing ex-radicals David
Horowitz and Ronald Radosh penned columns attacking him for exposing truths about the US government to a mass audience ".
I read that presently David Horowitz is glorifying President Donald Trump in his latest " kick-liberal-ass " book. The Tom
Eley article on Howard Zinn was fair minded and excellent.
"With the fall of the Soviet Union the Capitalists were in a position to further advance their cause which they did brutally
and without mercy "
And they got moral support from not a few ( I guess ) ex-Stalinists. I recall reading one David Horowitz's book :" The Destructive
Generation " - a bitter denunciation of his own past. Never being devoted to Stalinism, I thought that Horowitz and hundreds
like him were spitting in public on the very IDEA and IDEAL of socialism. To be sure , the Trotskyists do not have the blood
of the Stalinist counter-revolution on their hands.
The last time I checked David Horowitz had evolved into a far right belligerent
Zionist interviewed on many radio and TV programs. At last he found found true freedom in Apartheid Israel == not quite a "
workers' paradise ".
In order to survive what else can the world plutocracy do but play divide and conquer games ? Today the sentencing of the
" treasonous " American general, Michael Flynn, will tell us how much Imperial America needs an " evil " enemy. In a universe
where everything changes only the military and the police are forever ?
The USA is a hopeless war mongering terrorist state. It should, and must be, coming to an end. And, there are signs that
the USA with all its weapons and lies is creeping toward that situation.
The fact that Russia and China are starting to get rid of the worthless USA dollar is a major blow to the USA. The latest
appointments of the neocon Bolton, and the CIA blowhard Pompous Pompeo is an indication that the only thing USA has to offer
to the world is threats of war by these, and all their filthy war dogs!
The Democratic Party has lost its way, and sanity, by living with the burned out one trick pony diatribe that Russia interfered
and meddled into the USA election. CNN should be censured and fined millions for promoting this deceit every hour of every
day. It is amazing to watch the stunned budgies (would be newscasters) on CNN trying to outdo each other in front of their
masters Wolf Blitzer et al as they revel in babbling the lies about Russia and China while praising the lies of the USA in
its march to WW111.
"The USA is a hopeless war mongering terrorist state. It should, and must be, coming to an end. And, there are signs
that the USA with all its weapons and lies is creeping toward that situation."
Nice platitude but what signs are those? Appears to me this current administration and the Democrats have given more money
to defense wasting er, I mean spending than ever before and both parties are itching for a war with Iran. So what signs?
America survival is dependent upon its lies and misinformation it delivers each day through cable news and sports which
also fetishsize militarism. The only situation that lies on the horizon is more of the same.
On Thursday BuzzFeedNews delivered
the latest "bombshell" Russia-gate report to fizzle within 24 hours of its publication, one
in a long series of wrong Russia-gate stories that have the media begging for forgiveness, says
Caitlin Johnstone.
Following what TheWashington
Post
has described as "the highest-profile misstep yet for a news organization during a period
of heightened and intense scrutiny of the press," mass media representatives are now flailing
desperately for an argument as to why people should continue to place their trust in mainstream
news outlets.
On Thursday BuzzFeedNews delivered
the latest "bombshell" Russiagate report to fizzle within 24 hours of its publication, a
pattern that is now so consistent that I've personally made a practice of declining to comment
on such stories until a day or two after their release. "BOOM!" tweets were issued by
#Resistance pundits on Twitter, "If true this means X, Y and Z" bloviations were made on mass
media punditry panels, and for about 20 hours Russiagaters everywhere were riding the high of
their lives, giddy with the news that President Trump had committed an impeachable felony by
ordering Michael Cohen to lie to Congress about a proposed Trump office tower in Moscow, a
proposal which died within weeks
and the Kremlin never touched .
There was reason enough already for any reasonable person to refrain from frenzied
celebration, including the fact that the story's two authors, Jason Leopold and Anthony
Cormier, were giving the press two very different accounts of
the information they'd based it on, with Cormier telling CNN that he had not personally seen
the evidence underlying his report and Leopold telling MSNBC that he had. Both Leopold and
Cormier, for the record, have already previously suffered a
Russiagate faceplant with the clickbait viral story that Russia had financed the 2016
election, burying the fact that it was a Russian election .
Then the entire story came crashing down when Mueller's office took the extremely rare step
of issuing an
unequivocal statement that the Buzzfeed story was wrong, writing simply, "BuzzFeed's
description of specific statements to the special counsel's office, and characterization of
documents and testimony obtained by this office, regarding Michael Cohen's congressional
testimony are not accurate."
According to journalist and economic analyst Doug Henwood, the print New York Times
covered the BuzzFeedNews report on its front page when the story broke, but the report
on Mueller's correction the next day was shoved back to page 11 .
This appalling journalistic malpractice makes it very funny that the NYT's Wajahat Ali had the
gall to tweet , "Unlike the Trump
administration, journalists are fact checking and willing to correct the record if the Buzzfeed
story is found inaccurate. Not really the actions of a deep state and enemy of the people,
right?"
This is the behavior of a media class that is interested in selling narratives, not
reporting truth. And yet the mass media talking heads are all telling us today that we must
continue to trust them.
"Those trying to tar all media today aren't interested in improving journalism but
protecting themselves," tweeted NBC's Chuck Todd.
"There's a lot more accountability in media these days than in our politics. We know we live in
a glass house, we hope the folks we cover are as self aware."
More accountability in media than in politics, Chuck? Really? Accountability to whom? Your
advertisers? Your plutocratic owners? Certainly not to the people whose minds you are paid
exorbitant sums to influence; there are no public elections for the leadership of the mass
media.
"Mueller didn't do the media any favors tonight, and he did do the president one,"
griped
the odious Chris Cuomo on CNN. "Because as you saw with Rudy Giuliani and as I'm sure
you'll see with the president himself, this allows them to say 'You can't believe it! You can't
believe what you read, you can't believe what you hear! You can only believe us. Even the
Special Counsel says that the media doesn't get it right.'"
"The larger message that a lot of people are going to take from this story is that the news
media are a bunch of leftist liars who are dying to get the president, and they're willing to
lie to do it, and I don't think that's true" said Jeffrey Toobin on a CNN panel , adding "I just think this is
a bad day for us."
"It does reinforce bad
stereotypes about the news media," said Brian Stelter on the same CNN panel. "I am desperate as
a media reporter to always say to the audience, judge folks individually and judge brands
individually. Don't fall for what these politicians out there want you to do. They want you to
think we're all crooked. We're not. But Buzzfeed now, now the onus is on Buzzfeed."
CNN, for the record, has been guilty of an arguably
even more embarrassing Russiagate flub than BuzzFeedNews 's when they wrongly
reported that Donald Trump Jr had had access to WikiLeaks' DNC email archives prior to their
2016 publication, an error that was hilariously due to to the simple misreading of an email
date by multiple people.
The mass media, including pro-Trump mass media like Fox News, absolutely deserves to be
distrusted. It has earned that distrust. It had earned that distrust already with its constant
promotion of imperialist wars and an oligarch-friendly status quo, and it has earned it even
more with its frenzied promotion of a narrative engineered to manufacture consent for a
preexisting agenda to shove Russia off the world stage.
The mainstream media absolutely is the enemy of the people; just because Trump says it
doesn't mean it's not true. The only reason people don't rise up and use the power of their
numbers to force the much-needed changes that need to happen in our world is because they are
being propagandized to accept the status quo day in and day out by the mass media's endless
cultural engineering project. They are the reason why wars go unopposed, why third parties
never gain traction, why people consent to money hemorrhaging upward to the wealthiest of the
wealthy while everyone else struggles to survive. The sooner people wake up from the perverse
narrative matrix of the plutocratic media, the better.
The Russiagate stories from MSM and the hilarious entertainment of Warner and Schiff's
excited proclaimations in response have destroyed what little credibility these "journalists"
have. Now they've crossed a line, manufacturing malicious lies about high school kids
(possibly for wearing MAGA hats?) While the US allows a lot of leeway in slandering
politicians and public figures, making up fake news stories about kids (and everyone today
has cell phones for validating stories) should come back to bite them in a big way:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVvpVRJ-NH4&fbclid=IwAR28LjuvnE7iZog76GSAZUoF4PU2WZagstazlYWsgqyQ5XBSMAg7c8_Dk10
March 19, 2017 The CIA's 60-Year History of Fake News How the Deep State Corrupted Many
American Writers
Whitney's new book, "Finks: How the C.I.A. Tricked the World's Best Writers," explores how
the CIA influenced acclaimed writers and publications during the Cold War to produce subtly
anti-communist material. During the interview, Scheer and Whitney discuss these manipulations
and how the CIA controlled major news agencies and respected literary publications (such as
the Paris Review).
The MSM doesn't deserve respect or any sort of public trust which they have destroyed, due
to their own Poltical bias & massive credibility issues? They are like the boy who cried
Wolf when there was no Wolf? The MSM has cried Wolf, time & time again & people are
now, tone deaf to their protestations, lies & retractions, hence their plummeting ratings
& viewership? Its always a Bombshell announcement that's not backed by any factual
evidence inly unnamed anonymous sources which we are expected to believe, then they make a
retraction that's hidden, then they try to dispose of the original ridiculous News video or
walkback the print article so no one can see the original Broadcast or newsprint lies? And
Buzzfeed is a well known, fake fabrication of a website that can't be taken at face value,
they are a joke! I never watch or read MSM media anymore, its just propagandist nonsense,
& you'll be amazed at the meditative peace of mind & clarity you obtain by not
reading or viewing their garbage!
Pft , January 21, 2019 at 6:53 pm
Maybe Mueller, aka Mr Cover up, is on Trumps side. After all Trump just appointed his best
buddy Barr as AG
Its all about fake wrestling IMO. Just distraction and entertainment to take peoples eyes
off the real issues
Thank you Ms Johnstone for another excellent piece.
The MSM – both here and in the UK is totally Orwellian Newspeak. And while most of
it is privately owned by a small handful of the multi-rich, on each side of the ocean there
is state-supported media. In the UK the BBC (its World Service too) is wholly
state-supported, via licence fees. Here NPR-PBS runs on a mixture of funding, including
federal (tax-payer monies) and corporate dollars. Without alternative media (one of the few
things about which to be thankful for the internet) one's thinking, one's worldview would be
completely captive to the never-ending propaganda.
"Leftist," "the Left wing," "socialist" – these words are bandied about freely as
descriptors of the (so-called) Dem party by both the Demrats and Reptiles demonstrating
clearly that most Americans (the overwhelming majority by seems of things) haven't a bloody
clue what these terms used to mean, to instantiate.
From this vantage these terms have been reduced to all but utter meaningless (likely
deliberately so). Nowadays they appear to designate (wink, wink) those who (Demrat supporters
largely speaking) from their merit-worthy, bourgeois eyries (sorry, Brit spelling) diverting
the attention of the "unwashed" from the serious soci-economic matters afflicting them, the
lower half of the population, toward those "progressive" talking points of
"intersectionality." This is what now apparently constitutes the "left" in the mainstream,
truly right-wing, neo-liberal, neo-con Demrat party. The mild "New Deal-ish" stuff emanating
from Bernie and AOC (in order to once again save capitalism from the "ignorant herd"?) is
socialism lite and MIC supporting on the quiet.
As someone whose late husband used to call "the Last Leninist," I strongly object to the
(deliberate) misuse of the terms "left" in all its forms and "socialist" to describe ANY
Demrat politician or their supporters. Only when they renounce capitalism, especially
imperialist-corporate-capitalism, and work toward an economy-polity that is based on worker
cooperatives, that has as its foundational and integral reality, "From each according to
[their] ability, to each according to [their] need," will they be worthy of the the
descriptor "left/socialist."
Taras 77 , January 21, 2019 at 1:05 am
This article is spot on and is among several "out there" with the list just keeps
increasing almost exponentially.
This article has at least 40 instances with his twitter feed substantially more than that.
And still the press says trust us-the melt down should continue until they have some sense of
shame and embarassment. The screen grabs of the over paid clowns from CNN and MSNBC still
giggling all the way to the bank does not indicate that is going to happen any time soon.
Not disputing anything Caitlin Johnstone says here, or in any way gainsaying the malignant
intent and effect of the Russia-gate hoax being spewed all over us nonstop by the Dems and
the media, HOWEVER:
There is poetic justice that Donald Trump – who built his fortune* and succeeded* in
business* and TV entertainment/politics wholly by lying and betraying the confidence others
had placed in him and repeatedly wriggling away from the consequences – may finally be
laid low by a slander worthy of his own authorship, and has been reduced to proclaiming the
simple truth ("no collusion!") like any sucker, to the disbelief and mockery of the "classy"
people whose acceptance he has always craved.
His bafflement that this is what they're getting him on, and now is when they've decided
to stop buying his bullshit, is very enjoyable to bad-hearted people like me.
* Obviously all these terms require massive qualification in Trump's case, but by his own
standards he's had a pretty good 40-year run.
michael , January 21, 2019 at 7:28 am
Actually it's more libel than slander, there is a legal distinction. And political figures
rightly do not protection from libel laws (except maybe in the UK). The difference between a
politician lying, which has always been the norm, and "journalists" making up stories (or
advancing those of our Intelligence Agencies, now legal with the gutting of Smith Mundt)
should be obvious. Making it worse, the MSM wants to censor any real information. As Glenn
Greenwald noted, if these stories were mistakes (which happen), there would be roughly the
same number in favor of Trump. Overturning the results of elections by the #resistance just
pushes America deeper into Banana Republic land. No one can trust the top government
bureaucrats who have become partisan Establishment supporters or their cheerleader MSM where
"investigative journalism" is a bad phrase (unless it is lies made up to bring down an
Elected President).
KiwiAntz , January 21, 2019 at 7:51 pm
Michael you comment regarding America as a"deeper in Banana Republic"? IT IS a Banana
Republic hence its rating of #25 on the Worlds Democracy rating scale as a Flawed Democracy?
More like a failed Democracy & I doubt whether its a Democracy at all? It's a Banana
Republic with monkeys running the show!
bardamu , January 20, 2019 at 11:06 pm
O Society , January 20, 2019 at 11:00 pm
For Donald Trump, the truth is irrelevant. He says whatever he believes will get him what he
wants in any given moment. Words are a tool whose utility resides in whether or not they work
on their audience, not whether or not they correspond in any meaningful way to reality.
However, Trump rubs Americans' noses in one indisputable fact over and over: our media tell
the lies which sell the clicks and shares and likes and retweets. Much of the narrative we are
sold in America is nonsense. The criterion for success is advertising dollars. Thus, we grow
stoopider by the minute.
I suppose propaganda very successfully relies on the old truth that "People are most assured
and certain about that of which they are most ignorant".
Maxwell Quest , January 20, 2019 at 11:30 pm
Tom, we had an interesting discussion about this topic last year. It's called the
Dunning-Kruger Effect. It's also known as the "Confident Idiot" and "Climbing Mt. Stupid":
I'm sure it plays a role in the success of propaganda, but in my opinion the Dunning-Kruger
Effect is just one of the many symptoms of the limitations of emotional-based thinking –
a limited form of thinking that is easily overruled by either positive or negative emotions. In
this case, Trump lovers and Trump haters are the least able to think clearly and objectively
about the Russiagate controversy.
Another contributing factor is a lack of life experience. Almost everyone is easily
hoodwinked right out of the gate, but for those that are able to learn from their mistakes it
gets progressively harder to fool them after they've been around the block a few times. Sadly,
these learners only accounts for a small percentage, the majority refuse to take any ownership
for their mistakes, and therefore remain victims.
Actually, I read not too long ago that the better informed people, those with the most
facts, are the most assured that their opinions are correct, and the least likely to change
their minds. This is because they choose to believe and think about those facts which accord
with their existing opinions. The syndrome seems to occur regardless of ideology.
polistra , January 20, 2019 at 4:59 pm
Caitlin is underestimating the people. It's not that they CONSENT to all of this crap;
they're just realistic. They know that nothing they can do will change the crap. Revolution
always makes things even worse.
Tom Ratliff , January 21, 2019 at 10:44 am
"We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying
that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities,
which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and
you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do." – Karl Rove
Substitute "lie" for "act" in the above quote and it becomes clear why the liars aren't
apologizing. Control of the narrative ensures victory in the court of public opinion (mass
media), which in provides pretexts for an array of plundering activities. If the liars aren't
busy lying, then it gives someone else the opportunity to control the narrative. For these
sociopaths, lying is a valuable means to an end -- part of a winning strategy –, not a
personal faux pas that might bring one shame.
Skripals case reminds us that the Red Brigades in Italy and Baader-Meinhof in Germany were
entirely bogus and controlled intelligence operations. It's the same story with the "Symbionese
Liberation Army" in the US. Then there's Gladio and Northwoods.
Realpolitik has become surrealpolitik. In Skripals case Russia was immediately blamed,
despite the fact an investigation had barely begun That instantly suggests british intelligence
services participation in Skripals poisoning.
Were are currently the father and daughter who were allegedly poisoned is unknown. Why they
are in hiding is also unknown. But such quetions are never raised by MSM.
In the Middle Ages, everybody knew that witches, fairies, pixies and elves existed and were
responsible for everything that went wrong in life, like the cows or the pigs falling sick or the
hens stopping laying. But round about the early 1600s, judges and juries started demanding
evidence and acquitting defendants in witch trials. They accepted their existence, but still
wanted to see some evidence. The folk in the 1600s were probably more sceptical and less
credulous than our friends like Harding at the Guardian today.
The public can be persuaded to accept almost anything providing the story chimes with deep
seated fears or prejudices, such as Russians threatening 'our way of life' (fears and prejudices
continually stoked by the media of course)
Skripal. The final illustration is the alleged of poisoning with "Novichok" of Sergei
Skripal and his daughter Yulia in Salisbury in March 2018. This was immediately blamed on
Russia, again before an investigation had been concluded, followed by sanctions, the expulsion
of Russian diplomats (including by Australia) and a general tirade of abuse against Russia in
general and President Putin in particular.
The Skripal case is a classic illustration of Coleridge's willing suspension of disbelief,
Roh's magical realism and Orwell's doublethink (the act of simultaneously accepting two
mutually contradictory beliefs as correct) all rolled into one.
Rob Slane ( www.theblogmire.com 9
January 2019) has brilliantly deconstructed the many logical, scientific and political
absurdities in the official story. One will wait in vain for the merest hint of this demolition
in the mainstream media.
One possible reason for this non-coverage of the actual evidence and instead a non-stop
barrage of disinformation, suppression of evidence and manipulation of the public can be found
in the activities of a shadowy organisation known as the Institute for Statecraft, and one of
its projects known as the Integrity Initiative (sic).
Fresh revelations are emerging about this project on a daily basis and a proper analysis
must await developments. Suffice to note at this point that the Integrity Initiative is
known to be funded by the United Kingdom government, ostensibly to counter 'Russian
disinformation.' It is rather a major project to spread falsehoods about Russia through
"clusters" of journalists working in mainstream media outlets.
The latter have gone beyond the willing suspension of disbelief and instead actively promote
disinformation they know to be untrue. It is not only potential embarrassment that prevents
this story getting the attention it deserves. It is a strong suspicion, no more than that at
the time of writing, that a D Notice has been issued in the United Kingdom and
Australia.
The effect has been to prevent discussion of what is an extraordinary campaign to mislead
the public, attack opposition politicians and the alternative media, and generally undermine
what used to be regarded as a free press.
That some of the same personnel involved in the Integrity Initiative are also involved in
the Skripal matter (itself subject to a D Notice) reinforces the belief that this project has
wider tentacles than originally thought .
As usual, the pledge ultimately never changes, New jobs and No increase in taxes. Americans
love tag lines even though our infrastructure, poor education et al is the result of fear of
taxation. Both parties use the same tag line, we certainly get what we pay for.
Yep,
The party has circled its wagons.
They insist that the Evil Vlad stole the last election.
Therefore, no need to examine Obama's centrist/neoliberal policies and the socio-economic
conditions that fueled the rejection of Hillary.
We're doomed to repeat our errors.
The farcical DNC leadership echoes the days of Brezhnev's intransigent politburo.
The neoliberalism of the Democratic Party elite (and most of the rank and file) is one big
factor in our 2016 loss. Even voters too ignorant to see Trump for what he really was -
voters that are misinformed to the point that they unwittingly and continually vote against
their own best interests - realized how much the Dems have sold out to Wall Street.
HRC would have been nominated in '08 if she had kissed more Wall Street you-know-what.
That's why they anointed Obama who then proceeded to squander eight years of opportunity to
remove big money from politics and enact progressive reforms to health care, the environment,
etc.
Bernie is a bit long in the tooth, so I am all in for Liz Warren. She's the only one with
both the courage and the intelligence to take on the big money that controls our
politics.
Therefore, you can expect the Russian trolls to be coming for her in force. If you read
anything negative about Warren in the coming months, check the source and don't trust the
accuracy.
Among few good things that Trump have done to the USA is that he destoryed credibility of
neoliberal MSM. They all are now firmly belong to the "fake news" catagory.
Notable quotes:
"... C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and political satirist based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing (USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant Paperbacks. He can be reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org . ..."
So the corporate media have gone and done it again. As they have, repeatedly, for the last
two and half years, they shook the earth with
a "bombshell" story proving beyond any reasonable doubt that Donald Trump colluded with the
Russians to steal the presidency from Hillary Clinton, or at least committed an impeachable
felony in connection with something to do with the Russians, or Ukrainians, or other Slavic
persons which story turned out to be inaccurate, or not entirely accurate, or a bunch of
horseshit.
This time it was BuzzFeed's Jason Leopold, " a
reporter with a checkered past " (i.e., a history of inventing
his sources ) who broke the "bombshell" Russiagate story that turned out to be a bunch of
horseshit. Leopold, and his colleague Anthony Cormier, reported that Trump had directed his
attorney, Michael Cohen, to lie to Congress about plans to construct a Trump Tower in Moscow,
thus suborning perjury and obstructing justice. Their sources for this "bombshell" story were
allegedly "two federal law enforcement officials involved in an investigation of the
matter."
Approximately twenty-four hours later, Special Counsel Robert Mueller's office (i.e., the
office "involved in an investigation of the matter") stated that the BuzzFeed story was "not
accurate," which is a legal term meaning "a bunch of horseshit."
BuzzFeed is standing by its story , and is working to determine what, exactly, Mueller's
office meant by "not accurate." Ben Smith, BuzzFeed's Editor-in-Chief, has called on Mueller
"to make clear what he's disputing."
Liberals and other Trump-obsessives have joined in the effort to interpret the Special
Counsel's office's cryptic utterance. French hermeneuticists have been reportedly called in to
deconstruct the meaning of "accurate." Professional Twitter
semioticians are explaining that "not accurate" doesn't mean "wrong," but, rather, refers
to something that is "accurate," but which the user of the word doesn't want to disclose
publicly, or that legal terms don't mean what they mean or something more or less along those
lines.
But Greenwald's list is just a small sample of the Russiagate stories that have turned out
to be horseshit. For the record, here are several more:
"Seventeen intelligence agencies"
confirm Russia interfered in the U.S. elections (
New York Times ) Russia interfered in the Brexit referendum (
The Guardian ) Russia interfered in the German elections ( Reuters )
Russia hacked the French elections ( Politico and numerous other
outlets ) Michael Cohen conspired with the Russians in Prague ( BuzzFeed
)
I am using the terms "horseshit" and "a bunch of horseshit" (as opposed to terms like
"failures" and "errors"), not just to be gratuitously vulgar, but, also, to try to make a
point. One is not supposed to use these terms in connection with "serious," "respected" news
outlets. Which is why journalists like Greenwald and Aaron Maté (who have extensively
reported on the corporate media's ongoing production and dissemination of horseshit) do not use
such terms in the course of their reporting, and instead use less inflammatory terms like
"false," "inaccurate," "mistake," and "error." Principled journalists like Greenwald and
Maté are constrained by (a) their journalistic ethics, (b) their integrity, and (c)
their belief in the idea of a "free and independent press," which is one of the pillars of
Western democracy.
Being neither a respected journalist nor a believer in the existence of an "independent
press," I am under no such constraints. Because I'm not trying to get or keep a job, or
maintain a "respectable" reputation, I'm free to call a spade a spade and a bunch of horseshit
a bunch of horseshit. I am also free to describe "journalists" like Leopold,
Luke Harding ,
Craig Timberg ,
Franklin Foer , and many of their corporate media colleagues (not to mention
TV clowns like Rachel Maddow ) as the liars and rank propagandists they are. I don't need
to pretend their fabricated stories are simply the result of "shoddy journalism," or
"over-reliance on official sources," or any other type of "error" or "failure." These people
know exactly what they are doing, and are being extremely well paid to do it. They went to
school to learn how to do it. Then they butt-sucked and back-stabbed their way up the ladder of
establishment power to be able to do it.
Yes, of course, there are still principled journalists working for the corporate media, but
they are doing so by walking a very fine line. No one has to tell them where it is. Every
professional journalist knows precisely where it is, and what it is there for. Though they are
permitted to walk right up to it, occasionally (to keep them from feeling like abject whores),
one step over it and they will be cast into the Outer Darkness of the Blogosphere and
excommunicated from the Church of Respectable Journalism. If you don't believe me, just ask
Seymour Hersh, or John Pilger, or any other journalistic heretic.
If Russiagate serves no other useful purpose, it is at least exposing the corporate media as
the propaganda factories that they are. Given the amount of obviously fabricated horseshit they
have disseminated during the last two years, you'd have to be a total moron or a diehard
neoliberal cultist not to recognize the function they perform within the global capitalist
ruling establishment (which is essentially no different than the function the establishment
media perform in any other society, namely, to disseminate, maintain, and reify the official
narrative of its ruling classes).
Sadly, there's no shortage of morons and cultists. I don't blame the morons, because well,
they're morons. The cultists are another species entirely. These are people who, no matter how
often the corporate media feed them another "explosive," "bombshell" Russiagate story that
turns out to be a bunch of horseshit, will defend the concept of the "independent media" like
head-shaven, bug-eyed Manson followers. Confront them with facts contradicting their beliefs
and they close their eyes and start chanting and humming and repetitiously babbling banishing
spells. The notion that the Western corporate media may serve the interests of the ruling
establishment (just like the media in every other society serve that society's ruling classes)
is unimaginable and tantamount to heresy.
This fetishization of "the independent press" is a phenomenon unique to Western capitalism.
Basically, it's a childish fairy tale, like believing that Santa Claus is an actual person or
that voting in elections in a corporate oligarchy has anything to do with actual democracy.
Think about it dispassionately for a minute. Why would any ruling establishment permit a
genuinely "independent" press to disseminate ideas and information willy-nilly throughout
society? If it did, it wouldn't last very long.
Most people understand this intuitively, which is why the corporate media relentlessly
repeat the mantra-like phrase, "free and independent press," over, and over, and over again.
Seriously, switch on NPR, or have a look at The Guardian or the Washington Post, or any of the
other corporate media repeatedly reminding you how "independent," "free" and "democratic" they
are. It's essentially Neuro-linguistic programming.
So let's not be shocked when the corporate media continue to bombard us with "bombshell"
stories about Trump and Russia that turn out to be horseshit. Personally, I welcome these
stories. The more corporate media horseshit the better! Who knows, if they dish out enough
blatant horseshit, more people might lose their "trust in the media," and begin to investigate
matters themselves. I know, that makes me a Nazi, right? Or at least a Russian propagandist? I
mean, encouraging folks to distrust the corporate media? Isn't there some kind of law against
that? Or have they not quite gotten around to that yet?
C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and political satirist
based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play
Publishing (USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is
published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant Paperbacks. He can be reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org .
The Associated Press (AP) reports the latest bad news for the press: " Just 6 Percent of
People Say They Trust the Media ."
Carole Feldman and Emily Swanson began: Trust in the news media is being eroded by
perceptions of inaccuracy and bias, fueled in part by Americans' skepticism about what they
read on social media. Just 6 percent of people say they have a lot of confidence in the
media, putting the news industry about equal to Congress and well below the public's view of
other institutions.
Most people understand this intuitively, which is why the corporate media relentlessly
repeat the mantra-like phrase, "free and independent press,"
People inversely brag about their short comings.
Militarized police states brag about their freedom.
A well heeled synchophant brags about his independence.
Dudes with small dicks -- big belt buckle and big hat.
I used to listen to the BBC and NPR until the corporo-globalist bias became unbearable. I
laughed at incidents such as Marketplace mocking the public's concern about GMO's. But it
went off the rails in 2016. They may have backed off from Trump Derangement Syndrome a bit
since then, but I've noticed that they have to call themselves "credible." Maybe if they say
that enough times we'll believe it, eh?
The Greenwald link is pretty important and I bookmarked it. These fake news outlets do
everything in their power to scrub these mistakes from the Google machine once they happen.
They remove stories, videos -- everything, in the hopes of shoving it all down the memory
hole. And since other fake news outlets don't hold them accountable, they get away with it.
This is why it's important to take screen shots of fake news and download videos if possible,
to create a record that's permanent and useful when you need it.
More than 6% of the population are technically, and this is the technical term, retarded
-- they are mentally disabled.
I know it's obvious our media is propaganda, but I don't think it's quite so obvious such
that adults watching Sesame Street who fully enjoy it (nothing wrong with that!) are aware of
it.
I would like to think it's true, but I think the Associated Press article is not true,
after all, can you identify their funding sources?
This fetishization of "the independent press" is a phenomenon unique to Western
capitalism. Basically, it's a childish fairy tale, like believing that Santa Claus is an
actual person or that voting in elections in a corporate oligarchy has anything to do with
actual democracy.
Great article. Articles on this theme should be published daily. The fetish must be
destroyed.
There is at least one other person who calls corporate media what it is, and it ain't
"mainstream."
"Sparkie" ain't gonna be happy about it either."Sparky" chewed me out good for correcting
the incomparable and always superb Linh Dinh for using the disgusting and inaccurate term,
"mainstream" when referring to coprophilic media. Oh, and speaking of "horseshit" one wag
suggested we call it main steam media, for accuracy as well as for giggles and that's
fine by me.
the corporate media relentlessly repeat the mantra-like phrase, "free and independent
press," over, and over, and over again. Seriously, switch on NPR, or have a look at The
Guardian or the Washington Post, or any of the other corporate media repeatedly reminding
you how "independent," "free" and "democratic" they are. It's essentially Neuro-linguistic
programming.
It's blatantly obvious that the same can be said about the self-legitimizing term,
"mainstream," too, so bless you sir, and to (bleep) with the Sparkies of the world.
Confront them with facts contradicting their beliefs and they close their eyes and start
chanting and humming and repetitiously babbling banishing spells.
Not only is Hopkins correct, but what he says about corporate media is not new. The Civil
Rights movement presented by the media was false. The media promotion of the US re-engaging
in Europe in the post WW1 period so we could defend dear ole England and sacred democracy.
The media preparing us for our need to fight WW1 so we could end all wars was false. The
media stirring us to go into Cuba and end the awfully evil Spanish Empire so we could start
the process of ending all empires
N o doubt it is a pleasure for you because C.J. Hopkins managed to scribble 1500
words about fake news without even once mentioning the CIA.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public
believes is false."
-- CIA Director, William Casey
Of course, our resident Bumpkin of Unz would have you believe that the CIA is a
corporation.
"The CIA owns everyone of any significance in the major media."
-- former CIA Director William Colby
So you see Sheete, the term "corporate media" is entirely inaccurate -- a red herring, a
misleading label, a pig in a poke -- because it entirely excludes, avoids, overlooks, and
completely dismisses the role of our intelligence agencies in creating fake news ,
a.k.a. disinformation and propaganda.
The notion that the Western corporate media may serve the interests of the ruling
establishment (just like the media in every other society serve that society's ruling
classes) is unimaginable and tantamount to heresy.
This comes close to the term "regime media," which I like as a replacement for the
clunky-but-common terms "Mainstream Media" or MSM. "
Hopkins uses "corporate media," which appears fifteen times here including in the
title.
Several commenters have noted the problems with the term "mainstream media":
While better than "mainstream media," I'm not sure "corporate media" is sufficient.
"Corporate media," as a term, may wrongly convey the notion that the 'media' in question
complaisantly both [1] broadcasts the ruling ideology (interventionist capitalist
liberal democracy and multicultacracy) and [2] 'megaphones' (Steve Sailer's useful term)
against enemies thereto, coordinating our regular Two-Minute Hates.
That characterization misses an important point, to wit:
The 'media' (in the sense of the "MSM") as we know it today, is itself consciously
part of the ruling apparatus . Not complaisantly, but actively; not lackeys on the
side, but right at the regime's core. A useful distinction. Hence "regime media."
Jun. 14, 2012 These 6 Corporations Control 90% Of The Media In America
That's consolidated from *50* companies back in 1983. But the fact that a few companies
own everything demonstrates "the illusion of choice," Frugal Dad says.
Tom Charles Huston testified before the Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental
Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, commonly known as the Church Committee,
on the 43-page plan he presented to the President Nixon and others on ways to collect
information about anti-war and "radical" groups, including burglary, electronic
surveillance, and opening of mail.
Lippmann-Dewey debate, which is known to academics but not the general public in the
United States, the home country of both authors. Obviously, John Dewey is famous as one
of the most important American philosophers, and for his international influence in the
field of education. By contrast, Walter Lippmann has been somewhat forgotten, though he
was a major journalist in the 1920s and 1930s. He was a widely familiar author at the
time, and wrote some cynical things about American democracy. The story America tells
itself politically is that since we're a democracy in which the citizens rule themselves,
there is a paramount need for an excellent public education so that the citizens can vote
wisely. We ourselves are the leaders. But of course it doesn't work that way in practice.
We actually have a surplus of ignorant and uninformed people who pay no attention to the
nuances of policy, and who vote based on the workings of demagoguery and short-sighted
self-interest. Any number of foolish decisions have been made by the American public.
This leads Lippmann to take the somewhat cynical line that America is destined to be
ruled by technocrats. We need experts to run things; the people are too clueless to rule
themselves. We'll pretend we have a democracy, but we actually don't. Now, Dewey reads
this, and he is temperamentally more optimistic, and he thinks: 'This is a really
stimulating book, but Lippmann is wrong. He is setting the bar too high for the people.
People were never supposed to be educated in depth about every issue, which is an
impossible demand. Even Lippmann doesn't have the time to master every issue, and he
covers politics for a living. Instead, Dewey says, political issues generate their own
publics in each case. I might care deeply about seven political issues. I might care
about national health insurance, but I don't care about gay marriage, or vice versa. So I
get involved in one debate and not the other. I take the trouble of becoming informed
about issues that interest me.
@Hail
Hail says: "The 'media' (in the sense of the "MSM") as we know it today, is itself
consciously part of the ruling apparatus. Not complaisantly, but actively; not lackeys on
the side, but right at the regime's core ":
Exactly. The MSM is the government [CIA/NSA/ etc. etc.] grinning right at you as
it continually lies , albeit behind a very thin veil of supposed integrity/respectability
that the general public still refuses to see through.
By way of illustration of this "outrageous" assertion of mine, here is part of a video
analysis of the original 5 channel US MSM "live" coverage of the morning of Sept. 11 2001,
which clearly demonstrates that on that morning, all 5 US networks broadcast entirely fake
"live" footage [ i.e. C.G.I. prefabricated imagery] for about 102 minutes :
So you see Sheete, the term "corporate media" is entirely inaccurate
I never claimed it was perfect. I do claim that the term, "mainstream," in this context
is entirely inaccurate and misleading. And you should be nice, as you admonished me,
regarding the author of this article. As for your complaint that he didn't mention the CIA,
may I remind you that he wrote, as you noticed, an article, not an encyclopedia.
Anyway, you have yet to establish that the CIA and our corporate masters are entirely
separate entities. Even a Dumb Sheete such as myself would find it somewhat, if not
entirely, incredible if they were.
But of course too everyone knows by now that Jews, Israel and Mossad did 9/11 all by
their lonesomes, and the CIA and the Air Force had nothing to do with it.
Ahem, you forgot to mention big, coprophilic, media. Please try to practice the
inclusiveness that you preach.
one step over [the line] and they will be cast into the Outer Darkness of the
Blogosphere and excommunicated from the Church of Respectable Journalism. If you don't
believe me, just ask Seymour Hersh, or John Pilger, or any other journalistic
heretic.
To this list I might also add CBS' Sharyl Attkisson, and Larry Conners of KMOV-TV, who
had the big brass balls to question the $85 million the Obamas spent on vacations.
NR kicked Derb to the curb, but that gutter's littered with Internet flotsam who
presumed integrity.
@Sean
Sean says: "Lippmann-Dewey debate, which is known to academics but not the general
public in the United States, the home country of both authors. "
Debate summary: 2 know-it-alls debating about how "best" to run everybody else's lives
[and with straight faces, I've no doubt].
Two sides of the same [pro-statist] coin, in other words. Oh, and one minor issue one
"thinks" that a ruling technocracy is "the answer".
Sean says: "Obviously, John Dewey is famous as one of the most important American
philosophers, and for his international influence in the field of education."
You mean: Dewey was important in the field of "public education" , otherwise known as
brainwashing.
"... The whole affair is psyop, we know that already ..."
"... Stranger and stranger British press is saying that they did CPR on both victims at the scene of their collapse; being a trained nurse one of the first things they would have done is to have taken their pulse and other vitals and miraculously managed to do this and not become contaminated. Methinks something doth stink! ..."
"... Before any free-trade agreement can be reached with the United States, the Queen must issue a written apology to President Trump for attempting to overthrow his government. ..."
The case of poisoned double-agent Sergei Skripal just got weirder after it was revealed that
the first responder to the scene was the Chief Nursing Officer for the British Army after he
daughter spotted Skripal and his daughter collapsed on a bench at the Maltings shopping center
in Salisbury on March 5 of last year.
According to
Spire FM , 16-year-old Abigail McCourt spotted the poisoned Russians while "out celebrating
her brother's birthday," and then quickly alerted her mother - Alison McCourt. The two McCourts
gave first aid to the Skripals until paramedics arrived.
Colonel McCourt - who was decorated
for her efforts to fight Ebola in Sierra Leone, proposed her daughter as a candidate for the
Lifesaver Award at Spire FM's Local Hero Awards.
"As a qualified nurse it was a fairly routine situation for me but my daughter was amazing.
Her prompt actions, spotting them in difficulty, and the way she assisted me to put Yulia
Skripal in the recovery position had a significant impact on the outcome of the two victims , "
said Alison of her daughter.
The coincidence - kept under wraps for nearly a year , is sure to give skeptics plenty of
new ammunition to refute the official narrative that Russia attempted to kill Skripal 10 years
after the voluntarily gave him up in a spy exchange with the UK.
... ... ...
Christopher Steele connection walked back
In an embarrassing walkback of a story from March 2018, The Telegraph now says that the
Kremlin laid a "false trail" linking Sergei Skripal to Christopher Steele - the former MI6 spy
who crafted the infamous anti-Trump "Steele Dossier" paid for by Hillary Clinton's
campaign.
The Telegraph understands that Col Skripal moved to Salisbury in 2010 in a spy swap and
became close to a security consultant employed by Christopher Steele, who compiled the Trump
dossier.
The British security consultant, according to a LinkedIn social network account that was
removed from the internet in the past few days, is also based in Salisbury.
On the same LinkedIn account, the man listed consultancy work with Orbis Business
Intelligence, according to reports. -
Telegraph
On Sunday that entire connection - which implied that Skripal was somehow involved with the
Steele Dossier, was
blamed on Russia .
Russian intelligence created a false trail linking the double agent Sergei Skripal to the
former MI6 officer behind the Trump dossier before carrying out the Salisbury nerve agent
attack, the Telegraph has been told.
Well-placed sources now believe that the plot to kill Col Skripal may have included a
'black ops' attempt to sow doubt on the veracity of the explosive dossier that claims Donald
Trump received Kremlin backing.
The year before the attempted assassination of Col Skripal, a mysterious post on LinkedIn
suggested his MI6 handler, who is not being named, worked as a "senior analyst" at Orbis
Business Intelligence, the firm that produced the Trump dossier.
...
But a number of sources have told The Telegraph that the LinkedIn profile is false - if it
ever properly existed at all - and that Skripal's MI6 handler never worked for Orbis.
It is now suspected that the LinkedIn profile was created by the GRU, the Russian military
intelligence unit which tried to kill Col Skripal with novichok nerve agent. -
Telegraph
"By creating this link, they are suggesting that MI6 are involved with the dossier or
Skripal or both. It adds to the confusion and acts as a wedge between the White House and
Downing Street. It is exactly the kind of operation the Russians would order to sow confusion,"
said the Telegraph 's "well placed source."
"An internet hyperlink to the LinkedIn page appeared in an obscure blog posting in January
2017 - more than a year before the Salisbury attack - but the actual LinkedIn page itself has
never been visible ," the Telegraph writes.
In other words, The Telegraph wrote an entire story in March of last year based on nothing
more than "an internet hyperlink to the LinkedIn page" without actually having viewed the
profile now blamed on a Russian black op.
But there was another possibility - one that is utterly ludicrous and now disproved - that
was none the less championed by conspiracy theorists. Namely, that the death of Col Skripal
was not ordered by the Kremlin at all - but carried out by British agents to silence the
former Russian intelligence officer.
The reason was simple. Col Skripal - so the theory went - had helped provide information
to Christopher Steele, a former senior MI6 officer, who authored an extraordinary dossier on
Donald Trump, alleging that the soon-to-be president was effectively a puppet of Putin. The
dossier claimed that the Kremlin had been "cultivating, supporting and assisting Trump for at
least five years".
Oddly, however, a British spy named Pablo Miller was claimed by Russian media in 2007 as the MI6 agent
who recruited Skripal in 1995. Miller apparently works (or worked) for Orbis - though it is
unclear whether he is the same person noted in the original Telegraph report.
So - the British Army's head nurse was the first one to provide assistance to the dying
Russians, while Skripal's link to Christopher Steele is now thought to be part of a Russian
plot to discredit the Steele Dossier. Fascinating.
Fascinating??? Too much fantasy in this piece of fiction. The author seems uninterested in
going beyond trying to make it look like a fantasy James Bond. Surely someone can give the
'patient in difficulty' symptoms. Good grief, to categorize this fantasy story cooked up by
British Intel and hard-sell journalists, as NEWS. Is this the drivel we have to expect from
journalism schools?
M eye 6 is complicit in the Steele Dossier on Fake Russian collusion, Trying to cover a
big black eye from a so called British ally to USA that tried to run a coup on a sitting
president...
We always knew Pablo Miller worked for Orbis, Steele's consultancy, and was skripals
handler,
the article brings out the the nurses daughter sad Yulia Skripal was not breathing, was
dead, neither suffered any contact problems, unlike the policeman who was first on the scene
on the old story.
The 'actor based reality,' which has always been a tool for TPTB to use the fair and
balanced press to divide the public at large, utilizes much more than vast corps of
characters, writers, producers and directors as the psyops event coordinators executing
preplanned large scale operations to steer our perception with proven mind control tactics.
But, they're tactics have become so simple to spot by researchers as the templates are
basically similar and the plots of they're fake large scale events have become mind numbingly
ridiculous for any body paying attention to even the smallest amount of detail exposed in
these hoaxed
Wow, (((THEY))) sure LOVE gaslighting us. This mess of an attempt at an article shows how
******* stupid they really think we are. Even their warped version of one alternate theory
fits their ******** narrative. ******* absurd.
Porton Down is 8 miles...10 miles away? .. staff live in Salisbury...numbers of medical
staff deployed at PD and area will be large...Interesting is all.
Stranger and stranger British press is saying that they did CPR on both victims at the
scene of their collapse; being a trained nurse one of the first things they would have done
is to have taken their pulse and other vitals and miraculously managed to do this and not
become contaminated. Methinks something doth stink!
British authorities have refined to a whole new level offering bald faced lies and patent
absurdities with a dignified stiff upper lip. I have it from a highly placed source that
envious American and Israeli official and unofficial liars have been practicing posturing as
dignified and putting glue on their upper lips.
It's all a coincidence. In fact the word coincidence is an exaggeration. Because the
coincidences are happening more and more. Which makes them no longer a coincidence.
The previous alleged first responder was a policeman who became dangerously ill because
the novichok was so potent but strangely, this woman and her daughter suffered no ill
effects. I can only guess that due to her work with the British Army, she and her daughter
had fortunately and coincidentally been innoculated with a novichok antidote.
The house was on lockdown forever. Even if you are a trained nurse, doctor, emt, you are
out in a park with your family. What equipment are you carrying to defeat the effects of a
biological weapon??? And they weren't affected. Simply amazing.
Before any free-trade agreement can be reached with the United States, the Queen must
issue a written apology to President Trump for attempting to overthrow his government.
"... Even as I was finishing this piece off, yet another round of nonsense was unleashed; this time, the news that the roof of 47 Christie Miller Road (including the roof of the study) is to be taken off and replaced. Remember, we're talking about a substance that can be cleansed with baby wipes. Remember, we're talking about a substance that apparently breaks down after 80 minutes of exposure to the air. But 11 months later, it is again so deadly, that a whole roof needs replacing! Of course the media is not bothering to ask the obvious questions about this action, such as: How exactly could the roof timbers have become contaminated? Who could have contaminated them? D.S. Bailey? But why would he have been in the attic? Why is the ceiling / roof in Zizzis [restaurant] not being replaced? Why has the roof in The Mill [pub] not been dismantled? What was really in the attic? Obvious questions, yet none of them will be asked. ..."
Next twist in the ongoing Skripal poisoning soap opera saga - it seems to be turning out
that way - must surely be an autobiography publishing deal for Abby McCourt, with the book
having a working title of "I Was A Teenage Frontline Emergency Responder in the Fight
against Putin, Novichok and Russia".
@ Paveway IV Post 1
Curiouser and curiouser goes the tale; apparently it was not just the door handle -
John Helmer's post, January 17th, 2019 on "The British state broadcaster BBC and other media have disclosed that the Salisbury
house (lead image) owned by Sergei Skripal is to be partially demolished and rebuilt over
the next four months."
a very long piece and a worthy read. the last three paragraphs tells all -
The second conclusion is that it was Skripal who exposed himself to a poison he was
handling inside the house. That he did so by accident is likely; the accident theory was
first reported here, on March 25, 2018.
The only independent British investigator of the affair, Rob Slane, has announced that
he is retiring from the case. Here is his last word.
" Even as I was finishing this piece off, yet another round of nonsense was
unleashed; this time, the news that the roof of 47 Christie Miller Road (including the
roof of the study) is to be taken off and replaced. Remember, we're talking about a
substance that can be cleansed with baby wipes. Remember, we're talking about a
substance that apparently breaks down after 80 minutes of exposure to the air. But 11
months later, it is again so deadly, that a whole roof needs replacing! Of course the
media is not bothering to ask the obvious questions about this action, such as: How
exactly could the roof timbers have become contaminated? Who could have contaminated
them? D.S. Bailey? But why would he have been in the attic? Why is the ceiling / roof
in Zizzis [restaurant] not being replaced? Why has the roof in The Mill [pub] not been
dismantled? What was really in the attic? Obvious questions, yet none of them will be
asked.
In conclusion, I think it abundantly clear that what we have been told about what
took place on 4th March in the beautiful city of Salisbury is not, in fact, true. It is
clear that something else happened, and much of what we have seen since then has been
theatre and an attempt to cover up what actually took place."
"... Sedition is a crime and it is clear that the multiple seditious acts of II and IfS toward many countries and with their band of controlled journalists was a deliberate and planned activity. ..."
"... I don't expect any prosecutions but there is a chance of promotional impediments applying to some of those named. At least for the next month. Every named employee of II and IfS is an enemy of democracy and its people ..."
It should be pointed out that the Integrity Initiative recently claimed on Twitter that some of the documents leaked in batch
#4 were not theirs and had been misrepresented as part of the organisation.
It doesn't really matter, though: all that we know, anti-socialist shills writing propaganda on behalf of II (Nimmo, Cohen,
Reid-Ross) have confirmed their own roles, and the Twitter account was proven to have pushed out slanderous material on Jeremy
Corbyn.
Note that "misrepresented" could have referred to the inclusion of the Corbyn slide show document which was presented at but
created by the II.
This organisation and all of those part of it should be treated as enemies of the people, as they have attacked, disingenuously
and using smears,
-Yellow Vests
– Jill Stein
-Jeremy Corbyn
-George Galloway
-Seuams Milne
-German Left Party
-French Left Party
-French Communist Party
-Greek Communist Party
-Podemos
-Norwegian Red Party
-Norwegian Socialist Left Party
-Swedish Left Party
-Swedish Greens
-International Anti-NATO Groups
-Greyzone Project
-Julian Assange
-MintPressNews
Via
-Infiltrating Corbyn and Sanders campaigns
-Inserting propaganda anonymously into local media including the Daily Beast, Buzzfeed, The Times, the Guardian, and more
-Using social media to orchestrate hate and dismissal campaigns against those mentioned above
-Hosting events for collaboration between members
-Building online "clusters" to deploy and shape discourse in the media and elsewhere
By repeating or openly collaborating with:
-Ben Nimmo
-Oz Katergi
-Anne Applebaum
-Peter Pomerantsev
-Bellingcat
-Atlantic Council
-Carole Cadwalladr
-David Aaronovitch
-Center For A Stateless Society
-PropOrNot
-Alexander Reid-Ross
-Nick Cohen
-Michael Weiss
-Jamie Fly
-Jamie Kirchick
Directed by:
-Tory Government
-NATO
-Facebook
-German Multinationals
Sedition is a crime and it is clear that the multiple seditious acts of II and IfS toward
many countries and with their band of controlled journalists was a deliberate and planned activity.
I don't expect any prosecutions but there is a chance of promotional impediments applying to some of those named. At least
for the next month. Every named employee of II and IfS is an enemy of democracy and its people.
And, one last bit from the BBC report on March 8, 2018:
"...Meanwhile, a doctor who was one of the first people at the scene has described how she
found Ms Skripal slumped unconscious on a bench, vomiting and fitting. She had also lost
control of her bodily functions.
The woman, who asked not to be named, told the BBC she moved Ms Skripal into the
recovery position and opened her airway, as others tended to her father.
She said she treated her for almost 30 minutes, saying there was no sign of any chemical
agent on Ms Skripal's face or body.
The doctor said she had been worried she would be affected by the nerve agent, but added
that she "feels fine"
Doctor, nurse, Chief Nursing Officer of the Army, whatever...
"... Recall that, leaked documents passed to the Sunday Mail reveal Integrity Initiative is funded with £2million of Foreign Office cash and run by military intelligence specialists. Politicians and academics have reacted with fury to news a covert Government-funded unit had been attacking the official opposition in Parliament. ..."
The UK government and other Western governments and the US in recent years have had increasing
difficulties persuading enough of their populations as to the legitimacy of the foreign
policies that they have been pursuing.
And at the same time, Western countries have been going through a period of political crisis
and economic crisis.
Piers Robinson, Chair in Politics, Society and Political Journalism at the University of
Sheffield, further explains:
I think a lot of this drive is as much about trying to shore up shaky official narratives and
trying to shore up political systems in a situation of political crisis, as it is actually
about countering Russian propaganda.
I would suspect that that's a little bit of an excuse here to really what's going on of
problems much closer to home. This is not just to do to UK, this is Europe-wide. And there are also indications from the
documents that they are intending to start to have some kind of impact within the United
States. So, it's a very wide-ranging network that seems to be established.
The reason why it needs to be covert, of course, is that if a media organization, or if a
journalist is to let on that he, or she, is involved in a program, which quite clearly is
pushing a particular agenda, then the credibility of that journalist will be damaged.
And this is really what is very deceptive about the Integrity Initiative . It's about
co-opting journalists and academics into, essentially, a campaign, which appears to be a
propaganda campaign, in order to manipulate opinions.
And the only way that can really work effectively, is if readers and viewers don't know that
what they're reading is something which has emerged from a particular political agenda.
Recall that, leaked documents passed to the Sunday Mail reveal Integrity
Initiative is funded with £2million of Foreign Office cash and run by military
intelligence specialists. Politicians and academics have reacted with fury to news a covert
Government-funded unit had been attacking the official opposition in Parliament.
So, it's not accidental that the organized and systematic propaganda campaign against labour
party has actually started under Corbyn's leadership. And that the campaign contains a lot of
personal attacks against the leader of the Labour party. That's because, of course, Jeremy
Corbyn is driving the party out of the neoliberal machine that has been dominating the UK
politics for decades.
But it seems that the agents of the neoliberal establishment are really desperate as they see
that the new narratives are not particularly successful.
It would not be exaggerating to suggest that the attacks against Leftist leaders like Jeremy
Corbyn and Bernie Sanders essentially bring the opposite effect. That's because especially the
younger generations have turned their back to the mainstream media.
And they understand that the more the media attack Corbyn and Sanders, the stronger the
indication that these leaders are not part of the neoliberal establishment that ruined their
lives becomes.
"... But Abby's mum now feels the time is right for her daughter to be recognised for the "incredible" way she dealt with the scenario. Alison nominated her for the Lifesaver Award at Spire FM's Local Hero Awards, and the judges were unanimous in their decision that Abigail was a very worthy winner. ..."
"... Colonel McCourt was appointed Chief Nursing Officer on February 1 2018, just one month before the Skripal incident happened. Colonel McCourt lives in Larkhill, a garrison town some 11 miles from Salisbury. She is known to visit elsewhere. ..."
"... That is such a great article b. I have had a great wry chuckle at the folly of human hubris. Fancy setting up your own daughter for an award. Certainly looks less and less like novichok and more like novifraud with every passing day. ..."
"... Not only is the military mother Britain's most senior soldier on the virulent battlefield against ebola , she is also the last line of defence for the Army medics and other healthcare workers fighting the deadly disease ..."
"... what a stroke of luck Britain's most senior soldier on the virulent battlefield against ebola was there, arguably the most qualified person in all of Britain to attend to the Skripals. ..."
"... The story of the heroic Abigail McCourt in helping to save the Skripals must be too good for the likes of The Fraudian and other so-called "progressive" MSM outlets to resist. Strange that such a narrative was not brought up until now, coming close to the anniversary of the poisoning and the deadline for Britain's exit from the EU. ..."
"... Curious that Abigail McCourt received basic first aid training at school (in which she would have been taught CPR) yet when Spire FM hosts spoke to her, she says that her training was not needed. In almost the same sentence, she says Julia Skripal was not breathing. ..."
"... Off-Guardian on Twitter wonders if Alison McCourt had been involved in Exercise Toxic Dagger (chemical weapons training exercise) staged by The Defence Science and Technology Laboratory and the Royal Marines in February 2018: ..."
"... The main area for shoppers to park in Salisbury is just north of the Maltings (site of the alleged attack) so it's not surprising that someone shopping in Salisbury would pass the bench the Skripals were found on. What is surprising it that none of the family seems to have suffered any effects from the Novichok. ..."
"... The Skirpal case, the Maidan coup and the related MH17 downing, the various gas attacks in Syria, the most recent bombing incident also in Syria, the Mueller investigation in its entirety - the sheer incompetence shown by the US and British deep states is simply staggering, and in sharp contrast to the investigative ability of this and other sites. ..."
"... It all adds up to stasi state bullshit. They are so arrogant and cocksure of the controlled media that they can even draw attention to the provocation by seeking an award for a family member despite the prominence of the mother and her role in the power structure. Knowledge, of course, will remain limited to those who are canny enough not to believe the received propaganda wisdom of the five eyes spy state. ..."
"... So in all the police press briefings and all of the political posturing it was not deemed to be important to mention that the Skripals-on-the-park-bench were attended to by the Chief Nurse Of the British Army? ..."
"... Even though this could have gone a long, long way to explaining the biggest discrepancy in the government narrative (i.e. Novicock is way, way deadly only, err, umm, they didn't die). How odd. How very, very odd. You'd almost think that the government considered that acknowledging that fact would open up more questions than it would answer. Hard to see why..... ..."
"... Recall that it was recently established and published that the Steele Dossier was compiled to act as an Insurance Policy in the event Trump won the election. See here . I posted this news as a comment and b picked up on it too, but that aspect of the Dossier is omitted from his essay above. We can see that the Dossier--like Blair's Dodgy Dossier to sell the illegal war on Iraq--has had a massive impact on Trump's presidency, which, whether you like Trump or not, is a matter of grave concern for the institutions of governance of the USA, and IMO is very close to treason. ..."
"... Sure, the nurse revelation is curious to say the least, but I'm far more interested in the entire disinformation network built by the British along with previous and current versions operated by CIA here in USA. Think back to what Bill Casey said, "We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false," then Rove's boast: "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors...and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do." ..."
"... Add those to all the 100% evidence free accusations made against Russia, China, Venezuela, Syria, other nations and private individuals--the "universal sports doping" by Russian athletes was a massive smear proven to be 100% false--and you can understand why I call it BigLie Media. Clearly, the Skripal story's utter fantasy. But the Brits will kill their own to insure the story isn't compromised--Dr. David Kelly, Dawn Sturgess, and quite likely Sergei Skripal, and likely others from incidents in the further past. ..."
"... The Integrity Initiative was also heavily involved in promoting an anti-Russian agenda such as the Skripal affair. ..."
"... reminds me of the kuwaiti ambassador's daughter in the runup to the first gulf war. ..."
"... 'So in all the police press briefings and all of the political posturing it was not deemed to be important to mention that the Skripals-on-the-park-bench were attended to by the Chief Nurse Of the British Army?' And how embarrassing for our 'fearless' journalists and tabloid truth seekers! Let the crowd cry out 'shame'! ..."
On March 4 2018 the British/Russian double agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia
were found incapacitated on a bench in Salisbury. The British government asserts that they were affected by a chemical poison
of the so called Novichok group. The case led to a diplomatic conflict as Britain accused Russia of an attempt to kill the
Skripals. No evidence was provided by the British government to support those accusations. The Skripals have since been
vanished.
Today an intriguing new detail of the case came to light. Spire FM , a local
radio station in Salisbury,
reports of a young woman, Abigail McCourt, who was given a 'Lifesaver Award' for her
involvement in the Skripal case:
The 16 year old, from Larkhill, was the first to spot two people collapsed on a bench in
the Maltings on March 4th and didn't hesitate to help. Abigail quickly alerted her mum, a
qualified nurse, who was nearby and together they gave first aid to the victims until
paramedics arrived.
It soon became clear this was no ordinary medical incident, but the poisoning of a
former Russian spy Sergei Skripal, and his daughter Yulia, with Novichok.
...
Immediately following the incident and with the world's media focused on Salisbury, the
pair didn't want any want press attention and kept their involvement quiet.
But Abby's mum now feels the time is right for her daughter to be recognised for the
"incredible" way she dealt with the scenario. Alison nominated her for the Lifesaver Award
at Spire FM's Local Hero Awards, and the judges were unanimous in their decision that
Abigail was a very worthy winner.
Earlier reports mentioned that a 'military nurse' had attended to the Skripals. Following
the above report Elena Evdokimova checked the name of the young women's mothers and found a
curiosity:
We were right, it was Alison McCourt who was that"unknown military nurse" who,
absolutely randomly, happened to be near the bench where #Skripals collapsed . Spire FM
alleges that it was her daughter Abigail alerted her, but no one mentioned her before
...
Colonel A L McCourt OBE ARRC QHN - Assistant Head Health Strategy / Chief Nursing Officer
(Army) - Senior Health Advisor (Army) Department.
Colonel McCourt was appointed Chief Nursing Officer on February 1 2018, just one month
before the Skripal incident happened. Colonel McCourt lives in Larkhill, a garrison town some
11 miles from Salisbury. She is known to visit elsewhere.
As I read this I had two thoughts. The first one is that the Brits have lost the competence
they once had with this stuff. "Operation Mincemeat" was, according to all accounts, a marvel
in planning, execution, and getting the desired reactions from the German High Command. The
"Double-Cross System" turned the extremely risky invasion at Normandy into a success. The
recent stuff is a comedy by comparison.
excellent reporting.. still we have little written collaborative evidence.. just as in 9/11
just top dogs saying improbable things.
What seems to me important now is to develop as you have done a set of hypotheses. and to
hack at them until we hit the ones which all evidence cannot dispute. Using your summary I
rewrite in hypothesis form,
hypothesis 1: Steele's dirty dossier is not related to the Skripal case.
hypothesis 2: Steele's dossier is not the result of an integrity initiative.
hypothesis 3: Downing street personnel were not involved in integrity initiative
hypothesis 4: media reported only supportable facts.
hypothesis 5: Neither the USA or any of its agencies were involved
hypothesis 6: Neither Israel or any of its agencies were involved
hypothesis 7: Neither Saudi Arabia or any of its Arab partners were involved
hypothesis 6: Neither Republicans or Democrats in America were involved.
hypothesis 8: the FBI had no part in this.
hypothesis 9: Developing sufficient misinformation to justify attacking Nord 2
pipeline was not one of the objectives of the integrity initiative.
hypothesis 10: No private interest supported organizing a false flag op against
Russia
Too good. That is such a great article b. I have had a great wry chuckle at the folly of
human hubris. Fancy setting up your own daughter for an award. Certainly looks less and less like novichok and more like novifraud with every passing
day.
Not only is the military mother Britain's most senior soldier on the virulent
battlefield against ebola , she is also the last line of defence for the Army medics
and other healthcare workers fighting the deadly disease.
what a stroke of luck Britain's most senior soldier on the virulent battlefield against
ebola was there, arguably the most qualified person in all of Britain to attend to the
Skripals.
Coincidence? Probably like most here, I think not. But isn't this something of an own goal?
If indeed things are as we suspect, why would you put the daughter up for an award? Wouldn't
you want the can of worms this presents to remain unopened? Can they be this incompetent?
Well, looking at the Brexit process, I guess we know the answer to that last by now
rhetorical question.
The story of the heroic Abigail McCourt in helping to save the Skripals must be too good for
the likes of The Fraudian and other so-called "progressive" MSM outlets to resist. Strange
that such a narrative was not brought up until now, coming close to the anniversary of the
poisoning and the deadline for Britain's exit from the EU.
b, you are too suspicious. Nothing to see here.
Clearly way beyond a serious matter, this dastardly attack on Skripals by the Soviets, er,
the Russians, er, Putin.
In Canada our eloquent foreign Minister, in a barrage of outraged talking the talk that
was accompanied by making four Russian diplomats walk the walk home, said in words that will
surely take their high place in the history of inspired speeches, along with Churchill's
'Never have so many done so much for so few', and MLK's 'I have a nightmare':
And her words re the March 4 nerve agent attack on a close ally and partner of Canada "a
despicable, heinous and reckless act" that potentially endangered the lives of hundreds"
Strange - no military hospital in Salisbury but then there aren't military hospitals in
Britain anymore. Instead the military use civilian hospitals with a Ministry of Defence
Hospital Unit attached but none near Salisbury. The Ministry of Defence Hospital Units do not
treat operational casualties who are treated at the Royal Centre for Defence Medicine at
Queen Elizabeth Hospital (QEH) in Birmingham. You'd think the Chief Nursing Officer for the
British Army, Colonel McCourt would work out off the most important site for defence medicine
in the UK (QEH in Birmingham) but instead she's based at Larkhill which from memory is where
the Royal Artillery is located.
Not so strange - The area inhabited by the British Army north of Salisbury (more specifically
north of the A303 road was classified as deprived because of the lack of shopping facilities,
so most residents of this area do their shopping in Salisbury which has the best shopping in
the area. There are now a Tesco superstore and a branch of Lidl in Tidworth so perhaps it's
not so deprived anymore.
The main area for shoppers to park in Salisbury is just north of the Maltings (site of the alleged attack) so it's not surprising that someone shopping in
Salisbury would pass the bench the Skripals were found on. What is surprising it that none of
the family seems to have suffered any effects from the Novichok.
The Skirpal case, the Maidan coup and the related MH17 downing, the various gas attacks in
Syria, the most recent bombing incident also in Syria, the Mueller investigation in its
entirety - the sheer incompetence shown by the US and British deep states is simply
staggering, and in sharp contrast to the investigative ability of this and other sites.
The US is fracturing, the EU is fracturing, and therein lies the greatest danger. With the
overplayed sanctions only making the sanctioned effect work arounds to the point that the
primacy of the US dollar is threatened, with the contain China train having left the station
and recently pulling into a station purpose built on the dark side of the moon, their only
options look to be to either go nuclear or go away.
2019 looks to be a most interesting year!
exiled off mainstreet , Jan 19, 2019 6:05:32 PM |
link
It all adds up to stasi state bullshit. They are so arrogant and cocksure of the controlled
media that they can even draw attention to the provocation by seeking an award for a family
member despite the prominence of the mother and her role in the power structure. Knowledge,
of course, will remain limited to those who are canny enough not to believe the received
propaganda wisdom of the five eyes spy state.
So in all the police press briefings and all of the political posturing it was not deemed to
be important to mention that the Skripals-on-the-park-bench were attended to by the Chief
Nurse Of the British Army?
Even though this could have gone a long, long way to explaining the biggest discrepancy in
the government narrative (i.e. Novicock is way, way deadly only, err, umm, they didn't
die). How odd.
How very, very odd. You'd almost think that the government considered that acknowledging that fact would open
up more questions than it would answer. Hard to see why.....
I am beginning to wonder if Sir Humphrey Appleby and some of his colleagues are conducting a
deliberate hoax, piling impossibility upon impossibility and contradiction upon
contradiction, just to see how long it takes the unbelievably gullible British public to get
the joke and start throwing cabbages and rotten fruit. Not so funny for the poor woman who died - but then, as Sir Humphrey has often been heard
to remark, one cannot make an omelette without breaking eggs.
Recall that it was recently established and published that the Steele Dossier was compiled to
act as an Insurance Policy in the event Trump won the election.
See here . I posted this news as a comment and b picked up on it too, but that aspect of
the Dossier is omitted from his essay above. We can see that the Dossier--like Blair's Dodgy
Dossier to sell the illegal war on Iraq--has had a massive impact on Trump's presidency,
which, whether you like Trump or not, is a matter of grave concern for the institutions of
governance of the USA, and IMO is very close to treason.
Sure, the nurse revelation is curious to say the least, but I'm far more interested in the
entire disinformation network built by the British along with previous and current versions
operated by CIA here in USA. Think back to what Bill Casey said, "We'll know our
disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false,"
then Rove's boast: "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're
studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new
realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's
actors...and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."
Add those to all the 100% evidence free accusations made against Russia, China, Venezuela,
Syria, other nations and private individuals--the "universal sports doping" by Russian
athletes was a massive smear proven to be 100% false--and you can understand why I call it
BigLie Media. Clearly, the Skripal story's utter fantasy. But the Brits will kill their own
to insure the story isn't compromised--Dr. David Kelly, Dawn Sturgess, and quite likely
Sergei Skripal, and likely others from incidents in the further past.
So, while it seems comical, this is all deadly serious.
The Integrity Initiative was also heavily involved in promoting an anti-Russian agenda such
as the Skripal affair.
Either Chris Donnelly of the Institute for Statecraft (IoS), (formally of the British
Army's Soviet Studies Research Centre at Sandhurst), or UK General Sir Richard Barrons
reportedly stated that "if no catastrophe happens to wake people up and demand a response,
then we need to find a way to get the core of government to realise the problem and take it
out of the political space."
great coverage b.. thank you... it's either a coincidence theory, or a conspiracy theory...
no other choices, until the uk gets down to doing an open investigation on integrity
initiative...the investigators investigating the investigators.. ain't going to happen...
similar deal in the usa now.. basically this will be when hell freezes over - a very long
time if ever.. meanwhile the skripals are persona non grata... it would be very interesting
to find out where they are kept... it looks like their is no chance for any type of normal
life for them here on out... even if the novihoax didn't kill them, the uk has done the
equivalent.. it is hard not to tie operation toxic dagger into all of this... the
coincidences are just too great..
@ petri.. thanks for the that.. how did you manage to figure that one out? does that mean
that allison mccourt is the daughter of pablo miller, or was allison from another
relationship/marriage? of course m16 and some folks know the answer to this amazing
coincidences and probably are unable to openly say..
@ Glen Brown and bevin with their correction to my comment.....thanks
I was not in my best of mind and along with misspelling his name I projected my desire for
more movement by the UK opposition in light of having the government paying folks to work
against them.....my bad idealism........
If it is true that Alison McCourt is married to Pablo Miller as Petri Kohn asserts in
comment #1 then it looks like the daughter is being groomed for big things in the UK
government.....16 years old and already an award for criminal complicity.
Petri Krohn@1 - ? Only thing I could find is a reference to her husband Hugh - a
prison officer - and her two kids, Abagail (now 16) and Cameron (now 14). That was from a
DailyMail
article (I know...) from Dec. 20, 2014. She was spending time away from them during
Christmas when she was sent to Sierra Leone for the Ebola outbreak. The article also mentions
time away from Hugh and Abagail in 2003 when she was deployed to Iraq. Couldn't find anything
about Pablo Miller being married or having kids, but many mentions of his home in Salisbury.
Nice conjecture, except that those who devised the Dossier specifically said it was to be
used as insurance in case Trump won. Please see article I linked to in my comment.
The daughter is what's know as a "cutout". You can't have the "nurse of all nurses" be the
first on the scene. But, they didn't even bother with the daughter having to call mama at
home. She was luckily "nearby", presumably lurking behind a tree.
She might have been the commanding officer of 22 Field Hospital but now she's moved
on.
From the QARANC website:
Following promotion to Lieutenant Colonel in 2011, Alison attended the Advanced Command and
Staff Course. Her initial SO1 appointment was as Chief of Staff, Headquarters 2nd Medical
Brigade in York in Aug 2012. Alison assumed Command of 22 Field Hospital in July 2013 and
deployed the Unit to Sierra Leone on Op GRITROCK in Oct 14. She was awarded an OBE for her
leadership of 22 Field during Op GRITROCK.
On promotion to Colonel in Dec 2015 she assumed an appointment in the newly established
Senior Health Advisors department and has been the lead for Assurance and now Health
Strategy in that area.
Alison assumed the appointment of Chief Nursing Officer for the Army on 1 Feb 18.
@1 petri... unless they hooked up after 2014, your theory doesn't look very likely...
further to @36 paveways comment from the daily mail dec 20 2014 article - Even though
Lieut Col McCourt is a veteran of campaigns in Iraq and the Balkans, she admits this tour of
duty has taken a toll, and that she has depended on the support of her husband Hugh, a prison
officer, to help her through it. While this is her first Christmas apart from her children,
she is accustomed to leaving them and her husband behind. In 2003, she left Abigail, then
aged just eight months, in Hugh's arms while she went to Iraq to treat British soldiers
wounded in the Gulf War. She returned there in 2008 for a second tour of duty.
Lieut Col McCourt said: 'I have a very supportive husband. On both occasions I went to
Iraq he took sabbaticals from his job to ensure that our family life was maintained. Yes, it
was hard to say goodbye so soon after having my first child but you immerse yourself in your
work, and on an operational tour everyone is missing someone. This Christmas he'll be with
the children and my mum will join them at the family home in Aldershot. Of course I miss them
all but our focus has to be saving lives here.'
Suppose you were Russian and believed that the west would not attack because of the checks
and controls that exist in western democracy. Suppose a deadly incident occurred and Russia
was blamed and an attack became more likely. Suppose that (as a Russian) you knew Russia
wasn't involved and that the evidence was very sketchy and didn't make sense. Suppose this
was was all in the public domain but instead of the incident being questioned it was just
accepted and Russia was sanctioned and other western and allied countries (despite knowing it
was nonsense) joined in.
You might as a Russian come to believe that evidence didn't matter, that the west could
manipulate their populations at will and the idea that there was some "restraint" on western
attacks would be shown to be fanciful. You might, as a Russian, become very concerned that
you might be attacked and there was a lack of restraint on the west.
The west are blaming Russia for something they didn't do but, also, showing that they know
that Russia didn't do it and, more, letting Russia know they framed them, and showing Russia
that the evidence doesn't matter. Perhaps, not UK incompetence, maybe, it's all psyops.
Mr Moon, you have excelled yourself! A brilliant article, worthy of a standing ovation!
'So in all the police press briefings and all of the political posturing it was not deemed
to be important to mention that the Skripals-on-the-park-bench were attended to by the Chief
Nurse Of the British Army?' And how embarrassing for our 'fearless' journalists and tabloid truth seekers! Let the
crowd cry out 'shame'!
John Helmer raises an important question, why does the roof of Sergei's house need to be
removed? Tongue firmly planted in cheek. The air leakage through the front door of Sergei's
house must be through the roof! How else does the fumes from novichok get from the front door
handle to the roof? Sure hope they do a proper energy efficient rebuild. Can't go wasting
that soon to be arriving at Perfidious Albion's shores horror of horrors, Russian gas. North
Sea gas wont last much longer.
Suppose that ... CIA-MI6 were trying to ensure the election of Trump, not Hillary. As
I described in previous comments , Trump's election followed a logical progression that,
in sum, indicate manipulation on his behalf. Hal Duell @21 mentions some of the psyop
reality-making: White Helmets, MH-17, Skripal, etc. Karlof1 @30 notes the absolute hubris of
the Empire's "we make our own reality".
Lets say Integrity Initiative, working with CIA and MI6, wanted to use the 2016 election
to cast aspersion on the Russians. A populist running against Hillary was the logical choice.
The narrative: only with Russian help could a challenger hope to win against Hillary.
"Russian meddling" and Wikileaks as Russian agent are major "wins" for the establishment.
Integrity Initiative was formed soon after Kissinger's Op-Ed in August 2014 and before Trump
began his run for President.
"... Integrity Initiative documents reveal that Leventhal has been paid $76,608 dollars (60,000 British pounds) for a 50% contract. ..."
"... While those same documents claim he has retired from the State Department, Leventhal's own Linkedin page lists him as a current "Senior Disinformation Advisor" to the State Department. If that were true, it would mean that the State Department was employing a de facto foreign agent. ..."
Of all the State Department officials named in Integrity Initiative documents, the one who
appeared most frequently was Todd Leventhal. Leventhal has been a staffer at the State
Department's Global Engagement Center, boasting of "20 years of countering disinformation,
misinformation, conspiracy theories, and urban legends." In an April 2018 Integrity Initiative
memo, he is listed as a current team member:
Funded to the tune of $160 million this year to beat back Russian disinformation with
"counter-propaganda," the State Department's Global Engagement Center
has refused to deny targeting American citizens with information warfare of its own. "My
old job at the State Department was as chief propagandist," confessed former Global
Engagement Center Director Richard Stengel. "I'm not against propaganda. Every country does it
and they have to do it to their own population and I don't necessarily think it's that
awful."
Like so many of the media and political figures involved in the Integrity Initiative's
international network, the Global Engagement Center's Leventhal has a penchant for deploying
smear tactics against prominent voices that defy the foreign policy consensus. Leventhal
appeared in an
outtake of a recent NBC documentary on Russian disinformation smugly explaining how he
would take down a 15-year-old book critical of American imperialism in the developing world.
Rather than challenge the book's substance and allegations, Leventhal boasted how he would
marshall his resources to wage an ad hominem smear campaign to destroy the author's reputation.
His strategic vision was clear: when confronting a critic, ignore the message and destroy the
messenger.
Like so many of the media and political figures involved in the Integrity Initiative's
international network, the Global Engagement Center's Leventhal has a penchant for deploying
smear tactics against prominent voices that defy the foreign policy consensus. Leventhal
appeared in an
outtake of a recent NBC documentary on Russian disinformation smugly explaining how he
would take down a 15-year-old book critical of American imperialism in the developing world.
Rather than challenge the book's substance and allegations, Leventhal boasted how he would
marshall his resources to wage an ad hominem smear campaign to destroy the author's reputation.
His strategic vision was clear: when confronting a critic, ignore the message and destroy the
messenger.
Integrity Initiative documents reveal that Leventhal has been paid $76,608 dollars (60,000
British pounds) for a 50% contract.
While those same documents claim he has retired from the State Department, Leventhal's own
Linkedin page
lists him as a current "Senior Disinformation Advisor" to the State Department. If that were
true, it would mean that the State Department was employing a de facto foreign agent.
Posted this over at Mark Chapman's The New Kremlin Stooge blog:
The latest news from Salisbury: first, the park bench and the dining table walked the
Path of Fire, then the guinea pigs and a cat followed, a house may soon do so as well, and
the latest perhaps to join the queue
Several comments attached to that post are of "wish we had Novichok in our shopping
centre" or "they planned this all along" type. It seems that Salisbury shopping centre as it
is has not been doing well because of high rents previously imposed by Wiltshire Council and
it desperately needs a makeover. Call me cynical but maybe Wiltshire Council is using the
poisoning incident to bring forward its redevelopment plans for the Salisbury shopping centre
that will all but kill off local businesses.
He essentially became a Republican Obama, save Nobel Peace Price. If Obama was/is a CIA-democrat, this guy is a
Deep State controlled republican. In any case he betrayed his voters in a way that resembles Obama betrayal. One has a
fake slogan "change we can believe in" that other equally fake "Make [middle] America Great Again" (which means restoration
of well-being of middle class and working class in my book, not the continuation of Obama foreign wars, and tax cuts for for
corporations and super rich.
And that means that he lost a considerable part of his electorate: the anti-war republicans
and former Sanders supporters. He might do good and not to try to run in 2020. He definitely is no economic nationalist.
Compare his policies with Tucker Carlson Jan 2, 2019
speech to see the difference. He is
"national neoliberal" which rejects parts of neoliberal globalization based on treaties and
prefer to bully nations to compliance that favor the US interests instead of treaties.
And his "fight" with the Deep State resemble so closely to complete and unconditional
surrender, that you might have difficulties to distinguish between the two.
Most of his appointees would make Hillary proud. That that extends beyond rabid neocons like Haley, Mattis, Bolton and
Pompeo.
Notable quotes:
"... The Washington Post is without a doubt the most pro-establishment among all large mainstream publications, not only do they defend the narratives of the Deep State but actively attacks anyone who challenges them. ..."
"... Jeff Bezos owner of the Washington Post is also a contractor with the CIA and sits on a Pentagon advisory board all part of doing everything he can to cozy up and ingratiate himself to the establishment on which his empire is built. ..."
"... It's really sad that people in the public believe this stuff. It's insane and ridiculous. We're living in an Insane Asylum and the ones who should be there for the safety of themselves and others are walking around giving orders to Media and USG, fomenting war and making a mockery of laws and "normal behaviors. ..."
"... They flooded the news with the old Helsinki/Putin stuff to hide the real news. Lisa Page's testimony revealed that John Carlin, Mueller's former chief of staff was running the Russia investigation from the DOJ end, showing another conflict of Mueller's. Now Mueller is covering for two best friends, Comey and Carlin and he has to frame Trump to save them. ..."
"... The testimony also showed FBI David Bowditch was heavily involved, and Bowditch is now 2nd in command at the FBI and blocking the public release of witness testimony, and one reason for it is it reveals his involvement. ..."
"... It is also now revealed that John Brennan CIA had the dossier before the FBI, and the dossier was likely written by Nellie Ohr, who belonged to a CIA group, and then the dossier was laundered by Steele to look like foreign intelligence to get the Crossfire Hurricane investigation started on Trump. You would think it would be big news that Russians may have had nothing to do with the dossier but the media doesn't see it that way ..."
Washington
Post stating that he "has gone to extraordinary lengths to conceal details" of his
discussions with Russian President Vladimir Putin - telling Fox News host Jeanine Pirro in a
phone interview that he would be willing to release the details of a private conversation in
Helsinki last summer.
"I would. I don't care," Trump told Pirro, adding: "I'm not keeping anything under wraps. I
couldn't care less."
"I mean, it's so ridiculous, these people making up," Trump said of the WaPo report.
The president referred to his roughly two-hour dialogue with Putin in Helsinki -- at which
only the leaders and their translators were present -- as "a great conversation" that
included discussions about "securing Israel and lots of other things."
"I had a conversation like every president does," Trump said Saturday. "You sit with the
president of various countries. I do it with all countries." -
Politico
In July an attempt by House Democrats to subpoena Trump's Helsinki interpreter was quashed
by Republicans.
"The Washington Post is almost as bad, or probably as bad, as the New York Times," Trump
said.
When Pirro asked Trump about a Friday night New York Times report that the FBI had opened an
inquiry into whether he was working for Putin, Pirro asked Trump "Are you now or have you ever
worked for Russia, Mr. President?"
"I think it's the most insulting thing I've ever been asked," Trump responded. "I think it's
the most insulting article I've ever had written."
Trump went on an
epic tweetstorm Saturday following the Times article, defending his 2017 firing of former
FBI Director James Comey, and tweeting that he has been "FAR tougher on Russia than Obama, Bush
or Clinton. Maybe tougher than any other President. At the same time, & as I have often
said, getting along with Russia is a good thing, not a bad thing. I fully expect that someday
we will have good relations with Russia again!"
rumcho
Jeff Bezos paid $250 million for Washington Post, five years later he gets a government contract with the CIA for $600
million. Are you connecting the dots? You do the numbers. This is how fascism works. Bezos is a crony capitalist joker.
is Trump waiting for Mueller to lay down his cards? Head him off at the pass and arrest Obama, Rice, Jarrett, Lynch, Comey,
Rosenstein and McCabe all on day 1
best defense is a good offense. Make the narrative about Dem sedition not impending House impeachment hearings.
You are President, start acting like it. Make them fear you.
your re-election depends on Mike Obama not being your opponent.
Let it Go
WaPo, again?
The Washington Post is without a doubt the most pro-establishment among all large mainstream publications, not only do
they defend the narratives of the Deep State but actively attacks anyone who challenges them.
Jeff Bezos owner of the Washington Post is also a contractor with the CIA and sits on a Pentagon advisory board all
part of doing everything he can to cozy up and ingratiate himself to the establishment on which his empire is built. The
article below delves into how WaPo is behind many of the big stories that manipulate America and moves the needle of public
opinion in huge ways.
It's really sad that people in the public believe this stuff. It's insane and ridiculous. We're living in an Insane Asylum
and the ones who should be there for the safety of themselves and others are walking around giving orders to Media and USG,
fomenting war and making a mockery of laws and "normal behaviors.
shadow54
They flooded the news with the old Helsinki/Putin stuff to hide the real news. Lisa Page's testimony revealed that
John Carlin, Mueller's former chief of staff was running the Russia investigation from the DOJ end, showing another conflict
of Mueller's. Now Mueller is covering for two best friends, Comey and Carlin and he has to frame Trump to save them.
The testimony also showed FBI David Bowditch was heavily involved, and Bowditch is now 2nd in command at the FBI and
blocking the public release of witness testimony, and one reason for it is it reveals his involvement.
It is also now revealed that John Brennan CIA had the dossier before the FBI, and the dossier was likely written by
Nellie Ohr, who belonged to a CIA group, and then the dossier was laundered by Steele to look like foreign intelligence to
get the Crossfire Hurricane investigation started on Trump. You would think it would be big news that Russians may have had
nothing to do with the dossier but the media doesn't see it that way.
Then there is the news that Fusion GPS worked with the Democracy Integrity Project and Knew Knowledge to run a fake Russian
bots campaign against Roy Moore. The Democracy Integrity Project was started by Feinstein's aide and with New Knowledge wrote
a report on Russian bots for the Senate Intelligence Committee. So the Senate Intelligence Committee hired creators of fake
Russian bots to write a report on Russian bots.
This is the typical level of repression that exist in Police State: any politician who deviates from the "Inner Party" (aka Deep
State) course is branded as Russian spy and "counterintelligence" dogs are send to sniff any dirty clothing that might exist to and
this politician career.
Notable quotes:
"... counterintelligence investigators had to consider whether the president's own actions constituted a possible threat to national security. Agents also sought to determine whether Mr. Trump was knowingly working for Russia or had unwittingly fallen under Moscow's influence. ..."
"... "anybody who fires corrupt Comey must be a Russian spy." ..."
"... Wow, just learned in the Failing New York Times that the corrupt former leaders of the FBI, almost all fired or forced to leave the agency for some very bad reasons, opened up an investigation on me, for no reason & with no proof, after I fired Lyin' James Comey, a total sleaze! ..."
President Trump on Saturday lashed out after a Friday evening report in the
New York Times that US
law enforcement officials " became so concerned by the president's behavior " in the days after Trump fired James Comey as FBI director,
that "t hey began investigating whether he had been working on behalf of Russia against American interests. "
According to the NYT, agents and senior F.B.I. officials " had grown suspicious of Mr. Trump's ties to Russia during the 2016
campaign " but held off on opening an investigation into him, the people said, in part because they were uncertain how to proceed
with an inquiry of such sensitivity and magnitude.
What happened next? Well, a collusion narrative was born and carefully crafted as the paper explains:
The president's activities before and after Mr. Comey's firing in May 2017, particularly
two
instances in which Mr. Trump tied the Comey dismissal to the Russia investigation, helped prompt the counterintelligence aspect
of the inquiry, the people said.
The odd inquiry carried "explosive implications" as counterintelligence investigators had to consider whether the president's
own actions constituted a possible threat to national security. Agents also sought to determine whether Mr. Trump was knowingly working
for Russia or had unwittingly fallen under Moscow's influence.
The criminal and counterintelligence elements were coupled together into one investigation, former law enforcement officials
said in interviews in recent weeks, because if Mr. Trump had ousted the head of the F.B.I. to impede or even end the Russia investigation,
that was both a possible crime and a national security concern. The F.B.I.'s counterintelligence division handles national security
matters.
Even so, "...some former law enforcement officials outside the investigation have questioned whether agents overstepped in opening
it ."
Then, in paragraph nine we read " No evidence has emerged publicly that Mr. Trump was secretly in contact with or took direction
from Russian government officials. " Or, as The Washington Examiner 's Byron York sums it up:
Some were even more laconic, summarizing the "scoop" as "anybody who fires corrupt Comey must be a Russian spy."
Put another way:
Responding to the "bombshell" NYT report - which curiously resurrects the "Russian collusion" narrative right as Trump is set
to test his Presidential authority over the border wall, the president lashed out over Twitter .
Wow, just learned in the Failing New York Times that the corrupt former leaders of the FBI, almost all fired or forced
to leave the agency for some very bad reasons, opened up an investigation on me, for no reason & with no proof, after I fired
Lyin' James Comey, a total sleaze!"
Funny thing about James Comey. Everybody wanted him fired, Republican and Democrat alike. After the rigged & botched Crooked
Hillary investigation, where she was interviewed on July 4th Weekend, not recorded or sworn in, and where she said she didn't
know anything (a lie), the FBI was in complete turmoil (see N.Y. Post) because of Comey's poor leadership and the way he handled
the Clinton mess (not to mention his usurpation of powers from the Justice Department).
My firing of James Comey was a great day for America. He was a Crooked Cop who is being totally protected by his best friend,
Bob Mueller, & the 13 Angry Democrats - leaking machines who have NO interest in going after the Real Collusion (and much more)
by Crooked Hillary Clinton, her Campaign, and the Democratic National Committee. Just Watch!
I have been FAR tougher on Russia than Obama, Bush or Clinton. Maybe tougher than any other President. At the same time, &
as I have often said, getting along with Russia is a good thing, not a bad thing. I fully expect that someday we will have good
relations with Russia again!
Lyin' James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter S and his lover, agent Lisa Page, & more, all disgraced and/or fired and caught in
the act. These are just some of the losers that tried to do a number on your President. Part of the Witch Hunt. Remember the "insurance
policy?" This is it! -Donald Trump
Update: Comey has responded over Twitter with a pithy FDR quote:
Although we seem to recall that Democrats were Comey's enemy when he reopened Hillary Clinton's email investigation during the
election.
While there is nothing new here confirming Trump was colluding with Russia, as Byron York asks following the article, was the
New York Times story about Trump, or about FBI malfeasance?
"According to two former administration officials."
NYT.
Fake News
57 minutes ago
The "exit interview" said nothing about "Not Up To Role Of President." That was a quote at the
start of the article attributed to "people."
People say.
Yes, they do.
1 hour ago
Ummm. That would be Senator Dianne DEEP STATE Feinstein, former chair of the Senate
Intelligence Committee and, therefore, Democrat doppelganger for DEEP STATE kingpin John O.
Brennan.
"It's a loss, there's no question," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA).
1 hour ago
Kidbuck has served under enough Marine officers to know that most of them lie to cover their
own *** as if it's second nature.
1 hour ago
That's probably true in all US military branches.
This is probably one major reason why US have lost all wars, since WWII.
1 hour ago
I think you get the US and Deep State confused, The US military goes in and wipes out
countries military and Deep state comes in with al queda and isis after their military is gone,
For ex...Iraq had the 4th largest army in world at time and didnt last 3 weeks. A lot of people
know now these wars were based on lies...
48 minutes ago
In the Army, few rise above the rank of Captain unless they proven themselves to be ***
kissers. To reach full bird Colonel, they have proven themselves to be totally loyal to the
military machine. To wear the stars and breath the rarified air of the Generals, you have become
among the best boot lickers on earth, and looking forward to retirement and some lucrative
figurehead job with one of the defense contractors you have been sucking up to. Always remember,
gaining rank in peacetime is slow & difficult, but war offers lots of opportunities to climb
the ladder much faster.
1 hour ago
"everyone has been picked by Trump. "
Technically, but not exactly true.
It's more closer to the truth that everyone was recommended by the Dark State's Gatekeeper,
Kelly.
Once, Chump hired Kelly as his Chief of Staff, a long time MIC, pentagon swamp creature, Chump
got boxed in.
34 minutes ago (Edited)
Priebus was hardly better. And what kind of leader is Trump if he lets himself be manipulated
like this?
It's just excuse after excuse with that guy.
2 hours ago
"Military people," said Kelly "don't walk away."
Which is why such people agitate for war.... Self-justificating war monger like Matthis. Just
another Deep-State tool.
Thank you for your service and don't let the door hit your desk-jockey arse on the way
out.
The real "adults" actively pursue peace, they don't look to keep the monthly drone body-count
ticking over.
1 hour ago
Generals by definition are "war mongers".
1 hour ago
"Which is why such people agitate for war.... Self-justificating war monger like Matthis.
Just another Deep-State tool."
That's right. They are willing Dark State war tools. In fact, they are the DARK STATE.
"... By Mark Ames, co-host of the Radio War Nerd podcast , author of Going Posta l and publisher of The eXile, and Max Blumenthal, an award-winning journalist and the author of books including best-selling Republican Gomorrah , Goliath , The Fifty One Day War , and The Management of Savagery , which will be published in March 2019 by Verso. He has also produced numerous print articles for an array of publications, many video reports and several documentaries including Killing Gaza and Je Ne Suis Pas Charlie . Originally published at the Greyzone Project ..."
"... The Integrity Initiative has mobilized an international disinformation campaign across Europe. Now, with government and right-wing foundation money, this massive "political smear unit" is infiltrating the US. ..."
The Integrity Initiative has mobilized an international disinformation campaign across Europe. Now, with government and right-wing
foundation money, this massive "political smear unit" is infiltrating the US.
A bombshell
domestic spy scandal has been unfolding in Britain, after hacked internal communications exposed a covert UK state military-intelligence
psychological warfare operation targeting its own citizens and political figures in allied NATO countries under the cover of fighting
"Russian disinformation."
The leaked documents revealed a secret network of spies, prominent journalists and think-tanks colluding under the umbrella of
a group called "Integrity Initiative" to shape domestic opinion -- and to smear political opponents of the right-wing Tory government,
including the leader of the opposition Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn.
Until now, this Integrity Initiative domestic spy scandal has been ignored in the American media, perhaps because it has mostly
involved British names. But it is clear that the influence operation has already been activated in the US. Hacked documents reveal
that the Integrity Initiative is cultivating powerful allies inside the State Department, top DC think tanks, the FBI and the DHS,
where it has gained access to
Katharine Gorka and her
husband, the
fascist-linked cable news pundit
Sebastian Gorka .
The Integrity Initiative has spelled out plans to expand its network across the US, meddling in American politics and recruiting
"a new generation of Russia watchers" behind the false guise of a non-partisan charity. Moreover, the group has hired one of the
most notorious American "perception management" specialists, John Rendon, to train its clusters of pundits and cultivate relationships
with the media.
Back in the UK, Member of Parliament Chris Williamson has clamored for an investigation into the Integrity Initiative's abuse
of public money.
In a
recent editorial , Williamson drew a direct parallel between the group's collaboration with journalists and surreptitious payments
the CIA made to reporters during the Cold War.
"These tactics resemble those deployed by the CIA in Operation Mockingbird that was launched at the height of the cold war in
the early 1950s. Its aims included using the mainstream news media as a propaganda tool," Williamson wrote.
"They manipulated the news agenda by recruiting leading journalists to write stories with the express purpose of influencing public
opinion in a particular way," the Labour parliamentarian continued. "Now it seems the British Establishment have dusted off the CIA's
old playbook and is intent on giving it another outing on this side of the Atlantic."
Unmasking a British Military-Intelligence Smear Machine
The existence of the Integrity Initiative was virtually unknown until this November, when the email servers of a previously obscure
British think tank called the Institute for Statecraft were hacked, prompting allegations of Russian intrusion. When the group's
internal documents appeared at a website hosted by Anonymous Europe, the public learned of a covert propaganda network seed-funded
to the tune of over $2 million dollars by the Tory-controlled UK Foreign Office, and run largely by military-intelligence officers.
Through a series of cash inducements, off the record briefings and all-day conferences, the Integrity Initiative has sought to
organize journalists across the West into an international echo chamber hyping up the supposed threat of Russian disinformation --
and to defame politicians and journalists critical of this new Cold War campaign.
A bid for
funding submitted by the Integrity Initiative in 2017 to the British Ministry of Defense promised to deliver a "tougher stance
on Russia" by arranging for "more information published in the media on the threat of Russian active measures."
The Integrity Initiative has also worked through its fronts in the media to smear political figures perceived as a threat to its
militaristic agenda. Its targets have included a Spanish Department of Homeland Security appointee, Pedro Banos, whose nomination
was scuttled thanks a media blitz it secretly orchestrated; Jeremy Corbyn, whom the outfit and its
media cutouts
painted as a useful idiot of Russia; and a Scottish member of parliament, Neil Findlay, whom one of its closest media allies
accused of adopting "Kremlin messaging" for daring to protest the official visit of the far-right Ukrainian politician Andriy
Parubiy -- the founder of two neo-Nazi parties and author of a white nationalist memoir,
"View From The Right."
These smear campaigns and many more surreptitiously orchestrated by the Integrity Initiative offer a disturbing preview of the
reactionary politics it plans to inject into an already toxic American political environment.
Lessons from "The Man Who Sold the War"
A newly released Integrity Initiative document reveals that the outfit plans an aggressive expansion across the US.
The Integrity Initiative claims to have already established a "simple office" in Washington DC, though it does not say where.
It also boasts of partnerships with top DC think tanks like the Atlantic Council, the Center for European Policy Analysis, CNA, and
close relationships with US officials.
A major hub of Integrity Initiative influence is the State Department's Global Engagement Center, a
de facto US government propaganda operation that was established by President Barack Obama to battle online ISIS recruitment,
but which was rapidly repurposed to counter Russian disinformation following the election of Trump.
He is John Rendon, best known as "The Man Who Sold
The War" -- several wars, in fact, but most notoriously the Iraq invasion. Rendon was the self-described "information warrior"
who planted fake news in the major US-UK media about non-existent WMD threats. With deep ties to the CIA and other military-intelligence
agencies, his PR firm was paid $100 million to organize and sell Ahmed Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress. In 2002, the New York Times
exposed a Pentagon program using Rendon to plant "disinformation" -- including "false stories" and "the blackest of black PR"
-- in media outlets around the world, in order to shape public opinion and sell the Iraq invasion.
John Rendon (left) with Maj. Gen. Michael Snodgrass, US Africa Command Chief of Staff (photo by US Africom Public Affairs)
Journalist James Bamford outlined a catalogue
of disinformation feats Rendon performed for the Pentagon, such as identifying "the biases of specific journalists and potentially
obtain an understanding of their allegiances, including the possibility of specific relationships and sponsorships." Bamford also
found proposals and programs Rendon was involved in that aimed to "'coerce' foreign journalists and plant false information overseas
[and] find ways to 'punish' those who convey the 'wrong message.'"
These tactics seem particularly relevant to his work with the Integrity Initiative, especially considering the internal documents
that reveal further Rendon-style plans to produce reports and studies to be
"fed anonymously into local media." (Among
the outlets listed as friendly hosts in Integrity Initiative internal memos are Buzzfeed and El Pais, the center-left Spanish daily.)
Keeping Up with the Gorkas
Internal documents also refer to interactions between Integrity Initiative Director Chris Donnelly and top Trump officials like
Katharine Gorka , a vehemently anti-Muslim Department of Homeland Security official, as well as her husband, Sebastian, who earned
right-wing fame during his brief tenure in Trump's White House.
The latter Gorka is an
open supporter of the Hungarian Vitezi Rend, a proto-fascist order that collaborated with Nazi Germany during its occupation
of Hungary. Following Trump's election victory in 2016, Gorka appeared for televised interviews in a black Vitezi Rend uniform.
Sebastian Gorka, in Vitezi Rend garb, with his wife, Katharine, on Election Night
Gorka was among the first figures listed on an itinerary for Donnelly to Washington this September 18 to 22. The itinerary indicates
that the two had breakfast before Donnelly delivered a presentation on "Mapping Russian Influence Activities" at the federally funded
military research center, CNA .
According to the itinerary, Donnelly was granted access to Pentagon officials like
Mara Karlin
, an up-and-coming neoconservative cadre
, and John McCain Institute executive director
Kurt Volker
, another neoconservative operative who also serves as the US Special Representative for Ukraine. Numerous meetings with staffers
inside the State Department's Office of Global Engagement were also detailed.
A Foreign Agent in the State Department?
Of all the State Department officials named in Integrity Initiative documents, the one who appeared most frequently was Todd Leventhal.
Leventhal has been a staffer at the State Department's Global Engagement Center, boasting of "20 years of countering disinformation,
misinformation, conspiracy theories, and urban legends." In an April 2018 Integrity Initiative memo, he is listed as a current team
member:
Funded to the tune of $160 million this year to beat back Russian disinformation with "counter-propaganda," the State Department's
Global Engagement Center
has refused to deny targeting American citizens with information warfare of its own. "My old job at the State Department was
as chief propagandist," confessed former
Global Engagement Center Director Richard Stengel. "I'm not against propaganda. Every country does it and they have to do it to their
own population and I don't necessarily think it's that awful."
Like so many of the media and political figures involved in the Integrity Initiative's international network, the Global Engagement
Center's Leventhal has a penchant for deploying smear tactics against prominent voices that defy the foreign policy consensus. Leventhal
appeared in an outtake of a recent NBC documentary on Russian
disinformation smugly explaining how he would take down a 15-year-old book critical of American imperialism in the developing world.
Rather than challenge the book's substance and allegations, Leventhal boasted how he would marshall his resources to wage an ad hominem
smear campaign to destroy the author's reputation. His strategic vision was clear: when confronting a critic, ignore the message
and destroy the messenger.
Integrity Initiative documents reveal that Leventhal has been paid $76,608 dollars (60,000 British pounds) for a 50% contract.
While those same documents claim he has retired from the State Department, Leventhal's own
Linkedin page lists him as a current "Senior Disinformation
Advisor" to the State Department. If that were true, it would mean that the State Department was employing a de facto foreign agent.
As a cut-out of the British Foreign Office and Defense Ministry, the Integrity Initiative's work with current and former US officials
and members of the media raises certain legal questions. For one, there is no indication that the group has registered under the
Justice Department's Foreign Agent Registration Act, as most foreign agents of influence are required to do.
Grants from the Neocons' Favorite Foundation
An Integrity Initiative memo states that the right-wing Smith Richardson Foundation has also committed to ponying up funding for
its US network as soon as the group receives 501 c-3 non-profit status. The foundation has already provided it with about $56,000
for covert propaganda activities across Europe.
The Smith Richardson Foundation has old ties to the US intelligence community and controversial cold war influence operations.
According to reporter
Russ Bellant , the foundation was secretly bankrolling radical right-wing "indoctrination campaigns for the American public on
cold war and foreign policy issues" -- programs that got the attention of Senator William Fulbright, who warned then-President Kennedy
of their dangers. At one of these indoctrination seminars, a Smith Richardson Foundation director "told attendees that 'it is within
the capacity of the people in this room to literally turn the State of Georgia into a civil war college,' in order to overcome their
opponents."
Smith Richardson has funded a who's who of the neoconservative movement, from hyper-militaristic think tanks like the American
Enterprise Institute and the Institute for the Study of War. "To say the [Smith Richardson] foundation was involved at every level
in the lobbying for and crafting of the so-called global war on terror after 9/11 would be an understatement,"
wrote journalist
Kelley Vlahos.
Besides Smith Richardson, the Integrity Initiative has stated its intention to apply for grants from the State Department "to
expand the Integrity Initiative activities both within and outside of the USA." This is yet another indicator that the US government
is paying for propaganda targeting its own citizens.
The "Main Event" in Seattle
An Integrity Initiative internal
document argues that because
"DC is well served by existing US institutions, such as those with which the Institute [for Statecraft] already collaborates," the
organization should "concentrate on extending the work of the Integrity Initiative into major cities and key State capitals [sic]
across the USA."
This December 10, the Integrity Initiative organized what it called its "main event" in the US. It was a conference on disinformation
held in Seattle, Washington
under the auspices
of a data firm called Adventium Labs. Together with the Technical Leadership Institute at the University of Minnesota, the Integrity
Initiative listed Adventium Labs as one of its "first partners outside DC."
Adventium is Minneapolis-based research and development firm that has reaped contracts from the US military, including a
recent $5.4 million cyber-security grant from the Pentagon's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or DARPA.
Inside a modest-sized hotel conference room, the Adventium/Integrity event
began with a speech by the Integrity Initiative's Simon Bracey-Lane. Two
years prior, Bracey-Lane appeared on the American political scene as a field worker for Bernie Sanders' 2016 presidential primary
run, earning media write-ups as the
"Brit for Bernie." Now, the young operator was back in the US as the advance man for a military-intelligence cut-out that specialized
in smearing left-wing political figures like Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour leader widely regarded as the British version of Sanders.
Bracey-Lane opened his address by explaining that Integrity Initiative director Chris Donnelly had been unable to appear at the
event, possibly because he was bogged down in the scandal back home. He proceeded to read remarks prepared by Donnelly that offered
a window into the frighteningly militaristic mindset the Integrity Initiative aims to impose on the public through their media and
political allies.
According to Donnelly's comments, the West was no longer in a "peace time, rules based environment." From the halls of government
to corporate boardrooms to even the UK's National Health System, "the conclusion is that we have to look for people who suit a wartime
environment rather than peacetime."
During Q&A, Bracey-Lane remarked that "we have to change the definition of war to encompass everything that war now encompasses,"
referring vaguely to various forms of "hybrid warfare."
"There is a great deal to be done in communicating that to young people," he continued. "When we mean being at war we don't mean
sending our boys off to fight. It's right here in our homes."
The emphasis on restructuring society along martial lines mirrored the disturbing thinking also on display in
notes of a private meeting
between Donnelly and Gen. Richard Barrons in 2016. During that chat, the two officers decided that the British military should
be removed from democratic supervision and be able to operate as "an independent body outside politics."
While Bracey-Lane's presentation perfectly captured the military mindset of the Integrity Initiative, the speakers that followed
him offered a diverse array of perspectives on the concept of disinformation, some more nuanced than others. But one talk stood out
from the rest -- not because of its quality, but because of its complete lack thereof.
Reanimating the "Red-Brown" Grifter
Alexander Reid Ross (left) and Emmi Bevensee at the Integrity Initiative's "main event" in Seattle
The presentation was delivered by Alexander Reid Ross, a half-baked political researcher who peddles computer-generated spiderweb
relationship charts to prove the existence of a vast hidden network of "red-brown" alliances and "syncretic media" conspiracies controlled
by puppeteers in Moscow.
Ross is a lecturer on geography at Portland State University with no scholarly or journalistic credentials on Russia. His students
have given him dismal marks at Rate My
Professors, complaining about his "terrible monotone lectures" and his penchant for "insert[ing] his own ideologies into our class."
But with a book, "Against the Fascist Creep," distributed by the well-known anarchist publishing house, AK Press, the middling academic
has tried to make his name as a maverick analyst.
Before the Integrity Initiative was exposed as a military-intelligence front operation, Ross was among a small coterie of pundits
and self-styled disinformation experts that followed the
group's Twitter account. The Integrity Initiative even retweeted his smear of War Nerd podcast co-host John Dolan.
In a series of articles for the Southern Poverty Law Center last year, Ross attempted to bring his warmed-over Cold War theories
to the broader public. He wound up trashing everyone from the co-author of this piece, Max Blumenthal, to Nation magazine publisher
Katrina Vanden Heuvel to Harvard University professor of international relations Stephen Walt as hidden shadow-fascists secretly
controlled by the Kremlin.
The articles ultimately
generated an embarrassing scandal and a series of public
retractions by the editor-in-chief of the Southern Poverty Law Center, Richard Cohen. And then, like some Dr. Frankenstein for
discredited and buried journalism careers, the British Ministry of Defense-backed Integrity Initiative moved in to reanimate Ross
as a sought-after public intellectual.
Before the Integrity Initiative-organized crowd, Ross offered a rambling recitation of his theory of a syncretic fascist alliance
puppeteered by Russians: "The alt right takes from both this 'red-brown,' it's called, or like left-right syncretic highly international
national of nationalisms, and from the United States' own paleoconservative movement, and it's sort of percolated down through college
organizing, um, and anti-interventionism meets anti-imperialism. Right?"
In a strange twist, Ross appeared on stage at the Integrity Initiative's Seattle event alongside
Emmi Bevensee , a contributor to the left-libertarian
Center for a Stateless Society (C4SS) think tank, whose tagline, "a left market anarchist think-tank" expresses its core aim of uniting
far-left anarchists with free-market right-libertarians.
Bevensee , a PhD candidate at the University of Arizona
and self-described "Borderlands anarcho into tech and crypto," concluded her presentation by asserting a linkage between the alternative
news site, Zero Hedge, and the "physical militarized presence in the borderlands" of anti-immigrant vigilantes. Like Bevensee, Ross
has written for C4SS in the past.
The irony of contributors to an anarchist group called the "Center for a Stateless Society" auditioning before The State – the
most jackbooted element of it, in fact – for more opportunities to attack anti-war politicians and journalists, can hardly be overstated.
But closer examination of the history of C4SS veers from irony into something much darker and more unsettling.
Pedophile Co-Founder, White Nationalist Associates
C4SS was co-founded in 2006 by a confessed
child rapist and libertarian activist, Brad Spangler, who set the group up to promote "Market anarchism" to
"replace Marxism on the
left."
When Spangler's child rape confessions emerged in 2015, the Center for Stateless Society founder was
finally drummed out by his colleagues.
There's more: Spangler's understudy and
deputy in the C4SS, Kevin
Carson -- currently listed as the group's "Karl Hess Chair in Social Theory"
-- turned out to be a longtime friend and defender
of white nationalist Keith Preston. Preston's name is prominently plastered on the back of Kevin Carson's book, hailing the C4SS
man as "the Proudhon of our
time" -- a loaded compliment, given Proudhon's unhinged
anti-Semitism . Carson
only disowned Preston in 2009,
shortly before Preston helped white nationalist leader Richard Spencer launch his alt-right webzine, Alternative Right.
The C4SS group currently participates in the annual Koch-backed International
Students For Liberty conference in Washington DC,
LibertyCon, a who's
who of libertarian think-tank hacks and Republican Party semi-celebrities like Steve Forbes, FCC chairman Ajit Pai, and Alan Dershowitz.
In 2013, C4SS's Kevin Carson tweeted out his dream fantasy that four Jewish leftists -- Mark Ames, Yasha Levine, Corey Robin,
and Mark Potok -- would die in a plane crash while struggling over a single parachute. Potok was an executive editor at the Southern
Poverty Law Center, which last year retracted every one of the crank articles that Alexander Reid Ross published with them and
formally apologized for having run them.
For some reason, the super-sleuth Ross conveniently failed to investigate the libertarian group, C4SS, that he has chosen to partner
with and publish in. That ability to shamelessly smear and denounce leftists over the most crudely manufactured links to the far-right
-- while cozying up to groups as sleazy as C4SS and authoritarian as the Integrity Initiative -- is the sort of adaptive trait that
MI6 spies and the Rendon Group would find useful in a covert domestic influence operation.
Ross did not respond to our request for comment on his involvement with the Integrity Initiative and C4SS.
Disinformation for Democracy
As it spans out across the US, the Integrity Initiative has
stated
its desire to "build a younger generation of Russia watchers." Toward this goal, it is supplementing its coterie of elite journalists,
think tank hacks, spooks and State Department info-warriors with certifiable cranks like Ross.
Less than 24 hours after Ross's appearance at the Integrity Initiative event in Seattle, he
sent a menacing email to the co-author
of this article, Ames, announcing his intention to recycle an old and discredited smear against him and publish it in the Daily Beast
-- a publication that appears to enjoy a
special relationship
with Integrity Initiative personnel.
Despite the threat of investigation in the UK, the Integrity Initiative's "network of networks" appears to be escalating its covert,
government-funded influence operation, trashing the political left and assailing anyone that gets in its way -- all in the name of
fighting foreign disinformation.
"We have to win this one," Integrity Initiative founder Col. Chris Donnelly
said , "because if we don't, democracy will be undermined."
making up lies to get paid. james angleton was paranoid (not that it seemed to make him more effective in counterintelligence)–these
people are just con artists, paid to be con artists.
i'm just waiting for "we have to undermine democracy in order to save it".
Agreed. Not only are they paid to make things up, but they have an ingenious scheme for paying themselves from narcotics and
arms dealing.
The most amazing feat of confidence artistry (apart from maybe the TARP bailout (c.f.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program
) is their remarkable ability to convince the population they are needed and working on our behalf instead of being in jail
where they belong.
I submitted a long comment on this about an hour ago, which seems to have been eaten by the system. I won't repost it now,
but I'll do so later if it doesn't surface.
This is something that has repeatedly happened to me too recently – it often takes 2 or more hours for most of my recent posting
to surface on the site. It rarely disappears altogether, so I would assume your post will eventually arrive.
Same here on the delays. Keep a copy.
But anyway, very glad you posted this piece. Whatever we make of Patreon, it's one way to support Mark Ames' work.
Sir Alan Duncan, responding on behalf of the Government to Emily Thornberry's urgent question (Dec 12) on recent allegations
that the Foreign Office funded a company which carried out a smear campaign against the official Opposition.
What a frightful fellow that Alan Duncan is eh? Talks like a Mafia lawyer and he's supposed to be a national leader. He reminds
that other MP, the POS who interrogated David Kelly on TV, they both use the same style. Is it a qualification for legislator?
Just a minor note to start off. That image of "Sebastian Gorka, in Vitezi Rend garb". I think that Vitezi Rend actually refers
to the medal he wears on the left. The jacket itself more resembles the patrol jacket that British officers wore in the 19th century.
Moving on! Notice how the same players keep on coming up again and again in all these stories of skulduggery? John Rendon, the
Atlantic Council, Ajit Pai and Alan Dershowitz – the same scum-bags with a few new wannabe players. As an example.
The penchant that Brad Spangler, C4SS co-founder, has for under-age girls is disgusting of course but you have to put it into
the context of the people that you are talking about. If Spengler was more rich or more powerful, you might see his name on a
manifest for the "Lolita Express" but his activities would not be splashed about in an article like this one. That sort of activity
is given a level of protection if you are in the right group. And it is a good thing that that British General Richard Barrons
is retired as his comments are deserving of being cashiered.
Funny how a group that claims to be about protecting democracy wants to push it aside and install propaganda on a "1984" level
in the pursuit of their aims. I cannot decide if their target of Russia is a means or an end. If it is a means, that means using
the boogy-man of Russia to radically restructure western society to their tastes. If it is an end, well, it is true that Russia
has about $75 trillion in resources, mostly in Siberia and the east, so if it was broken up eventually, that would be a bonanza
of wealth appropriation.
I was thinking about the activities of this group and how they go about their activities, especially the smearing of anybody that
talks truth to power. I wonder if anybody here made the connection with this story and the PropOrNot website that came out of
nowhere about two years ago and that had the stamp of approval of the Washington Post. I would not be surprised if it turns out
to be that PropOrNot was a trial balloon in the United States for the Integrity Initiative to establish what it was capable of.
Just a thought.
He looks like an extra from Star Wars – one of those nazi guys working the bridge of the Death Star. The "look and feel" of
a lot of pre-war fascism strikes us as silly in retrospect, though it really wasn't at the time.
That tailored black jacket Sebastian wears looks like something Winston Churchill would have changed out of before that last
cavalry charge at Omdurman. It seems intentionally designed to mimic 19th century great power imperial army officer garb. Nostalgia
for the good times, apparently. Goes with his fascist priorities.
Let us not get carried away with the exuberance of discovering skulduggery among fascist elements of the media and politics.
This does not mean that the conspiracy means Russia is thereby a Goodie Twoshoes. It also does not mean that Russia is any less
a pain in the ass than it has heretorfore be characterized.
It does mean that there is less reason (any?) than ever to put much faith in FoxNews (already a mere propaganda machine) or
other orgs. I am uncomfortable hearing CNA is caught up in this as they are a pseudo government thinktank with some Pentagon influence.
If true, the story should be used to clear out some journalists and analyst riffraff. However, this story is surely not going
to restore, much less create, any integrity among the Beltway Punditry.
The article and related matters may also shed more light on the abrupt resignation of
Robert Hannigan from the leadership of GCHQ in January 2017 a few days after Trump's inauguration. Given previous revelations
about GCHQ and NSA spying on each other's citizens, what else is next in the UK and in the US and elsewhere?
After reading about that Carson character and others I am ready for a shower to try to wash off the disgust.
Yves Smith: Thanks for this. I am wondering about two stories that have been flapping around here for a few days: That odd
New Knowledge company that produced the report about Russian influence on the elections as well as the story about the case before
the Supreme Court of the US in which a company is invoking claims of sovereign immunity.
I have a feeling that New Knowledge definitely fits into the framework outlined by Ames above. A contractor that appears out
of nowhere with a "distinguished" board of concerned semi-liberals (at the trough)?
But what do I know? Some guy named Volodya showed up at my house and bought my vote in 2016 for two bottles of pickled mushrooms
Perfideus Albion is not just a neat saying, but a truth that the Irish, French and
Germans (etc.) have known forever, the people don't deserve it, but the
jumped up Tories do in spades.
Thank you for highlighting this article! It names names and connects some dots, including some connections reaching into the
U.S. It also describes propaganda mechanisms that have been around forever but have become pervasive today. A few protruding tips
of a massive iceberg, in my view. I'm sure *this* "bombshell" story will get the massive coverage it deserves in the MSM -- not!
That was interesting. Well argued all the way through I thought, but they could take a closer look at the unwinding of Yugoslavia;
what Serbia and Syria have in common is having been targeted by outside state powers for dissolution, responses did vary.
Thank you diptherio for posting the C4SS response. Such responses are helpful in evaluating issues like this, and we should
always be open to the other side when they take the time to reply. However, I can't agree that the response was "well argued."
The author does make some valid points, but mainly she resorts to ad hominem attacks on Ames (based on some juvenile antics at
eXile that are often used to smear him), or on both authors because they may have agreed with "Assadists" like Ambassador Peter
Ford or "9/11 Truthers" like Piers Robinson, whose claims about Syria or the White Helmets are, of course, Kremlin propaganda.
Which brings up why Blumenthal would have changed his position on Syria; it was not because of his gradual understanding of what
was really happening there. Rather, while he had once grasp the truth of the "revolution," he made the mistake of going to a Kremlin
gala and the Rooskies (and RT) got to him. Now he is just another propagandist. Nowhere that I can see does the author discuss
the major claims made in Ames and Blumenthal's article, or the evidence cited (except to say that if it was in RT or Sputnik,
we can ignore it anyway as propaganda). Nor does she address the actual defamation made by Alexander Ross-Reid through the SPLC
that pissed off Blumenthal in the first place. There are other problems (don't get me started on the "red-brown" smear), but that's
enough.
Having said all that, I do think that in their criticism of C4SS, Ames and Blumenthal perhaps did some unnecessary punching
down. They could have made clearer the distinction between organizations like the Integrity Initiative, that are pretty clearly
intelligence operatives or cut-outs, versus groups like C4SS that function more like "useful idiots" because of their ideological
position (e.g. equating U.S. and Russian imperialism in this case in their "anarchist" appeal). The latter are in no way as evil
as the former, in my mind.
You are clearly much more engaged with the related debates than I. I read the piece as a response to the punching down you
mention in your last paragraph and felt like I got a respectable read on someone still developing their arguments. I'm not informed
enough to argue with much of it, but having read Diana Johnstone's "Fools Crusade", the Syria/Serbia bit stuck in my craw.
I had thought about commenting on the ad hominems directed at Ames, but didn't want to get into the whole identity argument
embedded in much of the language of the post. While I disagree with many of her positions and attitudes on the state actions she
criticizes without, in my opinion, adequate grounding, I judged it a mostly good faith effort trying to find solid footing in
a world increasingly thick with distorted narratives.
It's hard to argue now, from anywhere with out power, without being someone's "useful idiot": trust has decayed to the point
where language impedes communication in the political sphere.
It's funny you should mention Johnstone's book. I normally would not use the derogatory term "useful idiot" for the very reason
you imply; most such people are acting in good faith. I admit that her comments on Syria irritated me. But the reason I sometimes
overreact to that sort of narrative is because of my own experiences as a useful idiot, starting with Yugoslavia. I fell for the
liberal "humanitarian" argument hook, line, and sinker in the 1990s, even though I considered myself a knowledgeable progressive
at the time. It wouldn't be the last time I was duped, but I'd like to think I'm a little wiser today.
I appreciate your comment. We definitely need to distinguish empire propagandists from the beliefs of people honestly trying
to find their way.
I thought the later part of Ames' piece was unnecessary. It's kind of the same sort of guilt-by-attending-same-conference thing
that I find annoying about the Russophobes.
Keep focused on government malfeasance, not basement brown-shirts.
Oh well, there would be a lot to argue here. In one side it is nice to see that the "Initiative" is being exposed although
it doesn't appear yet to trigger any significant response from supposedly democratic institutions like, let's say the english
parliament (at ransom by brexit).
Just to demonstrate how this article is well focused and pointed I wanted to comment on this bit:
(Among the outlets listed as friendly hosts in Integrity Initiative internal memos are Buzzfeed and El Pais, the center-left
Spanish daily .)
YES! iIt is so true that the former "center-left" –if you wish– daily that years ago was a must read but has been degraded
to levels that I wouldn't have imagined, in a case that makes the Guardian as the "guardian of reporting-as-it should-be". One
has to bear in mind that the current most important shareholder of Grupo Prisa (owner of El Pais) is an english hedge fund Amber
Capital whose CEO,
Joseph
Oughorlian is chairman at Grupo Prisa and probably responsible for the Russia!Russia!Russia! campaign observed in this medium
that surprised me so much. You don't find nothing similar in Spain even in rigth and rigth of the rigth news outlets.
I believe this UK-based shareholder is clearly associated with the peculiar Russia!Russia!Russia! stance of the supposedly
centre-left daily.
For those of us from way back way back, these kooks relate to offshoots of the Watergate scandal, the original one, where people
working on those burglaries of psychiatrist's offices and Democratic headquarters got their start organizing small gangs of crooks
to infiltrate what was then a porous but trustable system of government – on they went to propose surveillance and collection
of data that was at first publicly laughed about but on they went. On they went. Technology with all its pluses has these minuses
we at first were able to counter (Church hearings) but the rats have scurried into all the back alleys and secretive pathways
that need a thorough cleanup. It can be done, but it needs to be done periodically. Hopefully this is finally the year when that
will happen.
Thank you, Yves. I believe these folk don't end up in a good place, but meanwhile they are wreaking havoc. The place to start,
after the brooms and mops, is to get money OUT of politics and restore a verifiable voting system that happens methodically and
is trustworthy. The citizenry will be behind this. We the people don't care how long it takes to vote or to find out who won.
We don't! Haste makes waste in more ways than we know.
Let's do this. And please, judges, do your duty or go to jail yourselves.
It's obvious that neither Ames or Blumenthal read the actual documents they're quoting from. Which is a shame considering the
relevant one involving the CIA's Operation Mockingbird comparison was only seven pages long. The CIA were merely imitating British
intelligence during the war and it is clearly stated as such when one of the replies involving General Sir Richard Barrons states
that they've done this before during the 1930s. The US didn't possess a foreign intelligence agency at the time and I'd fervently
argue that we still don't to this day.
but I've already commented about British Security Coordination in the aftermath of PropOrNot though and I'm reluctant to beat
a dead horse.
Ah, the smell (or should we say stench) of domestic propaganda in the morning, ironically by some of the same individuals who
brought us Iraq WMDs. While First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and other civil rights must be protected, it seems to
me that a careful balance can be drawn under new legislation that insulates us from such government-sponsored propaganda. We should
be able to rely on our government's representations. Instead, as with a former president who openly acknowledged, "My job is to
catapult the propaganda," the reverse, together with a related loss of trust, unfortunately seems to be increasingly the case.
Stop lying! What part of "of the People, by the People, for the People," is difficult to understand?
"... Neither Rob nor I have a sound theory of what really happened in Salisbury. There are many possible explanations, but none
for which there is sufficient evidence. What we do know is that the British government lied and lies about the case from A to Z. ..."
"... This wasn't an accident blamed on Putin but a planned semi-assassination in which at least one of the victims was unaware of
the plan designed from the beginning to be used in the rolling anti-Putin regime change operation. ..."
Stuff To Read: Integrity Initiative, Skripal, Kaspersky ...
The is no original piece ready to post today, but here are some interesting links:
The Russian anti-virus company Kaspersky was contacted by someone who it found to be related to the U.S. National Security
Agency. Kaspersky immediately told the NSA about the contact. Following that tip the FBI arrested Harold T. Martin, a NSA contractor
who had collected the NSA entire arsenal of digital weapon at is home. Despite that very helpful tip by Kaspersky the U.S. government
continues to harass the company and to claim that it was working as an agent of the Russian government. Exclusive:
How a Russian firm helped catch an alleged NSA data thief , Kim Zettler, Politico
There are several new stories about the Integrity Initiative though still none in any mainstream media.
Over several months Rob Slane at The Blogmire did a detailed analysis of the Skripal case and the often contradictory
information that officials and media have published. Rob has the advantage of living in Salisbury, where the Skripals were allegedly
poisoned. Today he published the summation of his
series about the case:
Last but not least a 20 minute video by Prolekult about the (geo-)politics of Brexit and the Skripal mess in Britain.
Interestingly Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn seems to be pushing the 'blame Russia' racket just as much as the Conservatives. (Disclaimer
- I do not endorse the views of the authors.):
History
is Marching | Part five: The Fall of the British Empire (vid)
Comments I posted this comment at Off Guardian. There are a couple of points that may be of interest:
The essential feature of this "Integrity Initiative" is that it is purportedly a charity or an NGO. Like Atlantic Council,
or Bellingcat, it is funded by government(s) but it has, as this video demonstrates, the capacity to distance itself from government,
Deniability.
Deniability is the central feature of all British regime change operations since 1945. The UK takes (took?) the UN Charter
and Nuremberg seriously. Not in the sense that it follows the rules but in so far as it tries not to get caught waging aggressive
wars and interfering in sovereign states by carrying out regime change operations.
Britain has become very good not just at keeping its secret operations secret and deniable. But, through its controls over
the media, stopping leaks by ensuring that whistle blowers are not heard.
What this case indicates is that people like Donnelly, contemptible careerists playing games with humanity's very existence,
have prevailed over the more cautious and sensible Civil Servants in the Foreign Office, who used to keep a lid on the irrepressible
folly of psychopaths like Christopher Nigel, and have been given license not only to kill but to do so without reference to 'M'
and Whitehall.
In this case, thanks to the weakness and demoralised state of the current government what has happened is that Donnelly has
improved on the rolling regime change operation against Russia, (consisting of taking advantage of opportunities to castigate
the Kremlin and blaming Putin for everything that goes wrong, every Russian expatriate's death, every botched poison gas gambit
by the White Helmets (another one of these NGOs run by 'retired MI types),).. improved on it to the extent that, now, rather than
waiting to comment on, and build frames around such events as Litvinenko's death, they are constructing them out of whole cloth.
The key word here is bricolage, as used by Levi Strauss to describe one of the characteristic reactions of traditional societies
to the irruption of western imperialism.
Donnelly, his acolytes and his dupes in the media are taking whatever they find lying around in the world and twisting it together
to form apparent events. The White Helmets, for example, attempt a chlorine gas attack on Syrian forces. It fails but rather than
deny that it ever happened British Intelligence convinces the media that, in fact the attack was not by the Jihadists but upon
them. The media dutifully takes its cues, from the clusters and, almost before you know it, the US is bombing Damascus on the
ground that Assad is carrying out poison gas attacks.
The MH17 affair is another instance: an airliner gets shot down, whether deliberately or not doesn't matter, and Russia is
blamed. All manner of phony 'evidence' is publicised. The real evidence such as Air Traffic Control records is suppressed. Sanctions
are imposed. Russia further isolated etc. Then we had the DNC emails, again, a leak probably by a decent person disgruntled by
the utter cynicism and criminality of the DNC's tactics in the primary elections. Twisted into something resembling a Russian
conspiracy against Clinton. Not one that anyone with enough brain to tie his shoelaces would credit but just enough to set the
media lynch mobs, led by their clusters, into operation.
All of which leads inexorably to Salisbury and the Skripals.
And here perhaps there is more than bricolage: rather than picking up what providence has delivered and making a passably plausible
story of it, here, one suspects, the matter was put together in advance. This wasn't an accident blamed on Putin but a planned
semi-assassination in which at least one of the victims was unaware of the plan designed from the beginning to be used in the
rolling anti-Putin regime change operation..
Which, and this is something that the old FO mandarins knew would happen if policy were left in the hands of Donnelly and Co,
(straight out of schoolboy comics like Magnet or Hotspur), has proved to be exactly what Russia needed: a series of kicks at the
Kremlin which drove it into the arms of Beijing and forced it to form an iron alliance which will lead not to regime change in
Moscow but to the destruction of the Atlantic empire.
Just would like to point out a small, interesting parallel between these Integrity Initiative documents and some of the mainstream
academic literature in the US about democracy, namely the use of the phrase "malign influence" to describe the influence of Russia
(and China). If one reads the latest issue of the Journal of Democracy (which names the NED as a partner or some such)
or the latest Freedom House report, one will find the academic version of the language used by mainstream journalism, warning
of the threat that Russia and China pose to the Western liberal democratic way of life.
I would call them a country run fully by intel agencies. I made a game today. Google research results are personalized. I asked several friends to search Google for „Integrity Iniative".
All the screenshots showed the same. One sputnik-Link, one to Nachdenkseiten, the rest international. Not one single main stream
medium was mentioned. Since November! There has been even a debate in the British parliament. If this is no top-down organized
consulting machine what is such a machine then?
@26 Ross Stanford. I had been posting on Craig Murray's website for nearly 10 years since I read his book Murder in Samarkand,
and very nearly turned up at the House of Commons as a witness - but he asked can anyone record this - which I did. I have never
actually met him. bevin posted for maybe a couple of years a couple of years ago. bevin wrote about The French political situation,
before it kicked off.
He is a very clever man, and to delete someone so intelligent who was almost literally predicting what was
likely to happen with yellow vests etc, seems a little bit both arrogant and immature in my my view. However all of us regardless
of our political views accept the Craig Murray is a Man of Great Integrity and Courage, even though on a lot of political issues
I disagree with him. Surely thats O.K. disagreeing about politics?
@30 The basic line seems to be that the West is vulnerable to Russian attacks because we have a free press. So why did it take
the free press such a long time to come up with a response? James Ball does admit that a secretive organization using government funding to slander Jeremy Corbyn might not have been a
great idea.
Posted this over at Mark Chapman's The New Kremlin Stooge blog:
The latest news from Salisbury: first, the park bench and the dining table walked the Path of Fire, then the guinea pigs
and a cat followed, a house may soon do so as well, and the latest perhaps to join the queue
Several comments attached to that post are of "wish we had Novichok in our shopping centre" or "they planned this all along"
type. It seems that Salisbury shopping centre as it is has not been doing well because of high rents previously imposed by Wiltshire
Council and it desperately needs a makeover. Call me cynical but maybe Wiltshire Council is using the poisoning incident to bring
forward its redevelopment plans for the Salisbury shopping centre that will all but kill off local businesses.
Blooming Barricade , Jan 9, 2019 6:17:08 PM |
link
@3
The irony is that, with a genuinely free press, RT would cease to have any appeal. The corporate media is hopelessly biased against
Jeremy Corbyn and Bernie Sanders, as well as pro-war, opposed to anarchism, openly pro-capitalism, and fails to report on issues
like fracking, oligarchic trade deals Palestinian struggles, police state brutality against left, and almost every other topic
the public would want to know about.
Projects like PropOrNot and the Intgerity Initiative exist solely to prevent the public from
knowing about those things by locking down the information sphere against independent media (today they claimed that "neoliberalism"
and "neoconservatism" aren't real concepts but Russian-invented insults against the rules-based liberal world order.
George Galloway weighs in
on the chaos engulfing the Empire in Washington, London and Paris. The Neoliberal ship is foundering while the uplifting of people-based
policies of Russia and China keep them on track to reach their aims. Soon, if Trump keeps the government shutdown, those idled
federal workers just might be seen in the streets. George has a penchant for connecting things, and had this to say about Macron:
"The very conditions Macron strove so very hard to bring about in Damascus and that France DID help bring about in Kiev are
now rocking the very foundations of the French Republic."
The false flag of Austerity--Neoliberalism preying on its own as was predicted at its beginnings is what we're witnessing,
while the actors that created the situation cling with bloody hands to the ship of state unwilling to surrender the wheel to those
who might salvage the situation. Metaphorically, Rome burns while Nero and his Senators fiddle.
The Guardian has produced an article about Integrity Initiative. It was so poorly written that they had to close the comment section
after 138 comments. People do know a lot more than the Guardian thinks.
the guardian never keeps comment sections open long if too many posters start disagreeing with their preferred line. their other
tactic is simply never to open comments on posts where they think this is likely to happen. and of course they haven't even acknowledged
the luke harding travesty, as they continue to beg for donations to support their fearless independent journalism.
I thought James Ball made a gallant effort to exonerate Western media considering he probably had a team of editors breathing
down his neck. It's the lack of transparency that seems to upset him most. Perhaps his next article will be an in depth look at
how Integrity Initiative got government funding.
The heroes of Dickens' Pickwick Papers visit the fictional borough of Eatanswill to observe an election between the candidates
of the Blue Party and the Buff Party. The town is passionately divided, on all possible issues, between the two parties. Each party
has its own newspaper : the Eatanswill Gazette is Blue and entirely devoted to praising the noble Blues and excoriating the perfidious
and wicked Buffs; the Eatanswill Independent is equally passionate on the opposite side of every question. No Buff would dream of
reading the "that vile and slanderous calumniator, the Gazette", nor Blue the ''that false and scurrilous print, the Independent".
As usual with Dickens it is both exaggerated and accurate. Newspapers used to be screamingly partisan before "journalism" was
invented. Soon followed journalism schools, journalism ethics and journalism objectivity: "real journalism" as they like to call
it (
RT isn't of course ). "Journalism" became a profession gilded with academical folderol; no longer the refuge of dropouts, boozers,
failures, budding novelists and magnates like Lord Copper
who know what they want and pay for it. But, despite the pretence of objectivity and standards, there were still Lord Coppers
and a lot of Eatanswill. Nonetheless, there were more or less serious efforts to get the facts and balance the story. And Lord Coppers
came and went: great newspaper empires rose and fell and there was actually quite a variety of ownership and news outlets. There
was sufficient variance that a reader, who was neither Blue nor Buff, could triangulate and form a sense of what was going on.
In the Soviet Union news was controlled; there was no "free press"; there was one owner and the flavours were only slightly varied:
the army paper, the party paper, the government paper, papers for people interested in literature or sports. But they all said the
same thing about the big subjects. The two principal newspapers were Pravda ("truth") and Izvestiya ("news"). This swiftly led to
the joke that there was no truth in Pravda and no news in Izvestiya. It was all pretty heavy handed stuff: lots of fat capitalists
in top hats and money bags; Uncle Sam's clothing dripping with bombs; no problems over here, nothing but problems over there. And
it wasn't very successful propaganda: most of their audience came to believe that the Soviet media was lying both about the USSR
and about the West.
People in Crimea are pretty happy to be in Russia.
The US and its minions have given an enormous amount of weapons to jihadists.
Elections in Russia reflect popular opinion polling.
There really are a frightening number of well-armed nazis in Ukraine.
Assad is pretty popular in Syria.
The US and its minions smashed Raqqa to bits.
The official Skripal story makes very little sense.
Ukraine is much worse off, by any measurement, now than before Maidan.
Russia actually had several thousand troops in Crimea before Maidan.
There's a documentary that exposes Browder that he keeps people from seeing.
I typed these out as they occurred to me. I could come up with another ten pretty easily. There's some tiny coverage, far in the
back pages, so that objectivity can be pretended, but most Western media consumers would answer they aren't; didn't; don't; aren't;
isn't; where?; does; not; what?; never heard of it.
So, in a world where the Integrity Initiative is spending our tax dollars (pounds actually) to make sure that we never have a
doubleplusungood thought or are tempted into crimethink, (
and maybe they created the entire Skripal story – more revelations by the minute), what are we to make of our Free Media™? Well,
that all depends on what you're interested in. If it's sports (not Russian athletes –
druggies every one unlike
brave Western
asthmatics ) or "beach-ready bodies" (not
Russian
drug takers of course, only
wholesome Americans ) – the reporting is pretty reasonable. Weather reports, for example (
Siberian blasts excepted) or movie reviews (but all those
Russian villains ). But the rest is some weird merger of the Eatonswill Gazette and Independent: Blues/Buffs good! others, especially
Russians, bad!
So, as they say in Russia, что делать? What to do? Well, I suggest we learn from the Soviet experience. After all, most Soviet
citizens were much more sceptical about their home media outlets than any of my neighbours, friends or relatives are about theirs.
Notice what they're not telling you. For example: remember when Aleppo was a huge story two years ago? But there's nothing
about it now. One should wonder why there isn't; a quick search will find videos like
this (oops! Russian! not real journalism!) here's one
from Euronews . Clearly none of this fits the "
last
hospitals destroyed " and brutal
Assad memes of two years ago; that's why the subject has disappeared from Western media outlets. It is always a good rule
to wonder why the Biggest Story Ever suddenly disappears: that's a strong clue it was a lie or nonsense.
Most of the time, you'd be correct to believe the opposite . Especially, when all the outlets are telling you the same thing.
It's always good to ask yourself cui bono: who's getting what benefit out of making you believe something? It's quite depressing
how successful the big uniform lie is: even though the much-demonised Milosevic was eventually found innocent, even though Qaddafi
was not "bombing his own people", similar lies are believed about Assad and other Western enemies-of-the-moment. Believe the opposite
unless there's very good reason not to.
In the Cold War there was a notion going around that the Soviet and Western systems were converging and that they would meet in
the middle, so to speak. Well, perhaps they did meet but kept on moving past each other. And so, the once reasonably free and varied
Western media comes to resemble the controlled and uniform Soviet media and we in the West must start using Soviet methods to understand.
Always remember that the Soviet rulers claimed their media was free too; free from "fake news" that is.
Hacking syndicate Anonymous has just released its fourth tranche of documents hacked from
the internal servers of the Institute for Statecraft and its subsidiary, the Integrity
Initiative. Several explosive files raise serious questions about the shadowy British state and
NATO-funded 'think tank' and its connections with the Skripal affair.
The files were
released just after 2:30pm GMT on January 4 -- I've barely scratched the surface of the
content, but what I've seen so far contains a panoply of bombshell revelations -- to say the
least, the organization(s) now have serious questions to answer about what role they played in
the poisoning of Sergei Skripal in March, and its aftermath both nationally and
internationally.
Sinister Timeline
One file
apparently dating to "early 2015" -- "Russian Federation Sanctions" -- written by the
Institute's Victor Madeira outlines "potential levers" to achieve Russian "behaviour change",
"peace with Ukraine", "return [of] Crimea", "regime change" or "other?". The suggested "levers"
span almost every conceivable area, including "civil society", "sports", "finance" and
"technology".
In the section marked "intelligence", Madeira suggests simultaneously expelling "every RF
[Russian Federation] intelligence officer and air/defense/naval attache from as many countries
as possible". In parentheses, it references 'Operation Foot' , the expulsion of over
1000 Soviet officials from the UK in September 1971, the largest expulsion of intelligence
officials by any government in history.
The section on sports also suggests "advocating the view [Russia] is unworthy of hosting
[sporting] events" -- and the section marked "information" recommends the sanctioning of
'Russian' media "in West for not complying with regulators' standards".
2015 File
Written By Victor Madeira on Possible Anti-Russian Actions
In April that year, Institute for Statecraft chief Chris Donnelly was
promoted to Honorary Colonel of SGMI (Specialist Group Military Intelligence), and
in
October he met with General Sir Richard Barrons. Notes from the meeting don't make clear
who said what, but one despaired that "if no catastrophe happens to wake people up and demand a
response, then we need to find a way to get the core of government to realise the problem and
take it out of the political space."
"We will need to impose changes over the heads of vested interests. We did this in the
1930s. My conclusion is it is we who must either generate the debate or wait for something
dreadful to happen to shock us into action. We must generate an independent debate outside
government. We need to ask when and how do we start to put all this right? Do we have the
national capabilities [and/or] capacities to fix it? If so, how do we improve our harnessing of
resources to do it? We need this debate now. There is not a moment to be lost," they said.
Operation IRIS Begins
On 4 March 2018, former Russian military officer and double agent for MI6 Sergei Skripal and
his daughter Yulia were poisoned in Salisbury, England.
Within days, the Institute had submitted a proposal to the Foreign & Commonwealth
Office, "to study social media activity in respect of the events that took place, how news
spread and evaluate how the incident is being perceived" in a number of countries.
The bid was accepted, and the Initiative's 'Operation Iris' was launched. Under its
auspices, the Institute employed 'global investigative solutions' firm Harod Associates to
analyze social media activity related to Skripal the world over.
It also conducted media monitoring of its own, with Institute 'research fellow' Simon
Bracey-Lane
producing regular 'roundups' of media coverage overseas, based on insights submitted by
individuals connected to the Initiative living in several countries. One submission, from an
unnamed source in Moldova, says they "cannot firmly say" whether the country's media had its
"own point of view" on the issue, or whether news organizations had taken "an obvious
pro-Russian or pro-Western position", strongly suggesting these were key questions for the
Initiative.
Integrity Initiative Seeks Intelligence On How Overseas Media Reported Skripal
Incident
Moreover though, there are clear indications the Institute sought to shape the news
narrative on the attack -- and indeed the UK government's response.
One file dated March 11 appears to be a briefing document on the affair to date, with key
messages bolded throughout.
It opens by setting out "The Narrative" of the incident -- namely "Russia has carried out
yet another brutal attack, this time with a deadly nerve agent, on someone living in
Britain".
"Use of the nerve agent posed a threat to innocent British subjects, affecting 21 people and
seriously affecting a police officer. This is not the first time such an attack has been
carried out in the UK 14 deaths are believed to be attributable to the Kremlin Russia has
poisoned its enemies abroad on other occasions, most notably then-candidate for the Presidency
of Ukraine, Viktor Yushchenko, in 2004. Russian political activist Vladimir Kara-Murza has been
poisoned twice; and the journalist Anna Politkovskaya was also poisoned and later shot dead.
Since Putin has been running Russia, the Kremlin has a history of poisoning its opponents in a
gruesome way," the "narrative" reads.
The file goes on to declare the British response has been "far too weak it's essential the
government makes a much stronger response this time" -- and then lists "possible, realistic,
first actions", including banning RT and Sputnik from operating in the UK, boycotting the 2018
World Cup, withdrawing the UK ambassador from Moscow and expelling the Russian ambassador to
the UK, and refusing/revoking visas to leading Russians within Vladimir Putin's "circle", and
their families.
Post-Skripal Incident Anti-Russian Actions Recommended by Integrity Initiative
It's not clear who the document was distributed to -- but it may have been given to
journalists within the Initiative's UK 'cluster', if not others. This may explain why the
Institute's "narrative", and its various recommended "responses" utterly dominated mainstream
media reporting of the affair for months afterwards, despite the glaring lack of evidence of
Russian state involvement in the attack.
It's extremely curious so many of the briefing document's recommendations almost exactly --
if not exactly -- echo several of the suggested "levers" outlined in the 2015 document. It's
also somewhat troubling the "Global Operation Foot" spoken of in that file duly came to pass on
March 28 2018, with over 20 countries expelling over 100 Russian diplomats.
Likewise, it's striking Victor Madeira, the Institute staffer who made the recommendations
in 2015, made many media appearances discussing the poisoning following the incident
routinely documented by the Institute. Security consultant Dan Kaszeta also wrote a number
of articles for the Integrity Initiative website about chemical weapons following the attack --
including a July 14 article, How could Novichok have poisoned people four months after the
Skripal attack? --receiving 40
pence per word .
Invoice submitted to
Integrity Initiative by Dan Kaszeta Strange Connections
The Institute's bizarrely intimate connections with the incident don't end there. Another document
apparently dating to July 2018 contains the contact details of Pablo Miller, Skripal's MI6
recruiter, handler and -- unbelievably -- neighbor in Salisbury. Anonymous claims the document
is an invitee list for a meeting the Institute convened between a number of individuals and
Syria's highly controversial White Helmets group, but this is yet to be verified.
Whatever the truth of the matter, the latest document dump raises yet further questions
about how and why it was BBC Diplomatic and Defense Editor Mark Urban -- who was in the same
tank regiment as Miller after leaving University -- came to meet with Skripal in the year
before his poisoning. When I attended the
launch of his book on the affair in October -- The Skripal Files -- he was evasive
on whether he played a role in connecting him with Skripal, and denied Miller was Skripal's
recruiter.
The latest trove also raises yet further questions about the activities of the Institute for
Statecraft and Integrity Initiative. In light of these revelations, reading the record of
Donnelly's meeting with General Barrons takes on an acutely chilling quality. It may be that
purely serendipitously the pair got their "catastrophe", their "something dreadful", which
"[woke] people up" and made the government "realise the problem" posed by Russia -- or it could
be they one way or another played a facilitative role of some kind.
After months of refusing to answer the vast number of questions I and thousands of others
have submitted to the paired organizations, it's high time for them to break cover, and be
honest with the public.
Images removed. Please brose the original to view them.
Notable quotes:
"... "Russian disinformation." ..."
"... "network of networks" ..."
"... It's notable that many of the draconian anti-Russia measures that the group advocated as far back as 2015 were swiftly implemented following the Skripal affair – even as London refused to back up its finger-pointing with evidence. ..."
"... "study social media activity in respect of the events that took place, how news spread, and evaluate how the incident is being perceived" ..."
"... "global investigative solutions" ..."
"... What role did # IntegrityInitiative play in the # Skripal affair? I looked for answers from a brief look at the newly released files. More very much to follow.... ..."
"... "pro-Russia troll accounts" ..."
"... "bombarding the audience with pro-Kremlin propaganda and disinformation relevant to the Skripal case." ..."
"... Another document , dated March 11, 2018 – and titled "Sergei Skripal Affair: What if Russia is Responsible?" – contains a "narrative" ..."
"... These included boycotting the 2018 World Cup, starting campaigns to boycott the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline from Russia to Germany, blocking Russian access to the SWIFT international banking system, and banning "RT TV and Sputnik from operating in the UK." ..."
"... "to publicize what has been happening with their Muslim brethren in Crimea since the Russian invasion [sic]" ..."
"... "threat Russia poses." ..."
"... This would certainly explain the evidence-deficient echo chamber that emerged in the aftermath of Skripal's poisoning ..."
"... One of the more intriguing revelations from the fresh leaks is a document from 2015, in which Victor Madeira of the Institute for Statecraft proposes a series of measures targeting Russia, including mass expulsion of diplomats along the lines of 1971's Operation Foot. ..."
"... "the largest collective expulsion of Russian intelligence officers in history." ..."
"... "Makes you think " ..."
"... The new trove of hacked documents also revealed an unexplained link between the II and Skripal himself – a connection made all the more noteworthy by the group's central role in coordinating an evidence-free campaign to blame and punish Moscow for the alleged nerve-agent attack. A document from July 2018 contains contact details for Pablo Miller, Skripal's MI6 recruiter, handler and (conveniently) neighbor in Salisbury. Miller, it seems, had been invited to a function hosted by the Institute. ..."
"... It was already known that Pablo Miller, the MI6 handler of Sergej Skripal, attended # IntegrityInitiative meetings. There is now more material to draw a connection. It is indeed possible that IfS/II initiated the affair. ..."
"... £2,276.80 in July 2018 during the # Skripal # Novichok affair for writing articles on the subjects of poison gas; nerve agents; treatment; nerve agent persistency & # PortonDown @ RTUKproducer 160 1:24 PM - Jan 4, 2019 ..."
"... It's not clear to what degree Miller is or was involved with the group, but his appearance on an Integrity Initiative guest list adds another layer of mystery to a coordinated campaign which sought to impose punishments on Moscow that were drawn up years in advance. ..."
The Integrity Initiative, a UK-funded group exposed in leaked files as psyop network, played a key role in monitoring and molding
media narratives after the poisoning of double agent Sergei Skripal, newly-dumped documents reveal. Created by the NATO-affiliated,
UK-funded Institute for Statecraft in 2015, the Integrity Initiative was
unmasked in November after hackers
released documents detailing a web of politicians, journalists, military personnel, scientists and academics involved in purportedly
fighting "Russian disinformation."
The secretive, government-bankrolled "network of networks" has found itself under scrutiny for
smearing UK Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn
as a Kremlin stooge – ostensibly as part of its noble crusade against anti-Russian disinformation. Now, new
leaks show that the organization played a central role in shaping media narratives after Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia
were mysteriously poisoned in Salisbury last March.
It's notable that many of the draconian anti-Russia measures that the group advocated as far back as 2015 were swiftly implemented
following the Skripal affair – even as London refused to back up its finger-pointing with evidence.
Operation Iris
Days after the Skripals were poisoned, the Institute solicited its services to the Foreign & Commonwealth Office, offering to
"study social media activity in respect of the events that took place, how news spread, and evaluate how the incident is being
perceived" in a number of countries.
After receiving the government's blessing, the Integrity Initiative (II)
launched
'Operation Iris,' enlisting "global investigative solutions" firm Harod Associates to analyze social media activity
related to Skripal.
What role did # IntegrityInitiative
play in the # Skripal affair? I looked for answers
from a brief look at the newly released files. More very much to follow....
However, Harod's confidential
report
did more than just parse social media reactions to the Skripal affair: It compiled a list of alleged "pro-Russia troll accounts"
accused of "bombarding the audience with pro-Kremlin propaganda and disinformation relevant to the Skripal case."
Among those who found themselves listed as nefarious thought-criminals were Ukrainian-born pianist Valentina Lisitsa, and a gentleman
from Kent who goes by Ian56 on Twitter.
Neocon Fascist, al-Qaeda Supporting Treasonous Scumbag @ Benimmo
is having a laugh with £2m of Taxpayers money. Nimmo should be IN JAIL for Fraud & Treason
"The Insider" - the same "Insider", that was credited by Bellingcat with "outing Boshirov and Petrovas GRU agents"
- has investigated and found me guilty of passing Putin orders to French yellow jackets. I kid you not.
Another
document , dated March 11, 2018 – and titled "Sergei Skripal Affair: What if Russia is Responsible?" – contains a "narrative"
of the Skripal incident, which blames Russia and President Vladimir Putin personally, as well as containing a number of recommended
actions.
These included boycotting the 2018 World Cup, starting campaigns to boycott the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline from Russia to
Germany, blocking Russian access to the SWIFT international banking system, and banning "RT TV and Sputnik from operating in the
UK."
Other suggestions included propaganda directed at British Muslims "to publicize what has been happening with their Muslim
brethren in Crimea since the Russian invasion [sic]" and getting members of parliament to publicize the "threat Russia poses."
It's not clear who the document was drawn up for, but it may have been provided to II-affiliated journalists in the UK and other
countries.
This would certainly explain the evidence-deficient echo chamber that emerged in the aftermath of Skripal's poisoning
– which the UK and its allies unanimously blamed on Moscow.
Ahead of its time?
One of the more intriguing revelations from the fresh leaks is a
document from 2015, in which Victor Madeira of the Institute for Statecraft proposes a series of measures targeting Russia, including
mass expulsion of diplomats along the lines of 1971's Operation Foot.
Coincidentally, more than 100 Russian diplomats were expelled from 20 Western countries in an apparently show of solidarity with
the UK following the Skripal attack. At the time, UK Prime Minister Theresa May welcomed what she said was "the largest collective
expulsion of Russian intelligence officers in history."
Former MP George Galloway noted that the documents, written long before the Salisbury events, also call for the arrest of RT and
Sputnik contributors (such as himself), adding: "Makes you think "
The new trove of hacked documents also revealed an unexplained link between the II and Skripal himself – a connection made
all the more noteworthy by the group's central role in coordinating an evidence-free campaign to blame and punish Moscow for the
alleged nerve-agent attack. A document from July 2018 contains contact details for Pablo Miller, Skripal's MI6 recruiter, handler
and (conveniently) neighbor in Salisbury. Miller, it seems, had been invited to a function hosted by the Institute.
It was already known that Pablo Miller, the MI6 handler of Sergej Skripal, attended
# IntegrityInitiative meetings. There
is now more material to draw a connection. It is indeed possible that IfS/II initiated the affair.
It's not clear to what degree Miller is or was involved with the group, but his appearance on an Integrity
Initiative guest list adds another layer of mystery to a coordinated campaign which sought to impose punishments on Moscow that were
drawn up years in advance.
"... The British Private Eye finds a relation between the Integrity Initiative and the Rendon Group which drove the propaganda for the Iraq invasion. ..."
Forgot to link this: The
Briefing note
on the Integrity Initiative by Paul McKeigue, David Miller, Jake Mason and Piers Robinson is the most complete analysis of the
Integrity Initiative papers.
The British Private Eye finds a relation
between the Integrity Initiative and the Rendon Group which drove the propaganda for the Iraq invasion.
I'll have to say more on the issue. For some fun, check the attachment to this tweet. (Klarenberg writes for Sputnik.)
"Jornos for hire" are now mainstream. Much like escort services.
Again, it's pure projection. These vermin are literally incapable of looking at anything except in terms of how it can
be used as a weapon (or how it can be destroyed), so they automatically attribute that fundamentalist way of looking at things to everyone
else, and especially to the "enemy". So by definition anything Putin and the Russians do is some kind of "weaponization".
Notable quotes:
"... Yes! All true! But I weaponised Vladimir Putin to make media profits, newspapers (Guardian!), radio (BBC), internet (Bellingcat). Evidently only the Brits understand me. The US does the same in a different style. ..."
"... Here is what Americans really think about the anti-Russia hysteria coming from Washington: https://viableopposition.blogspot.com/2018/08/americans-on-russia-will-of-people.html Washington has completely lost touch with what Main Street America really believes. ..."
"... And besides humor I am sure Putin is also weaponizing calendars, at least in Japan. Maybe in exchange for keeping the Kuril islands: Putin calendar sales surpassing those of Japanese stars in Japan What I am wondering is, if the socalled "Western Elite" maybe actually believe what they are saying and are not aware that it is a self-created illusion they are chaught in. Otherwise I can not understand why they are again and again surprised if Russia is not behaving they way they expected. ..."
"... Yes, these are projections, and they tell us the final world war, a war of aggression by the US against China and Russia, will be a total war beyond our imaginations. (Unless real leftists and real lovers of peace can stop it.) ..."
"... I think this insane epidemic illustrates the degree to which the Western propaganda system has completely decoupled the population from reality. ..."
"... The underlying problem: Russia has weaponized telling the truth. ..."
"... Yes, I'd agree that's part of its purpose -- to prevent the unification of Eurasia, which as I wrote last week's proceeding apace. They're trying to wall off Japan too, so I wonder if Japanese media's as flush with the same garbage as BigLie Media. ..."
"... Although likely covered by weaponizing incompetence and stupidity, Putin has certainly weaponized the Outlaw US Empire's appalling lack of a professional diplomatic corp--just look at who he gets Trump to nominate to key diplomatic positions. ..."
"... Hey guys, guys, you are not getting the point man. There is something really creepy about this Russia place, like Midas. Everything they touch turns to weapons. ..."
"... But since the fall of Communism in Russia, I have lost all belief in anything like a new Cold War. After all, when I was in parochial school, we prayed for the conversion of Russia. Now, that has been accomplished. Russia's government is more Christian than Western governments ..."
"... Truth weaponized. Five eyes pulling out all stops in its propaganda campaign to defeat it. ..."
Several of the pieces listed in it are products of the recently uncovered
British government
financed disinformation campaign , or of similar efforts by other governments. But these are only a part of the general anti-Russian
reflex that is ingrained in our 'western' culture. Nothing else can explain the craziness of these 'weaponizing' claims.
The updated list with some 65 issues, ideas and things that Russia allegedly 'weaponizes' will hopefully help to convince people
that most of what is said or written about Russia is likewise blatant nonsense.
Yes! All true! But I weaponised Vladimir Putin to make media profits, newspapers (Guardian!), radio (BBC), internet (Bellingcat).
Evidently only the Brits understand me. The US does the same in a different style.
And besides humor I am sure Putin is also weaponizing calendars, at least in Japan. Maybe in exchange for keeping the Kuril
islands:
Putin calendar sales surpassing those of Japanese stars in Japan What I am wondering is, if the socalled "Western Elite"
maybe actually believe what they are saying and are not aware that it is a self-created illusion they are chaught in. Otherwise
I can not understand why they are again and again surprised if Russia is not behaving they way they expected.
Yes, these are projections, and they tell us the final world war, a war of aggression by the US against China and Russia,
will be a total war beyond our imaginations. (Unless real leftists and real lovers of peace can stop it.)
I think this insane epidemic illustrates the degree to which the Western propaganda system has completely decoupled the
population from reality. Now whether it's believed or not is neither here nor there as it's built upon decades of anti-communism
and the inherent racism of the Anglo-Saxon Empire that has demonized the Russians as essentially backward peasants who cannot
be trusted. Worse still, the Russkies have ginormous weapons!
I agree that both 'sides' in a phony cold war 2.0 weaponize just about anything of a controversial nature or event in civilization.
Both sides are advancing agenda that are leading humanity in the same direction even as they create a false adversarial paradigm.
This has been termed non linear psychological warfare under which such a confusing array of created realities leaves the greater
public unable to define what is real or a fabrication. It takes at least two or more to create the illusions and the 'other' can
simply be created/funded as controlled opposition and then even this can be published to further create more confusion within
the confusion. Carl Rove told us this. He just didn't tell us that the 'Empire' also includes Russia, China and any number of
other corporate national jurisdictions.
More seriously, this is not "stupidity" of the political class, as some pundits would have you believe. It is a well thought-out
retrenchment plan of attempting to institute a new "iron curtain" to separate Europe from Asia after the demise of unipolarity.
Yes, I'd agree that's part of its purpose -- to prevent the unification of Eurasia, which as I wrote last week's proceeding
apace. They're trying to wall off Japan too, so I wonder if Japanese media's as flush with the same garbage as BigLie Media.
Russia's weaponized Arctic
Ocean or perhaps Russia's weaponized the lack of proper marine maintenance. Russia's also weaponized the Outlaw US Empire's
lack of naval or other Arctic Ocean land-based infrastructure -- there's zip to support any off-shore drilling from Alaska's coastline.
IOW, Russia's weaponizing a plethora of Outlaw US Empire weaknesses.
And what the Sputnik article refers to as the heavy US icebreaker Polar Star is more roughly one half the size of the
nuclear powered Russian icebreaker 50 Years of Victory, 50 лет Победы . I suspect the Russians would call the Polar
Star a light icebreaker. Sputnik probably probably being polite.
Way back in the 1950s the Pentagon (specifically the Air Force) was all atwitter over unsubstantiated reports (again leaked by
the Air Force) that the Soviets (read: the Russians) were building a nuclear powered strategic bomber that would have unlimited
range and flight time. Well now. You know what that means? We gotta have one too! So guess what. The Air Force dutifully volunteered
to save the US and Western civilization from being bombed back to the stone age and godless communism all at the same time by
building a nuclear powered bomber of our own. To make a long story short the effort failed miserably. The project managed to last
into the Kennedy administration but was cancelled in favor of developing submarine launched ICBMs. While the nuclear bomber program
died it's spirit lived on. During the Carter administration the then chief of Air Force intelligence (yes I know there's no such
thing) became convinced that the russkies were building ground-based and orbiting death ray machines to use against US satellites
and ICBMs. Thus was born "Star Wars." Of course this fit in perfectly with the Reagan administration's defense views even though
the engineering and science simply didn't exist then of now. Well as the french say the "more things change the more they remain
the same"
Some people get weaponized on business trips to Moscow. This video shows how they do it...
https://youtu.be/8cs4tKdiiI4 Posted by: dh | Dec 17, 2018 10:36:48
AM | 15
Move over Russia make room for the Chinese weapon program.. its much more dangerous than the Russian disinformation program,
unlike Russia, the Chinese circumvent the USA Senate, the President, and the SCOUS and go directly to the poor, innocent governed
humans, lending them money, creating for them jobs and developing infra structure to make life easier; such will be the end of
us all. WE MUST REMEMBER Aake news and made up fictions are produced by the six entities that own 92 of the media. Without the
Internet and other public infra structure, the media could not smear you with its dirty tricks. Someone please pass the soap.
"weaponizing terrorism "? because until Putin all "terrorists" sat around talking and sipping tea like the goddamn mclaughlin
group? then again, given the outsize influence of objectively insane think tanks in DC, maybe they were onto something.
funny how this can also be seen as what psychology types call "projection". in a culture like the west's (especially the states)
where the economies are built on warfare and financial voodoo, everything is either "weaponized" or collateralized. look at anything
on that list and it's something from which someone "atlantic" has tried or will try to make money. of course, many things start
out weaponized and are then collateralized
. weaponized taxes? weaponized corporate welfare?
hey, if a bunch of white/israeli suburbanite music executives in LA can control rap, it should be pretty easy. side note: rap
is officially banned in iran. some say it's been deemed "satanic". Years ago when i was grooving to das efx or public enemy i'd
have disagreed but now that the big names are drake, minaj and meek mill...only malevolent supernatural evil can explain that.
I'm shocked to learn that "Russia is weaponizing its Coast Guard",
https://warisboring.com/russia-is-weaponizing-its-coast-guard/
The author seems quite angry the Russians are using their "Coast Guard" of all things, to defend their coast. He thinks they should
have used their Navy instead!
"The use of the Russian Federation Navy to close the strait would have been more likely to escalate because it would have
been a military-on-military clash. In contrast, using the Russian coast guard made it a law enforcement issue rather than a
military-sanctioned act of war. Russia is adept at using legal channels to pursue violations of justice. It now appears willing
to use its coast guard for this purpose.
Onshore, the situation in eastern Ukraine has been stuck in a rut. Perhaps the escalation in the Sea of Azov was seen by
the Russians as a means to break the impasse, using the flimsy legal cover provided by the coast guard. No similar terrestrial
options exist, as the Russians have exhausted their plausible deniability for operations by police, volunteers and undercover
"little green men."
While Russian seizure of the Azov coast was anticipated, it was not expected to use its coast guard. Utilizing the Russian
coast guard in this way opens a new range of options for Moscow, in the Sea of Azov and beyond."
Although likely covered by weaponizing incompetence and stupidity, Putin has certainly weaponized the Outlaw US Empire's appalling
lack of a professional diplomatic corp--just look at who he gets Trump to nominate to key diplomatic positions. Indeed, perhaps
this ought to be enlarged to include weaponizing mediocrity as portrayed by Trump's entire Cabinet. We can also see the great
strides Putin's made in making the Outlaw US Empire appear as the Ogre it is by weaponizing Anglo-American Exceptionalism. It
seems, given the above list and its additions via comments, that the Outlaw US Empire is most exceptional at being incapable of
weaponizing anything aside from its #1 go-to--The BigLie.
Strategic Message Code One , Dec 17, 2018 3:04:33 PM |
link
Hey guys, guys, you are not getting the point man. There is something really creepy about this Russia place, like Midas. Everything
they touch turns to weapons. I seen it here as well, every Russia thing is trouble of some kind, like there is nothing else
that comes from there. I seen Russian people and they ok, but now I'm frightened to get close to them in case I turn into a weapon.
Aan here too guys, Russia touches the west an the west as consequence are all buying weapons an using them everywhere, they cant
do nothing cause Russia makes them weaponators too. Oh my, we are doomed man and waponized press freakin me out aaaaaaahhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
A quote from the report mentioned in (50): "Although the NDS generally reflects the right priorities and objectives, it
is not supported by adequate investments. It is beyond the scope of this Commission's work to identify the exact dollar amount
required to fully fund the military's needs, but the available means are clearly insufficient to fulfill the strategy's ends.
This is true despite the two-year funding increase for FY2018 and FY2019 provided by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018."
What would be particularly interesting is also to see how the money flow is helping the (we all know it) struggling news organizations.
I believe many of these quasi-journalists are going hat in hand to various agencies that have some of that propaganda money. Most
of them would need to work for weeks getting paid a measly amount, but doing a couple of these anti-Russia pieces gets them paid
well. I certainly think the Guardian has such an arrangement with MI5/6.
The recipe is using the wonderwords like Putin, Russia,
'weaponizing', hackers, cyber, fake news...
I believe the Saker was pointing out a few days ago that the Border Guards were often more like spetsnaz than what we in the
west think of as a border patrol. The Russian Coast Guard has probably maintained the tradition.
I see culture's already been deemed weaponized, but
here's Putin's actual plan he laid out in his speech to a meeting of the Presidential Council for Culture and Art in St Petersburg
two days ago. Introductory remarks:
"... global competition in creating best conditions for self-fulfilment and revealing the potential of each individual is
growing, and the world's leading powers including Russia, rightly see it as a key to the future. Of course, a significant role
here will belong to establishing a vibrant, rich cultural space, which will be interesting and attractive not only for the
citizens of our country but also for the whole world."
Meanwhile within the Outlaw US Empire, Boy Scouts of America is about to
file for bankruptcy thanks
to the many sexual abuse lawsuits it now faces. This leads me to declare yet another Russian accomplishment: Putin has weaponized
Machiavellian divide and rule by enticing the Outlaw US Empire's Deep State -- years prior to his birth! -- to promote and escalate
what's known as the Culture Wars used to ensure a continuing inability to achieve solidarity by the USA's polity.
Anaya, I take it you took a look-see at its staff and there's a lot of them! Yeah, that's what prompted my own feelings about
it. The report has apparently been published but I've not yet seen it.
The '150 million' influenced by those scheming Russkies, has been floating for awhie. I first saw it used in a Euro-based setup,
funded by NATO I think. I'll try and dig it out as I remember writing something about.
This kind of "Weaponization" is far less expensive than say an F35 or a 13bn Ford class Aircraft carrier, but the more of them
you build the safer you will be from the "Weaponization" of coloring books. Nuke crayons now! The state of the US and its
military in my view is that they can't win a war against anyone, all they can do is blow up the world with nukes - the only question
is will they deny the world to everyone if they can't own it.
It's a shame we can't massively disseminate our weaponization of ridicule contained in b's article and our commentary. I wonder
how many comedians are making good money ridiculing the entire weaponization meme, and not just in English.
What I'd like to see at all US government pressers is for uncontrollable laughter to break out amongst the press when the spokesperson
begins speaking and continue until it leaves the podium, followed by the press exiting the room.
In case you haven't yet heard, Heather Nauert replaces Nutty Nikki as US ambassador to the UN so 'tis there that Matt Lee and
his fellow journos must trek (it's gonna be a long way to NYC) to get their regular dose of laughter.
Here in my exceptional country it is customary at the end of each year to declare a "word of the year", some from past years were
truthiness, Y2K and hashtag.
but it didn't go after the current Russian govt. It pointed out how the US imitates the Soviets in weaponizing psychiatry by
declaring dissidents crazy. You have to be insane to disagree with TPTB.
I'm sure the comedian replacing Nauert will be just as distracting and of similar character.
Did you happen to read Caitlin Johnstone's
Twenty-One Thoughts On The Persecution Of Julian Assange , particularly #s 8-10 as they relate to her essay about narratives?
All our rather witty ridicule is almost totally wasted on us--we don't need to hear it; it's those people Caitlin refers to in
her 8-10 that require the deep pin-prick of ridicule to snap them from their torpor and return them to reality and to rational
thinking.
The biggest weapon in the West arsenal is private finance. Private finance is the jackboot that keep nations/governments/individuals
in line. Private finance has been the primary weapon of control for centuries. China/Russia are trying to weaponize alternative
finance......and succeeding......which is why the world is all in a tither.
I think it has to do with what one has studied. I have four university degrees: B.A. in Classics from Princeton, A.B. in Classics
from Oxford, Ph.D. in Classical Philology from Harvard, and a J.D. from Yale. I spent a lot of time in the U.S. military: four
years in the active duty U.S. Air Force, plus something like 15 years in the reserves, largely of the U.S. Navy. For as long as
the original Cold War lasted and Communism ruled Russia, I was a true believer in the Cold War. It now looks to me as if I was
misguided at the time, but that is what I believed, whether despite or because of my education, I don't know which.
But since the fall of Communism in Russia, I have lost all belief in anything like a new Cold War. After all, when I was
in parochial school, we prayed for the conversion of Russia. Now, that has been accomplished. Russia's government is more Christian
than Western governments. I think someone with a classical education like the one I got is more capable of thinking for himself.
I don't think my education disabled me from thinking critically and independently.
BB 93 Truth weaponized. Five eyes pulling out all stops in its propaganda campaign to defeat it.
Hoarsewhisperer 95 He may well be, but with the passing of several years and his actions in that time appear to be ardent
zionist. The swamp to him are those that frittered away US unilateral power and those that did not sufficiently support Israel.
What Trump views as the swamp is not what most of us view as the swamp. Kissinger was not forced upon Trump, rather his thinking
is in line with that of Kissinger.
"... To get an idea of how Gladio 2.0 is now investing each corner of our lives, including art and education, I saw recently on the flyer of a sculpture exhibition in a 5-eyes country that two artists, one born in 1901 and one in 1914 were "famous Cold War artists". Of course, there was nothing political in their work, the first died in 1966 and the other in 2003... ..."
To get an idea of how Gladio 2.0 is now investing each corner of our lives, including art
and education, I saw recently on the flyer of a sculpture exhibition in a 5-eyes country that
two artists, one born in 1901 and one in 1914 were "famous Cold War artists". Of course,
there was nothing political in their work, the first died in 1966 and the other in
2003...
In EU universities you now see all sorts of "labs" popping out, with EU funding from the
"digital" budget. They are trying to recruit people with a very odd profile: ambitious, ONG
oriented, IT familiar. The reason why these labs insist on the ONG type activities is
dubious. An example of US/EU sponsored project involving refugees in Greece, neurosciences
and mobile phones (check Harvard/Data&Society: Refugee Connectivity)
News that the BBC is trying to tie the Gilets Jaunes movement to the Kremlin reaches the
Russian Foreign Ministry. Betting that Lavrov, Zakharova and company are all having a laugh
as well.
Just when you think British news media couldn't fall any deeper into their rabbit hole ...
down, down farther they go into the abyss ... aaarrgghhh ...
"... Some of the people at the Oxford University's Computational Propaganda Project and the Integrity Initiative Project are banal presstitutes ready to oblige the top clients (management) for a modest pay, whereas others are real criminals whose ideas and orders have been endangering the western civilization -- and humankind at large. ..."
"... People are building their careers on this garbage! ..."
The Oxford University's Computational Propaganda Project and the Integrity Initiative Project are run by people.
These people display a stunning level of immorality by lying and war-mongering.
Some of the people at the Oxford University's Computational Propaganda Project and the Integrity Initiative Project are banal
presstitutes ready to oblige the top clients (management) for a modest pay, whereas others are real criminals whose ideas and
orders have been endangering the western civilization -- and humankind at large.
It would be proper to publish a roster of the presstitutes and their idiotic managers working at the Oxford University's Computational
Propaganda Project and the Integrity Initiative Project
About half an hour ago I opened News.Google.Com these are some of their major headlines:
Russians sought to recruit 'assets' through social media, Senate told - CNN . one hour
ago
Russua favored Trump, targeted African-Americans with election meddling, reports say -
NBC News . one hour ago
New report on Russian disinformation, prepared for the Senate, shows the operation's
scale and sweep - The Washington Post . today
Senate report finds millions of social media posts by Russians aimed at helping Trump,
GOP - USA TODAY . 2 hours ago
Silicon Valley may have done 'bare minimum' to help Russia investigation, Senate Intel
Committee told - CNN . one hour ago
I opened the one from the Washington Post:
Headline: "New report on Russian disinformation, prepared for the Senate, shows the
operation's scale and sweep"
Subtext: "The report, a draft of which was obtained by The Washington Post, is the
first to analyze the millions of posts provided by major technology firms to the Senate
Intelligence Committee."
The headline is meant to give the impression that the report was prepared at *The Behest*
of the Senate. If you read the article it would have you believe that it *was* written at the
behest of the Senate but does not say that specifically.
Well? Was it? I have tried to track it down and could use some assistance.
Buried in a CBS NEWS version of the article is this sentence: "The Committee welcomed the
research effort without endorsing either report's findings."
USA TODAY says it *was* "Senate Reports". The lead paragraph is this: "WASHINGTON –
The Senate released Monday a pair of reports that found Russia engaged in an all-out social
media campaign on Donald Trump's behalf during the 2016 election and continued to support him
after he took office."
"People are building their careers on this garbage!"
Josh said at #60
"What would be particularly interesting is also to see how the money flow is helping the
(we all know it) struggling news organizations. I believe many of these
quasi-journalists are going hat in hand to various agencies that have some of that
propaganda money. Most of them would need to work for weeks getting paid a measly amount,
but doing a couple of these anti-Russia pieces gets them paid well. I certainly think
the Guardian has such an arrangement with MI5/6. The recipe is using the wonderwords like Putin, Russia, 'weaponizing', hackers, cyber,
fake news..."
"... If I had the talent and energy, I might write a sequel to the 'Quiet American', to be entitled 'The Noisy Englishmen.' It would feature a series of inept conspiracies, involving ludicrous means used in support of preposterous ends, necessitating one ham-fisted cover-up after another. ..."
"... The central characters might be loosely based on Christopher Steele, Matt Tait, Eliot Higgins, and our former UN Ambassador Matthew Rycroft, author of the July 2002 Downing Street memorandum, in which Sir Richard Dearlove was quoted explaining how, in Washington, 'the intelligence and the facts were being fixed around the policy.' ..."
"... There is a 1990's British historian (whose name I've been trying to rediscover without success) who wrote a sunny book saying Britain should return to its imperialist ways to bring light to the dark and repressive world we live in. It was a great hit with Blair and his henchmen. Blair used its arguments in his notorious 1999 Chicago neo-conservative/liberal interventionist speech. ..."
"... I'd draw attention to "The Brideshead Revisited" generation especially at Oxford in the early 80's. Unashamedly celebrating their wealth and upper middle class privately-educated backgrounds, they viewed themselves as a gilded, golden generation, preened in narcissism, adept at networking and self-promotion. They are the generation now in power - politically, financially, in the deep state. Their fantasy of again ruling the world (with American and Zionist aid) has led to a series of catastrophic blunders and overreaches in both foreign and domestic policies. ..."
"... Our economic power - the base of any imperial power - is shrinking daily. All the Oxfordites (chief amongst them Theresa May, Boris Johnson and Michael Gove) are still playing Oxford Union/PPE games and stabbing each other joyously in the back as though there's no tomorrow. It most ressembles the halluciogenic decadence of the court of late Imperial Rome. ..."
After contemplating the likely intelligence and propaganda efforts of HMG over the last 15 years or so I am puzzled as to motivation.
Why? Why? The UK is now a regional power for which events in places like Syria would seem to have little to do with the welfare
of Britain. Why? I suppose that the same question can be asked for the US and I have.
In re "Our man in Havana" I think there
are many issues raised in the work that apply directly to the trade of espionage.
The question why? is a very interesting but also very dispiriting one, but also one which it is quite hard to get one's head
round. I hope to have something more coherent to say about it.
Among many reasons, however, there has been a kind of intellectual disintegration.
If I had the talent and energy, I might write a sequel to the 'Quiet American', to be entitled 'The Noisy Englishmen.'
It would feature a series of inept conspiracies, involving ludicrous means used in support of preposterous ends, necessitating
one ham-fisted cover-up after another.
The central characters might be loosely based on Christopher Steele, Matt Tait, Eliot Higgins, and our former UN Ambassador
Matthew Rycroft, author of the July 2002 Downing Street memorandum, in which Sir Richard Dearlove was quoted explaining how, in
Washington, 'the intelligence and the facts were being fixed around the policy.'
Subsequently, of course, he set about colluding in the process. And, sixteen years later, Dearlove is still at it, with 'Russiagate'
-- and the product being actually accepted much more uncritically by the MSM than it was then.
And that is one of the problems -- nobody any longer pays any penalty for failure, or indeed feels any sense of shame about
it..
There is a 1990's British historian (whose name I've been trying to rediscover without success) who wrote a sunny book saying
Britain should return to its imperialist ways to bring light to the dark and repressive world we live in. It was a great hit with
Blair and his henchmen. Blair used its arguments in his notorious 1999 Chicago neo-conservative/liberal interventionist speech.
As the Colonel eloquently asks:
"I am puzzled as to motivation. Why? Why? The UK is now a regional power for which events in places like Syria would seem
to have little todo with the welfare of Britain. Why?"
I'd draw attention to "The Brideshead Revisited" generation especially at Oxford in the early 80's. Unashamedly celebrating
their wealth and upper middle class privately-educated backgrounds, they viewed themselves as a gilded, golden generation, preened
in narcissism, adept at networking and self-promotion. They are the generation now in power - politically, financially, in the deep state. Their fantasy of again ruling the world
(with American and Zionist aid) has led to a series of catastrophic blunders and overreaches in both foreign and domestic policies.
Our economic power - the base of any imperial power - is shrinking daily. All the Oxfordites (chief amongst them Theresa May,
Boris Johnson and Michael Gove) are still playing Oxford Union/PPE games and stabbing each other joyously in the back as though
there's no tomorrow. It most ressembles the halluciogenic decadence of the court of late Imperial Rome.
(I don't include the Maurice Cowling-ites in this fandango because they strike me as more Little Englanders. Though Peterhouse
is of course, shamefully, the HQ of the Henry Jackson Society).
Hackers who leaked documents from the Integrity Initiative, a shadowy outfit funded by the
UK government, claim they show its connections to the March 2018 alleged poisoning attack in
Salisbury and proposed actions against Russia. The Integrity Initiative (II) was set up in 2015
by the equally shadowy "Institute for Statecraft," according to the documents
published online in
November by hackers calling themselves a part of the Anonymous collective. While Anonymous
has denied the group was behind the leak, the Institute confirmed the authenticity of the first
batch of documents.
The hackers
posted a fresh batch of documents purportedly from the Initiative and the Institute on
Friday, hinting that both outfits had connections with Western media coverage of the March 2018
alleged poisoning of former Russian spy Sergey Skripal, and the actions against Russia taken
subsequently by the UK government and its allies.
One of the documents is the
confidential report by Harod Associates, a company hired by the Initiative to conduct
"mainstream & social media analysis" of the Skripal scandal coverage. The entire
undertaking was dubbed "Operation Iris."
Among those who found themselves named "Russian trolls" and Kremlin agents in the
report were Ukrainian-born pianist Valentina Lisitsa and a gentleman from Kent who goes by
Ian56 on Twitter.
Wanna see something funny? 🤣
"The Insider" - the same "Insider", that was credited by Bellingcat with "outing Boshirov and
Petrovas GRU agents" - has investigated and found me guilty of passing Putin orders to French
yellow jackets. I kid you not. https://t.co/I3X4ypylAP
Another
document , dated March 11, 2018, contains a "Narrative" of the Skripal incident,
blaming Russia and President Vladimir Putin personally and containing a number of recommended
actions, such as boycotting the 2018 World Cup, starting campaigns to boycott the Nord Stream 2
gas pipeline from Russia to Germany and block Russian access to SWIFT international banking
system, but also to "ban RT TV and Sputnik from operating in the UK."
Other suggestions include propaganda directed at British Muslims "to publicise what has been
happening with their Muslim brethren in Crimea since the Russian invasion" (sic) and getting
members of Parliament to publicize the "threat Russia poses."
The document dump also contains the April
14, 2018 email from Andy Pryce, whom the hackers describe as "chief propaganda man" at the
Foreign and Commonwealth Office, containing the official government narrative of the Skripal
affair and the alleged chemical attack in Douma, Syria. Pryce ends the email by recommending
"good sources of further information" on alleged Russian propaganda, including the
Atlantic Council's DFR Lab, Bellingcat and Stopfake.
Documents obtained and published by the hackers also show connections between Skripal's
recruiter and neighbor Pablo Miller, the Institute for Statecraft, and the so-called rescue
group White Helmets, created in militant-held areas of Syria by a former British official in
2013.
It was already known that Pablo Miller, the MI6 handler of Sergej Skripal, attended
#IntegrityInitiative
meetings. There is now more material to draw a connection. It is indeed possible that IfS/II
initiated the affair. https://t.co/Xv29Uk9z3e
There are also several invoices from Dan Kaszeta of the Institute for Statecraft, for
articles he wrote as supposedly a chemical weapons expert advancing the Institute's narrative
on both the Skripals and Syria.
The most intriguing, however, is
a document from 2015 , in which Victor Madeira of the Institute for Statecraft proposes a
series of measures targeting Russia, including mass expulsion of diplomats along the lines of
1971's Operation Foot. One of the actions by the UK, US and several other NATO countries in the
wake of claims that Russia used a nerve agent against Skripal was a mass expulsion of Russian
diplomats.
Former MP George Galloway noted that the documents written long before the Salisbury events
call for arrests of RT and Sputnik contributors (such as himself), adding, "Makes you think
"
Previously published documents have revealed the Initiative and the Institute as being
involved in widespread
propaganda operations targeting not only foreign countries and media outlets – as one
might expect from someone doing the bidding of the Foreign Office – but also domestic political
figures , such as Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn.
"... By Marcy Wheeler, an independent journalist writing about national security and civil liberties. She writes as emptywheel at her eponymous blog, publishes at outlets including the Guardian, Salon, and the Progressive, and appears frequently on television and radio. She is the author of Anatomy of Deceit, a primer on the CIA leak investigation, and liveblogged the Scooter Libby trial. Originally published at emptywheel ..."
"... The Count of Monte-Cristo ..."
"... . Especially Postman's succinct page and a half referential FOREWARD. Now there is a formative scripture or holy writ pre-sage-ing the DATA\CONTENT SWAMP. ..."
"... Mitch Ritter\Non-Aligned Paradigm Shifters Lay-Low Studios, Ore-Wa Media Discussion List ..."
Yves here. Marcy points out how what is considered to be "news" has changed greatly over
time, and that the requirement that news be objective is recent and marketing-driven.
This essay covers a great deal of important ground. I'd like to add one topic, which is the
role of propaganda. Even though organizations have done all sorts of evangelizing, the use of
the media and social networks of the day for that purpose is relatively recent. Alex Carey in
his book Taking the Risk Out of Democracy dates it to the early 1900s. One early, successful
campaign led by the National Association of Manufacturers, already a leader in campaigning
against organized labor, was to counter the backlash against immigration, which was then seen
as a threat to American values and communities. One of their initiatives
was institutionalizing "Americanization Day," later rebranded as "Independence Day."
As we've discussed before, the first full-bore government-sponsored propaganda campaign took
place in World War I. The Creel Committee, an agency of the Federal government officially
called the Committee on Public Information used all the communication vehicles of its day, not
just newspapers. An overview from Wikipedia:
The committee used newsprint, posters, radio, telegraph, cable and movies to broadcast its
message. It recruited about 75,000 "Four Minute Men," volunteers who spoke about the war at
social events for an ideal length of four minutes, considering that the average human
attention span was judged at the time to be four minutes. They covered the draft, rationing,
war bond drives, victory gardens and why America was fighting. It was estimated that by the
end of the war, they had made more than 7.5 million speeches to 314 million people in 5,200
communities. They were advised to keep their message positive, always use their own words and
avoid "hymns of hate." For ten days in May 1917, the Four Minute Men were expected to promote
"Universal Service by Selective Draft" in advance of national draft registration on June 5,
1917.
The CPI staged events designed for specific ethnic groups. For instance, Irish-American
tenor John McCormack sang at Mount Vernon before an audience representing Irish-American
organizations. The Committee also targeted the American worker and, endorsed by Samuel
Gompers, filled factories and offices with posters designed to promote the critical role of
American labor in the success of the war effort.
The CPI's activities were so thorough that historians later stated, using the example of a
typical midwestern American farm family, that
Every item of war news they saw -- in the country weekly, in magazines, or in the city
daily picked up occasionally in the general store -- was not merely officially approved
information but precisely the same kind that millions of their fellow citizens were getting
at the same moment. Every war story had been censored somewhere along the line -- at the
source, in transit, or in the newspaper offices in accordance with 'voluntary' rules
established by the CPI.
The Creel Committee was able to turn America from being firmly pacifist to being eager to
fight the evil Germans in a mere 18 months. In Serbia, a concerted propaganda campaign was able
to turn public polls radically in a mere six weeks.
In other words, the hysteria about fake news appears to be members of the officialdom
realizing that their traditional propaganda channels don't work because too many people get
information on the Internet, and they can no longer orchestrate a Mighty Wurlitzer of unified
opinion. This may seem obvious but surprisingly few people are willing to say that in simple
terms. The reflex of government opinion managers and their media allies is to shut down or
delegitimate offending outlets. But there are too many, not just in the US but overseas, for
them to do that other than by severely curtailing Internet publication. Are they prepared to go
the route of the Chinese government in terms of restricting foreign access and censoring
domestic writers? That's the end game if they are serious about stopping what TPTB deems to be
"fake news".
By Marcy Wheeler, an independent journalist writing about national security and civil
liberties. She writes as emptywheel at her eponymous blog, publishes at outlets including the
Guardian, Salon, and the Progressive, and appears frequently on television and radio. She is
the author of Anatomy of Deceit, a primer on the CIA leak investigation, and liveblogged the
Scooter Libby trial. Originally published at emptywheel
I've been getting into multiple Twitter fights about the term "fake news" of late, a topic
about which I feel strongly but which I don't have time to reargue over and over. So here are
the reasons I find the term "fake news" to be counterproductive, even aside from the way
Washington Post magnified it with the PropOrNot campaign amidst a series of badly reported
articles on Russia that failed WaPo's own standards of "fake news."
Most people who use the term "fake news" seem to be fetishizing something they call "news."
By that, they usually mean the pursuit of "the truth" within an editor-and-reporter system of
"professional" news reporting. Even in 2017, they treat that term "news" as if it escapes all
biases, with some still endorsing the idea that "objectivity" is the best route to "truth,"
even in spite of the way "objectivity" has increasingly imposed a kind of both-sides false
equivalence that the right has used to move the Overton window in recent years.
I've got news (heh) for you America. What we call "news" is one temporally and
geographically contingent genre of what gets packaged as "news." Much of the world doesn't
produce the kind of news we do, and for good parts of our own history, we didn't either.
Objectivity was invented as a marketing ploy. It is true that during a period of elite
consensus, news that we treated as objective succeeded in creating a unifying national
narrative of what most white people believed to be true, and that narrative was tremendously
valuable to ensure the working of our democracy. But even there, "objectivity" had a way of
enforcing centrism. It excluded most women and people of color and often excluded working class
people. It excluded the "truth" of what the US did overseas. It thrived in a world of limited
broadcast news outlets. In that sense, the golden age of objective news depended on a great
deal of limits to the marketplace of ideas, largely chosen by the gatekeeping function of white
male elitism.
And, probably starting at the moment Walter Cronkite figured out the Vietnam War was a big
myth, that elite narrative started developing cracks.
But several things have disrupted what we fetishize as news since them. Importantly, news
outlets started demanding major profits, which changed both the emphasis on reporting and the
measure of success. Cable news, starting especially with Fox but definitely extending to MSNBC,
aspired to achieve buzz, and even explicitly political outcomes, bringing US news much closer
to what a lot of advanced democracies have -- politicized news.
And all that's before 2002, what I regard as a key year in this history. Not only was
traditional news struggling in the face of heightened profit expectations even as the Internet
undercut the press' traditional revenue model. But at a time of crisis in the financial model
of the "news," the press catastrophically blew the Iraq War, and did so at a time when people
like me were able to write "news" outside of the strictures of the reporter-and-editor
arrangement.
I actually think, in an earlier era, the government would have been able to get away with
its Iraq War lies, because there wouldn't be outlets documenting the errors, and there wouldn't
have been ready alternatives to a model that proved susceptible to manipulation. There might
eventually have been a Cronkite moment in the Iraq War, too, but it would have been about the
conduct of the war, not also about the gaming of the "news" process to create the war. But
because there was competition, we saw the Iraq War as a journalistic failure when we didn't see
earlier journalistic complicity in American foreign policy as such.
Since then, of course, the underlying market has continued to change. Optimistically, new
outlets have arisen. Some of them -- perhaps most notably HuffPo and BuzzFeed and Gawker before
Peter Thiel killed it -- have catered to the financial opportunities of the Internet, paying
for real journalism in part with clickbait stories that draw traffic (which is just a different
kind of subsidy than the family-owned project that traditional newspapers often relied on, and
these outlets also rely on other subsidies). I'm pretty excited by some of the journalism
BuzzFeed is doing right now, but it's worth reflecting their very name nods to clickbait.
More importantly, the "center" of our national -- indeed, global -- discourse shifted from
elite reporter-and-editor newspapers to social media, and various companies -- almost entirely
American -- came to occupy dominant positions in that economy. That comes with the good and the
bad. It permits the formulation of broader networks; it permits crisis on the other side of the
globe to become news over here, in some but not all spaces, it permits women and people of
color to engage on an equal footing with people previously deemed the elite (though very urgent
digital divide issues still leave billions outside this discussion). It allows our spooks to
access information that Russia needs to hack to get with a few clicks of a button. It also
means the former elite narrative has to compete with other bubbles, most of which are not
healthy and many of which are downright destructive. It fosters abuse.
But the really important thing is that the elite reporter-and-editor oligopoly was replaced
with a marketplace driven by a perverse marriage of our human psychology and data manipulation
(and often, secret algorithms). Even assuming net neutrality, most existing discourse exists in
that marketplace. That reality has negative effects on everything, from financially strapped
reporter-and-editor outlets increasingly chasing clicks to Macedonian teenagers inventing
stories to make money to attention spans that no longer get trained for long reads and critical
thinking.
The other thing to remember about this historical narrative is that there have always been
stories pretending to present the real world that were not in fact the real world. Always.
Always always always. Indeed, there are academic arguments that our concept of
"fiction" actually arises out of a necessary legal classification for what gets published in
the newspaper. "Facts" were insults of the king you could go to prison for. "Fiction" was
stories about kings that weren't true and therefore wouldn't get you prison time (obviously,
really authoritarian regimes don't honor this distinction, which is an important lesson in
their contingency). I have been told that fact/fiction moment didn't happen in all countries,
and it happened at different times in different countries (roughly tied, in my opinion, to the
moment when the government had to sustain legitimacy via the press).
But even after that fact/fiction moment, you would always see factual stories intermingling
with stuff so sensational that we would never regard it as true. But such sensational not-true
stories definitely helped to sell newspapers. Most people don't know this because we generally
learn a story via which our fetishized objective news is the end result of a process of earlier
news, but news outlets -- at least in the absence of heavy state censorship -- have always been
very heterogeneous.
As many of you know, a big part of my dissertation covered actual fiction in newspapers.
The Count of Monte-Cristo , for example, was published in France's then equivalent of
the WSJ. It wasn't the only story about an all powerful figure with ties to Napoleon Bonaparte
that delivered justice that appeared in newspapers of the day. Every newspaper offered
competing versions, and those sold newspapers at a moment of increasing industrialization of
the press in France. But even at a time when the "news" section of the newspaper presented
largely curations of parliamentary debates, everything else ran the gamut from "fiction," to
sensational stuff (often reporting on technology or colonies), to columns to advertisements
pretending to be news.
After 1848 and 1851, the literary establishment put out alarmed calls to discipline the
literary sphere, which led to changes that made such narratives less accessible to the kind of
people who might overthrow a king. That was the "fictional narrative" panic of the time, one
justified by events of 1848.
Anyway, if you don't believe me that there has always been fake news, just go to a checkout
line and read the National Enquirer, which sometimes does cover people like Hillary Clinton or
Angela Merkel. "But people know that's fake news!" people say. Not all, and not all care. It
turns out, some people like to consume fictional narratives (I have actually yet to see
analysis of how many people don't realize or care that today's Internet fake news is not true).
In fact, everyone likes to consume fictional narratives -- it's a fundamental part of what
makes us human -- but some of us believe there are norms about whether fictional narratives
should be allowed to influence how we engage in politics.
Not that that has ever stopped people from letting religion -- a largely fictional narrative
-- dictate political decisions.
So to sum up this part of my argument: First, the history of journalism is about the history
of certain market conditions, conditions which always get at least influenced by the state, but
which in so-called capitalist countries also tend to produce bottle necks of power. In the 50s,
it was the elite. Now it's Silicon Valley. And that's true not just here! The bottle-neck of
power for much of the world is Silicon Valley. To understand what dictates the kinds of stories
you get from a particular media environment, you need to understand where the bottle-necks are.
Today's bottle-neck has created both what people like to call "fake news" and a whole bunch of
other toxins.
But also, there has never been a time in media where not-true stories didn't comingle with
true stories, and at many times in history the lines between them were not clear to many
consumers. Plus, not-true stories, of a variety of types, can often have a more powerful
influence than true ones (think about how much our national security state likes series like
24). Humans are wired for narrative, not for true or false narrative.
Which brings us to what some people are calling "fake news" -- as if both "fake" and "news"
aren't just contingent terms across the span of media -- and insisting it has never existed
before. These people suggest the advent of deliberately false narratives, produced both by
partisans, entrepreneurs gaming ad networks, as well as state actors trying to influence our
politics, narratives that feed on human proclivity for sensationalism (though stories from this
year showed Trump supporters had more of this than Hillary supporters) served via the Internet,
are a new and unique threat, and possibly the biggest threat in our media environment right
now.
Let me make clear: I do think it's a threat, especially in an era where local trusted news
is largely defunct. I think it is especially concerning because powers of the far right are
using it to great effect. But I think pretending this is a unique moment in history -- aside
from the characteristics of the marketplace -- obscures the areas (aside from funding basic
education and otherwise fostering critical thinking) that can most effectively combat it. I
especially encourage doing what we can to disrupt the bottle-neck -- one that happens to be in
Silicon Valley -- that plays on human nature. Google, Facebook, and Germany have all taken
initial steps which may limit the toxins that get spread via a very American bottle-neck.
I'm actually more worried about the manipulation of which stories get fed by big
data. Trump claims to have used it to drive down turnout; and the first he worked with is part
of a larger information management company. The far right is probably achieving more with these
tailored messages than Vladimir Putin is with his paid trolls.
The thing is: the antidote to both of these problems are to fix the
bottle-neck.
But I also think that the most damaging non-true news story of the year was Bret Baier's
claim that Hillary was going to be indicted, as even after it was retracted it magnified the
damage of Jim Comey's interventions. I always raise that in Twitter debates, and people tell me
oh that's just bad journalism not fake news. It was a deliberate manipulation of the news
delivery system (presumably by FBI Agents) in the same way the manipulation of Facebooks
algorithms feeds so-called fake news. But it had more impact because more people saw it and
people may retain news delivered as news more. It remains a cinch to manipulate the
reporter-and-editor news process (particularly in an era driven by clicks and sensationalism
and scoops), and that is at least as major a threat to democracy as non-elites consuming made
up stories about the Pope.
I'll add that there are special categories of non-factual news that deserve notice. Much
stock reporting, especially in the age of financialization, is just made up hocus pocus
designed to keep the schlubs whom the elite profit off of in the market. And much reporting on
our secret foreign policy deliberately reports stuff the reporter knows not to be true. David
Sanger's recent amnesia of his own reporting on StuxNet is a hilarious example of this, as is
all the Syria reporting that pretends we haven't intervened there. Frankly, even aside from the
more famous failures, a lot of Russian coverage obscures reality, which discredits reports on
what is a serious issue. I raise these special categories because they are the kind of non-true
news that elites endorse, and as such don't raise the alarm that Macedonian teenagers making a
buck do.
The latest panic about "fake news" -- Trump's labeling of CNN and Buzzfeed as such for
disseminating the dossier that media outlets chose not to disseminate during the election --
suffers from some of the same characteristics, largely because parts of it remain shrouded in
clandestine networks (and because the provenance remains unclear). If American power relies (as
it increasingly does) on secrets and even outright lies, who's to blame the proles for
inventing their own narratives, just like the elite do?
Two final points.
First, underlying most of this argument is an argument about what happens when you subject
the telling of true stories to certain conditions of capitalism. There is often a tension in
this process, as capitalism may make "news" (and therefore full participation in democracy)
available to more people, but to popularize that news, businesses do things that taint the
elite's idealized notion of what true story telling in a democracy should be. Furthermore, at
no moment in history I'm aware of has there been a true "open" market for news. It is always
limited by the scarcity of outlets and bandwidth, by laws, by media ownership patterns, and by
the historically contingent bottle-necks that dictate what kind of news may be delivered most
profitably. One reason I loathe the term "fake news" is because its users think the answer lies
in non-elite consumers or in producers and not in the marketplace itself, a marketplace created
in and largely still benefitting the US. If "fake news" is a problem, then it's a condemnation
of the marketplace of ideas largely created by the US and elites in the US need to attend to
that.
Finally, one reason there is such a panic about "fake news" is because the western ideology
of neoliberalism has failed. It has led to increased authoritarianism, decreased qualify of
life in developed countries (but not parts of Africa and other developing nations), and it has
led to serial destabilizing wars along with the refugee crises that further destabilize Europe.
It has failed in the same way that communism failed before it, but the elites backing it
haven't figured this out yet. I'll write more on this (Ian Welsh has been doing
good work here ). All details of the media environment aside, this has disrupted the
value-laden system in which "truth" exists, creating a great deal of panic and confusion among
the elite that expects itself to lead the way out of this morass. Part of what we're seeing in
"fake news" panic stems from that, as well as a continued disinterest in accountability for the
underlying policies -- the Iraq War and the Wall Street crash and aftermath especially --
enabled by failures in our elite media environment. But our media environment is likely to be
contested until such time as a viable ideology forms to replace failed neoliberalism. Sadly,
that ideology will be Trumpism unless the elite starts making the world a better place for
average folks. Instead, the elite is policing discourse-making by claiming other things -- the
bad true and false narratives it, itself, doesn't propagate -- as illegitimate.
"Fake news" is a problem. But it is a minor problem compared to our other discursive
problems.
I view the Main Stream Media as merely, Shopping Channels . They will sell you anything
that their advertisers pay for. A FOREIGN WAR, a new pillow, a powerful vacuum cleaner, a
CIVIL WAR, six-pack abdominals, or miracle pimple cream. If someone pays them, they will push
it.
It is a form of prostitution.
NYT and Washington Post are what is called "junk mail" . Innocent trees died .to bring you
these Great (never to be repeated) Post Christmas War Specials!!!!
'In other words, the hysteria about fake news appears to be members of the officialdom
realizing that their traditional propaganda channels don't work because too many people get
information on the Internet, and they can no longer orchestrate a Mighty Wurlitzer of unified
opinion.'
Bang on Yves. And I would add that if you run a propaganda machine, and are a little
paranoid, any 'unauthorised' story on the web looks like someone else's propaganda.
Its wrong to put all this down to internet news however. Adam Curtis' 'Bitter Lake' is a
must-see on this topic. Just like in 1980s Soviet Union where the stories of Russian
greatness were so obviously contradicted by the experience of ordinary Russians of a failing
state, the fakery of the war on terror propaganda has worn away our trust in the Mighty
Wurlitzer. Curtis linked the cultural collapse of the Soviet Union intrinsically to the
failure of the war in Afghanistan and the mirror it held up to the supposed values of Soviet
Society, as trumpeted by their version of the Mighty Wurlitzer. And maybe he's right.
1933 Germany, 1989 Sovient Union, 2016 USA. All three stemmed from failures of the Mighty
Wurlitzer. The big question is whether we will long for it back.
One for Curtis hardcore fans only (he really stretched his already tenuous hold on the
conventions of documentary making in this one) but his latest,
HyperNormalisation , takes the themes you refer to in your comment above and expands on
them to explain how we got to Fake News.
The last CEO of the company, a publicly traded company, where my dad worked before the
sale to GE told my dad that in the future companies can't go public if they don't want to
work for Wall Street wolves. This was around '95. Dad still goes to company reunions. Those
weirdos liked their jobs.
Of course, the longer trend is business formation related. The Internet and social media
booms are over, and those were the new IPOs of the last 20 years. The ends of growth are the
real issues.
I had an epiphany of sorts, at a gathering of my father's friends at a celebration of
dad's 80th birthday. These were guys he worked with (and secretaries too) for 46 years,
peddling Wrigley's various brands to the public. He was sales promotion chief, coming up from
selling boxes of Spearmint and Doublemint and Juicyfruit and "P.K.s" to little drug stores
and gas stations and general stores all over New England and New Jersey from his junky Model
A. I once said a lot of very unkind "Teenagers know everything" insults to my old man about
his lifetime investment in his company, the job-with GOOD-benefits-and-a
GREAT-defined-benefit-pension that kept mom and 3 kids fed and clothed and educated and
roofed over and all that -- though he also did a gig job, doing advertising for a bunch of
local businesses, to pay for "extras," and he and mom did pretty good with a small stake in
an investment club when the 'market" was less a rigged casino racket. Illuminating to see
things with new eyes
These people held each other in a family kind of affection, complete, of course, with
jealousies and power plays and all the usual human stuff, but with an underlying sense that
they were "A COMPANY OF MEN," and that the legal business entity was THEIR creature, not the
other way around. Even if they were busily "manufacturing demand" and making dentists happy
with all the dental damage from sugar. And they were proud of their products, which back then
were made from chicle, a natural, sort of sustainable base gum, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicle , now
supplanted by a petroeum-based "meta-product.". Wrigley was a family, privately held, then
publicly traded, regular-dividend-paying "company of men," and is now just a brand swallowed
by that post-supra-national-unnatural entity, "Mars, Inc." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrigley_Company
(My mommy told me I should never swallow my gum )
I keep hoping that somewhere in all of this, the stuff that gets discussed and nattered
about here every day, there is a clue to finding a particular butterfly wing that might be
beaten in just the right way to catalyze something in the way of "Golden Rule For All,"
trumping our ape-person predilections and heritage
This is such a lovely comment, and says so much about a time when business was a way to
develop prosperous, solid, long term relationships, rather than being used as a social cudgel
[see also: bailouts, foreclosures, strained municipal budgets, ad infinitum].
Corporate business structures and ownership need a lot more attention – I'm really
glad that Lambert is often including 'cooperatives' as one of his link categories these days,
because it's a Butterfly Wing.
I think often along the same lines. I even have spent most of my working career working
with Wrigley and Radio Flyer in prototype and marketing capacity, and the executives and
owners I have personally met are good dedicated people. Everyone is diligently working away
propagating existing products and trying to engage their creative minds to expand the
business into new markets. They are concerned about their Brand and making their business a
success. For me, it has been a successful, 30 year relationship.
But this is really the insidious dilemma we are all facing. The best intentions leading to
negative outcomes. Capitalism's evolution from small businesses providing wanted services and
commerce, to global corporations dominating the world and dictating all human activity.
I have an inkling that the butterfly wing force you allude too centers around humility.
With humility comes the ability to express unselfish love. The real important work is to tame
human ambition- to know when to say enough is enough.
I rather like Corbyn's idea of a maximum wage. Maybe even the perks of being the CEO of a
ginormous global corporation wouldn't be worth it if the salary were limited to, say, six
figures (and no stock options). Institutions that nobody wants to run don't survive
You'd need to define it as total compensation, very carefully, to include all the perks,
like the free housing, staff, etc.
I personally think we should put a "death clock" on corporate life. One of the things that
makes corporations so insidious is that they live forever. What if they couldn't? What if
they were required to dissolve completely after 50 or 100 years?
I have never read a real policy expert mention this, but it seems like it could work.
Personally, I think corporations should be banned. But I'm getting more hardcore these
days.
I don't think anybody is "fetishizing news," but whilst its true that there's a far
greater variety of information sources today, and many of them are not subject to the
pressures of conventional media, the implication that somehow the overall level of "truth"
has gone up is not sustainable. If anything it's probably gone down. Those of us of a certain
age remember a time when there were far more newspapers than today, when ownership was spread
much more widely, and where newspapers had a lot more staff and were under a lot less
commercial pressure than is the case now. You could, and did, allow for political bias, and
it was possible, though not common, for blatant untruths to be published. But that was more
difficult than it is today, because the barriers to entry were much higher, and the total
media space was much smaller.
I also think its unfair to blame the problem solely on the effects of neoliberalism, damaging
as those have been. Journalists themselves have to bear some of the blame. In the 1990s, it
became fashionable to deride objectivity (mere "objectivity, a white, patriarchal western
concept) as an objective of journalism. Because total objectivity was impossible, it was
said, you shouldn't even try. And as a number of journalists at the time argued "you can't be
objective between good and evil." The same people who lied about WMD in Iraq in 2002 had
already lied about Bosnia a decade before, were to lie about Darfur a few years later and are
busy lying about Syria, the Ukraine and "free trade" today. In each case, the argument is the
same: the service of a higher moral principle. I've even heard it argued that Trump is such a
terrible human being that journalists have not only a right but an actual duty to print
anything that might cause him harm. To the extent that you abandon the demand that
journalists should do their professional best to be as accurate as possible, and you see
"news" itself as a contested, contingent term, it's hard to rationally criticise the actors
in any of these episodes.
You mean you don't know? Or is this just drive-by impeachment? Or an honest question?
Seeing the difficulty -- nothing can be trusted to be honest or even to be what it seems,
motives are hidden, and we all know in our hearts that SOMEBODY is benefiting from all the
manipulation and manufacturing of consent and demand, and yet we mopes don't want to line up
and insist that what we vaguely and vacuously imagine to be the "general welfare" must be
served, above all, first and foremost, save the planet and all that.
Very briefly, 75% of the media coverage of Bosnia (and about 90% of that concerning
Kosovo) was either inexcusably incompetent or simply untrue. This continued until at least
the late 90s, and I was one of those who had to deal with the practical consequences. There
are any number of representative stories, but as one TV reporter told the then UN Commander
in Bosnia "my job isn't to report the truth, it's to get the West into the war." For Darfur,
well, read Mahmood Mamdani's book on the subject. But the point is less the technical
failings, important though they are, than the kind of attitude typified by the BBC's Martin
Bell, when he spoke of the "journalism of attachment" – i.e. propaganda in favour of
the side you support. Nice as it would be to blame everything on the rich and powerful (and
heaven knows they bear enough of the blame) journalists, and those who put quotes round
"objectivity" have done a lot to prepare the ground for them. And governments, not being
stupid, have realised that they can manipulate journalists and NGOs with human rights
rhetoric into supporting almost any initiative no matter how cynical. Kosovo was perhaps the
first example where the media allowed itself to be shamelessly manipulated in this fashion,
and I suppose Libya is the currently topical one. I do wish people would stop giving presents
to the Right.
and manipulate "journalists" by "embedding" them (getting them in bed with, "Good Embed:
How the White House and Pentagon improved favorability of coverage through embedding
journalists," http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1307&context=apme
?), and for a "more objective" well-massaged discussion, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embedded_journalism
, with the Troops who are sent to foreign formerly sovereign lands to attack and demolish and
intimidate and control the assets, asses, and resources "our" rulers have an eye for. All "in
the national interest," of course. And all cynically "embedded" to ensure that "the story'
that the command structure wants to tell (like Pat Tillman, "Heroically Bravely killed by
hostile fire," instead of by "friendly fire" in just another futile "patrol" into the
Graveyard of Empires terrain )
So "we" go to Iraq or Notagainistan or Syria or Libya with the clear plan to send troops
out on patrol to drive or walk over IEDs and "draw fire" and play Sitting Duck at variously
and idiotically sited Forward Bases and Outposts, to take casualties, which then creates the
momentum for "getting our own back" because how dare those Wogs and Hajjis resist the
irresistible might and honor of the fokking Greatest Military Machine On The Planet? and "we"
were just protecting women and children, or "invited in" by the central government that has
zero nationwide authority or control and no guiding principle but graft and greed but plenty
of corruption, or "democratizing," or some such sh!t
I think you have put your finger on it. The issue is not that there has always been fake
news but that certain segments of the current news media pretend to be neutral arbiters of
"the facts" and therefore of a higher status. Since these "respectable" outlets now have so
little competition in their markets they can print what they like with little fear of
contradiction from competitors. There is pushback from the internet but the vast majority of
the public get their news from cable or network television which enjoys similar "barriers to
entry" that help keep away competitors.
Perhaps Walter Cronkite–"the most trusted man in America"–is to blame on some
level since he was a leading exponent of the cult of objectivity. He said that the only thing
journalists have to sell is their credibility. However it subsequently turned out that they
had plenty of other things to sell such as infotainment. At the tail end of the Cronkite era
the movie Network predicted this quite well.
Still whatever his failings I believe we can look back with some nostalgia at Cronkite and
his notions of integrity. Lots of people still read the news because they want the truth
rather than escapism. It's why some of us are reading this very website. The current MSM has
plenty of self-importance–integrity not so much.
And now we got Roland Hedley, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_Hedley
, pete and re-pete-ed ad nauseam. (I think Trudeau has too much of his old man in him, and
has lost his voice and wisdom in a flare of Hillaritis Maybe some steroids would suppress the
inflammation )
Cronkite was a man of his times.
Back in the 50s and 60s, in terms of science and general worldview, people believed in the
idea of 'objectivity', which was IIRC originally rooted in the physics of the early 20th
c.
I think the more important point is that he did value his integrity. However, he operated
in an environment when CBS was making truckloads of money, and people were generally home by
6:30 to turn on the news.
Perhaps 50 years ago it was easier to identify fake news or as it was called back then
propaganda. And back then the issue was that unless you lived near the Canadian border you
got only the big three version of the news, Near the border you could get Canadian news. (It
appeared that there were two wars in Vietnam at the time one reported by US news and one by
the Canadian news. Of course unless one had a shortwave radio one could not get the BBC,
while Radio Moscow was easy to receive on shortwave. In Mi at least Radio Peking was hard to
receive however. But back then we had the grocery store news rags and one learned quickly to
consider the source when getting news.
Hey David, you may be overstating the mainstreaming of the fetishization of "objectivity"
in U.S. corporate-captured journalism. Or, at least in the better Media Studies and J-School
programs.
Going way back to early pioneers of investigative journalism like George Seldes up to
today's Seldes-influenced mass mediated news and views deconstructionists like Norman Solomon
and the late lamented popularizer in Boston, Danny "The Media Dissector" Schechter there has
been a struggle to distinguish between "objective" reportage and "fair" reportage. "Balanced"
is really pushing this noble if utopian pursuit of best practices guiding hacks and their
editors and the payroll-concerned bean-counters higher up.
With the advent of High Tech and the deluge of competing content streams, I've found it
therapeutic to return regularly to an early oracle of the shifting paradigm of gate-keepers
regulating a well-informed body politic and electorate, namely Neil Postman's 1984 book
AMUSING OURSELVES TO DEATH . Especially Postman's succinct page and a half referential
FOREWARD. Now there is a formative scripture or holy writ pre-sage-ing the DATA\CONTENT
SWAMP.
Mitch Ritter\Non-Aligned Paradigm Shifters
Lay-Low Studios, Ore-Wa
Media Discussion List
Interesting essay I am not mollified by reading that Google, Facebook and Germany are
uniting to defeat 'fake news' and then remembering the recent rumors (fake news?) that Mark
Zuckerberg, of Facebook, is considering running for President so what happens when the
bottle-neck king also runs the nation, or is even just thinking of it (Zuckerberg finding God
recently comes to mind), when most voters are getting their news from their Facebook news
feeds ? Would something mildly critical of Mark Zuckerberg survive 'fake' news review ?
Also, just because China has a walled garden doesn't save them from a torrent of local
fake news. In the US the current business model of the internet news is actually a greater
danger to democracy and that is the automated binning of consumers into narrow categories
(right, left, techie etc) from which they find it hard to stray, if they even think of it,
and so it makes it hard for a reader to see in his newsfeed countervailing news or analysis,
people thus get polarized. The effort to find different/opposing opinions is not painless and
quite by design. This trap has to be broken.
Quality education of the population and freer access to information are greater defenses
of democracy and freedom the any Facebook designed filter.
great essay. Makes me think there is some bedrock reality beneath all the noise that keeps
us rational enough to survive. All forms of life display good judgment; practicality. So do
we. So I'm not very concerned that we might be pants-less without an ideology to shroud all
the embarrassing craziness. I'm encouraged by that prospect.
Sheep get slaughtered I choose not to be a sheep. I had no choice in the 60s, when I had
three oligopoly networks to choose from. With the Internet, I am my own reporter. This is
more like how the printing press destroyed the Catholic Church. I make my own narrative, I
don't let anyone else do it for me. Facts are few and far between, but they are just
signposts on my own superhighway which I build myself. Are my beliefs factual? Are they for
anyone? That was a rhetorical question. People who think their beliefs are The Truth are
maniacs.
As I pointed out even in the 1960s one could buy a shortwave radio and get the BBC and
Radio Canada International, for a different slant on news than the US media. It might have
cost 50 to 60 to get such a radio back then but if you wanted a different view you could get
it. It was just harder to get non us sources of news back then.
This whole "fake news" business is all about suppressing dissent, as others have
noted.
The media tried to coronate Clinton. With falling advertising revenues in some cases, and
decreasing trust in the mainstream media, they have begun to panic. They know that the people
realize that they are the Pravda of plutocracy.
At the same time, the alternative media has grown with the Internet. It has reached
growing members and allowed people to see the truth.
The reason why propaganda like "fake news" exists is to create a false narrative that can
be repeated that people can believe in. The other of course is to force people to comply or
face professional and financial consequences.
The thing is, I think that we've reached the limits of propaganda. Inequality has reached
an extent that the myth that America is a meritocracy has failed, while efforts to force the
American people to accept war have been faced with opposition.
Exactly. Fox News has been the leader in opinion disguised as news. Sadly, it doesn't even
matter to most people. Fox rightly concluded that people do not want the truth, they want
their biases confirmed and if you can confirm biases in a way that makes someone feel
superior, you can sell a lot of advertising.
You cannot fix stupid, nor can you fix people wanting their biases confirmed by any means
possible (true or not).
But if you go back to the early 19th century fake news was all that was to be had.
Newspapers were owned by political parties and reported as they desired. This changed when
the cost to enter the newspaper business went up with the steam powered press. Then you had a
restricted set of tv stations. The newspapers established the UPI and AP to share their view
of the news also. With the rise of cable and the internet the barriers to entry in the news
business have been lowered to the level of the early 19th century at least.
To give a concrete example a bit later in the 19th century in towns in Indiana at least there
were papers that were known as republican or democrat. Back then you took the paper that
confirmed your political biases.
What is unsurprising is that the media does signal what the insiders want/plan to do.
I was in a library that had some old bound Life Magazines and decided to see what the Life
covered just prior to the December 7, 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor.
There was an article about a Midwest congressmen who was visiting his district, who knew
his constituents did not want to go to war, but seemed to see the US entry into war
likely.
Even Hollywood got into the act, as the Sergeant York (American WWI hero) 1941 movie was
released on July 2, 1941, well before Pearl Harbor.
There seems to be little penalty for journalists getting it wrong, for example Tom
Friedman, Nicholas Kristof, and Michael Gordon of the Times still have jobs after their
"let's promote the Iraq War effort".
Judith Miller was the lone sacrificial lamb.
Some of them even re-write history, as sanctimonious Nicholas Kristof, while recently
pimping for the USA's involvement in Syria (on humanitarian grounds, of course), pushed a
"trust me on Syria" story by asserting his prior wisdom in his alleged strong opposition to
the Iraq war.
Yet I archived an August 27, 2002 column in which he wrote:
"Iraq may well be different. President Bush has convinced me that there is no
philosophical reason we should not overthrow the Iraqi government, given that Iraqis
themselves would be better off, along with the rest of the world. But Mr. Bush has not
overcome some practical concerns about an invasion."
What about ethical concerns, Kristof?
I believe it was Chomsky who said that the print media has content and filler, the content
is the advertising and the filler is everything else.
As advertising revenues have gone down, the print media may be looking for a new operating
funds, maybe from wealthy owners (Bezos, Carlos Slim) paying for their views to be featured,
maybe from US government hidden funding to "counter fake news" that is contrary to the story
the elite wants told.
If there is a feedback loop in the mainstream media, it is very slow and does not correct
errors to result in lasting reform.
The Times promoted the Iraq war and then had the Bill Keller retrospective "we got it
wrong" years later.
Then the Times moved onto promoting military action in Libya, the Ukraine and Syria.
The Times recently had an "Obama regrets Libya" retrospective, what other "we got it
wrong" retrospectives will occur in the future?
As far as "the government" funding fake news and fake culture and the generation of memes
and such, there's Operation Mockingbird, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird
. And of course the whole long arm and perversion under this grand program, "The CIA and the
Cultural Cold War," http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/CIAcultCW.pdf
, that went for a song compared to the current efforts to enforce "US" imperial hegemony
(especially when all the externalities, beyond coups and military adventures and the MIC and
environmental destruction and all those deaths and demolished landscapes, are toted up. But
then externalities get counted toward the WDP (World Domestic Product), right? Isn't that
inherent in the Grand Notion of Creative Destruction?
In the third paragraph Marcy begins talking about objectivity and then shifts to
denigrating "objectivity" without a word about what the scare quotes mean to her. Now I
understand that the language used by an oppressive system can itself be oppressive. But if
"objectivity" omitted women and people of color, well, clearly that's bad, but what does that
have to do with objectivity?
Maybe I'm just too old and out of touch to get the post modern project to dismantle
objectivity and replace it with self-centered wishful thinking. But without objectivity, we
would never have seen the civil rights movement or the rise of feminism in the sixties.
I was still very young during the civil rights movement so I won't talk about what I don't
really know first hand, but the rise of feminism took place in the prime of my passionate
youth. What many middle class women were experiencing in the '50s was a complete isolation in
the suburbs and a feeling (due largely to rampant blaming the victim) that all the problems
of their lives were their own personal problems. It was not until politically active women
began to share their experiences in consciousness raising groups that they discovered that
they were not alone in their experiences i.e. that many of their so-called personal problems
were objectively imposed upon the entire group of women by the oppressive society.
That is, these were not personal problems at all, they were socially constructed problems
that effected all women to some degree. Without objectivity there could be no oppression
theory, consciousness raising groups are transformed into support groups, oppression theory
becomes psychology, and the oppression of women is dissolved into nothing more than the
personal problems of individual women. Don't throw out the baby with the bath water.
Yah, women should be proud of where the rise of feminism has taken them -- to supporting
Hillary (or going to a special place in hell,) to the "right" to join the Marines as they
kick in doors in Kandahar and turn tribespeople into pink mist and body parts who would not
pose a threat to THEIR sacred female bodies, or our Imperial trooopers of the Y-chromosome
defect either, if said tribespeople (including women and children) were just left to their
own devices. Victoria Nuland. Etc.
And for all that, women still face vast health cruelties in over half the states in this
great land, and the ladies of high credentials go to the workout spas and get their toenails
trimmed and painted, and in the room they come and go, talking of Michelangelo and the best
new restaurants While their sisters are screwed out of medical services. For jeebus sake,
women are what, 52% of the voting population? Why not all get together on the big issues?
Wait wait don't tell me
Propaganda, as Yves points out, is the point to be stressed. The MSM are being used by
powerful elites to support their agenda which remains hidden but is motivated by the
insatiable desire for more wealth and/or power and/or attention. That is the same motivation
of many media owners and journalists, ethics be damned, and it inevitably leads to
conflict.
This is my take-away: "If American power relies (as it increasingly does) on secrets and
even outright lies, who's to blame the proles for inventing their own narratives, just like
the elite do?"
If feudalism ended with the invention of firearms, which greatly equalized the
distribution of power between proles and the elite, then the internet/printing press
situation seems analogous and points to big changes coming.
Agree that we are in a process of changes larger than any of us can really grasp.
The dustup over 'fake news' is one symptom of profound social distress as the failures of
neoliberalism continue to unfold.
The Creel Committee was able to turn America from being firmly pacifist to being eager
to fight the evil Germans in a mere 18 months.
I doubt propaganda convinced many Americans of Irish or German descent to support the war.
Similarly the pacifists and anti-imperialists wouldn't be moved by hysterical propaganda.
Consider how much domestic repression followed America's entry into the war. This included
the mass jailing of the anti-war crowd, over 2000 Espionage/Sedition Act convictions,
persecution of German-American individuals and the banning of their organizations, and
finally the scourge of "liberty cabbage".
Merely a prelude to the Red Scare and the repression that would follow. But hey, the
war-profiteering and politically connected DuPont family was owed over a billion dollars in
1917 money and if the Allies lost they wouldn't get it back which is so unfair!
Look for American Protective League. Wikipedia refers to vigilantees.
"Unsafe for Democracy" has a chapter on vigilantism.
In "Living My Life" Emma Goldman relates the effects of vigilantism.
Ouch! Please, please write English! Even good commentary can be harmed by bad writing. You
want people to think about the content of what you say, not how you said it.
The thing is: the antidote to both of these problems are to fix the bottle-neck.
Is not are! The antidote, singular, is, singular, to fix The adjectival
prepositional phrase is irrelevant to the number of the verb.
I will now go back and try to pick up the thread of what I was reading.
One of the quirks of the English language is the requirement that English verbs must show
a number (either one or more than one, known in grammarian circles as singular or plural).
Now this number refers to the number associated with the word that is directly linked to the
verb. (Remember, students, the verb has other word(s) linked to it, the purpose of which is
to show who or what does the action of the verb. This / these words are
known in grammarian circles as the subject of the sentence or clause. Clause ?? Don't
ask.).
So, for the example cited:
the antidote to both of these problems are to fix the bottle-neck
the verb 'are' suggests a 'more than one person or thing' number for the words linked to
the verb.
Ok, so what are those words? 'the antidote to both of these problems' are those words.
Got it. But which word here is the true subject: 'antidote' (singular) or problems
(plural)? Grammarians argue that 'antidote' is the true subject. And they are right. (It's
always best not to argue with grammarians – they are touchy since their patron saint,
William Safire, passed away). So, due to the quirks of English verbs and nouns, literate
English speaking people consider it proper to say:
'the antidote to both of these problems is to fix the bottle-neck'.
There will be a quiz later, students. Thank you for your attention.
So fake news has always been with us and the truth is always hard to know.
Nothing really new there.
I think that the real story behind fake news is that it is an equalizer between people who
may actually know something and people who don't. That plays out every day in financial
markets and algorithms for stock trading based on news and fake news – but the real
casualty is science.
People with no knowledge of science (or medicine for that matter) can flood the available
news with so much nonsense that scientific consensus becomes public debate based on whatever
feels good and matches ideology.
This is a threat to both literacy and civilization.
: In other words, the hysteria about fake news appears to be members of the officialdom
realizing that their traditional propaganda channels don't work because too many people get
information on the Internet, and they can no longer orchestrate a Mighty Wurlitzer of unified
opinion.
Let me quote Jalen here (conversation starts at
29:27):
: Wanna trust the media, can't trust the media Now the media just want hot takes. Now the
media just wants it first. I Must Break A Story.
The game has changed. The idea was that content drove the story, people followed the news
which followed the event. But now the technique of the story driving the content has been
institutionalized at a systemic level. Not only is the top-down approach cracking, the open
source nature of content creation can pop up anywhere, like an information version of a
gunman in a nightclub.
So O'Keefe was
allegedly trying to hire people to riot, the logical extension of the Rent-a-Mob tactic
exposed this election cycle. Well, it does help to be on the spot to film the riot if you
know where it's going down. Spiderman did it and no one complains about that.
The logical action of Wurlizter Maintenance could be to jump on board with more noise to
try to swamp the signal, since they can't stop the signal. That's not inconsistent with Adam
Curtis' hypotheses. And the smart people will know who to read, the new words from the
innovative sources to construct the social narrative necessary to maintain credibility beyond
credentials.
It is clear from the delightfully well-informed reader comments above mine that there is
little need for me to point out that any summary of official and gray-area state propaganda
in the U.S., focusing specifically on mass media usage within the rubric of "FREE MARKET"
fundamentalism and as studied by scholars from various academic disciplines in other national
systems begins as Yves notes in the early 20th Century. Generally U.S. systems of
indoctrination via media market tools starts with the birth of the PR industry and Freud's
American nephew and Advertising Industry pioneer Edward Bernays.
I took an interest in the nexus between government contracts and the creation of entire
academic disciplines such as Area Studies and Communication Studies , pursuing independently
and often in collaboration with others writing and producing works that dovetail nicely with
what another reader comment brilliantly links to the BBC archive narrative docs and film
collages of Adam Curtis .
I tended to work with community radio stations after my own Mass Communications\Journalism
studies at U.C.-Berkeley in the early 1980's and thereafter as a contributor to what was
perhaps overly optimistically referred to as the Alternative Press. We produced recorded and
re-broadcast Town Hall meetings, panel discussions and various public forums studying and
attempting to popularize inter-disciplinary ongoing analysis and discussion of state and
market systems of indoctrination and propaganda. (Usually for pledge break fundraising
purposes offered as premiums on listener-supported radio like the Pacifica Radio network and
KBOO in Portland, Ore along with some more adventurous college broadcasters).
Two very important streams of this research and popularization spring from the work of
early French media critic Jacques Ellul (PROPAGANDA) and American U. Communications Professor
Christoper Simpson (SCIENCE OF COERCION, UNIVERSITY & EMPIRE) whose editions of books
tracking government contracting of academics and use of universities is seminal. Like Noam
Chomsky's work i.e. NECESSARY ILLUSIONS, MANUFACTURING CONSENT and the MIT Linguistic Prof's
collaborations with UPenn's Wharton School of Econ Prof Edward Herman like AMERICAN POWER AND
THE NEW MANDARINS is intended to be easily accessible to non-academics with no specialized
education encouraging wider participation and furthering of independent study. https://www.amazon.com/review/R34RBX6UFL8W17
Robert McChesney and his partner in the study of early U.S. attempts to insulate from
Market Forces and the Tyranny of Popularity (advertiser-driven lowest common denominator
programming) slim broadcast spectrum for educational purposes and the discussion and
dissemination of news and public affairs programming should also be forced into any
curriculum that in my own mind should include mandatory primary and high school courses in a
new discipline we could call MEDIA SAVVY. Like a mandatory primary and high school course in
COMPARATIVE RELIGION the pay-off in reviving a healthier body politic would be immediate if
humiliating to the titans of advertiser-driven broadcasting and narrow-casting.
One additional and largely overlooked contribution to what we know about government
contracting on university campuses pursuing objectives that could now in international law
qualify as crimes against humanity is the first-person narrative of former Canadian diplomat
and U.C.-Berkeley Comp Lit Professor Emeritus Peter Dale Scott's book-length poem COMING TO
JAKARTA which serves as an academic's confession of conscience and testimony into what was
observed of colleagues who took entrepreneurial approaches to government-funded research.
Such historical context renders Steve Bannon a piker in guiding the direction of BREITBART
MEDIA and now the TRUMP TEAM SWAMP's CroNeo-Lib\Con Cabinet that so resembles a CORPORATE
CALIPHATE like nothing since the Nixon era LEWIS POWELL MEMO with its attendant elevation of
LEWIS POWELL to the U.S. Supreme Court despite his lack of judicial experience.
As Scott's COMING TO JAKARTA artfully illustrates and as the work of Ellul,
Chomsky-Herman, Simpson and McChesney-Nichols more conventionally essays, some very low
profile and tweedy (often socially liberal) Area Studies scholars pioneered what we now refer
to as Neo-Liberal Privatization of Public Policy and Geo-Political entanglements. Often
acting in concert with and parallel to government's role as global market-maker.
Entrepreneurial educators laboring on academic contracts for the U.S. National Security State
and its various agencies dating back decades to the Dulles Brothers own Regime Change On
Demand administrations and Daddy Warbucks-style geo-politicking. An opaque nexus between the
pursuit of privatized profit-maximizing\liability limiting Corporate Interests and tax-payer
funded academic research designed to serve the PUBLIC INTEREST flips most of the conventional
wisdom that frames our mass mediated view of the daily if not hourly shredding of the SOCIAL
CONTRACT and the progress of other nation\states who have made efforts to insulate Public
Education and MASS MEDIA from MARKET FORCES and PRESSURES.
Peter Dale Scott's glimpse of Washington and the contracted 'Berkeley Economic Mafia'
on-the-ground role in subverting the main message of the MIGHTY WURLITZER during the Cold War
(namely Centrally planned command economies are commie and evil, while FREE MARKET
demand-driven economies are virtuous) is germane to understanding how we got here. 'Here'
being a place where every day in every way the built-in contradictions of our government's
widely disseminated core values (that are used to vet our Public Servants a la the ultimate
litmus test) like increasing competition, access to quality education, facilitating upward
social mobility and stabilizing while expanding the key middle\working class all flock home
to roost.
Keep on doing,
Mitch Ritter
Lay-Low Studios, Ore-Wa
Media Discussion List
Obviously I did not live in the era of yellow journalism, but I tend to think that we were
better off with cities that had four or five yellow journalistic rags than a city with one
objective newspaper or a nation or world with dozens of objective media sites all putting out
the same, safe audience tested, investor tested nonsense.
With an "objective" newspaper, given the human processes that create it, who knows what
the truth is?
With three or four yellow papers, where I know that's a right wing paper, and that's a
left wing, that's a communist, that's an investor's. Well, knowing their biases, I can
correct for them to a much greater extent.
If Mick Lasalle reviews a movie and dislikes it, if Gene Siskel reviewed a movie and
disliked it, I knew I would like that movie. I can trust their reviews. The two have
integrity, and are precise, and are precisely wrong, and I know how and in which ways and how
to adjust their statements to make them accurate and reflect reality.
When I read a story at the nytimes, and at wapo and at huffpo and see how it's really the
same journalists echoing each other, out of laziness, incompetence, and a search of clicks
and karma, well, I have no idea what to believe. But it's probably not what they said!
But Marcy, come on, Salon? They became the problem. Your writing there makes you
complicit.
Does anyone else find it more than a little curious that Marcy's piece – not to be
confused with Yves' introduction thereof – does not use the word 'propaganda' even
once?
Also, amid the "there has always been 'fake news'" theme it would have been nice to see a
discussion of the level of MSM propaganda and going
all-in-for-one-candidate-who-does-not-threaten-to-break-their-rice-bowls to previous election
cycles. Because I (a 50something) found the blatancy of the MSM lying and propagandizing this
time around to be quite unprecedented. First they alternately ignored and smeared Bernie in
order to help the corrupt Dem establishment rig the primary process, then they turned their
full-time smear machine on Trump. And it was only through a remarkable, historic combination
of a brash billionaire outsider who managed to tap into widespread discontent in
normally-ignored rust belt and flyover country states and convince large numbers of folks
there that he actually gave a rat's ass about their immiseration at the hands of the 'Davos
Man' global looter elite that the MSM campaign to manufacture consensus failed this time
around. Nonetheless, they and their narrative providers in the Deep State are still busily at
it, trying very hard to deligitimize and bully the incoming administration. Again, none of
these are phenomena without precedent, but I find the unabashedness of the effort, and the
zeal of the MSM and the defeated Dem partisans to abet what is nothing short of an attempt at
a soft coup, without precedent.
In that light I find Marcy's bit about "It is true that during a period of elite
consensus, news that we treated as objective succeeded in creating a unifying national
narrative of what most white people believed to be true, and that narrative was tremendously
valuable to ensure the working of our democracy" to be more than a little ironic. Because the
narrative the insiders are trying to foist on us this time around has motives that could not
be more undemocratic.
I read Marcy's coverage of the Libby trial years ago. I considered her reporting
'objective news', in a sea of distortions by MSM. Her reporting helped to open my eyes to how
the MSM operates.
I am confused by her above article, and what she means by "objective".
"... Britain must surely be in the running for many reasons: among others, the sheer disaster that is Theresa May's government (and the various clowns and thuggish goons that constitute her Cabinet), the Brexit mess, the Skripal poisoning circus, Britain's own collapse in controlling the propaganda narrative on Syria and the revelations about Integrity Initiative and the Institute of Statecraft, and their ties to the British military establishment. ..."
If Syria wins the award for Country of the Year 2018, I'd hate to see who gets the Wooden
Spoon for 2018. There must be quite a few serious contenders for that prize!
Britain must surely be in the running for many reasons: among others, the sheer
disaster that is Theresa May's government (and the various clowns and thuggish goons that
constitute her Cabinet), the Brexit mess, the Skripal poisoning circus, Britain's own
collapse in controlling the propaganda narrative on Syria and the revelations about Integrity
Initiative and the Institute of Statecraft, and their ties to the British military
establishment.
Is this shadow of Integrity Initiative in the USA ? This false flag open the possibility that other similar events like
DNC (with very questionable investigation by Crowdstrike, which was a perfect venue to implement a false flag; cybersecurity area is
the perfect environment for planting false flags), MH17 (might be an incident but later it definitely was played as a false flag), Skripals
(Was Skripals poisoning a false flag decided to hide the fact that Sergey Skripal was involved in writing Steele dossier?) and Litvinenko
(probably connected with lack of safety measures in the process of smuggling of Plutonium by Litvinenko himself, but later played a
a false flag). All of those now should be re-assessed from the their potential of being yet another flag flag operation
against Russia. While Browder was a MI6 operation from the very beginning (and that explains
why he abdicated the US citizenship more convincingly that the desire to avoid taxes) .
Notable quotes:
"... Democratic operative Jonathon Morgan - bankrolled by LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman, pulled a Russian bot "false flag" operation against GOP candidate Roy Moore in the Alabama special election last year - creating thousands of fake social media accounts designed to influence voters . Hoffman has since apologized, while Morgan was suspended by Facebook for "coordinated inauthentic" behavior. ..."
"... Really the bigger story is here is that these guys convincingly pretended to be Russian Bots in order to influence an election (not with the message being put forth by the bots, but by their sheer existence as apparent supporters of the Moore campaign). ..."
"... By all appearances, they were Russian bots trying to influence the election. Now we know it was DNC operatives. Yet we are supposed to believe without any proof that the "Russian bots" that supposedly influenced the 2016 Presidential election were, actually, Russian bots, and worthy of a two year long probe about "Russian collusion" and "Russian meddling." ..."
"... The whole thing is probably a farce, not only in the sense that there is no evidence that Russia had any influence at all on a single voter, but also in the sense that there is no evidence that Russia even tried (just claims and allegations by people who have a vested interest in convincing us its true). ..."
For over two years now, the concepts of "Russian collusion" and "Russian election meddling" have been shoved down our throats
by the mainstream media (MSM) under the guise of legitimate concern that the Kremlin may have installed a puppet president in Donald
Trump.
Having no evidence of collusion aside from a largely unverified opposition-research dossier fabricated by a former British spy,
the focus shifted from "collusion" to "meddling" and "influence." In other words, maybe Trump didn't actually collude with Putin,
but the Kremlin used Russian tricks to influence the election in Trump's favor. To some, this looked like nothing more than an establishment
scheme to cast a permanent spectre of doubt over the legitimacy of President Donald J. Trump.
Election meddling "Russian bots" and "troll farms" became the central focus - as claims were levied of social media operations
conducted by Kremlin-linked organizations which sought to influence and divide certain segments of America.
And while scant evidence of a Russian influence operation exists outside of a handful of indictments connected to a St. Petersburg
"Troll farm" (which a liberal journalist
cast serious doubt ov er), the MSM - with all of their proselytizing over the "threat to democracy" that election meddling poses,
has largely decided to ignore actual evidence of "Russian bots" created by Democrat IT experts, used against a GOP candidate in the
Alabama special election, and amplified through the Russian bot-detecting "Hamilton 68" dashboard developed by the same IT experts.
Democratic operative Jonathon Morgan - bankrolled by LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman, pulled a Russian bot "false flag" operation
against GOP candidate Roy Moore in the Alabama special election last year - creating thousands of fake social media accounts designed
to influence voters . Hoffman has since apologized, while Morgan was suspended by Facebook for "coordinated inauthentic" behavior.
As Russian state-owned RT puts
it - and who could blame them for being a bit pissed over the whole thing, "it turns out there really was meddling in American democracy
by "Russian bots." Except they weren't run from Moscow or St. Petersburg, but from the offices of Democrat operatives chiefly responsible
for creating and amplifying the "Russiagate" hysteria over the past two years in a textbook case of psychological projection. "
A week before Christmas, the Senate Intelligence Committee released a report accusing Russia of depressing Democrat voter turnout
by targeting African-Americans on social media. Its authors, New Knowledge, quickly became a household name.
Described by the
New York Times
as a group of "tech specialists who lean Democratic," New Knowledge has ties to both the US military and intelligence agencies.
Its CEO and co-founder Jonathon Morgan previously worked for DARPA, the US military's advanced research agenc y. His partner,
Ryan Fox, is a 15-year veteran of the National Security Agency who also worked as a computer analyst for the Joint Special Operations
Command (JSOC). Their unique skill sets have managed to attract the eye of investors, who pumped $11 million into the company
in 2018 alone.
...
On December 19, a New York Times story revealed that Morgan and his crew had created a fake army of Russian bots, as well as
fake Facebook groups, in order to discredit Republican candidate Roy Moore in Alabama's 2017 special election for the US Senate.
Working on behalf of the Democrats, Morgan and his crew created an estimated 1,000 fake Twitter accounts with Russian names,
and had them follow Moore. They also operated several Facebook pages where they posed as Alabama conservatives who wanted like-minded
voters to support a write-in candidate instead.
In an internal memo, New Knowledge boasted that it had "orchestrated an elaborate 'false flag' operation that planted the idea
that the Moore campaign was amplified on social media by a Russian botnet."
It worked. The botnet claim made a splash on social media and was further amplified by Mother Jones, which based its story
on expert opinion from Morgan's other dubious creation, Hamilton 68. -
RT
Moore ended up losing the Alabama special election by a slim margin of just
In other words: In November 2017 – when Moore and his Democratic opponent were in a bitter fight to win over voters – Morgan
openly promoted the theory that Russian bots were supporting Moore's campaign . A year later – after being caught red-handed orchestrating
a self-described "false flag" operation – Morgan now says that his team never thought that the bots were Russian and have no idea
what their purpose was . Did he think no one would notice? -
RT
Disinformation warrior @ jonathonmorgan attempts to control
damage by lying. He now claims the "false flag operation" never took place and the botnet he promoted as Russian-linked (based
on phony Hamilton68 Russian troll tracker he developed) wasn't Russian https://www.
newknowledge.com/blog/about-ala bama
Even more strange is that Scott Shane - the journalist who wrote the New York Times piece exposing the Alabama "Russian bot" scheme,
knew about it for months after speaking at an event where the organizers bragged about the false flag on Moore .
Shane was one of the speakers at a meeting in September, organized by American Engagement Technologies, a group run by Mikey
Dickerson, President Barack Obama's former tech czar. Dickerson explained how AET spent $100,000 on New Knowledge's campaign to
suppress Republican votes, " enrage" Democrats to boost turnout, and execute a "false flag" to hrt Moore. He dubbed it "Project
Birmingham." - RT
Shane told BuzzFeed that he was "shocked" by the revelations, though hid behind a nondisclosure agreement at the request of American
Engagement Technologies (AET). He instead chose to spin the New Knowledge "false flag" operation on Moore as "limited Russian tactics"
which were part of an "experiment" that had a budget of "only" $100,000 - and which had no effect on the election.
New Knowledge suggested that the false flag operation was simply a "research project," which Morgan suggested was designed "to
better understand and report on the tactics and effects of social media disinformation."
While the New York Times seemed satisfied with his explanation, others pointed out that Morgan had used the Hamilton 68 dashboard
to give his "false flag" more credibility – misleading the public about a "Russian" influence campaign that he knew was fake.
New Knowledge's protestations apparently didn't convince Facebook, which
announced last week that five
accounts linked to New Knowledge – including Morgan's – had been suspended for engaging in "coordinated inauthentic behavior."
- RT
They knew exactly what they were doing
While Morgan and New Knowledge sought to frame the "Project Birmingham" as a simple research project, a leaked copy of the operation's
after-action report reveals that they knew exactly what they were doing .
"We targeted 650,000 like AL voters, with a combination of persona accounts, astroturfing, automated social media amplification
and targeted advertising," reads the report published by entrepreneur and executive coach Jeff Giesea.
The rhetorical question remains, why did the MSM drop this election meddling story like a hot rock after the initial headlines
faded away?
criminal election meddling, but then who the **** is going to click on some morons tactic and switch votes?
anyone basing any funding, whether it is number of facebook hits or attempted mind games by egotistical cuck soyboys needs a serious
psychological examination. fake news is fake BECAUSE IT ISNT REAL AND DOES NOT MATTER TO ANYONE but those living in the excited misery
of their tiny bubble world safe spaces. SOCIAL MEDIA IS A CON AND IS NOT IMPORTANT OR RELEVANT TO ANYONE.
far more serious is destroying ballots, writing in ballots without consent, bussing voters around to vote multiple times in different
districts, registering dead voters and imperosnating the corpses, withholding votes until deadlines pass - making them invalid.
Herdee , 10 minutes ago
NATO on behalf of the Washington politicians uses the same bullsh*t propaganda for continual war.
Mugabe , 20 minutes ago
Yup "PROJECTION"...
Yippie21 , 21 minutes ago
None of this even touches on the 501c3 or whatever that was set up , concerned Alabama voters or somesuch, and was funneled
a **** load of money to be found to be in violation of the law AFTER the election and then it all just disappeared. Nothing to
see here folks, Democrat won, let's move on. There was a LOT of " tests " for the smart-set in that election and it all worked.
We saw a bunch of it used in 2018, especially in Texas with Beto and down-ballot races. Democrats cleaned up like crazy in Texas,
especially in Houston.
2020 is going to be a hot mess. And the press is in on it, and even if illegal or unseemly things are done, as long as Democrats
win, all good... let's move on. Crazy.
LetThemEatRand , 21 minutes ago
The fact that MSM is not covering this story -- which is so big it truly raises major questions about the entire Russiagate
conspiracy including why Mueller was appointed in the first place -- is proof that they have no interest in journalism or the
truth and that they are 100% agenda driven liars. Not that we needed more proof, but there it is anyway.
Oldguy05 , 19 minutes ago
Dimz corruption is a nogo. Now if it were conservatives.......
CosineCosineCosine , 23 minutes ago
I'm not a huge fan, but Jimmy Dore has a cathartic and entertaining 30 minutes on this farce. Well worth the watch:
Really the bigger story is here is that these guys convincingly pretended to be Russian Bots in order to influence an election
(not with the message being put forth by the bots, but by their sheer existence as apparent supporters of the Moore campaign).
By all appearances, they were Russian bots trying to influence the election. Now we know it was DNC operatives. Yet we
are supposed to believe without any proof that the "Russian bots" that supposedly influenced the 2016 Presidential election were,
actually, Russian bots, and worthy of a two year long probe about "Russian collusion" and "Russian meddling."
The whole thing is probably a farce, not only in the sense that there is no evidence that Russia had any influence at all
on a single voter, but also in the sense that there is no evidence that Russia even tried (just claims and allegations by people
who have a vested interest in convincing us its true).
dead hobo , 30 minutes ago
I've been watching Scandal on Netflix. Still only in season 2. Amazing how nothing changes.They nailed it and memorialized
it. The MSM are useful idiots who are happy to make money publicizing what will sell the best.
chunga , 30 minutes ago
The media is biased and sucks, yup.
The reason the reds lost the house is because they went along with this nonsense and did nothing about it, like frightened
baby chipmunks.
JRobby , 33 minutes ago
Only when "the opposition" does it is it illegal. Total totalitarian state wannabe stuff.
divingengineer , 22 minutes ago
Amazing how people can contort reality to justify their own righteous cause, but decry their opposition for the EXACT same
thing. See trump visit to troops signing hats as most recent proof. If DJT takes a piss and sprinkles the seat, it's a crime.
DarkPurpleHaze , 33 minutes ago
They're afraid to expose themselves...unlike Kevin Spacey. Trump or Whitaker will expose this with one signature. It's
coming.
divingengineer , 20 minutes ago
Spacey has totally lost it. See his latest video, it will be a powerful piece of evidence for an insanity plea.
CosineCosineCosine , 10 minutes ago
Disagree strongly. I think it was excellent - perhaps you misunderstood the point? 6 minutes Diana Davidson look at it clarifies
The Last but not LeastTechnology is dominated by
two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt.
Ph.D
FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available
to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social
issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which
such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free)
site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should
be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors
of this site
Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or
referenced source) and are
not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society.We do not warrant the correctness
of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be
tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without
Javascript.
© AFP 2018 / Timothy A. CLARY Congresswoman
Tulsi Gabbard Speaks the Truth on Syria, Gets Smeared by the Mainstream Media
© AP Photo / Marco Garcia 'Assad's
Mouthpiece in Washington': Controversial Dem. Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard Announces 2020
Run
© REUTERS / Omar Sanadiki US Lawmakers
Call for Syria Strategy Where Assad Leaving Post, Russian Military Pulls Out
©
AP Photo/ J. Scott Applewhite
House Democrats Will Expand Russiagate in 2019 to Push Trump Toward War
19 minutes ago
57 minutes ago
1 hour ago
1 hour ago
48 minutes ago
2 hours ago
2015 File
Written By Victor Madeira on Possible Anti-Russian Actions
Integrity Initiative Seeks Intelligence On How Overseas Media Reported Skripal
Incident
Post-Skripal Incident Anti-Russian Actions Recommended by Integrity Initiative
Invoice submitted to
Integrity Initiative by Dan Kaszeta Strange Connections
Unfortunately the Orange one is being wagged again by those who are most seriously plotting his demise and over reach in Venezuela may be just as much part of the plan as it was in pushing him into launching an attack on Syria. It is true that the global elites are at a loss what to do, as the fracturing of the global oligarchies is proving Marx right . capitalist are just a band of warring brothers [brigands, robbers, pirates – all!]. As there is no serious ideological threat to their hegemony at the moment they fight amongst themselves with imperial designs.
The threat to the imperium is the chaos which ensues when the elite power struggles fracture their hegemony and an uncontrollable uprising ensues. Who shapes that revolution will be central to this. Where it will come from is not evident yet but let's hope it's a grass roots one!