In 2014, German journalist Udo Ulfkotte, former director of Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, author of the book “Gekaufte
Journalisten”, (Journalists for Hire), denounced European media who write lies under pressure from the CIA. An English translation
now is available but is very expensive. Wikipedia has the following information about the book:
In 2014, Ulfkotte published the book Gekaufte Journalisten (GermanBought Journalists), in which he stated that the CIA and other secret services pay money to journalists to
report stories in a certain light. According to Ulfkotte, the
CIA and
German intelligence (BND) bribe journalists in Germany to write pro-NATO
propaganda articles, and it is well understood that one may lose their media job if they fail to comply with the
pro-Western agenda.[19]Der Spiegel noted that "Ulfkotte’s book was published by
Kopp, a melting pot for conspiracy
theorists. Kopp publishes works by ufologists, and by authors who claim the Americans destroyed the Twin Towers of
the World Trade Center themselves in 2001... Ulfkotte’s critics see the book as a vendetta against the FAZ, which he
left on bad terms."[20]
On May 15, 2017
Next Revelation Press, an imprint of US-Canadian-based publisher
Tayen Lane, released the English version of Bought Journalists, under the title, Journalists for Hire:
How the CIA Buys the News.
James F. Tracy wrote on the
globalresearch.ca conspiracy theory website that this English translation appears to have been suppressed
throughout North America and Europe, that Tayen Lane has since removed any reference to the title from its website,
and that, correspondingly, Amazon.com (per 31 July 2017) indicates the title is “currently unavailable,” with
opportunities to purchase from independent sellers offering used copies for no less than $1309.09. The book’s subject
matter and unexplained disappearance from the marketplace suggest that powerful entities are seeking to prevent its
circulation, according to Tracy. Tracy also cites Ulfkotte saying the book "was almost completely ignored by
mainstream German news media",[21]
although Gekaufte Journalisten sold more than 120,000 copies, lingered on the Der Spiegel bestseller list for 18
weeks, and was reviewed (and ridiculed) in Der Spiegel[22]
by Jan Fleischhauer who in June
2015 also wrote a portrait of Ulfkotte which was republished in January 2017.[23]
In the later years of an abusive relationship I was in, my abuser had become so confident in
how mentally caged he had me that he'd start overtly telling me what he is and what he was
doing. He flat-out told me he was a sociopath and a manipulator, trusting that I was so
submitted to his will by that point that I'd gaslight myself into reframing those statements in
a sympathetic light. Toward the end one time he told me "I am going to rape you," and then he
did, and then he talked about it to some friends trusting that I'd run perception management on
it for him.
The better he got at psychologically twisting me up in knots and the more submitted I
became, the more open he'd be about it. He seemed to enjoy doing this, taking a kind of
exhibitionistic delight in showing off his accomplishments at crushing me as a person, both to
others and to me. Like it was his art, and he wanted it to have an audience to appreciate
it.
I was reminded of this while watching a recent Fox News appearance by Glenn Greenwald where he
made an observation we've discussed here
previously about the way the CIA used to have to infiltrate the media, but now just openly
has US intelligence veterans in mainstream media punditry positions managing public
perception.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/jU58mrEpPvU
"If you go and Google, and I hope your viewers do, Operation Mockingbird, what you will
find is that during the Cold War these agencies used to plot how to clandestinely manipulate
the news media to disseminate propaganda to the American population," Greenwald
said .
"They used to try to do it secretly. They don't even do it secretly anymore. They don't
need Operation Mockingbird. They literally put John Brennan who works for NBC and James
Clapper who works for CNN and tons of FBI agents right on the payroll of these news
organizations. They now shape the news openly to manipulate and to deceive the American
population."
In 1977 Carl Bernstein published an article titled " The CIA and the Media " reporting
that the CIA had
covertly infiltrated America's most influential news outlets and had over 400 reporters who
it considered assets in a program known as
Operation Mockingbird . It was a major scandal, and rightly so. The news media are meant to
report truthfully about what happens in the world, not manipulate public perception to suit the
agendas of spooks and warmongers.
Nowadays the CIA collaboration happens right out in the open, and the public is too
brainwashed and gaslit to even recognize this as scandalous. Immensely influential outlets like
The New York Times uncritically pass on CIA disinfo which is then spun as fact by cable news
pundits . The sole owner of The Washington Post is a CIA contractor ,
and WaPo has never once disclosed this conflict of interest when reporting on US intelligence
agencies per standard journalistic protocol. Mass media outlets
now openly employ intelligence agency veterans like John Brennan, James Clapper,
Chuck Rosenberg, Michael Hayden, Frank Figliuzzi, Fran Townsend, Stephen Hall, Samantha
Vinograd, Andrew McCabe, Josh Campbell, Asha Rangappa, Phil Mudd, James Gagliano, Jeremy Bash,
Susan Hennessey, Ned Price and Rick Francona, as are known
CIA assets like NBC's Ken Dilanian, as are
CIA interns like Anderson Cooper and CIA applicants like
Tucker Carlson.
They're just rubbing it in our faces now. Like they're showing off.
And that's just the media. We also see this flaunting behavior exhibited in the US
government-funded National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a propaganda operation geared at
sabotaging foreign governments not aligned with the US which according to its own founding
officials was set up to do overtly what the CIA used to do covertly. The late author and
commentator William Blum
makes this clear :
[I]n 1983, the National Endowment for Democracy was set up to "support democratic
institutions throughout the world through private, nongovernmental efforts". Notice the
"nongovernmental"" part of the image, part of the myth. In actuality, virtually every penny
of its funding comes from the federal government, as is clearly indicated in the financial
statement in each issue of its annual report. NED likes to refer to itself as an NGO
(Non-governmental organization) because this helps to maintain a certain credibility abroad
that an official US government agency might not have. But NGO is the wrong category. NED is a
GO.
"We should not have to do this kind of work covertly," said Carl Gershman in 1986, while
he was president of the Endowment. "It would be terrible for democratic groups around the
world to be seen as subsidized by the C.I.A. We saw that in the 60's, and that's why it has
been discontinued. We have not had the capability of doing this, and that's why the endowment
was created."
And Allen Weinstein, who helped draft the legislation establishing NED, declared in 1991:
"A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA."
In effect, the CIA has been laundering money through NED.
We see NED's fingerprints all over pretty much any situation where the western power
alliance needs to manage public perception about a CIA-targeted government, from Russia to
Hong
Kong to Xinjiang to the
imperial propaganda operation known as Bellingcat.
Hell, intelligence insiders are just openly running for office now. In an article titled "
The CIA
Democrats in the 2020 elections ", World Socialist Website documented the many veterans of
the US intelligence cartel who ran in elections across America in 2018 and 2020:
"In the course of the 2018 elections, a large group of former military-intelligence
operatives entered capitalist politics as candidates seeking the Democratic Party nomination
in 50 congressional seats" nearly half the seats where the Democrats were targeting
Republican incumbents or open seats created by Republican retirements. Some 30 of these
candidates won primary contests and became the Democratic candidates in the November 2018
election, and 11 of them won the general election, more than one quarter of the 40 previously
Republican-held seats captured by the Democrats as they took control of the House of
Representatives. In 2020, the intervention of the CIA Democrats continues on what is arguably
an equally significant scale."
So they're just getting more and more brazen the more confident they feel about how
propaganda-addled and submissive the population has become. They're laying more and more of
their cards on the table. Soon the CIA will just be openly selling narcotics door to door like
Girl Scout cookies.
Or maybe not. I said my ex got more and more overt about his abuses in the later years of
our relationship because those were the later years. I did eventually expand my own
consciousness of my own inner workings enough to clear the fears and unexamined beliefs I had
that he was using as hooks to manipulate me. Maybe, as humanity's consciousness continues to
expand , the same will happen for the people and their abusive relationship with the
CIA.
* * *
The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is
to subscribe to the mailing list for at my website or on Substack , which will get you an email
notification for everything I publish. My work is entirely
reader-supported , so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around,
following me on Facebook , Twitter , Soundcloud or YouTube , or throwing some money into
my tip jar on Ko-fi ,
Patreon or Paypal . If you want to read more you
can buy my books .
Everyone, racist platforms excluded,
has my permission to republish, use or translate any part of this work (or anything else
I've written) in any way they like free of charge. For more info on who I am, where I stand,
and what I'm trying to do with this platform,
click here .
Money quote: " Zerohedge has more traffic than Huffington Post, Vox, Vice, The Atlantic and
pretty well any of the other bluecheck day camps for aspiring establishment shills."
Late Stage Globalism Is A Tale of
Narratives vs Networks
Over the past few weeks in my weekly
#AxisOfEasy newsletter I've been covering how Big Tech and the corporate media tried,
unsuccessfully, to keep a lid on the Wuhan Lab origin narrative. At one point I half-joked
"I'll shut up about this when it's safe to talk about Ivermectin" . This week, I did end up
writing a piece about Ivermectin, namely how doctors can't even mention it in their videos or
podcast appearances without being penalized by social media platforms.
Bret Weinstein, an evolutionary biologist who has studied bats (from which COVID-19
purportedly originated) was recently on
Triggernometry , the UK based podcast that my company, easyDNS , has been sponsoring since mid-2020. It turns out that
neither Weinstein nor Triggernometry can say the word "Ivermectin" in their shows. If they do
they'll get an automatic takedown by YouTube and a strike on Facebook for violating community
standards.
Matt Taibbi recently posed the question " Why has
"˜Ivermectin' become a dirty word? " He cites Dr. Pierre Kory in his testimony to a
US Senate Committee hearing on medical responses to COVID-19 in December 2020. Kory was
referring to an existing medicine that was already FDA approved that he was describing as a
"wonder drug" in treating COVID-19, that drug was Ivermectin.
This Senate testimony was televised and viewed by approximately 8 million people. YouTube
removed the video of this exchange. They later suspended the account of the United States
senator who invited Dr. Kory to speak. (Kory also appeared on Brett Weinstein's show and they
took down that as well).
Associated Press for their part "fact
checked" the senate testimony, and because, in their words "there is no evidence that
Ivermectin is a "˜miracle drug' against COVID", they labeled it as false:
CLAIM: The antiparasitic drug ivermectin "has a miraculous effectiveness that obliterates"
the transmission of COVID-19 and will prevent people from getting sick.
AP'S ASSESSMENT: False. There's no evidence ivermectin has been proven a safe or effective
treatment against COVID-19.
... ... ...
But I'm looking beyond that, outside of network TV. The hottest news outlets are fast
becoming independent journalists like Matt Taibbi and Glenn Greenwald , self-publishing via their Substack.
That's mainly email.
Joe Rogan has a larger audience than Rachel Maddow and Don Lemon combined. So too does Steve
Bannon, btw. The few times I've been on his
Warroom I was astounded at the reach of his audience. According to company sources he's
doing between 2.5 and 3.5 million downloads per day. The last people I would ever expect to be
tuning into Bannon are telling me "I saw you on Warroom". (It's mind-blowing).
Zerohedge has more traffic than Huffington Post, Vox, Vice, The Atlantic and pretty well any
of the other bluecheck day camps for aspiring establishment shills.
It's because of independent, renegade journalists and people writing outside of major
outlets that these stories are starting go mainstream despite the best efforts of Big Tech,
enforcing whatever canon the corporate press deems to be truth, or the establishment anointed
"fact checkers" who try to step in whenever something looks to gain traction:
The Wuhan lab origin was suspected for over a year (and the Fauci emails prove it).
Zerohedge was on it almost immediately and
got deplatformed for their troubles. It was finally pushed over the line in a
Medium post by Nicholas Wade over a year later.
Ivermectin may be next round and it looks like if it gets anywhere it will be thanks to
people like Matt Taibbi and Bret Weinstein.
What is the common thread here? It's the power of decentralized networks and open source
protocols vs narrative control that is promulgated from global governments, amplified by the
corporate media, and enforced by technocratic platforms.
... ... ...
It may seem like the censorship is absolute and that the narrative and the spin is
overwhelming. But take solace that it only appears that way because the facade is breaking.
As more people realize that the centralized technocratic system is failing, those who's
privilege and position are premised on it have to double down, triple down. They have to burn
the boats.
They're fully committed now and because they have no other choice they have to overstep and
overreach. Too much, too soon. Too late.
In reality big tech is the part of neoliberal elite that control the politics and politician
(the USA politics and politicians were privatized during Reagan and nothing changed since that
period). They also has strong ties with intelligence community often emerging from some some
intelligence agency plan and DAPRA or CIA funds. So it is strange to be suprozed that they will
always take the side of the government -- they control the goverment...
The Democrats in Congress want comprehensive regulation of social media which will
ultimately allow regime regulators to decide what is and what is not "disinformation." This has
become very clear as Congress has held a series of Congressional hearings designed to pressure
tech leaders into doing even more to silence critics of the regime and its preferred
center-left narratives.
Back in February, for instance, Glen Greenwald reported:
For the third time in
less than five months , the U.S. Congress has summoned the CEOs of social media companies
to appear before them, with the explicit intent to pressure and coerce them to censor more
content from their platforms.
House Democrats have made no secret of their ultimate goal with this hearing: to exert
control over the content on these online platforms. "Industry self-regulation has failed,"
they said, and therefore "we must begin the work of changing incentives driving social media
companies to allow and even promote misinformation and disinformation." In other words, they
intend to use state power to influence and coerce these companies to change which content
they do and do not allow to be published.
Greenwald is probably right. The end game here is likely to create a permanent "partnership"
between big tech in which government regulators will ultimately decide just how much these
platforms will deplatform user and delete content that run afoul of the regime's messaging.
It might strike many readers as odd that this should even be necessary. It's already become
quite clear that Big Social Media is hardly an enemy of mainstream proregime forces in
Washington. Quite the opposite.
Jack Dorsey, for instance, is exactly the sort of partisan regime apparatchik one expects
out of today's Silicon Valley. For example, during October of last year ,
Twitter locked down the account of the New York Post , because the Post reported a story on
Hunter Biden that threatened to hurt Biden's chances for election.
Over 90 percent of political donation money coming out of Facebook and Twitter goes to
Democrats.
Yet, it's important to keep in mind that this isn't going to be enough to convince
politicians to pack up and decide to leave social media companies alone. The regime is unlikely
to be satisfied with anything other than full state control of social media through permanent
regulatory bodies that can ultimately bring the industry to heel. Regardless of the ideological
leanings of the industry players involved, they're likely to see the writing on the wall. As
with any regime where the regulators and legislators hold immense power -- as is the case in
Washington today -- the regime will generally be able to win the "cooperation" of industry
leaders who will end up taking a "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" position.
Silicon
Valley Is Ideologically Allied with the Regime. But That's Not Enough.
It's been abundantly clear for at least a decade that ideologically speaking, Silicon Valley
is as
politically mainstream as it gets. The old early-2000s notion that Silicon Valley harbors
secret libertarian, antiestablishment leanings has been disproven dozens of times over.
Moreover, Washington has a long history of co-opting tech "geniuses" to serve the whims of
the regime. Even back in 2013 Julian Assange already saw the "ever closer union" between
government agents and Silicon Valley. Assange saw how federal agencies were hiring Silicon
Valley workers as "consultants" and saw where the "partnership" was headed. He concluded "The
advance of information technology epitomized by Google heralds the death of privacy for most
people and shifts the world toward authoritarianism."
But even if Silicon Valley is packed full of stooges for the NSA --
as appears to be the case -- this still doesn't mean that Silicon Valley firms are willing
to happily hand over their property to the federal government. After all, Silicon Valley CEOs,
managers, and stockholders are all still at least partly in it for the money. All else being
equal, they prefer profit to loss, and they want freedom to make decisions free of regulatory
control. They probably don't care about freedom in the abstract, but they care about it for
themselves.
The Threat of Regulation Creates Support for the Regime
On the other hand, once federal policymakers and regulators start making threats, the game
changes entirely. All of a sudden, it makes a lot of sense to pursue "friendly" relations with
the state as a matter of self-preservation. If Washington has the ability to destroy your
business -- and if it has become impossible to "fly under the radar" -- then it makes a lot of
sense to make Washington your friend.
Under these circumstances, there's little to be gained from blanket opposition to federal
regulation, and a lot to be gained from embracing regulation while merely working to ensure
that regulation benefits you and your friends.
Big Business versus Small Business
So, it should never surprise us when big business ultimately ends up siding with the regime.
It would be folly not to, especially if one has the means to hire lobbyists, attorneys, and PR
consultants which can help Big Business negotiate effectively with regulators. Needless to say,
the outcomes of these negotiations are likely to end up helping the big players at the expense
of smaller ones who aren't even present at the negotiating table.
For small firms that have little hope of influencing federal policy, it still makes sense to
simply oppose federal activism altogether and hope for the best. But if your firm manages to
get a seat "at the table" it's best to seize the opportunity. To quote an old saying among
lobbyists: "if you're not at the table, you're on the menu."
But let us not forget that even when private firms can bring immense amounts of resources to
bear for purposes of influencing public policy and negotiating with bureaucrats: the regime
itself ultimately holds the advantage. No private firm in the world has the resources to ignore
or veto the wishes of the regime's army of regulatory, prosecutors, and tax collectors. No
private firm enjoys anything approaching the coercive monopoly power of the state.
But this doesn't mean those firms can't share in this power. And that's very often what
happens. Faced with a "join us or be destroyed" ultimatum from federal regulators or lawmakers,
most private firms choose the "join us" option. Of course, many smaller firms aren't even
offered the choice.
Tillyoudrop 9 minutes ago (Edited)
Wwwwrong.
BIG BUSINESS is the Regime, they own this fxxxing place, and they control you by the
balls.
AriusArmenian 3 minutes ago remove link
All the major social media companies in the US were funded and controlled by the CIA
from startup.
There is not a future end-game - it has been the CIA's agenda from the beginning.
The CIA along with Watt Street and the MIC owns and controls the US from top to bottom -
and they intend for the lumpen white people to fall on their swords. This is all to the
interests of the rich and powerful button pushers. I pity the young people like idiots so
easily used by the elites.
freedommusic 10 minutes ago
Well when DARPA, the DOD, CIA, et al, created your company what choice do you have?
What did you think this company is YOURS Mr Z?
We created LifeLog with The Peoples money, handed it
over to you so there is plausible deniability, and are now weaponizing this data against
the very people who have funded it.
Welcome to the MO of monolithic government.
bunnyswanson 1 minute ago
Big Business is the regime. Unfair competition is the name of their game. Monopolizing
their industry is their goal. Oversight committees should have stopped them but simple men
who define themselves by what they own sell out eagerly.
Reddit is one of the world's most influential news and social media platforms. The website
attracted
over 1.2 billion visits in April 2021 alone, making it the United States' eighth most visited
site, ahead of other leviathans like Twitter, Instagram and eBay. Now majority-owned by a much
larger corporate publishing empire, Reddit is also far ahead of more established news sites,
garnering three times the numbers of Fox News and five times those of The New York
Times .
That is why it was so surprising that so little was made of the company's decision to
appoint foreign policy hawk Jessica Ashooh to the position of Director of Policy in 2017, at
which time it was also the eight most visited site in the U.S. Ashooh, who had been a Middle
East foreign policy wonk at NATO's think tank the Atlantic Council, was appointed at around the
same time that the Senate Select Intelligence Committee was
demanding more control over the popular website, on the grounds that it was being used to
spread disinformation. In her role as Director of Policy, she oversees all government relations
and public policy for the company, in addition to managing content, product and advertising.
Yet a Google search for "Jessica Ashooh Reddit" filtered between late 2016 and early 2017
(after she was appointed) elicits
zero relevant results, meaning not one media outlet even mentioned the questionable
appointment.
This is all the more hair-raising, given her resume as a high state official -- all of which
raises serious questions about the extent of collaboration between Silicon Valley and the
national security state.
A hawk's talons on Syria
The Atlantic Council is the de-facto brains of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and
takes
funding from the military alliance, as well as from the U.S. government, the U.S. military,
Middle Eastern dictatorships, other Western governments, big tech companies, and weapons
manufacturers. Its board of directors has been and
continues to be a who's who of high U.S. statespeople like Henry Kissinger, Colin Powell and
Condoleezza Rice, as well as senior military commanders such as retired generals Wesley Clark,
David Petraeus, H.R. McMaster, James "Mad Dog" Mattis, the late Lt. Gen. Brent Scowcroft, and
Admiral James Stavridis. At least seven former CIA directors are also on the board. As such,
the council chooses to represent both political wings of the national security
state.
Ashooh's LinkedIn resume epitomizes the troubling relantionship between think tanks and big
tech
Between 2015 and 2017, Ashooh was Deputy Director of the Atlantic Council's Middle East
Strategy Task Force, working directly with and under Madeline Albright and Stephen Hadley. This
is particularly noteworthy, given both these individuals' roles in the region. As Bill
Clinton's secretary of state, Albright oversaw the Iraq sanctions and the Oil for Food Program,
denounced as "genocide" by the
successive United Nations diplomats charged with
carrying them out. In an infamous interview with 60 Minutes , Albright casually brushed
off a question about her role in the killing of half a million children,
stating "the price is worth it." Meanwhile, Hadley was deputy or senior national security
advisor to the government of George W. Bush throughout the Afghanistan and Iraq invasions,
surely the greatest crimes against humanity thus far in the 21st century.
Ashooh appears to be as hawkish as her bosses. Her particular area of expertise is the war
in Syria, regarding which she has been among the most belligerent voices, constantly calling
for more American intervention to overthrow the government of Bashar al-Assad. In a 2015
interview with Al
Jazeera , she praised the U.K. government's decision to bomb the country, claiming that the
British public was "coming around" to the idea of war. A shocked interviewer asked "how will
the British airstrikes [on] Syria make the British public any safer?" Ashooh replied that it
was "generally a positive decision" because "it goes a long way in improving international
consensus on the way forward on Syria," although she lamented that there wouldn't be "much
improvement in the situation without ground troops." There will be "no political solution
without a military element," she predicted, essentially making the pitch for war.
Ashooh has also constantly praised and supported Syria's opposition forces. In 2016, she
said that she was
very happy that "fighters on the ground from a number of key factions" were uniting against the
"Assad regime." She condemned Russia for claiming these opposition forces were members of
terrorist groups like Al-Nusra, Jaysh al-Islam or ISIS, insisting that these were "moderate"
rebels.
Of course, the idea that there was still any measurable distance between "moderate" rebels
and outright militant jihadists by 2016 was
hard to maintain . Even The Washington Post by this time was
admitting as much, noting that so-called moderates were now so "intermingled" with al-Nusra
that it was difficult to tell them apart.
Nevertheless, the New Hampshire native took to the pages of The New York Times to
demand that the U.S. arm the opposition. Of course, it was already doing so, the CIA
spending
$1 billion per year fielding rebel mercenary armies in the conflict -- with one in every 15
dollars the agency
spent going to this endeavor. All of this Ashooh surely knew, yet she maintained that the
West must continue to "jack up the price" of Russia defending Assad. "As long as [Assad]
remains in power and remains the figurehead of the Syrian government this conflict won't end,"
she said , laying out
her regime-change-or-bust position. Just weeks before unexpectedly taking over at Reddit,
Ashooh seemed to still be in full foreign-policy-hawk mode, condemning Obama in the pages of
The Washington Post for his apparent softness on Syria and
demanding that Trump "restore U.S. credibility" by "order[ing] targeted, punitive strikes
against the Assad regime."
Ashooh attends British Polo Day at Abu Dhabi's Ghantoot Racing and Polo Club. Photo | Ahlan
Dirty war, dirty warrior
Ashooh is actually even more involved in the Syrian conflict than one might realize from her
hawkish opinions alone. Between 2011 and 2015, she worked for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
of the United Arab Emirates, in her own words , "[p]rovid[ing] senior decision
makers with policy analysis and strategic advice, with a particular focus on Syria."
At that time the UAE was using its enormous financial clout to arm and fund a myriad of
jihadist groups attempting to overthow the secular strongman Assad and establish some kind of
Islamic state. Far from a conspiracy theory, this comes straight from the horse's mouth, as
then-Vice President Joe Biden revealed in a Q&A session in 2014. The future president
frankly stated :
The Saudis, the Emiratis, what were they doing? They poured hundreds of millions of
dollars and tens of thousands of tons of weapons into anyone who would fight against Assad,
except that the people who were being supplied were al-Nusra and al-Qaeda and the extremist
elements of jihadis coming from other parts of the world. "
Under pressure, he later apologized
for his loose lips.
MintPress News asked the Emirati Ministry of Foreign Affairs to comment on precisely
what Ashooh's role was, but they failed to respond.
Ashooh is pictured during her time as a "consultant" in Iraqi Kurdistan. Photo |
Academyalumni
Ashooh herself appears to have been a relatively major player in the Syrian Civil War. In
her previously mentioned Washington Post
article , she notes that her boss was a former Emirati Air Force General and that she was
flown to Istanbul in 2013 to attend an emergency meeting with leaders of the Syrian opposition,
as well as ambassadors from unnamed Arab and Western states, in order to plan a response to a
reported chemical weapons attack and to help the U.S. "coordinate with the Syrian
opposition."
At the same time as she was advising the nation on Middle Eastern affairs, the UAE was
widely accused of flying ISIS and al-Qaeda leaders into Yemen to help them intensify the
Saudi-led onslaught on the impoverished nation and of smuggling
U.S.-made weaponry -- including small arms, TOW missiles and Oshkosh fighting vehicles -- to
the jihadist groups. While Ashooh's writing is careful to maintain a distinction between the
"moderate" rebels she supports and the fundamentalist radicals she does not, it certainly is
noteworthy that the entities she worked for consistently seem to end up in league with the most
regressive forces in the region. MintPress also reached out to Reddit for comment on why
they appointed Ashooh, given her past history, and on the wider phenomenon of government
penetration of social media. The company initially promised to issue a response to the inquiry
but has not followed through with it.
Regime change is on the table for more than just one Middle Eastern nation. In a 2017
paper for the
Center for the National Interest -- a think tank established by former Republican President
Richard Nixon and the "Godfather of Neoconservatism,"
Irving Kristol -- Ashooh explores the different options for forcing regime change in Iran,
but concludes that overthrowing the "odious regime" is an impossible task right now, and
criticizes the idea as a quixotic dream.
Nevertheless, she is far from an Iran dove. An Atlantic Council report
she co-wrote insists that "Iranian interference in the Arab world must be deterred," and that
"America's friends and partners must be reassured that the U.S. opposes Iranian hegemony and
will work with them to prevent it."
Ashooh's commitment to fighting against Middle Eastern dictatorships might seem more
principled if she did not appear so enamored of the least democratic one of them all. In 2016,
she accompanied Albright and Hadley to Saudi Arabia and praised the monarchy's dynamic
leadership on the economy and its nurturing of a new generation. "It was really really exciting
to see that level of energy and the level of government support for these young people who were
interested in shaping their own futures it was just wonderful," she
said . In an
article about her experience for business news website Market Watch , she waxed
lyrical about how forward-thinking the Saudi government is and how the country has become "a
hub for the dynamic and positive change that is swelling up throughout the region." Presumably,
this excludes Yemen, a nation they were bombing
relentlessly . In a 2020
interview , Ashooh revealed that her dream job would be U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia.
One of her
earliest comments on her public Reddit page (made before she began working
there) is deflecting the Kingdom from criticism of its dreadful
treatment of women.
Ashooh's Reddit account, which doesn't identify her real identity, uses the moniker,
arabscarab
As part of the Atlantic Council, Ashooh was tasked with envisaging a new Middle East for the
21st century. Given her output
, it seems that she advocates for a transition towards a more privatized, free-market economic
setup, not completely unlike the shock therapy tried in Latin America in the 1970s and 1980s.
"We have to "encourage states to make the reforms that move economies from state-based to ones
that support entrepreneurship, because the age of state-based economies is over," she
said at a
talk at New York University in 2015, adding:
You've got to move to support entrepreneurship in the region and let people take advantage
of the natural industrial tendencies of people in the Middle East. My God, if you've ever
been to a Turkish bazaar or a market in Cairo you know that these countries are perfectly
capable of having functioning market economies. But the state has gotten in the way.
Ashooh's LinkedIn
profile also notes that in 2010, she worked as an advisor to the Iraqi Ministry of Planning "on
a variety of strategic and economic development issues," but does not go into any more detail
about what those issues were. A further biography merely states that her
consultancy agency "provid[ed] strategic and management consulting services to the Ministry of
Planning of the Kurdistan Regional Government in Northern Iraq." Unsurprisingly, the
organization has links to the U.S. military; the agency's lead partner being a former Army
captain.
Think Tankie
Ashooh comes from a relatively prominent New Hampshire family of Lebanese descent, the most
notable of which is probably her uncle Richard . Richard Ashooh was Donald
Trump's Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export Administration and a former executive at weapons
manufacturer BAE Systems. Unlike her uncle, Jessica appears to lean more Democratic, having
donated money to a number of local politicians, as well as to anti-Trump Republican groups
aimed at convincing them to vote blue, such as Right Side PAC and the now infamous Lincoln
Project. However, she also appears to have great respect for many Republicans, having written
her
doctoral thesis at Oxford University on the Middle East policy of the George W. Bush
administration. She also
stated that the person she would have most liked to have met was 41st President George Bush
Senior, describing him as possessing "incredible amounts of strategy, finesse and restraint."
Thus, her political views appear to be exactly in the center of the neoliberal "
blob " in Washington.
Ashooh also worked
for the right-wing think tank the CATO Institute and is a Term Member of the more
Democratic-aligned Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). The CFR's term member program is
intended to, in its own words, "cultivate the next generation of foreign policy
leaders."
Surveillance Valley
How and why, then, did a hawkish young mandarin hothoused at elite universities and in the
halls of state power end up an executive at an anarchic messageboard site with an
anti-establishment reputation? Virtually everyone else in senior roles at Reddit has relevant
backgrounds in marketing or tech, having worked with comparable companies such as Yelp, Expedia
and Snapchat.
Tom Secker -- a journalist, podcaster and
researcher who runs SpyCulture.com ,
an online archive about government involvement in the entertainment industry -- was deeply
skeptical. "That someone whose entire career has been in international relations and foreign
affairs is now the senior policy wonk at Reddit is simply bizarre. Given her ties to the CFR,
Atlantic Council and the like, it's downright suspicious," Secker told MintPress .
Underneath the surface, however, the Atlantic Council has been rapidly expanding its
influence and control over big social media companies. In 2018, it announced that it would be
partnering with Facebook to promote trustworthy sources and derank, demote and even delete low
quality or fake news, thus effectively curating what the platform's
2.85 billion worldwide users see in their news feeds. But the effect of recent algorithmic
changes has been to throttle alternative media traffic in favor of establishment sources such
as CNN , Fox News and The New York Times . Even such more mainstream
liberal sites as Mother Jones have seen their numbers crater. Facebook later
admitted that they were directly targeting Mother Jones because of its left-leaning
content, raising the question that if such a middle-of-the-road liberal outlet was being
penalized, wasn't the collapse in traffic to more radical publications surely deliberate? Given
the Atlantic Council's funding and the identities of those on its board , their control over
social media is tantamount to state censorship on a global level.
Earlier this year, Facebook also hired NATO press officer Ben Nimmo to be its intelligence
chief, in another move that
dismayed free-speech advocates. In the past, Nimmo has identified a Welsh pensioner and an
internationally known Ukranian pianist as Russian bots, raising more questions about the
suitability of the Atlantic Council to be an arbiter of truth online.
The Facebook-Atlantic Council link mirrors that of Microsoft with
NewsGuard , a new piece of software purportedly trying to fight fake news by placing either
green shields or red warning logos, corresponding to an outlet's credibility, beside all links
in its browser, Microsoft Edge -- this credibility being decided entirely by NewsGuard itself.
Newsguard pushed Microsoft to install the software on all its products as standard. Again,
however, NewsGuard's system rated establishment websites like Fox News and CNN as
trustworthy but independent media as suspect. And again, a glance at its advisory board makes it clear that
this is a state operation. Those in key positions included George W. Bush's Secretary of
Homeland Security and former NSA and CIA Director General Michael Hayden; ex-White House
Communications Director Don Baer; and former Secretary General of NATO Anders Fogh Rasmussen.
Worse still, NewsGuard is also linked to a PR agency
employed in whitewashing the Saudi
government's human-rights record and its role in the carnage in Yemen.
Twitter, too, has some extremely troubling links with state power. In 2019 Gordon MacMillan,
a senior Twitter executive responsible for the Middle East region, was
outed as an active duty officer in the British Army's 77th Brigade, a unit dedicated to
online operations and psychological warfare. Far from causing a scandal, only one major U.S.
outlet even mentioned
the story, and the journalist in question resigned from the profession weeks later,
claiming the existence of a network of top-down state censors who quash stories that
threaten the power and prestige of the national security state. To this day, MacMillan remains
in his post at Twitter, strongly suggesting the social media company knew of his role before he
was hired.
Over the past few years, Twitter, Reddit and Facebook have
announced the deletion of hundreds of thousands of accounts linked to sources in Russia,
Iran, China and other enemy states,
often on the recommendation of Western governments or state-sponsored intelligence
organizations. However, they never seem willing or able to find any manipulation of their
platforms by Western governments. Thus, the upshot of this has been to slowly dissuade critics
of Western foreign policy from using their services.
"The mainstream media-politik establishment has managed to get a hold over Twitter, Facebook
and Instagram -- shadow-banning and downrating posts considered 'Russian propaganda' or
whatever other excuse they use to marginalize perspectives and content outside of the
mainstream," Secker told MintPress . "Audiences for this sort of content are
increasingly pissed off and alienated by the major social media sites."
Increasingly, unwelcome political voices are either brushed off by centrist pundits as
repeating Russian talking points or smeared as being amplified by Kremlin-based bot farms. The
popularity of movements on the left like
Black Lives Matter or the Bernie
Sanders' campaign were written off as partially linked to Russia, while others
suggested that the January 6 insurrection in Washington was essentially a Russian
operation.
The irony is that many of the wildest accusations against Putin that have fed this climate
of suspicion began life in Atlantic Council documents. For example, the organization has
published a series
of studies that suggest that virtually every European political party challenging the
neoliberal status quo in some way -- from Labour and UKIP in the U.K. to Syriza and Golden Dawn
in Greece and PODEMOS and Vox in Spain -- are secretly controlled by Russia, functioning as the
"Kremlin's Trojan Horses," in its words.
The Atlantic Council is also deeply intertwined with a U.K. government-funded organization
called the Integrity Initiative, something that purports to be a group defending democracy from
disinformation. However, in practice, it appears to be doing the opposite: planting
disinformation about politicians' supposed links to Russia in order to undermine them. The
Integrity Initiative is a government-backed cluster of journalists who operate in unison to
conduct propaganda blitzes on
unsuspecting publics. In 2018, it
launched a successful operation to prevent Colonel Pedro Baños being appointed
Spain's head of national security. Considering Baños too soft on Russia for the Atlantic
Council and other hawks' liking, the initiative sprung into action, creating a storm of protest
that led to another individual being chosen.
Reddit actually played a key role in a 2019 propaganda blitz against anti-war Labour leader
Jeremy Corbyn. A few days before the U.K.'s general election, Corbyn promoted documents leaked
on the platform that showed that Conservative Prime Minister Boris Johnson was negotiating with
American companies, putting much of the country's National Health Service up for sale. With
just days to go before polls opened, it could have proved a game changer. Reddit quickly came
to Johnson's rescue, however,
asserting that the documents were part of a Russian disinformation campaign. The story in
the pliant British press switched from "Boris Johnson is selling off the NHS" to "Corbyn
promotes Russian disinfo," thus greasing the skids for an easy victory for the hardline
anti-Russia Conservative Party, an outcome the hawks at the Atlantic Council were no doubt
relieved by, given Corbyn's open skepticism about war, empire and nuclear weapons. The veracity
of the documents was not challenged.
For a while
Founded in 2005, Reddit has grown to become one of the world's largest and most influential
websites. However, it began life as an anarchistic messageboard whose culture was profoundly
libertarian and anti-establishment. For years, the company's administrators took a near free
speech absolutist position. Aaron Swartz, Reddit's co-founder, was an open source hacktivist
and even attempted to download and publish the entirety of academic publisher Jstor's library.
When authorities got wind of what he was doing, they threatened him with 40 years in prison, an
action that caused him to take his own life in 2013.
Reddit's own position on free information and free speech was often so extreme it caused
huge controversy. The site became the internet's largest source of child pornography. It was
only after CNN began reporting on it to a nationwide audience that
things began to change. Other, grossly offensive communities like /r/BeatingWomen and
/r/CoonTown were also protected.
Nevertheless, the culture established by anarchistic tech bros remained for some years, with
the site resembling darker corners of the internet like 4Chan and 8Chan as much as more
family-friendly mainstream social media like Facebook.
Ashooh's arrival in 2017 coincided with a new era in the site's history. Gone were the days
of protecting communities that would bring in bad publicity. Her team quickly
brought in a new content policy and began to delete communities that violated it. Last
year, she oversaw the banning of over
2,000 communities in a single day, including /r/The_Donald, the main Donald Trump
subreddit, and /r/ChapoTrapHouse, the most active left-wing community. These decisions have
helped the money flow in; since 2017 revenue has more than tripled .
However, what has been lost across the internet is the liberatory potential of these
technologies. In the 1990s and 2000s, many predicted that the internet would usher in a new era
of egalitarianism and genuine democracy, helping even to reduce barriers and tensions between
nations. For a while, the new medium allowed political actors to challenge the status quo and
gain huge followings quickly. Alternative media was easily outperforming legacy media, and
challenging the status quo when it came to news. Seeing that, the reaction since 2016 has been
swift, as the elite have moved to retighten their grip over the means of communication.
Ashooh's jump from national security state official to Reddit Director of Policy is just one
more point of reference on that chart.
There are reasons to be skeptical. After decades of stonewalling on the issue, suddenly
American military chiefs appear to be giving credence to claims of UFOs invading Earth.
Several viral video clips purporting to show
extraordinary flying technology have been "confirmed" by the Pentagon as authentic. The
Pentagon move is unprecedented.
The videos of the Unidentified Flying Objects were taken by U.S. air force flight crews or
by naval surveillance and subsequently "leaked" to the public. The question is: were the
"leaks" authorized by Pentagon spooks to stoke the public imagination of visitors from space?
The Pentagon doesn't actually say what it believes the UFOs are, only that the videos are
"authentic".
A Senate intelligence committee is to receive a report
from the Department of Defense's Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) Task Force next month.
That has also raised public interest in the possibility of alien life breaching our skies
equipped with physics-defying technology far superior to existing supersonic jets and
surveillance systems.
Several other questions come to mind that beg skepticism. Why does the phenomenon of UFOs or
UAP only seem to be associated with the American military? This goes back decades to the
speculation during the 1950s about aliens crashing at Roswell in New Mexico. Why is it that
only the American military seems privy to such strange encounters? Why not the Russian or
Chinese military which would have comparable detection technology to the Americans but they
don't seem to have made any public disclosures on alien encounters? Such a discrepancy is
implausible unless we believe that life-forms from lightyears away have a fixation solely on
the United States. That's intergalactic American "exceptionalism" for you!
Also, the alleged sightings of UFOs invariably are associated with U.S. military training
grounds or high-security areas.
Moreover, the released videos that have spurred renewed public interest in UFOs are always
suspiciously of poor quality, grainy and low resolution. Several researchers, such as Mick
West, have cogently debunked
the videos as optical illusions. That's not to say that the U.S. air force or naval personnel
were fabricating the images. They may genuinely believe that they were witnessing something
extraordinary. But as rational optics experts have pointed out there are mundane explanations
for seeming unusual aerial observations, such as drones or balloons drifting at high speed in
differential wind conditions, or by the crew mistaking a far-off aircraft dipping over the
horizon for an object they believe to be much closer.
The military people who take the videos in good – albeit misplaced – faith about
what they are witnessing are not the same as the military or intelligence people who see an
opportunity with the videos to exploit the public in a psychological operation.
Fomenting public anxieties, or even just curiosity, about aliens and super-technology is an
expedient way to exert control over the population. At a time when governing authorities are
being questioned by a distrustful public and when military-intelligence establishments are
viewed as having lost a sense of purpose, what better way to realign public respect by getting
them to fret over alien marauders from whom they need protection?
There is here a close analogy to the way foreign nations are portrayed as adversaries and
enemies in order to marshal public support or least deference to the governing establishment
and its military. We see this ploy played over and over again with regard to the U.S. and
Western demonization of Russia and China as somehow conveying a malign intent towards Western
societies. In other words, it's a case of Cold War and UFOs from the same ideological
launchpad, so to speak, in order to distract public attention from internal problems.
However, more worrying still is that there is a dangerous reinforcing crossover of the two
propaganda realms. The fueling of UFO speculation is feeding directly into
speculation that U.S. airspace is being invaded by high-tech weapons developed by Russia or
China.
U.S. lawmakers are demanding answers from the Pentagon about whether the aerial "encounters"
are advanced weaponry from foreign enemies who are surveilling the American homeland at will.
Some U.S. air force aviators have recently expressed to the
media a feeling of helplessness in the face of seeming superior technology.
At a time of heightened animosity towards Russia and China and febrile talk among Pentagon
chiefs about the
possibility of all-out war, it is not difficult to imagine, indeed it is disturbingly easy
to imagine, how optical illusions about alien phenomena could trigger false alarms attributed
to Russian or Chinese military incursions.
The stoking of UFO controversy appears to be a classic psyops perpetrated by U.S. military
intelligence for the objective of population control. Its aim is to corral the citizenry under
the authority of the state and for them to accept the protector function of "our" military. The
big trouble is that the psyops with aliens are, in turn, risking the exacerbation of fears and
tensions with Russia and China.
With all the Pentagon-assisted chatter, it is more likely that an F-18 squadron could
mistake an errant weather balloon on the horizon for an alien spacecraft. And amid our new Cold
War tensions, it is but a small conceptual step to further imagine that the UFO is not from
outer space but rather is a Russian or Chinese hypersonic cruise missile heading towards the
U.S. mainland.
Just over ten years ago, on July 25, 2010, Wikileaks released 75,000 secret
U.S. military reports involving the war in Afghanistan . The New York Times, The Guardian ,
and Der Spiegel helped release the documents, which were devastating to America's intelligence
community and military, revealing systemic abuses that included civilian massacres and an
assassination squad, TF 373, whose existence the United States
kept "protected " even from its allies.
The Afghan War logs came out at the beginning of a historic stretch of true oppositional
journalism, when outlets like Le Monde, El Pais, Der Spiegel, The Guardian, The New York Times,
and others partnered with sites like Wikileaks. Official secrets were exposed on a scale not
seen since the Church Committee hearings of the seventies, as reporters pored through 250,000
American diplomatic cables, secret files about every detainee at Guantanamo Bay, and hundreds
of thousands of additional documents about everything from the Iraq war to coverups of
environmental catastrophes, among other things helping trigger the "Arab Spring."
There was an attempt at a response -- companies like Amazon, Master Card, Visa, and Paypal
shut Wikileaks off, and the Pentagon flooded the site with a "denial of service" attack -- but
leaks continued. One person inspired by the revelations was former NSA contractor Edward
Snowden, who came forward to unveil an illegal domestic surveillance program, a story that won
an Oscar and a Pulitzer Prize for documentarian Laura Poitras and reporters Glenn Greenwald and
Jeremy Scahill. By 2014, members of Congress in both parties were calling for the resignations
of CIA chief John Brennan and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, both of whom had
been caught lying to congress.
The culmination of this period came when billionaire eBay founder Pierre Omidyar launched
The Intercept in February 2014. The outlet was devoted to sifting through Snowden's archive of
leaked secrets, and its first story described how the
NSA and CIA frequently made errors using geolocation to identify and assassinate drone targets.
A few months later, former CIA and NSA director Michael Hayden admitted, "We kill people based
on metadata."
Fast forward seven years. Julian Assange is behind bars, and may die there. Snowden is in
exile in Russia. Brennan, Clapper, and Hayden have been rehabilitated and are all paid
contributors to either MSNBC or CNN, part of a
wave of intelligence officers who've flooded the airwaves and op-ed pages in recent years,
including the FBI's Asha Rangappa, Clint Watts, Josh Campbell, former counterintelligence chief
Frank Figliuzzi and former deputy director Andrew McCabe, the CIA's John Sipher, Phil Mudd, Ned
Price, and many others.
Once again, Internet platforms, credit card companies
like Visa and MasterCard , and payment processors like PayPal are working to help track
down and/or block the activities of "extremists." This time, they're on the same side as the
onetime press allies of Wikileaks and Snowden, who began a course reversal after the election
of Donald Trump.
Those outlets first began steering attention away from intelligence abuses and toward
bugbears like Trumpism, misinformation, and Russian meddling, then entered into partnerships
with Langley-approved facsimiles of leak sites like Hamilton 68 ,
New Knowledge , and especially
Bellingcat , a kind of reverse Wikileaks devoted to exposing the misdeeds of regimes in
Russia, Syria, and Iran -- less so the United States and its allies. The CIA's former deputy
chief of operations for Europe and Eurasia, Marc Polymeropolous, said of the group's work, "
I don't
want to be too dramatic, but we love this ."
After the Capitol riots of January 6th, the War on Terror came home, and "domestic
extremists" stepped into the role enemy combatants played before. George Bush once launched an
all-out campaign to pacify any safe haven for trrrsts, promising to "smoke 'em out of their
holes." The new campaign is aimed at stamping out areas for surveillance-proof communication,
which CNN security analyst and former DHS official Juliette Kayyem described as any online
network "that lets [domestic extremists] talk amongst themselves."
Reporters pledged assistance, snooping for evidence of wrongness in digital rather than
geographical "hidey holes." We've seen The Guardian warning about the
perils of podcasts , ProPublica arguing that Apple's lax speech
environment contributed to the January 6th riot, and reporters
from The Verge and
Vice and
The New York Times listening in to Clubhouse chats in search of evidence of dangerous
thought. In an inspired homage to the lunacy of the War on Terror years, a GQ writer even went
on Twitter last week to chat with the author of George
Bush's "Axis of Evil" speech about imploring the "authorities" to use the "Fire in a
Crowded Theater" argument to shut down Fox News.
Multiple outlets announced plans to track "extremists" in either open or implied cooperation
with authorities. Frontline, ProPublica , and Berkley Journalism's Investigative Reporting
Program used " high-precision digital forensics "
to uncover "evidence" about the Boogaloo Bois, and the Huffington Post worked with the
"sedition hunters " at the Twitter activist group "Deep State Dogs" to help identify a
suspect later arrested for tasering a Capitol police officer. One of the Huffington Post
stories, from February, not only spoke to a willingness of the press to work with law
enforcement, but impatience
with the slowness of official procedure compared to "sleuthing communities":
The FBI wants
photos of Capitol insurrections to go viral , and has published images of more than 200 suspects.
But what happens when online sleuthing communities identify suspects and then see weeks go by
without any signs of action ? There are hundreds of suspects, thousands of hours of video,
hundreds of thousands of tips, and millions of pieces of evidence the FBI's bureaucracy isn't
necessarily designed to keep organized.
The Intercept already saw founding members Poitras and Greenwald depart, and shut down the
aforementioned Snowden archive to, in their words, "focus on other editorial priorities" --
parent company First Look Media soon after launched a partnership with "PassionFlix," whose
motto is, " Turning your favorite romance
novels into movies and series ." Last week, they announced a new project in tune with
current media trends:
Are there legitimate stories about people with racist or conspiratorial views who for
instance shouldn't be working in positions of authority, as cops or elected officials or
military officers? Sure, and there's a job for reporters in proving that out, especially if
there's a record of complaints or corruption to match. It gets a little weird if the
newsworthiness standard is "person with a job has abhorrent private opinions," but it's not
like it's impossible that a legit story could be found in something like the Gab archive,
especially if it involves a public figure.
But that depends on the media people involved having a coherent standard for outing
subjects, which hasn't always (or even often) been the case.
Here The Intercept is announcing it considers QAnon devotee Marjorie Taylor Greene and Alex
Jones "violent white supremacists" -- they're a lot of things, but "violent white
supremacists"? In the first piece about "extremists" on Gab, reporter Micah Lee claimed to have
found an account belonging to a little-known conservative youth figure; the man's attorney
later reached out to deny the account was his, leading to a correction .
When asked about his process, Lee responded, sarcastically, that he "certainly wouldn't want to
accidentally do investigative journalism about white supremacist domestic terrorists." When
asked how he defined a terrorist, and if he'd be naming public figures only, the sarcastic
answer this time was, "Of course I won't be naming anyone. Racist white people must be defended
at all costs."
Greenwald left the organization among other things after an editor asked that he address the
"disinformation issue" in a piece about Hunter Biden's laptop, a reference to a claim made by
50 intelligence officers that the story had "the classic earmarks of a Russian disinformation
campaign." He found it inappropriate then for a publication with The Intercept's history to be
pushing an intelligence narrative, and the Gab project struck him in a similar way.
"The leap from disseminating CIA propaganda to doing the police work of security state
agencies is a short one," says Greenwald, "and with its statements about what they are doing
with this Gab archive, The Intercept and its trite liberal managers in New York have now taken
it."
we need to find a way to keep stories like this from being reported.
lovingly,
rachel maddow's wife
ted41776 1 hour ago remove link
they hate us for our freedumb
was anyone punished for that WMD lie that cause the death of hundreds of thousands of
Iraqi civilians and a few thousand US troops?
i mean it is a widely accepted fact now, isn't it? that it was a lie that caused a
genocide and deaths of hundreds of thousands of people?
where are the nuremberg trials? UN? anyone?
crickets
Lt. Shicekopf 1 hour ago
Operation Mockingbird has paid immense dividends, one of the most successful programs
ever.
Maltheus 1 hour ago remove link
I dunno. What's the name of the program to infiltrate the schools? Gives Mockingbird a run
for its money.
fishpoem 32 minutes ago
Use the titles of any of the books written by members of the Frankfurt School. Start with
Marcuse. How such circular reasoning, boring prose, and patently bogus arguments became
mandatory reading material in every college in America is a puzzle future historians will
have to unravel.
Well, if the ruling Marxist Democrats allow historians to exist in the future...which they
probably won't. Truth, in that era, will be what "art" became in Hitler's Germany and
Stalin's Russia: cliched state-worship.
Most of the "reporters" for the big media cartel were always enemies of the American
people.
tedstr 57 minutes ago
News organizations have always been agents of the IC. Just as they are agents of Hollywood
and the biz news are agents of corporations. They no longer have the staffs to truely "do
news" so they rely on being spoon fed from their sources. they will never bite the hand.
Steve in Greensboro 1 hour ago remove link
Lee Smith on Bannon's Warroom 53 in December 2019.
Lee Smith: " Here's something that boggles me still that there are still people after what
we have seen and after I've documented in the book what the press has become what the WaPo
what the prestige brands of American journalism have become and nonetheless there are
Republicans only blocks from here who are more than happy to treat whether it's the WaPo,
NYT, CNN, MSNBC as though these are regular news networks still. Even after three years of
seeing them operate exactly like media operatives "
Steve Bannon: "You believe they are the opposition party media. Right?
Lee Smith: "It's not a media, it's a platform for intelligence operations. It's not media
at all. This is like the Arab press."
Joe Davola 1 hour ago
Maybe a curious investigative reporter might look into why "financial services" companies
jump right in whenever the deep state needs them.
NewMouldy 1 hour ago
Kabuki theatre..
College deans, professors, teachers were all bought and paid for decades ago by the deep
state. The very people that educate upcoming politicians, reporters and scientists.
This is how we got to where we are now.
US Banana Republic 6 minutes ago
When media "personalities" like Cuomo, Madcow, and Cooper make more than $10 million
dollars a year from corporate sponsors towing the corporate/government line then NOBODY want
to be a hard hitting investigative reporter. Everybody wants to be a corporate/government
boot licker.
As always, follow the money.
Isn't Life Gland 15 minutes ago
Ali Watkins is my favorite. "Worked" her way all the way up to the pinnacle gig at the New
York Crimes..on her back.
These folks have had it with the constant stream of baseless propaganda U.S. intelligence is spilling over the world:
Dear Director of National Intelligence,
we, the the 4-star Generals leading U.S. regional commands all over the world, are increasingly concerned with about
the lack of evidence for claims you make about our opponents.
We, as true believers, do not doubt whatever judgment you make about the harmful activities of Russia, Iran and China.
However - our allies and partners do not yet subscribe to the bliss of ignorance. They keep asking us for facts that support
those judgments
Unfortunately, we have none that we could provide.
Media reports have appeared in which 'intelligence sources' claim that Russia, China and Iran are all paying bounties
to the Taliban for killing U.S. soldiers. Fortunately
no soldier got hurt
by those rumors.
Our allies and partners read those and other reports and ask us for evidence. They want to know how exactly Russia, Iran
and China are doing these things.
They, of course, hope to learn from our experience to protect their own countries.
Currently we are not able to provide them with such information. Your people keep telling our that all of it is SECRET.
We therefore ask you to declassify the facts that support your judgments. *
Sincerely
The Generals
---- PS: * Either that or shut the fuck up.
Look, The generals and the intelligence agencies haven't won a war for a long time. So now they will fight each other
. At least ONE of them will win this time ! Success.
Back in the good old days, when things were more innocent and simple, the psychopathic
Central Intelligence Agency had to covertly infiltrate the news media to manipulate the
information Americans were consuming about their nation and the world. Nowadays, there is no
meaningful separation between the news media and the CIA at all.
Analysis: US
blinks first on Russia-Ukraine tensions
Journalist Glenn Greenwald just highlighted an interesting point about the reporting by The
New York Times on the so-called
“Bountygate†story the outlet broke in June of last year
about the Russian government trying to pay Taliban-linked fighters to attack US soldiers in
Afghanistan.
“One of the NYT reporters who originally broke the Russia bounty story
(originally attributed to unnamed ‘intelligence
officials’) say today that it was a CIA claim,†Greenwald
tweeted .
“So media outlets - again - repeated CIA stories with no questioning:
congrats to all.â€
Indeed, NYT’s original
story made no mention of CIA involvement in the narrative, citing only
“officials,†yet this latest article speaks as though it had
been informing its readers of the story’s roots in the
lying, torturing , drug-running , warmongering Central
Intelligence Agency from the very beginning. The author even writes “The New
York Times
first reported last summer the existence of the C.I.A.’s
assessment,†with the hyperlink leading to the initial article which made no
mention of the CIA. It wasn’t until later that The New York Times began reporting that the CIA
was looking into the Russian bounties allegations at all.
The Daily Beast , which has itself uncritically published many articles
promoting the CIA “Bountygate†narrative, reports the
following:
It was a blockbuster
story about Russia’s return to the imperial “Great
Game†in Afghanistan. The Kremlin had spread money around the longtime central
Asian battlefield for militants to kill remaining U.S. forces. It sparked a massive outcry
from Democrats and their #resistance amplifiers about the treasonous Russian puppet in the
White House whose admiration for Vladimir Putin had endangered American troops.
But on Thursday, the Biden administration announced that U.S. intelligence only had
“low to moderate†confidence in the story after all.
Translated from the jargon of spyworld, that means the intelligence agencies have found the
story is, at best, unproven â€" and possibly untrue.
So the mass media aggressively promoted a CIA narrative that none of them ever saw proof of,
because there was no proof, because it was an entirely unfounded claim from the very beginning.
They quite literally ran a CIA press release and disguised it as a news story.
In totalitarian dictatorships, the government spy agency tells the news media what stories
to run, and the news media unquestioningly publish it. In free democracies, the government spy
agency says “Hoo buddy, have I got a scoop for you!†and the
news media unquestioningly publish it.
In 1977 Carl Bernstein published an article titled “ The CIA and the Media
†reporting that the CIA had
covertly infiltrated America’s most influential news outlets and had
over 400 reporters who it considered assets in a program known as
Operation Mockingbird . It was a major scandal, and rightly so. The news media is meant to
report truthfully about what happens in the world, not manipulate public perception to suit the
agendas of spooks and warmongers.
Nowadays the CIA collaboration happens right out in the open, and people are too
propagandized to even recognize this as scandalous. Immensely influential outlets like The New
York Times uncritically pass on CIA disinfo which is then spun as fact by cable news
pundits . The sole owner of The Washington Post is a CIA contractor ,
and WaPo has never once disclosed this conflict of interest when reporting on US intelligence
agencies per standard journalistic protocol. Mass media outlets
now openly employ intelligence agency veterans like John Brennan, James Clapper,
Chuck Rosenberg, Michael Hayden, Frank Figliuzzi, Fran Townsend, Stephen Hall, Samantha
Vinograd, Andrew McCabe, Josh Campbell, Asha Rangappa, Phil Mudd, James Gagliano, Jeremy Bash,
Susan Hennessey, Ned Price and Rick Francona, as are known
CIA assets like NBC’s Ken Dilanian, as are
CIA interns like Anderson Cooper and CIA applicants like
Tucker Carlson.
This isn’t Operation Mockingbird. It’s so much worse.
Operation Mockingbird was the CIA doing something to the media. What we are seeing now is the
CIA openly acting as the media. Any separation between the CIA and the news media, indeed even
any pretence of separation, has been dropped.
This is bad. This is very, very bad. Democracy has no meaningful existence if
people’s votes aren’t being cast with a clear
understanding of what’s happening in their nation and their world, and if
their understanding is being shaped to suit the agendas of the very government
they’re meant to be influencing with their votes, what you have is the most
powerful military and economic force in the history of civilization with no accountability to
the electorate whatsoever. It’s just an immense globe-spanning power
structure, doing whatever it wants to whoever it wants. A totalitarian dictatorship in
disguise.
And the CIA is the very worst institution that could possibly be spearheading the movements
of that dictatorship. A little research into the many, many horrific
things the CIA has done over the years will quickly show you that this is true; hell, just
a glance at what the CIA was up to with the
Phoenix Program in Vietnam will.
There’s a common delusion in our society that depraved government
agencies who are known to have done evil things in the past have simply stopped doing evil
things for some reason. This belief is backed by zero evidence, and is contradicted by
mountains of evidence to the contrary. It’s believed because it is
comfortable, and for literally no other reason.
The CIA should not exist at all, let alone control the news media, much less the movements
of the US empire. May we one day know a humanity that is entirely free from the rule of
psychopaths, from our total planetary behavior as a collective, all the way down to the
thoughts we think in our own heads.
May we extract their horrible fingers from every aspect of our being.
The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is
to subscribe to the mailing list for at my website or on Substack , which will get you an email
notification for everything I publish. My work is
entirely reader-supported , so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around,
liking me on Facebook
, following my antics on Twitter , or
throwing some money into my tip jar on Ko-fi , Patreon or Paypal . If you want to read more you can buy
my books . For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying
to do with this platform,
click here . Everyone, racist platforms excluded,
has my permission to republish, use or translate any part of this work (or anything else
I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge.
"... we, the the 4-star Generals leading U.S. regional commands all over the world, are increasingly concerned with about the lack of evidence for claims you make about our opponents. ..."
"... We, as true believers, do not doubt whatever judgment you make about the harmful activities of Russia, Iran and China. However - our allies and partners do not yet subscribe to the bliss of ignorance. They keep asking us for facts that support those judgments ..."
"... Unfortunately, we have none that we could provide. ..."
"... You say that Russia thought to manipulate Trump allies and to smear Biden , that Russia and Iran aimed to sway the 2020 election through covert campaigns and that China runs covert operations to influence members of Congress . ..."
"... Media reports have appeared in which 'intelligence sources' claim that Russia, China and Iran are all paying bounties to the Taliban for killing U.S. soldiers. Fortunately no soldier got hurt by those rumors. ..."
"... Our allies and partners read those and other reports and ask us for evidence. They want to know how exactly Russia, Iran and China are doing these things. ..."
"... They, of course, hope to learn from our experience to protect their own countries. ..."
"... Currently we are not able to provide them with such information. Your people keep telling our that all of it is SECRET. ..."
"... We therefore ask you to declassify the facts that support your judgments. * ..."
These folks have had it with the constant stream of baseless propaganda U.S. intelligence is
spilling over the world:
Dear Director of National Intelligence,
we, the the 4-star Generals leading U.S. regional commands all over the world, are
increasingly concerned with about the lack of evidence for claims you make about our
opponents.
We, as true believers, do not doubt whatever judgment you make about the harmful
activities of Russia, Iran and China. However - our allies and partners do not yet subscribe
to the bliss of ignorance. They keep asking us for facts that support those
judgments
Unfortunately, we have none that we could provide.
Media reports have appeared in which 'intelligence sources' claim that Russia, China
and Iran are all paying bounties to the Taliban for killing U.S. soldiers. Fortunately
no soldier got
hurt by those rumors.
Our allies and partners read those and other reports and ask us for evidence. They
want to know how exactly Russia, Iran and China are doing these things.
They, of course, hope to learn from our experience to protect their own
countries.
Currently we are not able to provide them with such information. Your people keep
telling our that all of it is SECRET.
We therefore ask you to declassify the facts that support your judgments.
*
Sincerely
The Generals
---- PS: * Either that or shut the fuck up.
The above may well have been a draft for the letter behind
this report :
America’s top spies say they are looking for ways to declassify and
release more intelligence about adversaries’ bad behavior, after a group
of four-star military commanders sent a rare and urgent plea asking for help in the
information war against Russia and China.
The internal memo from nine regional military commanders last year, which was reviewed by
POLITICO and not made public, implored spy agencies to provide more evidence to combat
"pernicious conduct."
Only by "waging the truth in the public domain against America’s 21st
century challengers†can Washington shore up support from American allies, they
said. But efforts to compete in the battle of ideas, they added, are hamstrung by overly
stringent secrecy practices.
“We request this help to better enable the US, and by extension its
allies and partners, to win without fighting, to fight now in so-called gray zones, and to
supply ammunition in the ongoing war of narratives," the commanders who oversee U.S. military
forces in Asia, Europe, Africa, Latin America, as well as special operations troops, wrote to
then-acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire last January.
“Unfortunately, we continue to miss opportunities to clarify truth,
counter distortions, puncture false narratives, and influence events in time to make a
difference," they added.
The generals must have been seriously miffed to write such a letter. There have been a
number of published intelligence judgments where the NSA had expressed
low confidence in conclusions made mainly by the CIA. The NSA is part of the military.
Between two bureaucracies such an accusing letter or internal memo is the equivalent of a
declaration of war. It is doubtful that the intelligence folks would win that fight.
That gives some hope that the Office of the DNI and the agencies below it will now lessen
their production of nonsensical claims.
Posted by b on April 28, 2021 at 15:49 UTC | Permalink
Thanks for that b....is it rubber meets the road time?
I just read that the US is getting all its ambassadorial folk out of Afghanistan....maybe
somebody is believing May 1 is a firmer deadline than the Biden 9/11 myth.
The shit show is about to crash, IMO, but if it is in slow motion, this crazy could go on
for a while....what geo-political straw will break the camel's back?
Lewis Black, a pretty good US comedian, used to have a bit in the mid-2000's where he would
ask the W administration flacks why they didn't just make up evidence about the Iraq WMDs
after they "found out" that there were no weapons in the country. Black would tell them just
make it up; we're used to it. Just give us an excuse to believe in the BS for God's sake;
we'll do it!
I feel it's the same with our satrap nations around the world. At this time, is there
anyone who does not understand that US foreign policy is conducted for and by MICIMATT (look
it up)? So the generals have got nothing to worry about: keep pounding out that BS; there's a
willing, able, and ready corps of salesmen and women in the media who will make enough of the
public believe it for "democracy's" purposes.
General Mackenzie who testified before the US House Armed Services Committee said
Iran’s widespread use of drones means that the US is operating without
complete air superiority for the first time since the Korean War.
Iran has time and again stated that its military capabilities are merely defensive and are
designed to deter foreign threats.
General Flynn had been head of the Defense Intelligence Agency (military).
The CIA was out to get him. It took a while but they eventually hamstrung him good.
"Dear Generals, who haven't won a war in 75 years, so much for the DIA huh? We'd love to
share our intelligence with you, our evidence showing the overwhelming and egregious misdeeds
of our hateful, spiteful disgusting enemies, whose questioning of our Word should be met with
charges of treason, but to give you evidence on top of our own unquestionable and 100%
correct threat estimations, would compromise our Intelligence Gathering Methods which are of
the strictest security and would threaten the ongoing ability of this Agency to gather and
disseminate the unquestionable facts that without fear of contradiction we know is the truth.
In short, dear Generals - work on winning a war, any war, and don't meddle in places that
befuddle your ability to follow orders. Hooah! The CIA."
Intel Wars: DIA, CIA and Flynn’s Battle to Consolidate Spying
The Defense Department wants in on the spying game. But will the CIA block their
efforts?
The CIA essentially absorbed the Pentagon’s only military-wide spying
agency seven years ago [2006]
when the Defense HUMINT Service was dismantled -- and now, the Pentagon wants it back.
The CIA is quietly pushing the Armed Services committees along, hoping that
Flynn’s DCS will be remembered by history as a failed power
grab.
The CIA/FBI/17+ known/unknown agencies are clearly a security apparatus that's gone out of
control when even the USA's "nine regional [four-star general] military commanders" are out
of the loop and pleading to be better informed. Worryingly, though, they ask for "ammunition
in the ongoing war of narratives," which they apparently are ready to go right along
with.
Western news media, of course, has become but a compliant weaponized appendage of that
security apparatus, and democracy, which depends on informed voters, is nowhere in control of
any of this.
I do not see how this is possible. Every major event, from Vietnam, to JFK, to 9-11, and a
myriad of others, had US lies baked into the cake. If the US ceased to lie, it would cease to
function as America functions today. It would be incapable of empire.
The US establishment, from the President on down, is based on lies. They cannot survive on
truth.
b ended his post with: " lessen their production of nonsensical claims."
"Nonsensical" misses the mark. They are *agenda-driven* claims.
I don't believe the Generals care one whit whether the spineless jellyfish pols
in other countries see through our lies. The Generals want the Pentagon to
have more participation in shaping the agenda and it's attendant narrative.
The military used to be that part pf the US government apparatus ("deep state") that
emphasized the value and importance of allies the most.
IMHO what is happening here is that the generals sense the imcreasing cracks in the
US-centered alliance system. They attribute it to the work of the intelligence community,
which is certainly a contributing factor, but thr real cause is the relative decline in US
power and general unreliability due to political instability. The USA is less and less
attractive as a partner. When the generals ask another country for a favour as they had been
used to for decades they increasingly often get just questions and excuses in return.
Is this a sign of a struggle between the CIA and Pentagon as to who is the boss of foreign
and war policy? Anybody remember when CIA supported jihadists were fighting Pentagon
supported groups (were they jihadists?) in Syria. Seems like the Pentagon is the one deciding
on relations with the Syrian Kurds, and not the CIA. Flynn was actively helping the Damascus
with info about the CIA backed jihadists.
I would rather have the Pentagon win as they are not all that hot-to-trot for actual wars.
The CIA should just go back to running US media, law makers, corporation and ruining civil
liberties.
Isn't it safe to assume that *anything* the CIA says publicly, either through direct
channels or their co-opted corporate media, is false? Cue the Mike Pimpeo quote: "We lied, we
cheated, we stole..." and of course the entire history of that useless agency, lol.
When truth is marginalized, the fringe is the only place where it’s
to be found.
So it looks like Russia didn’t pay the Taliban to kill U.S. soldiers
after all.
Last summer, the New York Times announced in a front-page
story that “American intelligence officials have concluded that a
Russian military intelligence unit secretly offered bounties to Taliban-linked militants
killing coalition forces in Afghanistan â€" including targeting American
troops.â€
The article rang with certainty. “Some officials have theorized that the
Russians may be seeking revenge on NATO forces for a 2018 battle in Syria in which the American
military killed several hundred pro-Syrian forces, including numerous Russian
mercenaries,†it said. The operation, it went on, appears to be
“the handiwork of Unit 29155, an arm of Russia’s military
intelligence agency, known widely as the GRU. … Western intelligence
officials say the unit, which has operated for more than a decade, has been charged by the
Kremlin with carrying out a campaign to destabilize the West through subversion, sabotage and
assassination.â€
This was red meat for congressional Democrats eager to tar Trump with whatever brush was at
hand. Nancy Pelosi issued a call to arms, declaring: “Congress and the
country need answers now.†Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer adopted a tone of
mock disbelief: “Russia gives bounties to kill Americans and the
administration does nothing? Nothing? Donald Trump, you’re not being a very
strong president here as usual.†Joe Biden called the report
“horrifying†and said “there is no bottom to
the depth of Vladimir Putin and the Kremlin’s depravity if
it’s true.â€
Except that it isn’t true now that we know that U.S. intelligence
agencies, according to the White House, view the report with only “low to
moderate confidence†â€" which, in layman’s language,
either means that it could be true â€" kind of, sort of, maybe â€" or
that it’s pure baloney. In any event, it’s hardly reason
to accus a sitting president of “a betrayal of every single American family
with a loved one serving in Afghanistan or anywhere overseas,†as Biden did the day
after the story broke.
Charlie Savage, whose byline appears on a number of last summer’s pieces,
offered a series of mealy-mouthed excuses for how he and his fellow Times reporters managed to
get it so wrong. “Former intelligence officials … have
noted that it is rare in the murky world of intelligence to have courtroom levels of proof
beyond a reasonable doubt about what an adversary is covertly doing,†he said . He
described the original intelligence findings as “muddiedâ€
because a key figure in the alleged plot “had fled to Russia â€"
possibly while using a passport linked to a Russian spy agency.â€
So it isn’t the Times’s or the
CIA’s fault, you see â€" it’s merely a hazard
of the trade. But isn’t it’s curious how words like
“murky†and “muddied†never
cropped up last summer when the Times was busily egging Democrats on with stories
charging that the bounties had led to “at least one U.S. troop
death†or maybe even
three ? “Father of Slain Marine Finds Heartbreak Anew in Possible
Russian Bounty,†a Times
headline declared. “American officials intercepted electronic data
showing large financial transfers from a bank account controlled by Russia’s
military intelligence agency to a Taliban-linked account,†another
claimed .
All of which was nonsense, as is now clear. Yet not only has the Times failed to apologize
but White House spokesman Jen Psaki managed to spin the story last week so that
it’s still Moscow’s fault and “there
are [still] questions to be answered by the Russian government.â€
Although the corporate media dutifully echoed the Times, a few skeptics did get it right.
Ray McGovern, an ex-CIA official who now heads a group calling itself Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity, called the
story “dubious†right off the bat. Scott Ritter, the ex-UN
weapons inspector who blew the cover off charges that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq
was bristling with weapons of mass destruction, wrote that
“there is no corroboration, nothing that would allow this raw
‘intelligence’ to be turned into a product worthy of the
name.†Caitlin Johnstone, who covers U.S. politics from Australia yet still does a
better job of it than most stateside reporters,
denounced the entire affair as a “malignant psyop,†adding:
“It really is funny how the most influential news outlets in the western
world will uncritically parrot whatever they’re told to say by the most
powerful and depraved intelligence agencies on the planet, and then turn around and tell you
without a hint of self-awareness that Russia and China are bad because they have state
media.â€
Then there’s someone named Dan Lazare who had pointed
out a few obvious facts in Strategic Culture a few days after the supposed Times scoop came
out:
“But the report doesn’t even make sense. Not only have
the Taliban been at war with the United States since 2001, they’re winning.
So why should Russia pay them to do what they’ve been happily doing on their
own for close to two decades? Contrary to what the Times wants us to believe,
there’s no evidence that Russia backs the Taliban or wants the U.S. to leave
with its tail between its legs. Quite the opposite as a quick glance at a map will attest.
Given that Afghanistan abuts the former Soviet republics of Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and
Kyrgyzstan and is less than a thousand miles from Chechnya, where Russia fought a brutal war
against Sunni Islamist separatists in 1999-2000, the last thing it wants is a Muslim
fundamentalist republic in the heart of Central Asia.â€
The fact that the New York doesn’t even consider†the broad
geopolitical backdrop, the article added, “makes its reporting seem all the
more dubious†â€" words that are as appropriate now as they were
then.
None of this matters, however, because Strategic Culture, it turns out, is
“controlled by Russian intelligence†and publishes
“fringe voices and conspiracy theories.†Yes,
that’s what the Times
says , and its source, as usual, is nothing more than unnamed U.S. government sources
whispering in its ear. But if Strategic Culture is so marginal, how is it that it got the story
right while the Times’s own conspiracy tales turned out to be false?
When truth is marginalized, the fringe is the only place where it’s to be
found.
B ack in the good old days, when things were more innocent and simple, the psychopathic
Central Intelligence Agency had to covertly infiltrate the news media to manipulate the
information Americans were consuming about their nation and the world. Nowadays, there is no
meaningful separation between the news media and the CIA at all.
Journalist Glenn Greenwald just highlighted an interesting point about the reporting by
The New York Times on the so-called
Bountygate story the outlet broke in June of last year about the Russian government trying
to pay Taliban-linked fighters to attack U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan.
“One of the NYT reporters who originally broke the Russia bounty story
(originally attributed to unnamed ‘intelligence
officials’) say today that it was a CIA claim,†Greenwald
tweeted .
“So media outlets â€" again â€" repeated CIA stories
with no questioning: congrats to all.â€
Indeed, the NYT’s
original story made no mention of CIA involvement in the narrative, citing only
“officials,†yet this latest article speaks as though it had been informing its
readers of the story’s roots in the
lying, torturing , drug-running , warmongering Central
Intelligence Agency from the very beginning. The author even writes “The New
York Times
first reported last summer the existence of the C.I.A.’s
assessment,†with the hyperlink leading to the initial article which made no
mention of the CIA. It wasn’t until later that The New York Times began reporting
that the CIA was looking into the Russian bounties allegations at all.
The Daily Beast , which has itself uncritically published many articles
promoting the CIA “Bountygate†narrative, reports the
following:
“It was a blockbuster
story about Russia’s return to the imperial “Great
Game†in Afghanistan. The Kremlin had spread money around the longtime central
Asian battlefield for militants to kill remaining U.S. forces. It sparked a massive outcry
from Democrats and their #resistance amplifiers about the treasonous Russian puppet in the
White House whose admiration for Vladimir Putin had endangered American troops.
But on Thursday, the Biden administration announced that U.S. intelligence only had
“low to moderate†confidence in the story after all.
Translated from the jargon of spyworld, that means the intelligence agencies have found the
story is, at best, unprovenâ€"and possibly untrue.â€
So the mass media aggressively promoted a CIA narrative that none of them ever saw proof of,
because there was no proof, because it was an entirely unfounded claim from the very beginning.
They quite literally ran a CIA press release and disguised it as a news story.
In totalitarian dictatorships, the government spy agency tells the news media what stories
to run, and the news media unquestioningly publish it. In free democracies, the government spy
agency says “Hoo buddy, have I got a scoop for you!†and the
news media unquestioningly publish it.
In 1977 Carl Bernstein published an article titled “ The CIA and the Media
†reporting that the CIA had
covertly infiltrated America’s most influential news outlets and had
over 400 reporters who it considered assets in a program known as
Operation Mockingbird . It was a major scandal, and rightly so. The news media is meant to
report truthfully about what happens in the world, not manipulate public perception to suit the
agendas of spooks and warmongers.
Nowadays the CIA collaboration happens right out in the open, and people are too
propagandized to even recognize this as scandalous. Immensely influential outlets like The
New York Times uncritically pass on CIA disinfo which is then spun as fact by cable news
pundits . The sole owner of The Washington Postis a CIA contractor ,
and WaPo has never once disclosed this conflict of interest when reporting on U.S.
intelligence agencies per standard journalistic protocol.
Mass media outlets
now openly employ intelligence agency veterans such as John Brennan, James
Clapper, Chuck Rosenberg, Michael Hayden, Frank Figliuzzi, Fran Townsend, Stephen Hall,
Samantha Vinograd, Andrew McCabe, Josh Campbell, Asha Rangappa, Phil Mudd, James Gagliano,
Jeremy Bash, Susan Hennessey, Ned Price and Rick Francona, as are known
CIA assets like NBC’s Ken Dilanian, as are
CIA interns like Anderson Cooper and CIA applicants like
Tucker Carlson.
This isn’t Operation Mockingbird. It’s so much worse.
Operation Mockingbird was the CIA doing something to the media. What we are seeing now
is the CIA openly acting as the media. Any separation between the CIA and the news
media, indeed even any pretence of separation, has been dropped.
This is bad. This is very, very bad. Democracy has no meaningful existence if
people’s votes are cast without a clear understanding of
what’s happening in their nation and their world. When their understanding
is being shaped to suit the agendas of the very government they’re meant to
be influencing with their votes, what you have is the most powerful military and economic force
in the history of civilization with no accountability to the electorate whatsoever.
It’s just an immense globe-spanning power structure, doing whatever it wants
to whoever it wants. A totalitarian dictatorship in disguise.
And the CIA is the very worst institution that could possibly be spearheading the movements
of that dictatorship. A little research into the many, many horrific
things the CIA has done over the years will quickly show you that this is true; hell, just
a glance at what the CIA was up to with the
Phoenix Program in Vietnam will.
There’s a common delusion in our society that depraved government
agencies who are known to have done evil things in the past have simply stopped doing evil
things for some reason. This belief is backed by zero evidence, and is contradicted by
mountains of evidence to the contrary. It’s believed because it is
comfortable, and for literally no other reason.
The CIA should not exist at all, let alone control the news media, much less the movements
of the US empire. May we one day know a humanity that is entirely free from the rule of
psychopaths, from our total planetary behavior as a collective, all the way down to the
thoughts we think in our own heads.
May we extract their horrible fingers from every aspect of our being.
The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those
ofConsortium News.
Wiffle , April 22, 2021 at 17:36
Go to any platform and 98% of commentators’
“opinions†are exact duplicates of what the unholy intel/press
partnership has trained them to say.
Hot Dog , April 21, 2021 at 19:00
Douglas Adams, brilliant author of The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, invented the
Infinite Improbability Drive to cross vast intersteller distances in a mere nothingth of a
second without all that tedious mucking about in hyperspace. Following in his footsteps I
adopted the Infinite Improbability Filter, which I use to parse every statement from
governments. I recommend it. Afghans have to be paid by Russians to shoot the invaders and
occupiers of their country ?? Infinitely improbable. Saddam Hussein had nuclear bombs in
aluminum tubes that he could fly over US cities ?? ?? Infinitely improbable. A bunch of guys
in a cave can knock down a skyscraper in Manhattan ?? Infinitely improbable. Joe Biden will
put an end to war ?? ?? Infinitely improbable. The USA is spreading democracy in oil
producing nations ??? Infinitely improbable. Russia won the 2016 election ??? Infinitely
improbable. The CIA are the good guys ??? Infinitely improbable. Believe the corporate media
??? ??? Infinitely improbable. (hXXp://www.earthstar.co.uk/drive.htm). RIP Adams.
Rex Williams , April 21, 2021 at 18:52
“Drug-running�
Well done, Caitlin.First time I have seen any indication of that in the media and even I
have known about it for a decade. Not just drug-running, but the world control of heroin.
Australian soldiers filling in the role of protector of the crops in Afghanistan and also
killing innocent civilians, a matter now under investigation but proven already.
Thankfully, when you list the past members of that infamous group and the controlling role
they enjoy in today’s media, one should not forget the contributions made
by many ex-CIA personnel seen on the pages of Consortium News and what a valuable
contribution they have made to this publication. Many thanks to them.
I am sure that there will be many comments on this subject today.
Hot Dog, I could not agree more, but Hot Damn there is more so much more. Is it possible
that the revelations in this book I discuss might free Julian? The book proves miss use of
secrecy classifications that were used to cover up an act of executive action with extreme
prejudice
The pivotal events that allow the re-opening of the JFK murder case are exposed in Josiah
Thompson’s “LAST SECOND IN DALLASâ€.
Like I have stated already please don’t take my word for this. Read the
book thanks to the Zapruder film and the recordings taken that day of police radios being
still of a quality to allow top notch analysis of them, irrefutable evidence has been
verified. The story of facts have changed the nature of what we now know to be true. Facts
that are provided with their mathematical proof.
If you believe in science, especially science as pursued in this investigation by
individuals of exculpatory character and honesty you will learn the latest scientific
interpretations of the evidence analysis.
Something that, as it turn out cannot be said about the Ramsey Panel.
Thompson’s investigation has neutered the Warren Commission and other
various government attempts, see the House Select Committee effort and the Ramsey
Panel’s efforts to cover up the truth.
This results in exposing the lies the CIA committed to trying to cover up their
involvement. Lies ironically exposed by individuals investigating the murder, lies discovered
in part by the release of JFK documents in 2017. Why did CIA lie from day one, Nov.
22,1963?
DECLASSIFY, DECLASSIFY, DECLASSIFY, Jimm you got it, and the curtain has been pulled back
slightly if not more by this investigation.
Time for all to pressure CIA for the truth.
Thanks CN
PEACE
Anonymot , April 21, 2021 at 10:11
Yes, excellent about the media, but there’s a far greater importance
than that; the CIA IS, yes IS the American government. Certainly, it manages the public
through its controlling influence on the MSM, but its controlling interest in foreign affairs
has been followed by its creeping increasingly into the domestic field, also. It has been
fighting for supremacy over both the State Department and the FBI for years and won the
former hands down via the Bush and Obama years. Hillary at the State Department was the
CIA’s dream! The devastation that followed, from the burning of everything
from Libya to the Ukraine was their wildest wishes come true.
Trump ran on the idea that the intelligence agencies were too invasive and he battled with
them from the beginning, but the CIA knows where everyone’s skeletons are
hidden and Trump has a pile of them. What the CIA then did was point out to him that he had
little room to squiggle or they would put him in jeopardy. As a sop, they allowed him to
spend four years not hating Russia and instead, hating China, climate change, the EU, etc.
while he allowed them to dictate what the CIA wanted done domestically, pipelines, the
border, etc. That made them tower over the FBI.
Now that the CIA helped dump Trump with their media control, they are back in the saddle
with Biden, Russia, the CIA’s favorite target for WW III, is back on the
front burner with its usual hocus pocus stories about the Ukraine, Iran is heating up and so
is China.
But America is now the mosquito attacking the elephant and the CIA with all of its ignorance
and incompetence is back, leading the dance with their partners in the military and the
military industrial complex.
It will be great fun to go out with a bang.
Philip Reed , April 21, 2021 at 10:08
Whatever happened to Carl Bernstein? Where is that guy from Watergate and Mockingbird? Now
turned into a CNN shill.
Sad. Thanks Caitlin for reiterating what most of us know but always needs your persistent
clarification.
Just a short beef with your article. Why did you feel it necessary to include Tucker in your
list of CIA connected media personalities? Especially based on a link to an article that was
an obvious hit piece on Tucker. Tucker has morphed into one of the only MSM personalities who
attacks hypocrisy on both sides of the aisle. He reports on subjects that none of the other
corporate media outlets won’t touch out of pure political felty to the
Democratic Party. He used to take sides years ago. No longer the case. He often has Glenn
Greenwald on in recent times and they are obviously simpatico with each other. Give Tucker a
break Caitlin. He’s the only one on MS corporate media who dares to
deviate from the “ chosen narrative “.
Stevie Boy , April 21, 2021 at 08:02
Unfortunately, this is also true of all the members of the ‘Five
Eyes’ sewer.
In the UK, MI6, MI5, GCHQ and the other related institutions infest the MSM. The BBC and the
Guardian being two obvious direct mouthpieces for the security services. And, the CIA run
their operations directly out of RAF bases (Eg. Anne Sacoolas and her husband).
During the World Wars, the security services maybe had a legitimate role in fighting obvious
enemies. However, now we are the enemy !
Can this sewer ever be drained ?
Donald Duck , April 21, 2021 at 06:19
A slow-burning coup has been emerging in the West since the 1990s.; it is now reaching its
full fruition. Political parties, the MSM, the military and spook organisations, state and
corporate bureaucracies, a trillionaire class, film and entertainment industries have
congealed into a massive technocratic centrist blob. Orthodox politics and ideology is now a
thing of the past. These now are the controlling force behind a quasi-religious narrative
that now seems unassailable. Where this is taking us in anybody’s guess.
Maybe into the eugenicist Brave New World or of Yevgeny Zamyatin’s
dystopian novel ‘We’ first published in 1924.
Well we’d better wake up soon, or we are not going to wake up at
all.
Tumour: A ‘body’ can be 99 percent healthy yet one
cancerous cell can cause much damage growing into a tumour. Although it realizes that by
destroying the very body it feeds on it is also destroying itself yet that end does not
prevent its greed for reproduction. Most US citizens are well aware where the tumour lies and
its progress.
For those who have the interest I made a short video illustrating the thesis above regarding
the possibility that US is suffering a malignant tumour in three areas.The three areas are
the war machine, wall street, education. It can be found on YouTube. John Hagan.
Dave , April 20, 2021 at 21:17
Ms Johnstone is spot on, as usual. The CIA â€" aka the Christian Investment
Authority â€" is no longer needed. Of course, it never was needed, given that the
USA taxpayer funds more than fifteen other “intelligenceâ€
agencies, including State Dept. intelligence, the FBI, the various military intelligence
groups, etc. The CIA was from its beginning an extra-legal, law-breaking, and often illegal
operative group representing the filth, the sleaze of America’s corporate
and banking empires. If the CIA is defunded, don’t worry about its work
force. They will re-emerge in the media, the think-tanks, the corporate bureaucracies, the
military-industrial complex, and foreign government sinecures. Anyway, good riddance to bad
rubbish…at least an honest and responsible American can hope the CIA is
disbanded as soon as possible.
S.P. Korolev , April 22, 2021 at 04:17
Haven’t heard that acronym before, excellent! My favourite is
‘Capitalism’s Invisible
Army’…
No one fact check's the claims made by the intelligent agencies. Bernie was told the
Russians wanted him to win the election and he jump right in the laps of the liars. Trump
knew more before he was president than he did once he was elected. That is why General Flynn
was removed under false charges. He knew what was what. I remember the head of the CIA told
Trump that the Russian has killed ducks and poison children. Trump fell for the lie hook line
and casino
Now we have a president that has mental issues and already believes the Russian are dirty
What could go wrong?
@ pnyx -- It's not only that USians are unaware of much of what's happening in other
countries, it's the fact they are misinformed and misled about current events by propaganda.
This is also the case in Europe because their MSM also have been co-opted by the coordinated
Intelligence Apparatus (CIA - MI6 - FiveEyes) that controls the flow of information in the
U.S. MSM. We are witnessing censorship/control of Social Media, Search Engines, and formerly
independent websites as well.
This is an all-out effort of Class War. One aspect of this is to broadcast a hidden
personal message that if I feel oppressed, "it must be my own fault" because "success"
supposedly is within everyone's grasp (note the emphasis on celebrity 'culture').
"... Back then, I didn't know how contemptuously intelligence agencies spoke about journalists. "You can get a journalist for less than a good whore, for a few hundred dollars a month." These are the words of a CIA agent, as quoted by the Washington Post editor Philip Graham. The agent was referring to the willingness and the price journalists would accept to spread CIA propaganda reports in their articles. ..."
"... I inevitably found out during my decades abroad, almost every foreign reporter with an American or British newspaper was also active for their national intelligence services. That's just something to keep in mind whenever you think you've got "neutral" reporting by the media in front of you. I remember when I got involved with the Federal Academy for Security Politics, with their close ties to intelligence agencies. This was encouraged by my employer. ..."
Looking back, I was a lobbyist. A lobbyist tries to, for example, influence public opinion
through mainstream media in favor of special interest groups. I did that.
Like for the German Foreign Intelligence Service. The FAZ expressly encouraged me to
strengthen my contact with the Western intelligence services and was delighted when I signed my
name to the pre-formulated reports, at least in outline, that I sometimes received from
them.
Like many of the reports I was fed by intelligence services, one of many examples I can
remember well was the expose, "European Companies Help Libya Build a Second Poison Gas Factory"
from March 16, 1993. Needless to say, the report caused a stir around the world.
However, I watched as two employees of the German Federal Intelligence Service (the German
CIA, the Bundesnachrichtendienst or BND), drafted it in a meeting room of the FAZ offices at
Hellerhofstrasse 2 in Frankfurt. In other words: They basically told me what to write,
paragraph for paragraph, right there in the FAZ editorial offices and then the article was
published. One of the duties of these two BND employees was writing reports for
large-circulation German newspapers. According to employee accounts, the BND fed reports to
many German newspapers at the time - with the knowledge of their publishing houses.
The Federal Intelligence Service even had a little front company with an office directly
above a shop on the Mainzer Landstrasse in Frankfurt, only two blocks away from the FAZ's main
office. In any case, they had classified materials there that came from the BND.
Once you became a "player" on the team that drafted such articles, this was followed by the
next level of "cooperation": You would be given stacks of secret documents that you could
evaluate at your leisure. I remember we brought in a steel filing cabinet just for all the
secret reports at the FAZ. (When I was visiting colleagues at a magazine in Hamburg, I saw that
they'd done the same thing in their editorial offices).
Back then, I didn't know how contemptuously intelligence agencies spoke about
journalists. "You can get a journalist for less than a good whore, for a few hundred dollars a
month." These are the words of a CIA agent, as quoted by the Washington Post editor Philip
Graham. The agent was referring to the willingness and the price journalists would accept to
spread CIA propaganda reports in their articles. Of course, this was also with the
approval of their employers, who knew about and encouraged all of this.
In Germany, the Federal Intelligence Service was the extended arm of the CIA, basically a
subsidiary. I was never offered money by the Federal Intelligence Service, but they never even
had to. I, like many of my German colleagues, found it thrilling to be a freelance writer for
an intelligence agency or to be allowed to work for them in any capacity at all.40
... ... ...
During the summer of 2005 when I was the "chief correspondent" of the glossy magazine Park
Avenue, I had a phone call with the Director of the CIA James Woolsey, which lasted more than
an hour. His wife is active in the transatlantic propaganda organization German Marshall Fund
(but we'll touch on this later). Sitting in my Hamburg office at Griiner + Jalir publishing, I
was amazed that I didn't lose the connection, because at the beginning of our conversation
Woolsey was sitting in his office in Virginia, then he was in a limousine and after that in a
helicopter. The connection was so good, it was as if he was sitting right next to me. We spoke
about industrial espionage. Woolsey wanted me to publish a report through Griiner + Jahr that
would give the impression that the USA doesn't carry out any industrial espionage in Germany
through their intelligence services. For me, the absurd thing about this conversation wasn't
its content, which was fortunately never printed. What I really found absurd was that after the
conversation, Griiner + Jahr sent the CIA henchman Woolsey's secretary in Virginia a bouquet of
flowers after the call, because someone at Griiner + Jahr wanted to keep the line to the CIA
open.
Moreover, don t forget that in addition to 6,000 salaried employees, the Federal
Intelligence Service has around 17,000 more "informal" employees. They have completely ordinary
day jobs, and would never openly admit that they also work for the Federal Intelligence
Service. It is the same all over the world. As I inevitably found out during my decades
abroad, almost every foreign reporter with an American or British newspaper was also active for
their national intelligence services. That's just something to keep in mind whenever you think
you've got "neutral" reporting by the media in front of you. I remember when I got involved
with the Federal Academy for Security Politics, with their close ties to intelligence agencies.
This was encouraged by my employer.
I also remember that in the late summer of 1993 I was given time off to accept a six-week
invitation from the transatlantic lobbying organization, the German Marshall Fund of the
United States. All of this surely affected my reporting. The German Marshall Fund sent me to
New York, and I did a night shift with police officers in the Bronx. I wrote an article for the
FAZ about this titled: "The toughest policemen in the world go through these doors." It was one
of many positive articles I wrote about the USA - discreetly organized by the German Marshall
Fund.
It may be hard to believe, but I was actually given a loaded firearm in New York. There's
even a photo of the New York City Police Department handing it to me. The reader didn't learn
anything about what was going on behind the scenes, behind this favorable reporting in the FAZ.
They also didn't find out about the discreet contacts I made during my stay in the US. These
included a
"... his original title Bought Journalists (Gekaufte Journalisten) was kinder and more modest than my more sensational Presstitutes -- but as he had a pithy sense of humor, ..."
"... There is no free speech protection for setting fire to a crowded theater! In my book ISIS IS U.S., in fury at the fakery of these warmongers, I castigate the mainstream media, the MSM, as the МММ: the Mass Murdering Media, as well as the Military-Monetary- Media complex. Notice how the media only point the finger at the military and industry, but mum's the word about the money masters and the media manipulators, they who control the nerve system of the zombie nation, military-industrial complex and all? ..."
"... Sharmine Narwani is right. These are media combatants, these are war criminals, the lowest circle of hell in the ranks of crimes. ..."
What Is Freedom of the Press? Can censorship be freedom of the press? Legal minds favoring the interests of capital may be quick
to claim that newspaper owners and editors have a freedom-of-speech right to print what they think is fit to print. They affirm a
right of censorship or advocacy, above the duty to hew the line of objective reporting. Business, but not government, they say, may
restrict press freedom.
However, this attitude confuses two very distinct classes of law, the Bill of Rights and civil contract law. The First Amendment
merely forbids the government from infringing on freedom of expression. Thus if communist and nationalist parties each wish to publish
their own books or newspapers, congenial to their respective viewpoints, the state should not intervene. Most newspapers, however,
claim to be independent, objective or non- partisan. Thus there is an implied contract to provide an information service to readers.
Advertising in the paper should be clearly labeled as such. Truly independent media are a public service entrusted with a fiduciary
duty, similar to civil servants. The power and influence of their office is under their care, it is not theirs personally. Thus arises
the temptation of corruption, of selling favors. For a large corporation, the financial value of a decision by an official or a newspaperman
may easily dwarf the salary of the poor fellow, who may sell himself for pennies on the dollar.
A paper that claims to be independent when it actually serves hidden interests is guilty of fraud. That of course comes under
another branch of law, the criminal code.
We hear much more about political corruption, but media corruption may actually be worse. Media reporters are our eyes and ears.
What if our senses didn't reflect what is happening around us, but instead some kind of fantasy, or even remote programming? (Which
sounds a lot like TV;-) If our eyes fooled us like that, we would be asleep and dreaming with eyes open, or disabled, hospitalized
for hallucinations. We could never be masters of our own affairs, without a reliable sensorium. So the media must serve the nation
just as our senses must faithfully serve each one of us. But they serve themselves. With the media we have, we are a zombie nation.
Of course, it's hard to be objective on topics like politics which are matters of opinion. That's what the op-ed page is for. The
problem is systematic bias, when money talks in the news pages.
As a freshman in college, I once volunteered to be a stringer on the college paper, and was sent out to interview some subjects
on a campus controversy. I didn't seem to be cut out for a hard hitting journalist either! The episode always reminds me of a Mulla
Nasrudin story.
Mulla was serving as judge in the village, holding court in his garden. The plaintiff came and pleaded his case so convincingly,
that the Mulla blurted out. By Allah, I think you are right! His assistant demurred, But Mullah, you haven't heard the other side
yet! So now the defendant entered his plea, with even greater vigor and eloquence. Once again, the Mulla was so impressed, he cried
out, By Jove, I believe you are right! And once again his clerk protested: But Mulla, they can't both be right! Oh my God, exclaimed
the Mulla, I guess you are right, too!
My junior high school journalism teacher never tired of telling us. Journalism is a business. In theory it's a public trust, but
money makes the world go round. We all have to please the boss to keep our job. We are all bought one way or another. As Ulfkotte
points out, there are thousands of journalists looking for a job, not the other way about. So his original title Bought Journalists
(Gekaufte Journalisten) was kinder and more modest than my more sensational Presstitutes -- but as he had a pithy sense of humor,
I think he would have liked it anyway. The "privished" edition title Journalists for Hire seems to downplay the matter a shade though.
It's perfectly normal to be hired as a journalist, isn't it?
Perhaps we have to escalate the term to investigative journalist, because a journo is just somebody who writes things down.
In an interview ( https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2019/10/14/journalists-are-prostitutes ), Ulfkotte tells about his first assignment,
during the Iran-Iraq war. The international press corps set out from Baghdad into the desert with extra jerry cans of gasoline --
to set alight some long-destroyed tanks for a film shoot. Innocent sensationalism perhaps? But a million people have died in Iraq,
Libya and Syria because the press didn't just report the news, didn't just lie about the news, but they invented and sold the events
that served as pretexts for wars. That is way out of line.
There is no free speech protection for setting fire to a crowded theater! In my book ISIS IS U.S., in fury at the fakery of these
warmongers, I castigate the mainstream media, the MSM, as the МММ: the Mass Murdering Media, as well as the Military-Monetary- Media
complex. Notice how the media only point the finger at the military and industry, but mum's the word about the money masters and
the media manipulators, they who control the nerve system of the zombie nation, military-industrial complex and all?
Political candidates
who tackle the media do so at their peril. Sharmine Narwani is right. These are media combatants, these are war criminals, the lowest
circle of hell in the ranks of crimes.
We have million-dollar penalties for accidental product liability, but the salesmen of genocide
get off scot-free!? 3,000 died on the spot on 9/11, followed by two decades of wars. The key suspect: Netanyahu crony Larry Silverstcin.
His reward: a S3 billion insurance payout - pure profit, as he was only leasing the Towers.
The MSM cover it up, and revile you as
a "conspiracy theorist" if you protest. "Presstitutes" is too light-hearted a word for them. The tragedy is that many social media
agitators for the destruction of Syria were fools, who thought they were being oh so cool.
Remember the Milgram experiment? 1 like
my book covers to be a depiction of the title, an allegory, which led to the most salacious cover art on "Presstitutes" I've ever
dealt with. "Bought Journalists" could have been a covey of journos in a shopping cart, picking up their perks. Light satire blending
to comedy, but this isn't really a funny story. Too many people, including the author, have given their lives.
One nice thing about this book is you get to know a real nice guy. I like Udo. Decent, intelligent, good sense of humor, conscientious,
level-headed. He tells how he fell into this because he was just out of college and needing a job. We all have our compromises and
our confessions to make. Ulfkotte relates the moment when it became too corrupt for him, when politicians offered him €5000 to use
his cover as a journalist to spy and dig up dirt on the private life of their rival. That was too low down and dirty, too criminal
for him, although it seemed to be expected and natural to them. Ulfkotte was the rarest of courageous whistleblowers.
... ... ...
English translation never moved forward." Another curiosity: during the nearly three years Journalists for Hire was "on sale"
but unavailable on Amazon, it garnered only five-star reviews, 24 of them, from customers who wanted to read the book. Then the day
this edition became available, that edition got a 1 -star troll review, virulently attacking the author as a "yellow journalist"
- which happens to mean "warmonger." Weird.
Of course, there could be some mundane explanations for the failure of the first, or rather zero edition. Business failure. Language
barrier. Death of the author -- for a small publisher, a proactive author promoting the book is a necessity. It was spooky, too,
that the only book Tayen Lane seemed to have published before was a non-starter about suicide...
And what if the author's death was a key part of the pattern of suppression? There we go full conspiracy. It's not that incredible,
though. Ulfkotte's last page here is a declaration of war: "This book is the first volume of an explosive three-part series." It's
been alleged that the CIA has a weapon that works by triggering a heart attack. And like the Mafia, their code of silence calls tor
punishing ex-colleagues who took the oath of secrecy and then turned against them, more than mere bystanders like Joe Blogger or
Johnny Publisher.
So I hope I'm lucky to publish this book. Hopefully it will get reviews in the alternative media, or interviews with our translator
or myself. This is the second time I've published a German bestseller. The first was Mathias Broeckers' Conspiracy Theories and Secrets
of 9/11. It didn't turn a profit, but was a very interesting treatment. In the first part of the book he shows that conspiracy -
in the broadest sense, grouping together against outsiders - is one of three basic principles of life and evolution. Darwinians normally
only talk about competition, but the second one is cooperation, and the hybrid of the two is conspiracy. Our body consists of a collective
of cells cooperating and conspiring together against competing organisms! Conspiracy is as common as the air we breathe. Even the
official story of 9/11 is a theory about a conspiracy of 19 hijackers, who weren't even on the passenger lists... Then there is the
conspiracy theory about conspiracy theories, that the CIA purposely turned the term into an epithet to cover up the JFK assassination.
Of course not everything is a conspiracy. You have to remain skeptical, keep your balance and common sense. We need the flexibility
to add new perspectives, and not try to reduce everything to one perspective. Our brains are perfectly capable of this, we just have
to use them. Don't believe what they tell you, if it doesn't stand to reason. On 9/11, three towers fell at free- fall speed, but
only two were hit by airplanes - which were 5,000 times lighter than the steel buildings anyway. Anyone can do the math. The perps
didn't even bother to make it plausible, having the media to cover it up.
When a huge revelation like 9/11 hits, like it did some of us back in 2002, when I published the first "truther" book in English,
it's a big shock. This can make people either deny the new information, or go overboard with it. Sometimes the shock of losing the
mainstream world view is so great that people switch to the reverse explanation for everything. Yet most of life is still banal or
benign. Major criminal political conspiracies like 9/11 require a lot of effort, and are used strategically.
Although 9/11 showed that these people arc capable of almost anything, that doesn't mean they can or will do everything. For instance,
I don't believe in chemtrails, because it doesn't make sense, and the contrails persist mostly on days when there are natural cirrus
clouds in the upper atmosphere. Manipulation is even more common than conspiracy. We all do it to get other people to do things.
Ulfkotte shows that mass media manipulation is business as usual. It is so prevalent that it starts to get into the realm of a matrix,
a wall-to-wall pseudo-reality. The spider army spins its web 24/7. Their thread is a mix of outrages and banalities, bread and circuses.
The formula is clear to see in the major German tabloid Bild. Its readers go for simplified and emotional narratives, like a cheap
novel with themes of love and hate: "The reader's attention is steered away from what's objective- ly important and diverted to what's
trivial." Yes, there IS a sucker bom every minute. We are still just creatures that go too much on impressions and emotions rather
than logic, and the media play on that with sensationalism and simplified images. Sure, our brain has amazing powers, but it can
only focus on one thing at a time. (Luckily, that's at least one more than machines, that have no awareness of anything.)
Simplification, love and hate, enemy images. Our bane as a nation is our bent for political correctness and demonization. We are
the heirs of the Puritans, who had a nasty habit of picking on little old ladies, demonizing them and then burning them at the stake.
Who were the real demons there? Or in the tragedies of Libya and Syria?? When a huge revelation like 9/11 hits, like it did some
of us back in 2002, when I published the first "truther" book in English, it's a big shock. This can make people either deny the
new information, or go overboard with it. Sometimes the shock of losing the mainstream world view is so great that people switch
to the reverse explanation for everything. Yet most of life is still banal or benign. Major criminal political conspiracies like
9/11 require a lot of effort, and are used strategically.
Although 9/11 showed that these people arc capable of almost anything, that doesn't mean they can or will do everything. For instance,
I don't believe in chemtrails, because it doesn't make sense, and the contrails persist mostly on days when there are natural cirrus
clouds in the upper atmosphere. Manipulation is even more common than conspiracy. We all do it to get other people to do things.
Ulfkotte shows that mass media manipulation is business as usual. It is so prevalent that it starts to get into the realm of a matrix,
a wall-to-wall pseudo-reality. The spider army spins its web 24/7. Their thread is a mix of outrages and banalities, bread and circuses.
The formula is clear to see in the major German tabloid Bild. Its readers go for simplified and emotional narratives, like a cheap
novel with themes of love and hate: "The reader's attention is steered away from what's objective- ly important and diverted to what's
trivial." Yes, there IS a sucker bom every minute. We are still just creatures that go too much on impressions and emotions rather
than logic, and the media play on that with sensationalism and simplified images. Sure, our brain has amazing powers, but it can
only focus on one thing at a time. (Luckily, that's at least one more than machines, that have no awareness of anything.)
Simplification, love and hate, enemy images. Our bane as a nation is our bent for political correctness and demonization. We are
the heirs of the Puritans, who had a nasty habit of picking on little old ladies, demonizing them and then burning them at the stake.
Who were the real demons there? Or in the tragedies of Libya and Syria?? We never learn. Hitler with us is as immortal as Satan,
constantly recycled as the evil icon dictator of the day, sometimes complete with moustache. This is how they demonize populism.
Ulfkotte asks, why should populism be unpopular? Lincoln expounded populism when he spoke of a government by and for and of the people.
Each time you spend a $5 greenback with his icon on it, you distribute a piece of populist propaganda! Trump is right to use the
term "witch hunt" against the puritanical attack dogs of impeachment. He wouldn't have needed to ask favors of foreign potentates
if the MSM, the mainstream media, were doing their job and investigating the Bidens. The pot calling the kettle black, because it
sees itself on the politically correct moral high ground. More important, without die color revolution launched by the MSM and the
Obama regime, Ukraine wouldn't have sunk into this cesspool of corruption. Even Trump won't say what die Bidens were really up to:
stirring up war in East Ukraine so they could get their hands on the oil shale fields of the Donbass, or that they are investors
in the illegal occupation of oil fields in the Golan Heights. Can't remember anyone ever fishing in more troubled waters. What about
the suspicions that the Clintons have murdered people, such as Seth Rich, those are just conspiracy theories and not to be investigated
either. Did the DNC kill this whistleblower and blame Putin instead for losing the election? The Mueller report won't say. But people
do get killed. Like JFK, RFK, MLK.
These are not minor matters they are getting away with behind the protective mask of the media which "covers" the news. Surveys
do reflect declining public faith in die mainstream media - except among Democrats. Tell people what they want to hear: a basic marketing
principle. You may have heard of Operation Mockingbird and how the CLA plays our domestic media like a Wurlitzer. Ulfkotte explains
how in Germany, CIA media operations started with the postwar occupation. It's part of the declared intention (most infamously but
not only by Winston Churchill) to destroy the German people, the German identity. Control of the global media is the firm foundation
of the Anglo-American-Zionist empire.
In his parting shot, "What should we do," Ulfkotte sees one simple ray of hope. "Everyone reading this book has the ultimate power
over the journalism I have described here. All we have to do is stop giving our money and our attention to these 'leading media.'
When enough of us stop buying the products offered by these media houses, when we no longer click on their Internet articles and
we switch off their television or radio programs - at some point, these journalists will have to start producing something of value
for their fellow citizens, or they're going to be out of a job. It's that simple." Instead, we can patronize sources like
https://eluxemagazine.com/magazine/honest-news-sites .
They note that, according to Business Insider, 90% of US media are owned by just six corporations, a similar
problem of lockstep media as in Germany. They recommend these "Honest News Sites Way Better Than Mainstream Media."
The Corbett Report
Moon of Alabama
The Anti-Media
Global Research
We Are Change
ProgressivePress.com,
Consortium News
StormCloudsGathering
Truth In Media
Media Roots
21st Century Wire
And The OffOuardian, which incidentally was one of the strongest voices for publishing this suppressed book.
" Reporters uncritically echo intel agencies' election claims. Did they learn nothing from
the Iraq war?" that a wrong question to ask. In reality presstitutes are controlled by their
pimps from intelligence agencies. Like was the case in the USSR he MSM has generally abandoned
journalism and became propaganda arm of the State Department and CIA if we are talking about
foreign policy. .
By no stretch of the imagination can NPR or NYT any longer be called a news organizations.
They are propaganda outlets. The book, "Legacy of Ashes," is a good place to start to learn
something about CIA. And
Presstitutes Embedded in the Pay of the CIA by Dr. Udo Ulfkotte describes how CIA controls
journalists.
Notable quotes:
"... Some of our guys told us stuff. We won’t tell you who or why you should trust them, and we won’t show you any evidence that backs them up. The intelligence community is making a bold appeal to its own authority — an authority of which journalists have good reason to be skeptical. ..."
"... Organizations like the Central Intelligence Agency have a history of propagating disinformation to media outlets. Their biases are obvious: They exist not to report the truth but to disrupt foreign adversaries and, at least in theory, to further American interests. Formally they answer to the president and are overseen by Congress, but they also protect their parochial interests like all bureaucracies. ..."
"... Mr. Rall is a political cartoonist, columnist and author of "The Stringer," a graphic novel forthcoming in April. ..."
Reporters uncritically echo intel agencies' election claims. Did they learn nothing from the
Iraq war?
If your mother says she loves you, check it out, goes an old reporter’s saying. What
if the intelligence community says so?
On March 15 the National Intelligence Council declassified an “intelligence community
assessment” titled “Foreign Threats to the 2020 Federal Election.” From a
journalistic standpoint, the section titled “sources of information” is of
interest. It says only that “we considered intelligence reporting and other information
made available to the Intelligence Community as of 31 December 2020.”
To put that in layman’s terms: Some of our guys told us stuff. We won’t tell
you who or why you should trust them, and we won’t show you any evidence that backs them
up. The intelligence community is making a bold appeal to its own authority — an
authority of which journalists have good reason to be skeptical.
Organizations like the Central Intelligence Agency have a history of propagating
disinformation to media outlets. Their biases are obvious: They exist not to report the truth
but to disrupt foreign adversaries and, at least in theory, to further American interests.
Formally they answer to the president and are overseen by Congress, but they also protect their
parochial interests like all bureaucracies. (Speaking of bias, I draw cartoons for Sputnik
News and frequently appear on their radio programs. I have many other clients as well. That may
affect how seriously you take this article.)
Yet many in the media greeted the report with utter credulity. NPR aired a story March 17
titled “Russia’s Efforts at Information Warfare Against the West
Continue”—not “Intelligence Agencies Claim . . .” Reporters Mary Louise
Kelly and Greg Myre framed the report’s election-interference claims as straightforward
fact, analyzed the political implications, and discussed what the U.S. might do to retaliate.
“But the bigger question, Mary Louise, is how can the U.S. stop these major breaches
being carried out by Russia?” Mr. Myre said.
The segment ignored the possibility that the report’s claims might be false or
mistaken. It failed to mention the lack of documented evidence and the anonymous sourcing. NPR
interviewed a single expert: Glenn Gerstell, a former general counsel of the National Security
Agency, identified only as an “official,” who took the report at face value.
Other media outlets were careful to use proper journalistic form, such as “report
says” and “report alleges.” Yet they too presented unsourced allegations as
fact. CNN said the report “confirms what was largely assumed” and called it
“a wholesale repudiation of many false narratives that were pushed by right-wing news
outlets.” CNN didn’t address the questions of anonymous sourcing or
reliability.
While the New York Times allowed that “the declassified report did not explain how the
intelligence community had reached its conclusions,” it bent over backward to give the
benefit of the doubt to the intelligence community: “The officials said they had high
confidence in their conclusions about Mr. Putin’s involvement, suggesting that the
intelligence agencies have developed new ways of gathering information after the extraction of
one of their best Kremlin sources in 2017.”
In May 2004 the Times’s editors published a 1,200-word letter to readers apologizing
for their coverage of Saddam Hussein’s nonexistent weapons of mass destruction. “We
have found a number of instances of coverage that was not as rigorous as it should have
been,” they wrote. “In some cases, information that was controversial then, and
seems questionable now, was insufficiently qualified or allowed to stand unchallenged. Looking
back, we wish we had been more aggressive in re-examining the claims as new evidence
emerged—or failed to emerge.”
You’d think they’d have learned something from the mother of all
intelligence—and journalistic—failures.
Mr. Rall is a political cartoonist, columnist and author of "The Stringer," a graphic
novel forthcoming in April.
Appeared in the April 2, 2021, print edition.
Douglas Wolf
From the 50's on to the fall of the Soviet Union (which the "intelligence agencies
completely missed) the assessments of the Soviet military was WAY overexaggerated to justify
huge budgets for themselves and the military-industrial establishment. When the SU crumbled,
new boogie men had to found! Oh and they missed the plot that became 9-11. WMD's in Iraq
-nope. The list is long of the screwups and politically motivated reports. I say this as
someone who has a long friendship with a CIA officer
Bryan Smith
Asking the media if they have any ethics,, is like asking the executioner why he is an
hatchet man? Because the money is good!
Robert Bridges
50 Intelligence officers, including Brennan, said the Hunter Biden story was Russian
misinformation before the election. They were wrong. Of course, they, and you, won't
apologize to the American people for that blatant attempt to affect the election.
Michael Bomya
Mr. Rall reminds us of the WMD ploy that was the premise for the Iraq war, however he
misses entirely the more recent 2016 Russian collusion narrative. The alleged journalists are
simply extending their Russia story into a tome as thick as Tolstoy's "War and Peace". I
might take the recent intel report to mean that Russia spent $75K on faceyspacey ads in the
run up to the 2020 election, a 25% increase over their spending to install a sleeper agent,
Donald Trump, into the White House.
No Mr. Rall, there are many "news" articles that I stop reading halfway through due to
anonymous sources, a dearth of facts and its' alignment with a Dem narrative. I am not easily
morphed into a consumer of fiction, when I wish to read the news.
David Everson
As long as their agendas coincide they will cooperate. The rest of us are left to sort out
the epistemological sewage we live in.
Bill Schmaltz
"I'm from the government, I'm here to help you". (Be afraid)
"We're the FBI, we're here to pursue justice" (Not always)
"We're the intelligence community, you can trust us". (No, you can't)
Michael Kwedar
Sadly the question "Cui Bono" addresses a lot of what Mr. Rall declaims.
Richard Taylor
The author gives the "journalists" too much credit for being anything other than the
political hacks they are. The intelligence information coincides with their political views
and hence it is gospel. No need for any further review.
Richard Bolin
The issue of Iraq having weapons of mass destruction was not a failure of the intelligence
community at large. That assessment was made by a rogue intelligence component that had the
White House's ear. I was a senior intelligence officer at the time and when I asked my staff
if they were still seeing evidence that Iraq still had a weapons of mass destruction program
the unanimous answer was no.
Marc Jones
Yet the Director of the CIA still went forward, declaring "Slam Dunk!" Was it not his
responsibility to vet the information he was passing on to ensure its accuracy, or was he one
of the rogues? Where do you want to start with these rogue operations and elements? The 1950s
in Latin America and Iran? The 1960s domestically? The 1970s in Asia? The 1980s and 1990s in
the Middle East and again in Latin America? The record is long, ugly and it has a cause.
There is a difference between gathering information and conducting clandestine foreign
intervention.
The former is necessary and relatively benign. The latter leads to embarrassing and
dangerous rogue operations. The United States has a military, Constitutionally established
and maintained for the purpose of conducting violence in the country's behalf. It was the
intent of the founders that would only happen after the members of Congress debated and
agreed there was a need to do so. We need to return to that standard.
Kenneth Wilson
The "journalists" cited all intend to propagate the Democratic Party narrative that it's
only "The Russians" who interfere in US presidential elections. You will not hear anything
about China's involvement from "the intelligence community" or these same journalists.
Also you can be sure that "the intelligence community" won't say publicly anything about
Dominion voting systems. One member of the intel community, former Trump cybersecurity chief
Chris Krebs (who had been fired by Trump) testified to the Senate Homeland security committee
that in no way were the voting machines connected to the Internet. Until Senator Ron Johnson
showed evidence that yes, the machines are in fact connected to the Internet. Thus the vote
counts can be manipulated from anywhere, including from servers abroad.
Madison Bagney
As Reagan famously said, "Trust but verify." Sadly advice that most Americans fail to
do.
US "intelligence" i.e the people who leak made up BS via anonymous sources to their media
mouthpieces
sbin 2 hours ago
Funny
I can not think of anything intelligent they have ever done.
If a list was drawn up of all the threats to Americans the MIC and Intelligence agencies
would be at the top.
joethegorilla 2 hours ago (Edited)
The US Intelligence used to be under the military chain of command. Dulles talked
Eisenhower into letting him start the CIA as a civilian agency. Everyone warned this domestic
political meddling would happen and guess what? They did it anyway. Spying on Americans is a
feature, not a bug.
As my ilk has said for a long while, when it comes to US foreign policy - IT DOES NOT MATTER
WHO IS PRESDIENT - the facts are fixed around the policy (to quote the dodgy dossier case).
Of course Venezuela is Cuba 2.0. There is no independence from Empire
The New York Times and The Washington Post have long been, and continue to be,
stenographers for the State Dep't and CIA -- why is anyone surprised at these recent
campaigns?
Perhaps it could help to correct the misused vocabulary. Then we can say that "The policy
of inhumane interventionism defends illiberal world order and fosters anti-democratic
aspirations."
@psychohistorian (1) "The NYT continues to be a water carrier for empire and it has and
continues to be very effective in doing so....in spite of b's and others efforts."
Carrying water for the empire is an essential component of the NYT's business model. It is
what gives them unparalleled access to government officials and intelligence operatives,
which creates the false aura of authoritativeness that surrounds the Times, which, in turn,
attracts readers and advertisers and, importantly, influences what is written and said by
other media outlets. That is how the Times became and has remained the "paper of record."
It's a perfect symbiotic relationship. The WaPo has some of the same cachet but will always
be second tier in terms of managing the narrative that the U.S. government wants people to
hear.
@Bobby | Mar 9 2021 18:40 utc | 10
Are you serious?
31 billions is just what's US steal from Venezuela blocking money in US banking system.
EU and others, like England, Korea or Japan.... as well and $billions more.
And that's only the emerge part of iceberg.
@chet380 16: "The NYT could, and should be, called out for its lies every week."
Why? It's the main establishment newspaper. And as such it's useful for discovering what
the establishment wants you think, at any given moment. What they emphasize, what they
ignore, conceal.
All this can be analyzed, and it'll help you figure out what the establishment's plans
are. In a similar way to what they used to call 'kremlinology'.
Some level of control of the press by intelligence agencies is present in all modern societies. The question is "when the
quantity turns into quality"/
It is strange that people are surprised by the side effect of the conversion of the state to the national security state model
(which actually happened after WWII, not now) and idealize the past so much. Probably some warts became more visible with
Internet and the rise of alternative media. Still what exists in the USA looks more like some variation of the "inverted
totalitarism" model of the national security state than the dreadful Stalinism model of the same.
One of the negative side of the Internet revolution and the revolution in communications (such as emergence of smartphones,
social sites and such) is the dramatic increase of the capabilities of state surveillance. Do intelligence agencies literally picked
up thinks that were ling on the ground for anybody to take. Look at the published material about Prism. That a natural outcome of
the ubiquity of electronic email and email portals. Low hanging fruit so to speak. And the PRISM program is just a tip of the
iceberg, and its revelation by Snowden is limited handout, so to speak.
It is fascinating to watch how the US state changed from 1980 to 2020, but nothing new under the sun: the seeds of this
transformation were planted in 1946.
"The CIA and the media are part of the same criminal
conspiracy,"
wrote Douglas Valentine in his important book,
The CIA As
Organized Crime.
This is true. The corporate mainstream media are stenographers for the national
security state's ongoing psychological operations aimed at the American people, just as they have done the same for an
international audience.
We have long been subjected to this "information warfare," whose purpose is to win the hearts and minds of the American people
and pacify them into victims of their own complicity, just as it was practiced long ago by the CIA in Vietnam and by
The
New York Times, CBS,
etc. on the American people then and over the years as the American warfare state waged endless
wars, coups, false flag operations, and assassinations at home and abroad.
Another way of putting this is to say for all practical purposes when it comes to
matters that bear on important foreign and domestic matters, the CIA and the corporate mainstream media cannot be
distinguished.
For those who read and study history, it has long been known that the CIA has placed their operatives throughout every agency
of the U.S. government, as explained by Fletcher Prouty in
The Secret Team
; that CIA
officers Cord Myer and Frank Wisner operated secret programs to get some of the most vocal exponents of intellectual freedom
among intellectuals, journalists, and writers to be their voices for unfreedom and censorship, as explained by Frances Stonor
Saunders in
The Cultural Cold War
and Joel Whitney in
Finks
,
among others; that Cord Myer was especially focused on and successful in "courting the Compatible Left" since right wingers
were already in the Agency's pocket.
All this is documented and not disputed.
It is shocking only to those who
don't do their homework and see what is happening today outside a broad historical context.
With the rise of alternate media and a wide array of dissenting voices on the internet, the establishment felt threatened and
went on the defensive. It, therefore, should come as no surprise that those same elite corporate media are now leading the
charge for increased censorship and the denial of free speech to those they deem dangerous, whether that involves wars, rigged
elections, foreign coups, COVID-19, vaccinations, or the lies of the corporate media themselves.
Having already banned critics from writing in their pages and or talking on their
screens, these media giants want to make the quieting of dissenting voices complete.
Just the other day
The New York Times
had
this
headline
:
"Robert Kennedy Jr. Barred From Instagram Over False Virus Claims."
Notice the lack of the word alleged before "false virus claims." This is guilt by
headline.
It is a perfect piece of propaganda posing as reporting, since it accuses Kennedy, a brilliant and
honorable man, of falsity and stupidity, thus justifying Instagram's ban, and it is an inducement to further censorship of Mr.
Kennedy by Facebook, Instagram's parent company.
That ban should follow soon, as the
Times
' reporter Jennifer Jett hopes, since she
accusingly writes that RFK, Jr.
"makes many of the same baseless claims to more than
300,000 followers"
at Facebook. Jett made sure her report also went to msn.com and
The
Boston Globe
.
This is one example of the censorship underway with much, much more to follow. What was once done under the cover of omission
is now done openly and brazenly, cheered on by those who, in an act of bad faith, claim to be upholders of the First Amendment
and the importance of free debate in a democracy. We are quickly slipping into an unreal totalitarian social order.
Which brings me to the recent work of
Glenn
Greenwald
and
Matt
Taibbi
, both of whom have strongly and rightly decried this censorship.
As I understand their arguments, they go
like this.
First
, the corporate media have today
divided up the territory and speak only to their own audiences in echo chambers: liberal to liberals (read: the "allegedly"
liberal Democratic Party), such as The New York Times, NBC, etc., and conservative to conservatives (read" the "allegedly"
conservative Donald Trump), such as Fox News, Breitbart, etc.
They have abandoned old school journalism that, despite its shortcomings, involved objectivity and the reporting of disparate
facts and perspectives, but within limits. Since the digitization of news, their new business models are geared to these
separate audiences since they are highly lucrative choices. It's business-driven since electronic media have replaced paper as
advertising revenues have shifted and people's ability to focus on complicated issues has diminished drastically.
Old school journalism is suffering as a result and thus writers such as Greenwald and Taibbi and Chris Hedges (who interviewed
Taibbi and concurs: part one
here
)
have taken their work to the internet to escape such restrictive categories and the accompanying censorship.
Secondly
,
the great call for censorship
is not something the Silicon Valley companies want because they want more people using their media since it means more money
for them, but they are being pressured to do it by the traditional old school media, such as
The
New York Times
, who now employ "tattletales and censors," people who are power-hungry jerks, to sniff out dissenting
voices that they can recommend should be banned.
Greenwald says,
They do it in part for power: to ensure nobody but they can control the flow of information. They do it partly for ideology
and out of hubris: the belief that their worldview is so indisputably right that all dissent is inherently dangerous
'disinformation.'"
Thus, the old school print and television media are not on the same page as Facebook, Twitter, etc. but have opposing agendas.
In short, these shifts and the censorship are about money and power within the media
world as the business has been transformed by the digital revolution.
I think this is a half-truth that conceals a larger issue. The censorship is not being driven by power-hungry reporters at
the
Times
or
CNN
or any media outlet. All
these media and their employees are but the outer layer of the onion, the means by which messages are sent and people
controlled.
These companies and their employees do what they are told, whether explicitly or implicitly, for they know it is in their
financial interest to do so. If they do not play their part in this twisted and intricate propaganda game, they will suffer.
They will be eliminated, as are pesky individuals who dare peel the onion to its core.
For each media company is one part of a large interconnected intelligence apparatus – a system, a complex – whose purpose is
power, wealth, and domination for the very few at the expense of the many. The CIA and media as parts of the same criminal
conspiracy.
To argue that the Silicon valley companies do not want to censor but are being
pressured by the legacy corporate media does not make sense. These companies are deeply connected to U.S. intelligence
agencies, as are the
NY
Times, CNN, NBC,
etc.
They too are part of what was once called Operation Mockingbird, the CIA's program to control, use, and infiltrate the media.
Only the most naïve would think that such a program does not exist today.
In
Surveillance Valley,
investigative reporter Yasha Levine documents how Silicon
Valley tech companies like Facebook, Amazon, and Google are tied to the military-industrial-intelligence-media complex in
surveillance and censorship; how the Internet was created by the Pentagon; and even how these shadowy players are deeply
involved in the so-called privacy movement that developed after Edward Snowden's revelations.
Like Valentine, and in very detailed ways, Levine shows how the military-industrial-intelligence-digital-media complex is part
of the same criminal conspiracy as is the traditional media with their CIA overlords. It is one club.
Many people, however, might find this hard to believe because it bursts so many bubbles, including the one that claims that
these tech companies are pressured into censorship by the likes of
The New York Times
,
etc. The truth is the Internet was a military and intelligence tool from the very beginning and it is not the traditional
corporate media that gives it its marching orders.
That being so, it is not the owners of the corporate media or their employees who are the ultimate controllers behind the
current vast crackdown on dissent, but the intelligence agencies who control the mainstream media
and
the
Silicon Valley monopolies such as Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc. All these media companies are but the outer layer of the
onion, the means by which messages are sent and people controlled.
But for whom do these intelligence agencies work?
Not for themselves.
They work for their overlords, the super wealthy people, the banks, financial
institutions, and corporations that own the United States and always have. In a simple twist of fate, such super wealthy
naturally own the media corporations that are essential to their control of the majority of the world's wealth through the
stories they tell.
It is a symbiotic relationship.
As FDR put it bluntly in 1933, this coterie of wealthy forces is the
"financial element in
the larger centers [that] has owned the Government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson."
Their wealth and power has
increased exponentially since then, and their connected tentacles have further spread to create what is an international deep
state that involves such entities as the IMF, the World Bank, the World Economic Forum, those who meet yearly at Davos, etc.
They are the international overlords who are pushing hard to move the world toward a global dictatorship.
As is well known, or should be, the CIA was the creation of Wall St. and serves the interests of the wealthy owners. Peter
Dale Scott, in
"The
State, the Deep State, and the Wall Street Overworld,"
says of Allen Dulles, the nefarious longest-running Director of the
CIA and Wall St. lawyer for Sullivan and Cromwell:
There seems to be little difference in Allen Dulles's influence whether he was a Wall Street lawyer or a CIA director."
It was Dulles, long connected to Rockefeller's Standard Oil, international corporations, and a friend of Nazi agents and
scientists, who was tasked with drawing up proposals for the CIA. He was ably assisted by five Wall St. bankers or investors,
including the aforementioned Frank Wisner who later, as a CIA officer, said his
"Mighty
Wurlitzer"
was
"capable of playing any propaganda tune he desired."
This he did by recruiting intellectuals, writers, reporters, labor organizations, and the mainstream corporate media, etc. to
propagate the CIA's messages.
Greenwald, Taibbi, and Hedges are correct up to a point, but they stop short. Their
critique of old school journalism à la Edward Herman's and Noam Chomsky's
Manufacturing of
Consent
model, while true as far as it goes, fails to pin the tail on the real donkey. Like old school journalists who
knew implicitly how far they could go, these guys know it too, as if there is an invisible electronic gate that keeps them
from wandering into dangerous territory.
The censorship of Robert Kennedy, Jr. is an exemplary case. His banishment from Instagram and the ridicule the mainstream
media have heaped upon him for years is not simply because he raises deeply informed questions about vaccines, Bill Gates, the
pharmaceutical companies, etc. His critiques suggest something far more dangerous is afoot: the demise of democracy and the
rise of a totalitarian order that involves total surveillance, control, eugenics, etc. by the wealthy led by their
intelligence propagandists.
To call him a super spreader of hoaxes and a conspiracy theorist is aimed at not only
silencing him on specific medical issues, but to silence his powerful and articulate voice on all issues.
To give
thoughtful consideration to his deeply informed scientific thinking concerning vaccines, the World Health Organization, the
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, etc., is to open a can of worms that the powerful want shut tight.
This is because RFK, Jr. is also a severe critic of the enormous power of the CIA and its propaganda that goes back so many
decades and was used to cover up the national security state's assassination of both his father and his uncle.
It is why his wonderful recent book
,
American Values: Lessons I Learned from My Family
,
that contains not one word about vaccines
,
was
shunned by mainstream book reviewers; for the picture he paints fiercely indicts the CIA in multiple ways while also indicting
the mass media that have been its mouthpieces.
These worms must be kept in the can, just as the power of the international overlords
represented by the World Health Organization and the World Economic Forum with its Great Reset must be. They must be
dismissed as crackpot conspiracy theories not worthy of debate or exposure.
Robert Kennedy, Jr., by name and dedication to truth seeking, conjures up his father's ghost, the last politician who, because
of his vast support across racial and class divides, could have united the country and tamed the power of the CIA to control
the narrative that has allowed for the plundering of the world and the country for the wealthy overlords.
So they killed him.
There is a reason Noam Chomsky is an exemplar for Hedges, Greenwald, and Taibbi. He controls the can opener for so many. He
has set the parameters for what is considered acceptable to be considered a serious journalist or intellectual. The
assassinations of the Kennedys, 9/11, or a questioning of the official Covid-19 story are not among them, and so they are
eschewed.
To denounce censorship, as they have done, is admirable. But now Greenwald, Taibbi, and Hedges need go up to the forbidden
gate with the sign that says –
"This far and no
further"
– and jump over it.
That's where the true stories lie. That's
when they'll see the worms squirm.
4Celts
14 hours ago
(Edited)
remove
link
But
now Greenwald, Taibbi, and Hedges need go up to the forbidden gate with the sign that says –
"This
far and no further"
– and jump over it.
Easy
for you to say, Mr. Curtin.
"Since
I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the
United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something. They know that there is a
power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they
better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it." - W. Wilson
Ms No
PREMIUM
14 hours ago
That quote really does display it all and it should have chilled people to the bone.
bananaz
2 hours ago
A
*** is Director of the CIA now.
So
no can of worms will be open.
TRM
4 hours ago
remove
link
Tragedy & Hope
Wall St & the Bolshevik Revolution
Wall St & the Rise of Hitler
... ... ...
Normal
14 hours ago
remove
link
No
crap, the federal government is attacking the citizens of the nation.
Mr. Apotheosis
14 hours ago
In truth, the "owners" of the federal government are attacking the people of the world. Ever notice
how no matter what country you're referring to, they ALL have the same talking points and the same
sensationalist media? The rabbit hole goes much deeper than the US federal government. They are mere
tools as the article suggests.
wee-weed up
14 hours ago
(Edited)
The MSM are not just stenographers for the Deep State... but avid cheerleaders!
Pandelis
13 hours ago
regular scum selected for the job ....
GreatUncle
4 hours ago
remove
link
The
government is owned and controlled by the globalists.
Hell they paid for the fraudulent election what did you expect?
CIA
is just an extension of it along with the FBI.
Plus Size Model
1 hour ago
You
should look into Ivy Lee. He was one of Rockefeller's cronies for a long time. Chomsky disregards him
to distract and divert. His deeds run way deeper than Bernnays or the Creel Committee.
Ivy
Lee pioneered the modern role of press agent for big corporations. He's also credited with promoting
communism in the 20's and had the Red Cross as well as IG Fabien (Nazi Party front) as his clients.
Robert F. Kennedy is the last lawyer standing fighting and winning legal cases against large
corporations, big pharma on medical, purposeful and criminal malfeance resulting in the injury and death
of thousands of people, perhaps more. He is a brave man. He has walked in the Valley of Death with his
father and uncle's horrific murders. He fears no one. Least of all these corporations of death and
destruction along with their bought and paid for politicians. Be grateful. He legally sues corps who
pollute, poison food in addition to untested, harmful vaccines. He saves lives. Checkout
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/
play_arrow
Rubicon727
58 minutes ago
The hatred behind The Kennedy's probably harkens back to the patriarch, Joseph P.
Kennedy. He was adamantly against the formation of the CIA. Kennedy realized the
deeply criminal aspects of the CIA and vehemently pushed back.
drjimi
14 hours ago
Real journalists around the world risk their lives standing up to the government.
American "journalists" want to work for the government.
Oldwood
14 hours ago
remove
link
Corruption knows no profession, it is anywhere there's a buck and a desire for
power.
Liesel
13 hours ago
(Edited)
remove
link
Just remember, when they start censoring people, then you know the people getting
censored must be saying something of value. I knew when they went after Alex
Jones awhile back, they were coming after all of us at some point. I even said
they were coming after ZH. Unfortunately, now this place is censored like all the
rest. The scariest event happening right now is not: a pandemic, capitol riot,
impeachments, etc. No doubt, it's the censorship of the American people. In fact,
one of the very important building block of America was free speech. Essentially,
this massive censorship is an outright attack on America by shadowy-dot-gov
agencies, banks, elites, big tech, and the large corporations. Sadly enough, the
elected officials in Washington are nothing more than submissive puppets.
Ms No
PREMIUM
13 hours ago
(Edited)
That isn't always the case actually. That's why they call it limited hangout.
Somebody feigning attack and being downtrodden (like Pelosi's s garage) is
often contrived for street cred. They will also leak some valuable info (often
nothing new though, stuff that's already out or a false detour) for
credibility building.
"A
limited
hangout
or
partial
hangout
is, according to former special assistant to the
Deputy
Director
of the
Central
Intelligence Agency
Victor
Marchetti
, "spy jargon for a favorite and frequently used gimmick of the
clandestine professionals. When their veil of secrecy is shredded and they can
no longer rely on a phony cover story to misinform the public, they resort to
admitting --
sometimes
even volunteering -- some of the truth
while still managing to withhold the
key and damaging facts in the case. The public, however, is usually so
intrigued by the new information that it never thinks to pursue the matter
further."
[1]
[2]
"
this definition is
even limited intentionally...lol
Its used primarily
now to set up controlled opposition and control information.
I am Jack's existential crisis
14 hours ago
remove
link
The intelligence agencies
have
always been a safeguard
between the rulers and the ruled. They are in the
business of mining data on everyone while acting as provocateurs in fomenting
political and social destabilizing events
that
the public won't do on their own
. Period. They care about freedom only in
how to prevent it from occurring.
"As civilization has become more complex, and as the need for invisible
government has been increasingly demonstrated, the technical means have been
invented and developed by which opinion may be regimented." -- Propaganda, Edward
Bernays
johnny two shoes
13 hours ago
(Edited)
remove
link
Stale repost:
The U.S.
attacked
itself
to provoke a war on 9/11.
It did the same before in Cuba, blew up its own ship...
This is called the "Batsh*t Crazy offensive defense maneuver in the dark".
It is a tried & true method.
Vlad & Xi should be scared ****less that the freaks who seized the White House
are getting ready to orchestrate an attack on themselves... and
blame
it on them, and then attack them.
maybe this time it's different, but there's all kinds of Skunk Works they've been
just itching to use
Cloud9.5
8 hours ago
(Edited)
remove
link
Read up on the Phoenix Operation in Vietnam. This will tell you all you need to
know about how the CIA operates. They are doing exactly the same thing here and
they have captured the government. The only reason any of us are still alive is
that we do not matter to them.
https://thevietnamwar.info/the-rise-of-phoenix-program-in-vietnam/
They want a monopoly of power. That is why they have been attacking the second
amendment for decades.
InfiniteIntellRules
7 hours ago
Look up Operation Gladio. That is replicated here as well. Thanks.
They work for their overlords, the super wealthy people, the banks, financial
institutions, and corporations that own the United States and always have. In
a simple twist of fate, such super wealthy naturally own the media
corporations that are essential to their control of the majority of the
world's wealth through the stories they tell.
It goes beyond that
Patmos
12 hours ago
The MK Ultra program and the deliberate creation of DID victims
And
Sirhan Sirhan being a likely subject, which is tragically on point here.
MrBoompi
4 hours ago
Professor Carroll Quigley already explained the process to us in Tragedy and Hope. The book was written
decades ago but the conspiracy it explains is still controlling the world today.
tdlcoop
7 hours ago
(Edited)
remove
link
Some have to
ask what the hell was Truman thinking in 1946 when he signed a bill that allowed an above the law and above
Government oversight department to be created?
Did he
honestly think once that department stopped spying on Cuba that he could just disband the merry men?
Really how
stupid are these Politicians?
And now you
have Democrats fronting Policy that will allow Big Tech Corporations (even though Corporations were created as a
form of abolishing Slavery) to form their own Governments! It's TPP through the back door and most Americans don't
even know it's happening.
You didn't cede power to Politicians to have them sell that power to unaccountable corporations. They don't have
that right but they do it because Americans pay more attention to the idiocy of Celebrities than they do to the
people they pay to protect the country.
Notice they call it the Central Intelligence Agency and not something with the word America or Federal in it? Just
like Central Banking the CIA wasn't created to serve/disrupt just a single Country. Having said that even the
Federal Reserve is not American but it has the word Federal in it to fool Americans.
AlexCat3741
4 hours ago
remove
link
Yup.
Whether it is a Congressional Committee holding hearings to supposedly expose truth about things perceived to be
wrong but then to do nothing except refer a matter to the Dept. of Two Tiered Justice for prosecution that never
happens; the nonsensical presentations on TV cast as "News" or entertainment in the form of Professional Sports
Contests, IT'S ALL "BREAD & CIRCUS" TO KEEP THE POPULATION DISTRACTED THAT THEIR POCKETS ARE BEING PICKED AND
THEIR FREEDOMS ERODED.
Instead of
being a sheep to focus on things that don't matter, put away your electronic leashes, e.g., iPhones, Fakebook/Twitter
Accounts, to get organized to fight for your Republic, your Constitution, and your life because whether you know
it or not,
the
United
States is in a state of war; Undeclared Total War against the basic principles and the foundations of this
Republic's Constitutional System. And the initiator of this war is not comrade Vladimir Putin or Xi Jinping, of
course, it's the system, however ridiculous it may sound, the World Communist System, or the World Communist
Conspiracy, whether it scares some people or not I don't give a hoot. If you're not scared by now, nothing can
scare you.
What actually happens now that we may have literally some years to live on unless the United
States People wakes up. The time bomb is ticking. Every second, the disaster is coming closer and closer.
And
unlike earlier times in the World, we will have nowhere to defect to unless you want to live in Antarctica with
penguins. This is it. This is the last country of freedom and possibility.
redbaron
5 hours ago
The
Conquest book on the Russia revolution has a chapter describing the ideology and it is a good analysis
that accurately describes what we see today in the USSA.
Amel
5 hours ago
(Edited)
Scott called the deep state intelligence communities "supra national"...
"... Here we are in Weirdsville, USA where most people, whether of the left, right, or center, are hypnotized by the flickering screens. That's what movies do. That's what long planned psychological operations do. That's what digital technology allows corrupt rulers and the national security state with its Silicon Valley partners in crime to do. ..."
"... We now live in a screen world where written words and logic are beside the point. Facts don't matter. Personal physical experience doesn't matter. Clear thinking doesn't matter. Hysterical reactions are what matter. Manipulated emotions are what matter. Saying "Fuck You" is now de rigueur, as if that were the answer to an argument. ..."
"... It's all a movie now with the latest theatrical performance having been the January 6, 2021 stage show filmed at the U.S. Capitol. A performance so obvious that it isn't obvious for those hypnotized by propaganda, even when the movie clearly shows that the producers arranged for the "domestic terrorists" to be ushered into the Capitol. They let the "Nazis" in on Dr. Goebbels orders. Thank God Almighty they were beaten back before they seized power in their Halloween costumes. ..."
"... Now who could have given that order to the Capitol and D.C. police, Secret Service, National Guard, and the vast array of militarized Homeland Security forces that knew well in advance of the January 6 demonstration? Who gave the stand-down orders on September 11, 2001, events that were clearly anticipated and afterwards were described by so many as if they were a movie? Surreal. Dreamlike. ..."
"... To accept that Trump and Biden are scripted actors in a highly sophisticated reality TV movie is a bit of "reality" too hard to bear. Exposing them and their minions doesn't hurt at all. There's no business but show business. ..."
"... "A magician is only an actor," ..."
"... "an actor pretending to be a magician." ..."
"... "Will wonders ever cease," ..."
"... On a conscious level, however, many people continue to rationalize their grasp of what is going on in the United States as if ..."
"... The demonstrators who infiltrated the Capitol have defiled the seat of American democracy .My focus now turns to ensuring a smooth, orderly and seamless transition of power. This moment calls for healing and reconciliation ..."
"... still cling to the belief that he is the man they believe in and was going to "clean the swamp" but was sabotaged by the "deep state." Biden supporters, driven by their obsessive hatred for Trump and the ongoing delusions that the Democratic Party, like the Republican, is not thoroughly corrupt, look forward to the Biden presidency and the new normal when he can "build back better." For both groups' true faith never dies. It's very touching. ..."
"... As I have written before, if the Democrats and the Republicans are at war as is often claimed, it is only over who gets the larger share of the spoils. Trump and Biden work for the same bosses, those I call the Umbrella People (those who own and run the country through their intelligence/military/media operatives), who produce and direct the movie that keeps so many Americans on the edge of their seats in the hope that their chosen good guy wins in the end. ..."
"... But if that is so, why, despite Trump and Biden's superficial differences – and Obama's, Hillary Clinton's and George W. Bush's for that matter – have the super-rich gotten richer and richer over the decades and the war on terror continued as the military budget has increased each year and the armament industries and the Wall Street crooks continued to rake in the money at the expense of everyone else? These are a few facts that can't be disputed. There are many more. So what's changed under Trump? We are talking about nuances, small changes. A clown with a big mouth versus traditional, "dignified" con men. ..."
...Life today seems like a dream, doesn't it? Surreal to the point where everything seems
haunted and betwixt and between, or this against that, or that and this against us... Or a Luis
Buñuel film. The logic of the irrational. Surrealistic. A film made to draw us into an
ongoing nightmare. Hitchcock with no resolution. Total weirdness, as Hunter Thompson said was coming
before he blew his brains out. A life movie made to hypnotize in this darkening world where
reality is created on screens, as Buñuel said of watching movies:
This kind of cinematographic hypnosis is no doubt due to the darkness of the theatre and
to the rapidly changing scenes, lights, and camera movements, which weaken the spectator's
critical intelligence and exercise over him a kind of fascination.
Here we are in Weirdsville, USA where most people, whether of the left, right, or
center, are hypnotized by the flickering screens. That's what movies do. That's what long
planned psychological operations do. That's what digital technology allows corrupt rulers and
the national security state with its Silicon Valley partners in crime to do.
We now live in a screen world where written words and logic are beside the point. Facts
don't matter. Personal physical experience doesn't matter. Clear thinking doesn't matter.
Hysterical reactions are what matter. Manipulated emotions are what matter. Saying "Fuck You"
is now de rigueur, as if that were the answer to an argument.
It's all a movie now with the latest theatrical performance having been the January 6,
2021 stage show filmed at the U.S. Capitol. A performance so obvious that it isn't obvious for
those hypnotized by propaganda, even when the movie clearly shows that the producers arranged
for the "domestic terrorists" to be ushered into the Capitol. They let the "Nazis" in on Dr.
Goebbels orders. Thank God Almighty they were beaten back before they seized power in their
Halloween costumes.
Now who could have given that order to the Capitol and D.C. police, Secret Service,
National Guard, and the vast array of militarized Homeland Security forces that knew well in
advance of the January 6 demonstration? Who gave the stand-down orders on September 11, 2001,
events that were clearly anticipated and afterwards were described by so many as if they were a
movie? Surreal. Dreamlike.
As with the events of September 11, 2001 and the subsequent anthrax attacks, the recently
staged show at the Capitol that the mainstream media laughingly call an attempted coup
d'état will result in a new "Patriot Act" aimed at the new terrorists – domestic
ones – i.e. anyone who dissents from the authoritarian crackdown long planned and
underway; anyone who questions the vast new censorship and the assault on the First Amendment;
anyone who questions the official narrative of Covid-19 and the lockdowns; anyone who suggests
that there are linkages between these events, etc.
Who, after all, introduced the Omnibus
Counterterrorism Act in 1995 that became the template for the Patriot Act in 2001 that was
passed into law after September 11, 2001? None other than former Senator Joseph Biden .
Remember Joe? He has a new plan.
Of course, the massive Patriot Act had been written well before that fateful September day
and was ready to be implemented by a Senate vote of 98-1, the sole holdout being Democratic
Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin. In the House of Representatives the vote was 357-66.
For those familiar (or unfamiliar) with history and fabricated false flags, they might want
also to meditate on the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in 1964 that gave Lyndon Johnson his seal of
approval to escalate the war against Vietnam that killed so many millions. The vote for that
fake crisis was 416-0 in the House and 88-2 in the Senate.
In the words of Mark Twain:
Suppose you were an idiot, and suppose you were a member of Congress; but I repeat
myself.
Harry Houdini, the magical performer who was able to escape from any trap, any nightmarish
enclosure, any lockdown, once said,
It's still an open question, however, as to what extent exposure really hurts a
performer.
The question has been answered. It doesn't hurt at all, for phoney events still mesmerize
millions who are eager to suspend their disbelief for the sake of a sad strand of hope that
their chosen leaders – whether Biden or Trump – are levelling with them and are not
playing them for fools. To accept that Trump and Biden are scripted actors in a highly
sophisticated reality TV movie is a bit of "reality" too hard to bear. Exposing them and their
minions doesn't hurt at all. There's no business but show business.
Houdini knew well the tricks used to deceive a gullible audience hypnotized by theatrics.
"A magician is only an actor," he said, "an actor pretending to be a
magician." This is a perfect description of the charlatans who serve as presidents of the
United States.
Life today seems like a dream, doesn't it? "Will wonders ever cease," said Houdini,
as he closed his shows.
When I was a child I had a repetitive dream that I was trapped in a maze. Trying to escape,
all I could hear as I tried desperately to find an exit was a droning sound. Droning without
end. The only way I could escape the maze was to wake up – literally. But this dream
would repeat for many years to the point where I realized my dreams were connected to my actual
family and life in the U.S.A.
Then, when I was later in the Marines and felt imprisoned and was attempting to get out as a
conscientious objector, the dream changed to being trapped in the Marines, or the prison I was
expecting if they didn't let me go. Even when I got out of the Marines and was not in prison,
the dreams that I was continued.
It took me years to learn how to escape.
I mention such dreams since they seem to encapsulate the feelings so many people have today.
A sense of being trapped in a senseless social nightmare. Prisoners. Lost in a horror movie
like Kafka's novel The Castle in which the
protagonist K futilely seeks to gain access to the rulers who control the world from their
castle but can never reach his goal. But these are dreams and The Castle is
fiction.
On a conscious level, however, many people continue to rationalize their grasp of what
is going on in the United States as if what they take to be reality is not fiction.
Trump supporters – despite what are seen by them as his betrayals when he said on January
7 that
The demonstrators who infiltrated the Capitol have defiled the seat of American
democracy .My focus now turns to ensuring a smooth, orderly and seamless transition of power.
This moment calls for healing and reconciliation
still cling to the belief that he is the man they believe in and was going to "clean the
swamp" but was sabotaged by the "deep state." Biden supporters, driven by their obsessive
hatred for Trump and the ongoing delusions that the Democratic Party, like the Republican, is
not thoroughly corrupt, look forward to the Biden presidency and the new normal when he can
"build back better." For both groups' true faith never dies. It's very touching.
As I have written before, if the Democrats and the Republicans are at war as is often
claimed, it is only over who gets the larger share of the spoils. Trump and Biden work for the
same bosses, those I call the Umbrella People (those who own and run the country through their
intelligence/military/media operatives), who produce and direct the movie that keeps so many
Americans on the edge of their seats in the hope that their chosen good guy wins in the
end.
It might seem as if I am wrong and that because the Democrats and their accomplices have
spent years attempting to oust Trump through Russia-gate, impeachment, etc. that what seems
true is true and Trump is simply a crazy aberration who somehow slipped through the net of
establishment control to rule for four years. A Neo-Nazi billionaire who emerged from a TV
screen and a golden tower high above the streets of New York.
This seems self-evident to the Democrats and the supporters of Joseph Biden, and even to
many Republicans.
For Trump's supporters, he seems to be a true Godsend, a real patriot who emerged out of
political nowhere to restore America to its former greatness and deliver economic justice to
the forgotten middle-Americans whose livelihoods have been devastated by neo-liberal economic
policies and the outsourcing of jobs.
Two diametrically opposed perspectives.
But if that is so, why, despite Trump and Biden's superficial differences – and
Obama's, Hillary Clinton's and George W. Bush's for that matter – have the super-rich
gotten richer and richer over the decades and the war on terror continued as the military
budget has increased each year and the armament industries and the Wall Street crooks continued
to rake in the money at the expense of everyone else? These are a few facts that can't be
disputed. There are many more. So what's changed under Trump? We are talking about nuances,
small changes. A clown with a big mouth versus traditional, "dignified" con men.
Trump's followers were betrayed the day he was sworn in, as Biden's will be shortly unless
they support a crackdown on civil rights, the squelching of the First Amendment, and laws
against dissent under the aegis of a war against domestic terrorism.
I'm afraid that is so. Censorship of dissent that is happening now will increase
dramatically under the Biden administration.
Now we have the "insurrection," also known as an attempted "coup d'état," with
barbarians breaching the gates of the sacred abode of the politicians of both parties who have
supported bloody U.S. coups throughout the world for the past seventy plus years. Here is
another example of history beginning as tragedy and ending as farce.
But who is laughing?
If you were writing this script as part of long-term planning, and average people were
getting disgusted from decades of being screwed and were sick of politicians and their lying
ways, wouldn't you stop the reruns and create a new show?
Come on, this is Hollywood where creative showmen can dazzle our minds with plots so twisted
that when you leave the theater you keep wondering what it was all about and arguing with your
friends about the ending. So create a throwback film where the good guy versus the bad guy was
seemingly very clear, and while the system ground on, people would be at each other's throats
over the obvious differences, even while they were fabricated or were minor. This being the
simple and successful age-old strategy of divide and conquer.
I realize that it is very hard for many to entertain the thought that Trump and Biden are
not arch-enemies but are players in a spectacle created to confound at the deepest
psychological levels. I am not arguing that the Democrats didn't want Hillary Clinton to win in
2016. I am saying they knew Trump was a better opponent, not only because they could probably
defeat him and garner more of the spoils, but because if he possibly won he was easily
controlled because he was compromised. By whom? Not the Democrats, but the "Deep State" forces
that control Hillary Clinton and all the presidents. A compromised and corrupt lot.
The Democrats and Republicans were not in charge in 2016 or in 2020. Their bosses were. The
Umbrella people. Biden will carry out their orders, and while everyone will conveniently forget
what actually happened during Trump's tenure, as I previously mentioned, they will only
remember how the Democrats "tried" to oust this man in the black hat, while Biden will carry on
Trump's legacy with minor changes and a lot of PR. He will seem like a breath of fresh air as
he continues and expands the toxic policies of all presidents. So it goes.
"... As an ex-fan of the Guardian, I thought it was jolly decent of the Editors to flag BS stories by omitting the Reader Comments beneath the article. It saved me a lot of time during the transition from reliable News outlet to reliable Mawkish Drivel outlet. Some of the drivel can be amusingly pointless/naif-ish. ..."
"... "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. " ..."
I have a poorly researched theory on the Guardian to share here if i may... a mix of
interesting events reconstructed into a theoretical conspiracy of sorts... here it goes.. I
won't take any reasoned or better informed debunking personally i assure you.
-Since the Edward Snowden scandal, it appears the Guardian has experienced a
transformation of sorts. From rogue investigative journalism, to MSM / Intel Services
propaganda mouthpiece... a la WaPo, NY Times etc...
-To my knowledge, the Guardian's original independence and journalistic integrity was
facilitated by a Trust Fund of sorts which allowed it some form of editorial independence
and objectivity based on finances not entirely reliant on ad revenue/sponsorship and
various other corporate partnership/ownership deals
-I am not particularly sure about the exact timings, but in recent years this Trust Fund of
sorts began to underperform and The Guardian started running into financial trouble
-The Guardian's financial misadventures roughly coincided with significant changes in its
editorial content, key departures including Glen Greenwald himself and various other legal
disputes and misfortunes
My amateurish thesis..
Could it be that this Trust Fund of sorts was deliberately sabotaged, through toxic
Board infiltrations or deliberate bad financial advice, aimed at eroding The Guardian's
financial independence and thus its editorial independence and promotion of dissenting
narratives? Given the extent of integration between Intel/Weapons/Finance industries, a
congruence of mutual interests is not unexpected, and if this Fund was advised or run by
members of major Wall St et al. firms, it doesn't seem too far fetched to conceive of such
a possibility.
Please feel free to post any relative info or comment.
As an ex-fan of the Guardian, I thought it was jolly decent of the Editors to flag
BS stories by omitting the Reader Comments beneath the article. It saved me a lot of time
during the transition from reliable News outlet to reliable Mawkish Drivel outlet. Some of
the drivel can be amusingly pointless/naif-ish.
Guardian changed after 2014 when they published the Edward Snowden leaks. Cameron
threatened to take over the newspapers for revealing the Five Eyes' global
surveillance.
The Guardian was once a comparatively good newspaper. The Snowden episode changed
everything.
Nowadays it's just another pseudo-liberal, post-feminist, opinionated propaganda outlet. In
some way a Daily Mail for "intellectuals".
Basically half of their articles are "opinion" pieces. The only thing worth reading is the
football section (and even that gets more and more opinionated).
So the evil-doers carry out a complicated mission with many moving parts, plus a huge
monetary outlay. They wait seven years before finishing the dastardly deed, just to thicken
the plot. The Guardian says yeah, that sounds plausible. Because they know their readers
have been groomed for years to believe BS.
Reminds me of the Skripal nutty shifting narratives, or better yet Jonathon Chait's New
York Magazine piece (Trump a Russian asset since 1987).
Martin Chulov should be scolded by his Minders for not linking Russia to the plot (the
three were "joint Russian-Syrian citizens"). Maybe that will be written into the script in
the next Guardian article.
My understanding is that for years the bulk of The Fraudian's funding was subsidised by
revenues from sales of Manchester-based tabloid newspapers. I believe this continued into
the 1990s and maybe the first decade of this century. A major part of The Fraudian's income
also used to come from government employment advertisements in the pre-Internet age.
Once the connections with Manchester-based newspapers were cut by the Trust that runs
The Fraudian, and other traditional sources of funding dried up, the newspaper started
sacking editorial and other office staff. This was about the same time The Fraudian opened
offices in the US and Australia in an effort to get more readers (and more subscribers),
and also coincides with Julian Assange working with The Fraudian and other MSM papers on
releasing Wikileaks email revelations. The sackings were disguised as voluntary
redundancies or retirements and the scale was quite huge, a fair few hundred jobs were
cut.
This of course led to The Fraudian having to partner with various "media agencies" in
the Middle East, eastern Europe and other parts of the world. You can guess who funds these
other agencies The Fraudian calls its "partners".
That Martin Chulov writes an article linking the Syrian govt to last year's bomb blast
is no surprise. The news comes just before Joe Biden's inauguration. I had expected that
one of his first priorities as POTUS would be resuming the US invasion of Syria, using any
excuse. The Chulov article smacks of the same devious cherry-picking that Bellingcat
engaged in to finger and "identify" two Russian tourists in Salisbury in 2018 as GRU
agents. I would not be surprised if Chulov, like Higgins, had been told what to write and
by the same people.
Ahem... refreshing to see some content that isn't about the whole Trump
situation in the USSA.
As with other things, including, in part, the Trump thing, we're witnessing full "1984"
level shit from the media and governments. Everyone knows that the CIA and other Pentagram
offices (and MI6) have full control over what Western media publishes, but it's like they
aren't even trying anymore. Just full-on lie mode with zero accountability even when what
they print is refuted beyond any doubt.
Of course they were going to blame Syria, Iran or Venezuela. If any external government
was involved and it wasn't simply negligence by Lebanon's, then it was Israel. Period.
Jesus F*cking Christ, it's so obvious.
Guardian did a good job reporting on the Iraq War II...it was after that (2008), and in
response to its halfway decent reporting of Iraq that the ownership mechanism was
changed.
The new Guardian ownership enacted a "constitution" guaranteeing it would retain its
earlier journalistic integrity, but that was pure horseshit, as it went down hill rapidly
after the ownership change and became just another mouthpiece for
neoliberal/neoconservative propaganda.
Why Martin Chulov, the Guardian's Middle East correspondent and author of the piece, did
not do the basic diligence of checking the records or chose not to tell his readers that
such address sharing is extremely common and does not prove anything is beyond me.
If the Guardian had a proper fact checker that would defeat the purpose of the Guardian
in the first place. I'm not sure if that counts as a circular argument.
Posted by: Ghost Ship | Jan 15 2021 16:41 utc | 23
And you can get your nails and a (bikini) waxing done next door. I guess it's safer that
doing it at home.
... I recall a story how The Guardian was tamed. In the aftermath of Snowden
revelations, The Guardian was raided and the people who run it were seriously threatened.
Ever since, they diligently follow the orders which are given to them with some
sophistication (this is England after all, not Zimbabwe), hence preserving some shreds of
"leftists credibility". Apparently, unlikely as it may seem, some people still read it.
Just before I stopped reading them, they had an actually interesting series about police
shootings in USA. Criticizing local governments in USA is still allowed.
@Et Tu #8
You're thinking too hard.
Matt Taibbi has nailed it on the head: Facebook and Google's ongoing strangulation of news
via monopolization of the channel and demonetization of classified ads has forced
newspapers (and other media) to become ever more click-bait focused. This in turn has
caused them to focus ever more narrowly on "engaged" (read: made angry) groups.
The Guardian's turn is directly linked with Russiagate, not Snowden.
... my real important point about the fascist aristocrat dictatorship of the USSA. The
ruling class aristocracy is certainly not at all in the business of increasing their
profits by acquiring yet more money. That's just a very stupid notion. For all relevant
purposes they already possess all the money. Let's get real. Their sole real business is
simply to retain power. Period. And how do they do that? Easy.
They establish and constantly maintain a churnatistic society. They just keep the
commonalty spinning around in circles by constantly churning 'current events'.
They start a war, or an obviously fake election, or an economic depression, or a mass
shooting, or any outlandish disaster they can churn up to keep the masses in a constant
state of bewilderment.
And then they drop the cherry on top by publishing narratives in media such as the
Guardian that the poor serfs always know deep down make no sense at all.
Therefor no revolt is possible because the serfs are in a perpetual state of
disorientation. All fascist societies are ultimately based on churnatism.
"... It is difficult to know or to ensure that the ballots are actual ballots from registered voters. For example in the early hours of the morning of November 4 large ballot drops occurred in Michigan and Wisconsin that wiped out Trump's lead. State officials have reported that people not registered -- probably illegals -- were permitted to vote. Postal service workers have reported being ordered to backdate ballots that suddenly appeared in the middle of the night after the deadline. These techniques were used to erase Trump's substantial leads in the states of Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Georgia. ..."
"... Digital technology has also made it easy to alter vote counts. US Air Force General Thomas McInerney is familiar with this technology. He says it was developed by the National Security Agency in order to interfere in foreign elections, but now is in the hands of the CIA and was used to defeat Trump. Trump is considered to be an enemy of the military/security complex because of his wish to normalize relations with Russia, thus taking away the enemy that justifies the CIA's budget and power. ..."
"... The military/security complex favors the disunity that the Democrat Party and media have fostered with their ideology of Identity Politics. ..."
"... I would take it a little further and say that voting by mail is a method of vote fraud. The supposed safeguards are easily circumvented, as some whistleblowers have illustrated with ballots being brought forth in large numbers after election day without postmarks and postal workers being ordered to stamp them with acceptable postmarks. ..."
"... Eisenhower is always lauded for his MIC warning. Frankly he ticks me off. Thanks for the warning AFTER you were in some position to mitigate. ..."
"... the most likely source of fraud that is hard to detect, is ballot harvesting. This should be outlawed as it violates the idea of a secret ballot. Somebody comes to the home of a disinterested voter and makes sure he votes (of course they will never admit to hounding the person) and "helps" them with the ballot. If the voter cannot be cajoled into voting the correct way, you merely throw his ballot in the trash. ..."
"... Living in an urban setting I often had to visit apartment buildings. Without fail, there was always a pile of undeliverable mail in the lobby under the mailboxes. ..."
"... His farewell address was just flapdoodle; it wasn't really dredged up till the 70s. Eisenhower spent eight years spreading tripwires and mines and then said "Watch out." Thanks buddy. ..."
"... As the German newspaper editor Udo Ulfkotte revealed in his book, Bought Journalism, the European and US media speak with one voice -- the voice of the CIA. The very profitable and powerful US military/security complex needs foreign enemies. ..."
"... inventive creative new ways to deceive.. first it was election machines, then mail in votes. ..."
"... The phrase "there's no evidence" is just a public commitment to ignore any evidence, no matter how blatant or obvious. ..."
"... Paper ballots as ascribed by Tulsi Gabbard legislation is the only safe option for elections. Kudos to Tulsi! ..."
"... Everyone knew about the potential for voter fraud to occur, but the entire system is corrupt, including Trump who has allowed the massive corruption within the system that was present when he entered office to persist and grow because he is a wimpy, spineless, coward, that was too afraid to make any waves and take the heat that he promised his voters. ..."
"... Why anyone voted for Trump in 2020 confounds me. I voted for him in 2016 and he has turned out to be one of the worst presidents in history. ..."
"... Trump in his cowardess and dishonesty knew that the ailing economy would harm his chances of being re-elected, so he allowed the health scare scamdemic to occur and destroy the livelihoods, lives, and businesses of hundreds of millions of Americans because he is a psychopath. Trump did not do what he promised. Trump made America worse than it has ever been since the end of slavery. ..."
"... Trump has also demanded the extradition of Assange after telling his voters that he loved wikileaks. Trump is a two-faced, lying, fraud. It has been his pattern. He consistently supports various groups and people like Wikileaks, Proud Boys, and others and panders to them and voters and tells people that he loves them, and then every time without fail when the heat is on, Trump says," I really don't know anything about them." ..."
"... "I know nothing." Trump saying "I know nothing." defines his presidency and who he is as a person, a spineless, pandering, corrupt, two-faced, narcissist, loser, and wimp! ..."
A few months ago it looked like the re-election of Trump was almost certain, but now there was a close race between Trump
and Biden? What happen during the last months?
In the months before the election, the Democrats used the "Covid pandemic" to put in place voting by mail. The argument was used
that people who safely go to supermarkets and restaurants could catch Covid if they stood in voting lines. Never before used on a
large scale, voting by mail is subject to massive vote fraud.
There are many credible reports of organized vote fraud committed by Democrats. The only question is whether the Republican establishment
will support challenging the documented fraud or whether Trump will be pressured to concede in order to protect the reputation of
American Democracy.
It is difficult to know or to ensure that the ballots are actual ballots from registered voters. For example in the early
hours of the morning of November 4 large ballot drops occurred in Michigan and Wisconsin that wiped out Trump's lead. State officials
have reported that people not registered -- probably illegals -- were permitted to vote. Postal service workers have reported being
ordered to backdate ballots that suddenly appeared in the middle of the night after the deadline. These techniques were used to erase
Trump's substantial leads in the states of Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Georgia.
Digital technology has also made it easy to alter vote counts. US Air Force General Thomas McInerney is familiar with this
technology. He says it was developed by the National Security Agency in order to interfere in foreign elections, but now is in the
hands of the CIA and was used to defeat Trump. Trump is considered to be an enemy of the military/security complex because of his
wish to normalize relations with Russia, thus taking away the enemy that justifies the CIA's budget and power.
People do not understand. They think an election has been held when in fact what has occurred is that massive vote fraud has been
used to effect a revolution against red state white America. Leaders of the revolution, such as Democrat Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez,
are demanding a list of Trump supporters who are "to be held accountable." Calls are being made for the arrest of Tucker Carlson,
the only mainstream journalist who supported President Trump.
In a recent column I wrote:
"Think what it means that the entirety of the US media, allegedly the 'watchdogs of democracy,' are openly involved in participating
in the theft of a presidential election.
"Think what it means that a large number of Democrat public and election officials are openly involved in the theft of a presidential
election.
"It means that the United States is split irredeemably. The hatred for white people that has been cultivated for many years,
portraying white Americans as "systemic racists," together with the Democrats' lust for power and money, has destroyed national
unity. The consequence will be the replacement of rules with force."
Mainstream media in Europe claim, that Trump had "divided" the United States. But isn`t it actually the other way around,
that his opponents have divided the country?
As the German newspaper editor Udo Ulfkotte revealed in his book, Bought Journalism , the European and US media speak with
one voice -- the voice of the CIA. The very profitable and powerful US military/security complex needs foreign enemies. Russiagate
was a CIA/FBI successful effort to block Trump from reducing tensions with Russia. In 1961 in his last address to the American people
President Dwight Eisenhower warned that the growing power of the military/industrial complex was a threat to American democracy.
We ignored his warning and now have security agencies more powerful than the President.
The military/security complex favors the disunity that the Democrat Party and media have fostered with their ideology of Identity
Politics. Identity politics replaced Marxist class war with race and gender war. White people, and especially white heterosexual
males, are the new oppressor class. This ideology causes race and gender disunity and prevents any unified opposition to the security
agencies ability to impose its agendas by controlling explanations. Opposition to Trump cemented the alliance between Democrats,
media, and the Deep State.
It is possible that the courts will decide who will be sworn into office at January 20, 2021. Do you except a phase of uncertainty
or even a constitutional crisis?
There is no doubt that numerous irregularities indicate that the election was stolen and that the ground was well laid in advance.
Trump intends to challenge the obvious theft. However, his challenges will be rejected in Democrat ruled states, as they were part
of the theft and will not indict themselves. This means Trump and his attorneys will have to have constitutional grounds for taking
their cases to the federal Supreme Court. The Republicans have a majority on the Court, but the Court is not always partisan.
Republicans tend to be more patriotic than Democrats, who denounce America as racist, fascist, sexist, imperialist. This patriotism
makes Republicans impotent when it comes to political warfare that could adversely affect America's reputation. The inclination of
Republicans is for Trump to protect America's reputation by conceding the election. Republicans fear the impact on America's reputation
of having it revealed that America's other major party plotted to steal a presidental election.
Red state Americans, on the other hand, have no such fear. They understand that they are the targets of the Democrats, having
been defined by Democrats as "racist white supremacist Trump deplorables."
The introduction of a report of the Heritage Foundation states that "the United States has a long and unfortunate history
of election fraud". Are the 2020 presidential elections another inglorious chapter in this long history?
This time the fraud is not local as in the past. It is the result of a well organized national effort to get rid of a president
that the Establishment does not accept.
Somehow you get the impression that in the USA – as in many European countries democracy is just a facade – or am I wrong?
You are correct. Trump is the first non-establishment president who became President without being vetted by the Establishment
since Ronald Reagan. Trump was able to be elected only because the Establishment thought he had no chance and took no measures to
prevent his election. A number of studies have concluded that in the US the people, despite democracy and voting, have zero input
into public policy.
Democracy cannot work in America because the money of the elite prevails. American democracy is organized in order to prevent
the people from having a voice. A political campaign is expensive. The money for candidates comes from interest groups, such as defense
contractors, Wall Street, the pharmaceutical industry, the Israel Lobby. Consequently, the winning candidate is indebted to his funders,
and these are the people whom he serves.
European mainstream media are portraying Biden as a luminous figure. Should Biden become president, what can be expected
in terms of foreign and security policy, especially in regard to China, Russia and the Middle East? I mean, the deep state and the
military-industrial complex remain surely nearly unchanged.
Biden will be a puppet, one unlikely to be long in office. His obvious mental confusion will be used either to rule through him
or to remove him on grounds of mental incompetence. No one wants the nuclear button in the hands of a president who doesn't know
which day of the week it is or where he is.
The military/security complex needs enemies for its power and profit and will be certain to retain the list of desirable foreign
enemies -- Russia, Iran, China, and any independent-inclined country in Latin America. Being at war is also a way of distracting
the people of the war against their liberties.
What the military/security complex might not appreciate is that among its Democrat allies there are some, such as Representative
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who are ideological revolutionaries. Having demonized red state America and got rid of Trump (assuming
the electoral fraud is not overturned by the courts), Ocasio-Cortez and her allies intend to revolutionize the Democrat Party and
make it a non-establishment force. In her mind white people are the Establishment, which we already see from her demands for a list
of Trump supporters to be punished.
I think I'm not wrong in assuming that a Biden-presidency would mean more identity politics, more political correctness
etc. for the USA. How do you see this?
Identity politics turns races and genders against one another. As white people -- "systemic racists" -- are defined as the oppressor
class, white people are not protected from hate speech and hate crimes. Anything can be said or done to a white American and it is
not considered politically incorrect.
With Trump and his supporters demonized, under Democrat rule the transition of white Americans into second or third class citizens
will be completed.
How do you access Trump's first term in office? Where was he successful and where he failed?
Trump spent his entire term in office fighting off fake accusations -- Russiagate, Impeachgate, failure to bomb Russia for paying
Taliban to kill American occupiers of Afghanistan, causing Covid by not wearing a mask, and so on and on.
That Trump survived all the false charges shows that he is a real person, a powerful character. Who else could have survived what
Trump has been subjected to by the Establishment and their media prostitutes. In the United States the media is known as "presstitutes"
-- press prostitutes. That is what Udo Ulfkotte says they are in Europe. As a former Wall Street Journal editor, I say with complete
confidence that there is no one in the American media today I would have hired. The total absence of integrity in the Western media
is sufficient indication that the West is doomed.
Never before used on a large scale, voting by mail is subject to massive vote fraud.
I would take it a little further and say that voting by mail is a method of vote fraud. The supposed safeguards are easily
circumvented, as some whistleblowers have illustrated with ballots being brought forth in large numbers after election day without
postmarks and postal workers being ordered to stamp them with acceptable postmarks.
It really seems to me that there would be no democrat majorities in Congress or in so many state legislatures without vote
fraud.
Worse than the fraud available with vote by mail is the voting of people normally who don't bother to vote. Think of how stupid
and uninformed that average American voter is. Now realize how much more stupid and uninformed the non-voter is, only now he votes.
However, the most likely source of fraud that is hard to detect, is ballot harvesting. This should be outlawed as it violates
the idea of a secret ballot. Somebody comes to the home of a disinterested voter and makes sure he votes (of course they will
never admit to hounding the person) and "helps" them with the ballot. If the voter cannot be cajoled into voting the correct way,
you merely throw his ballot in the trash.
I have little doubt that there have been massive "irregularities", particularly in the so-called battleground states, that
are at play in "stealing" the election.
...The favourite phrase these days is "no evidence of wide spread voter fraud". Let's break that down. Only 6 states have been
challenged for vote fraud. In the big scheme of things, 6 states is not wide spread, even if there is massive vote fraud within
those 6 states. That the vote fraud is not widespread, implies that some vote fraud is acceptable, and that the listener should
ignore it. Last and most importantly, in the narrowest of legalistic terms, testimony or affidavits are not evidence. Testimony
and affidavits become evidence when supported by physical evidence. An affidavit with a photograph demonstrating the statement
would be evidence.
Another phrase is something like "election officials say they have seen no evidence of voter fraud". I have yet to hear a reporter
challenge the "seen no evidence of " part of the statement, regardless of the subject, by asking if the speaker had looked for
any evidence. They won't, because they know damn well no one has.
That is how the liars operate. Not so different from Rumsfeld's "plausible deniability".
Living in an urban setting I often had to visit apartment buildings. Without fail, there was always a pile of undeliverable
mail in the lobby under the mailboxes.
The envelopes were mostly addressed to people who had moved out or died. If ballots were sent to these people based on incorrect
voter rolls, then these too would likely have been left sitting on the floor or on a ledge for anyone to take.
It doesn't take a leap of faith to know what a Trump-hating leftist would do when no one is looking. This moral hazard was
intentionally created by Dems, who know that urban dwellers are transient and lean left politically.
Eisenhower is always lauded for his MIC warning. Frankly he ticks me off. Thanks for the warning AFTER you were in some
position to mitigate.
Ike's a mystery. Why did he NOT question Harry Truman's commitments to NATO, the UN, and all that rubbish? Ike was a WWII guy.
He knew Americans hated the UN in 1953 as much as they hated the League of Nations after WWI. But he let it all slide and get
bigger.
His farewell address was just flapdoodle; it wasn't really dredged up till the 70s. Eisenhower spent eight years spreading
tripwires and mines and then said "Watch out." Thanks buddy.
Well, agree on your points however, on the other side of the ledger, he never understood the stupidity of the Korean war (that
he could have ended) and majorly up-ramped CIA activities in all manner of regime change (bay of pigs anyone?). Almost a direct
path to our foreign policy now (and now domestic policy)
He did deploy the military assistance advisory group to Vietnam in 1955. This is considered the beginning of U.S. involvement
in the war. This allowed the French to moonwalk out the back door leaving us holding the bag. In fairness this was Johnson's war
however. Eisenhower did cut the military budget as a peace dividend to fund interstate system and other domestic projects. In
today political spectrum he would be considered a flaming liberal.
As the German newspaper editor Udo Ulfkotte revealed in his book, Bought Journalism, the European and US media speak
with one voice -- the voice of the CIA. The very profitable and powerful US military/security complex needs foreign enemies.
What intrigues me is the ultimate political goal of the UN and the WEF when they anticipate a single global government centered
at the UN and the absence of nation-states.
So what is the MIC going to do when there are no existential threats of competing nation-states? Or will the MIC re-engineer
religious wars between the various religious groups, secular and theological? It seems the aspirations of the WEF and its fellow
travellers preclude the occurrence of future armed conflicts.
Of course one needs capitalistic economies to produce the ordnance and materiels for the engineered social factions to war
with each other. Yet if the Greens have their way, there will be no mining period.
More likely is the possibility that none of them actually understand what they are doing. As Nassim Taleb is alleged to have
remarked, 99% of humans are stupid.
The total absence of integrity in the Western media is sufficient indication that the West is doomed.
It's because Western media is completely under the control of Jews, the world's foremost End Justifies Means people. The Fourth
Estate has become the world's most powerful Bully Pulpit. There are still a few good ones though, brave souls they are: Kim Strassel
of WSJ, Daniel Larison of The American Conservative , Neil Munro of Breitbart.
The rest are more or less lying scums, including everyone on NYTimes, WSJ, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, MSNBC, Fox News (minus
Tucker Carlson and Maria Bartiromo), The Economist , and let's not forget the new media: Google, Facebook, Twitter. The
world would be a much better place without any of them.
@Beavertales
-- with either vote flipping on machines or having the totals that paper ballot scanners tabulate adjust via a pre-programmed
algorithm. Many elections have already been stolen this way.
Nancy Pelosi claims that Biden's victory gives the Democrats a "MANDATE" to alter the economy as they see fit with 50.5%.
This proves that Biden will NOT represent everyone – only the left! I have warned that this has been their agenda from day one.
Now, three whistleblowers from the Democratic software company Dominion Voting Systems, alleging that the company's software stole
38 million votes from Trump. There are people claiming that Dominion Voting Systems is linked to Soros, Dianae Finesteing, Clintons,
and Pelosi's husband. I cannot verify any of these allegations so far.
We are at the Rubicon. Civil War is on the other side. There should NEVER be this type of drastic change to the economy
from Capitalism to Marxism on 50.5% of the popular vote. NOBODY should be able to restructure the government and the economy on
less than 2/3rds of the majority. That would be a mandate. Trying to change everything with a claim of 50.5% of the vote will
only signal, like the Dread Scot decision, that there is no solution by rule of law. This is the end of civilization and it will
turn ugly from here because there is no middle ground anymore. As I have warned, historically the left will never tolerate opposition.
Yes, the theft is blatant. But what are you, us, going to do about it? We really can't do much as the Office of the President
Elect requires us to wear masks. For our safety.
"in the narrowest of legalistic terms, testimony or affidavits are not evidence. Testimony and affidavits become evidence when
supported by physical evidence. " Correct – but they also can become evidence by verbal testimony. ie "I saw the defendant hit
the victim with a rock"
Not only have they stolen the election but when Joe Biden and other democrats claim that President Trump caused the deaths
of hundreds of thousands of Americans because of his handling of Covid 19, they are in sane. No world leader could stop the spread
of this respiratory virus. However, Joe Biden and democrats have caused the deaths of hundreds of white people, while whipping
up weak minded people to kill many whites. Biden and the democrats are criminals. Any one who is white, man or woman, that supports
the democratic party is enabling a criminal organization to perpetrate violence on white people, including murder.
Since the article was from a German magazine it's understandable that there is no mention of "the one who shall not be named".
No mention of the people behind the Lawfare group, the same people behind the impeachment, the same people providing financial
and ideological support for the BLM/Antifa, the same people that own the media that spewed lies for 5 years and censored any mention
of the Biden family corruption, no mention of the people behind this Color Revolution, the same people who promoted the mail in
voting and those that managed the narrative for the media on election night to stop Trump's momentum.
For the public consumption the election will be described in vague terms, like this article, blaming special interests and
institutions like the FBI, CIA and MIC without naming names as if an institution, not the oligarchs and chosen pulling the strings,
are somehow Marxist, anti-white or anti-Christian.
The interviewer quotes the Heritage Foundation does anyone even care what they say? The English Tavistock Institute by way
of the CIA which the British molded from the OSS created programs for the Heritage Foundation as well as the Hoover Institute,
MIT, Stanford University, Wharton, Rand etc. These "rightwing think tanks" were created to counter the CIA's "leftwing think tanks"
at Columbia, Berkeley etc. Thank you British Intelligence.
Steve Bannon was just interviewing someone (can't remember his name). Apparently there are about 200 to 300 IT professionals/engineers
working on these so-called "glitches" (not glitches at all) which mysteriously "disappeared" thousands of Trump votes. Then they'd
dump phony Biden votes into the mix. These IT professionals are going to follow the trail.
I've also heard that Dominion Voting Systems played a big part in this scam by using algorithms. One Trump lawyer said that
big revelations are coming.
We're going to have to be patient and just wait.
"The inclination of Republicans is for Trump to protect America's reputation by conceding the election."
I honestly think it's more like the old established Republicans (corporate bought) want Trump to lose because that is what
their campaign donors want (Big Pharma, Wall Street, etc.) They are part of the elite, and the elite (both the Democrats AND Republicans)
want Trump gone so they can continue their crony capitalist looting. They've got to appear like they're behind Trump, but I don't
think they are. Of course, that's not all Republican representatives.
Sounds like they've been rigging elections for awhile now. I bet they just messed up with Hillary. I think that's why she was
so upset. She had it, but they screwed up and didn't supply enough ballots.
@KenHinventive creative new ways to deceive.. first it was election machines, then mail in votes. next it will be magic carpet
voting. But the votes don't count, cause it is the electoral college that elects the President.
Trump also lost a significant number who did not understand Trump was an Israeli at heart, they thought he was a uncoothed
NYC red blooded American.
As far as white, black or pokadot color or any of the religions ganging up against Trump I don't think that happened, the fall
out into statistically discoverable categories is just that, fall out, not those categories conspiring to vote or not vote one
way or the other.
PCR seems to have trouble seeing a difference between the counting of perfectly proper votes which Pres Trump's post office
delivered late which may or may not be allowed by law which can be determined in court, and fraud like the dead voting or votes
being forged.
The fraud is all so transparent but no one in the power elite seems to give a crap whether the public catches on or not these
days. They know that the entire media which creates the false matrix of contrived "truth" that we all live in will back them to
the hilt because they are actually just one more working part in the grand conspiracy. We all know that when "O'Brian" says 2
+ 2 equals 5 we must all believe it, or at least say we do. We interface with "O'Brian's" minions on a daily basis but we don't
know the ultimate identity of "O'Brian" (in the singular or multiple). Many guesses are made, but they hide that from us fairly
well with the aid of their militaries and "intelligence" agencies (aka secret police in other times and places).
For example in the early hours of the morning of November 4 large ballot drops occurred in Michigan and Wisconsin that wiped
out Trump's lead.
In a very similar vein, it is the same thing that happened to Bernie Sanders during the primary's. Joe was down and out, and
Bernie was enjoying the lead and then "Bam!" Overnight Joe is back on top.
Well, fool me once,,,,,, .,and blah, blah whatever Bush said .
Dr Roberts has referenced in the interview a UR article that goes into considerable detail about the massive electoral fraud
by the Democrats and their partners. You've obviously not bothered to read it.
You're like one of those MSM hacks who denies electoral fraud without making any attempt to look at the evidence.
@Begemot
And it's almost always a closer race than anyone would have guessed beforehand -- which I also find suspicious. How likely is
it that the majority of presidential elections over the last century were decided by more or less even numbers of voters from
each party, between more or less evenly matched candidates?
Really seems like they've perfected the art of putting on rigged political shows that you can't quite believe in, but don't
have anything really solid to back up your suspicions. It's like the "no evidence of fraud" canard -- anything solid enough to
show obvious manipulation is explained away as the exception, rather than the tip of a very deep iceberg
Like the false accusations about Russia, delegitimizing the presidential election as fraud is turning out to be much ado
about nothing.
Let's review. The Democrats perpetrated the phony 2016 Russian influence fraud, and now the Democrats are perpetrating the
phony 2020 election victory.
The common elements are Democrats perpetrate fraud.
IMO this is a simple remedy to settle the election fraud mess or we will be arguing about this 20 years from now .from the
American Thinker.
The candidates on the ballot must have an opportunity to have observers whom they choose to oversee the entire process so
the candidates are satisfied that they won or lost a free and fair election.
That is not what happened in the 2020 election. That is the single most important and simple fact that needs to be understood
and communicated. The 2020 election was not a free and fair election, because poll-watchers were not allowed to do their essential
job. The 2020 election can still be a free and fair election with a clear winner, whoever that may be, but time is running
out.
In every instance where poll-watchers were not allowed to observe the process, those votes must be recounted. They must
be recounted with poll-watchers from both sides present. If there are votes that cannot be recounted because the envelops were
discarded, those votes must be discarded. Put the blame for this on the officials who decided to count the votes in secret.
Consider it a way to discourage secret vote counts in the future.
The pandemic has not been fearful enough to close liquor stores, and it in should not be used as excuse to remove the poll-watchers
who are essential to a free and fair election. If we must have social distancing, then use cameras.
Certainly, there are other issues with the 2020 election. There may be problems with software, and there are issues like
signature verification and dead people voting. Everything should be considered and examined, but no other issue should distract
from the simple fact that both sides must be able to view the entire process. If one side is not allowed to view the vote-counting,
then that side should be calling it a fraud. We should all be calling it a fraud.
...Trump had control of the Senate, the House and of course the Executive between his inauguration in January of 2017 and the
Midterm Elections of 2018, a total time period of 1 year and 10 months. What did he do during this time? He deregulated financial
services and passed corporate tax cuts.
At the end of the day, being emotionally invested in US elections is no different to being emotionally invested in Keeping
up with the Kardashians , that is to say your life wouldn't be that different if your don't follow either.
The Democrats Have Stolen the Presidential Election
The Deep State Has Stolen the Presidential Election. FIFY. But they have been in control for decades they just don't care who
knows now. They are taking final steps to make their control impervious to attack.
This is the reason that the establishment latched on to the Eisenhowerian bon mot but entirely memory hole Trumman's
far more explicit warning a freaking month after a sitting president is shot like a turkey in Dallas: it white washes CIA and
NSC .
The place to begin, and it's mind-blowing when you think about it this way, is that nothing was resolved on election night.
Not who will take the oath on January 20th. Nor which party will control the Senate. Nor even who will be Speaker and which party
will control the House.
Suffice it to say, a still raging factional struggle has simply moved to a greater degree behind the curtain.
I noted this movie reference on another thread here:
If your father dies, you'll make the deal, Sonny.
-- "The Godfather"
My point being, you're foolish if you ascribe certainty as to outcome at this point.
Being rid of Trump has been as close to a dues ex machina for the establishment as imaginable since he took the oath. This
ineluctable observation elicits no end of foot-stomping by those who assume it necessarily says anything positive about the man.
With every persistent revision of the script they wrote for him, all ending with his political demise at least, Trump has not
just survived but grown stronger. While the Democrats turned our elections into something only seen in a third-world shit hole,
Trump legitimately drew 71M votes from Americans.
That's a lot of air in the balloon. Believe me, filth like Russian mole Brennan may think everything is finished once they
get rid of terrible, awful Trump, but those above his pay grade know better.
Like him or hate him, Trump is the only principal not wholly or largely discredited. He was saved from destruction during his
first term by the Republican base moving to protect him. That was the import of his 90-95% approval among them, destroy him and
you destroy the Republican Party.
Now, despite -- or perhaps, because of -- everything they've done, that base now includes a significant number of Democrats
and independents. Trump is merely a vessel for an American majority attached to this constitutional republic thingie we've got
going.
Don't get lost in the details. This isn't a puzzle you can solve by internet sleuthing. The plan they executed -- to steal
sufficiently to make the outcome inevitable by the morning after the election at the latest -- failed. This was evident early
on Election Day (e.g. fake water main breaks in Atlanta) and necessitated their playing their Fox/AZ card and shutting down the
count at least until they had removed Republican monitors.
"In 22 states, Republicans will hold unified control over the governor's office and both houses of the legislature, giving
the party wide political latitude -- including in states like Florida and Georgia."
"Eleven states will have divided governments in 2021, unchanged from this year: Democratic governors will need to work with
Republican legislators in eight states, and Republican governors will contend with Democratic lawmakers in three."
The Democrats have: Joe Biden, and a slim majority in the House of Representatives which they are almost certain to lose in
two years.
What the Republicans are going to do is everything we hate, but they will pretend they were "forced" to do it by the Democrats
– the Democrats being the minority party.
Who else could have survived what Trump has been subjected to by the Establishment and their media prostitutes. In the United
States the media is known as "presstitutes" -- press prostitutes. That is what Udo Ulfkotte says they are in Europe.
Left and right.
(What you small brains do not understand is this.)
Democrats enabling the elite to invest in far east (lower wage costs, higher profits) did abandon the working class in America.
Democrats by this act did throw away the working class as a dirty rug.
Democrats with their TPP exporting most of the production to far east would totally destroy working class in USA. Trump's first
act was to cancel this insanity. Democrats are insanely delusional.
Democrats were left. Left is a party that supports the working people.
So here switch occurred. Democratic party now represent the elite, and Republicans now represent the working people.
(The irony of the fate)
The headline for PCR's article is a prediction, not yet established, and incomplete.
There is an ongoing massive attempt to steal the Presidential election as well as to steal an unknown number of House and Senate
seats, and who knows what else.
The 'game' is still on. Many tens of millions of citizens – actual total unknown but possibly in numbers unprecedented in American
history – voted for Trump. Republican candidates for office generally had strong support, but again, the actual percentage of
support is unknown but presumably larger than now 'recorded'.
There are also the many millions who ardently supported Trump, know that Biden is illegitimate, deeply corrupt, and the precursor
to perils unknown. Their determination and backbone and intelligence will now be tested.
There is the electoral college process; there are the state legislators that have a say in the process; there is the Supreme
Court.
There is also the possibility of pertinent executive orders that mandate transparent processes in the face of, say, apprehended
insurrection via fraudulent voting processes.
There is also the matter of how millions of 'deplorables' with trucks and tractors and firearms and other means to make their
point will react to obvious massive election travesty.
The conjunction of the COVID global scamdemic/plandemic, with crazed Bill Gates and kin lurking in the background with needles,
'peaceful' protesters in many cities setting fires and looting with near impunity, and a mass media that is clearly comprehensively
committed to a demonic degree of dishonesty and manipulation, and lunatic levels of 'identity politics' ideology, are among the
elements setting the stage for what may be an historical watershed.
The American Revolution in the 18th century, against the British Crown's authority, came about after years of simmering anger
and sporadic resistance against British injustice. At some point there was a 'tipping point'. When Germany invaded and occupied
Norway early in the 2nd WW, an effective resistance quickly formed in reaction, where death and torture were the known willing
risk. Two years before, those forming the resistance would have been just going on with their lives.
Who's Afraid of an Open Debate? The Truth About the Commission on Presidential Debates. The CPD is a duopoly which allows the
major party candidates to draft secret agreements about debate arrangements including moderators, debate format and even participants.
Ben Swann explains how the new coalition of EndPartisanship org is working to break the 2 party hold on primary elections,
which currently lock around 50% of voters out of the process.
I am currently watching an interview with SD Governor Kristi Noem, who went on ABC to challenge George Stenopolosus' claim
that there is no fraud in this election. She pointed out that there has been many allegations, including dead people voting in
PA and GA, she says we don't know how widespread this is, but we owe it to the 70+ million people who voted for Trump to investigate
and ensure a clean and fair election. She said we gave Al Gore 37 days to investigate the result in 2000, why aren't we giving
the same to Trump?
She is extremely articulate and sounds intelligent and honest, and what's more courageous to come forward like this. I hope
she runs for president in 2024, I'd vote for her.
Am I the only one who sees something profoundly spiritual happening in front of our eyes?
Yes. In reality, 5% of White men sent Trump packing. That doesn't match the GOP negrophile narrative where "based" Hindustanis
join the emerging conservative coalition to make sure White people can't get affordable healthcare in their own countries, though.
So we'll have to watch you parasites spool up this pedantic "fraud" nonsense until the fat orange zioclown gracelessly gets dragged
out.
Good post. You will gain more insight from this background on the speech and drafting.
Jan 19, 2011 Eisenhower's "Military-Industrial Complex" Speech Origins and Significance US National Archives
President Dwight D. Eisenhower's farewell address, known for its warnings about the growing power of the "military-industrial
complex," was nearly two years in the making. This Inside the Vaults video short follows newly discovered papers revealing that
Eisenhower was deeply involved in crafting the speech.
Great article. Thanks. Agree with you about the big stealing being electronic. Trump tweeted out yesterday that over 2 million
votes were stolen this way. For him to say this, they must have evidence.
Dinesh D'Souza said he hopes that when this matter comes before the Supreme Court that they will tackle once and for all what
constitutes a legal vote.
Some pretty big names are involved with this Dominion Voting. It will be interesting to see what Trump's team of IT experts
discover re the use of algorithms to swing the vote.
Why (Oh, why) did Trump had to go? Because Trump is an enema to the Deep State. He was threatening to expose the biggest lie
of the last 100 years – the supposed "liberalism" of US...
The author refers to a body of overwhelmingly persuasive evidence of voter fraud that can be specified and quantified to provide
proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal cases, not to mention hands down proof in civil cases requiring only a preponderance
of the evidence to establish guilt. Furthermore, the Democrats' easily documented, elaborate efforts at concealing the vote counting
process by shutting down the counting prior to sneaking truckloads of ballots in the back door is by itself powerful circumstantial
evidence of their guilt. You have no idea what "evidence" means, either in general usage or in its strictly legal sense.
The election cannot be trusted at all, just based on the insane entitled emotional state of the Globalist establishment alone.
The system as-a-whole cannot be trusted, for the same reason. They are actively corrupting it in every way they can, and fully
believe (as a matter of religious conviction) that they are right to do so.
That's one of the Jew/Anglo Puritan Establishment's new catch-phrases. There's also "no evidence" that Joe Biden acted in a
corrupt manner in Ukraine, even though he admitted to it on tape. There's "no evidence" that Big Tech is biased against conservative
plebians, despite their removing conservative plebians' published content arbitrarily and with no State compulsion to do so.
The phrase "there's no evidence" is just a public commitment to ignore any evidence, no matter how blatant or obvious.
This newly discovered legal standard goes beyond "preponderance of the evidence" or even "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt"
to establish absolute certainty as the standard.
Just the obvious and necessary complement of the Bob Mueller standard for Russian collusion, don't you think -- "could not
(quite) exonerate"? /s
They went for a softer approach in KY in 2019. The first-term Repub Gov had a Yankee's forthrightness so they just latched
onto comments he made regarding the underfunded teachers pension program and amped-it to high heaven getting teachers all in a
frightful frenzy.
In that solidly Red state, with all other prominent offices on the ballot (AG, SoS, etc.) going overwhelmingly Repub
, somehow the Repub Gov loses to the Dem by around 5000 votes. The "teachers pension" narrative was rolled-out as the reason.
(Btw, it seems that Dominion, or another type, software was used to switch the votes in that race. I've seen video about it.)
@Orville
H. Larson out how the winds are blowing. There is nothing good about it.
Why not this:
-- ONLY in-person voting over a 2-day period, a Sat and Sun, with polls being open from 6AM to 9PM both days.
-- Exceptions are the traditional requested absentee ballot where the voter can be authenticated.
-- Paper ballots must be used at the polls and no single box of 'Straight Vote by Party' is offered.
-- Some kind of SIMPLE scanning tabulator could be used of the ballots and with it NOT being connected to the internet.
There is far too much cheating opportunity built into our current system. That's intended, of course. It needs to end!
Because you don't get it. You are missing the big picture. It was well known that these systems had the ability to be hacked
as soon as they were implemented. It is also a well known fact that massive mail in ballots increases the likelihood that corrupt
individuals are more likely to get away with election fraud.
Everyone knew about the potential for voter fraud to occur, but the entire system is corrupt, including Trump who has allowed
the massive corruption within the system that was present when he entered office to persist and grow because he is a wimpy, spineless,
coward, that was too afraid to make any waves and take the heat that he promised his voters.
Why anyone voted for Trump in 2020 confounds me. I voted for him in 2016 and he has turned out to be one of the worst presidents
in history.
Trump in his cowardess and dishonesty knew that the ailing economy would harm his chances of being re-elected, so he allowed
the health scare scamdemic to occur and destroy the livelihoods, lives, and businesses of hundreds of millions of Americans
because he is a psychopath. Trump did not do what he promised. Trump made America worse than it has ever been since the end of
slavery. Jeremy Powell said today that the economy is dead and will never recover.
The only injustices that Trump gave a damn about were the injustices against himself and his family, and has committed countless
injustices against the entire country and world during his term. Trump is a corrupt narcissist. The facts prove it. Trump is such
a corrupt narcissist that he was willing to destroy the entire economy based on scientific fraud, high crimes, and treason to
use as political cover for his own incompetency which is the most offensive and disgusting diabolical act ever perpetrated on
the entire country.
Trump has also demanded the extradition of Assange after telling his voters that he loved wikileaks. Trump is a two-faced,
lying, fraud. It has been his pattern. He consistently supports various groups and people like Wikileaks, Proud Boys, and others
and panders to them and voters and tells people that he loves them, and then every time without fail when the heat is on, Trump
says," I really don't know anything about them."
"I know nothing." Trump saying "I know nothing." defines his presidency and who he is as a person, a spineless, pandering,
corrupt, two-faced, narcissist, loser, and wimp!
Why would anyone vote for him the second time around after a record of pathological incompetency and pathological corruption?
What's to approve of about him? Go ahead, investigate voter fraud it if is permitted, and if it isn't then ask yourselves why
it is that a system that enables election fraud is in place, and ask yourselves who had the ability to change it and, who had
the ability to benefit from it!
Max Blumenthal, reporting from Venezuela, discusses with Aaron Maté and Ben Norton
how Western corporate media outlets are full of stenographers for spy agencies, how the CIA
and MI6 drive reporting on Russia, how the US and UK governments fund regime-change website
Bellingcat and its deceptive articles on Syria and the OPCW, and how the British military
censors journalism.
A study done a few years ago showed that over 2/3rds of international affairs stories in
major European newspapers were basically reprints of NYT articles, tweaked lightly for
localization purposes. The major media outlets all sing from the same hymn sheet and the
CIA and other western intel operations knows that any story they feed into the system will
be reproduced around the globe and taken as 'fact' by most of the newspapers' readers.
The media's incestuous nature and its infiltration by the intelligence services really
became apparent during the Syrian Civil War and the Trump presidency. It is now clear that
the western mainstream media works with the spooks to shape and mold opinion, and
manufacture consent, rather than innocently informing its readers about world events.
The rise of the now often used insult "conspiracy theorist", which is really code for
"dissenting opinion", is closely related to this. The western liberal democracies are going
totalitarian in real time as the window of "acceptable" opinion continues to shrink and the
establishment finds new ways to censor, ban and stifle heretical thinking.
Operation Mokingbird2: looks like the CIA remains firmly in charge of US policy and the
mainstream media.
Notable quotes:
"... 1) If the first sentence contains a variation of the words "according to," then the story is at least partially bullsh*t . (2) If a variation of "according to" is in the headline, then every word of the story is a lie ..."
"... What is so cynical is that during the last three years of fake "Russian Collusion" certain politicians were colluding with the Chinese CCP, ie in actuality doing what they were accusing Trump of doing. ..."
I believe that there are a few golden rules that can be applied to news stories:
1) If the first sentence contains a variation of the words "according to," then the
story is at least partially bullsh*t . (2) If a variation of "according to" is in the
headline, then every word of the story is a lie
What is so cynical is that during the last three years of fake "Russian Collusion"
certain politicians were colluding with the Chinese CCP, ie in actuality doing what they were
accusing Trump of doing. Inevitable now that there is big trouble brewing in the US, I
don't see how all the fraud evidence on every level can be disregarded, let alone apparent
foreign involvement in the voting machines.
Regarding the David Sanger fantasy piece published in the NYT, I commented on the Times's
website that Sanger made the claim of Russian culpability without providing a shred of actual
evidence. Much to my surprise, my comment was accepted for publication.
Shortly thereafter, it mysteriously vanished into the ether, no doubt having been read and
removed by some editor or even by slimeball Sanger himself. Now that was not a surprise.
"... If Trump's legal action against brazen election fraud to deny him a second term succeeds -- what's highly unlikely but possible -- will a phony DJT/Russia connection again make headline news? ..."
The scheme was cooked up by Obama/Biden regime Russophobes John Brennan, Hillary and the
DNC -- to smear Russia and discredit Trump at the same time.
It aimed to maintain and escalate US hostility toward the Russian Federation – for its
sovereign independence, advocacy for world peace, opposition to Washington's imperial agenda,
and having foiled its aim to transform Syria into another US vassal state.
It also relates to Sino/Russian unity – representing the only obstacle to Washington's
aim for unchallenged global dominance.
Probes by special counsel Robert Mueller, as well as House and Senate committees found no
evidence of Russian US meddling.
Nor did the US intelligence community. Claims otherwise without corroborating evidence were
and remain baseless.
In US criminal judicial proceedings, evidence beyond a reasonable doubt is required for
convictions.
Without it, fairly and impartially adjudicated cases would be dismissed.
Time and again, Russia was falsely accused of US election meddling, notably in the run-up to
Trump v. Hillary in 2016.
To this day, no credible evidence ever proved accusations because none exists.
The Russiagate hoax remains one of the most shameful political chapters in US history,
exceeding the worst of McCarthyism because despite its exposed Big Lies, it's still around.
Yet in 2018 testimony before House Intelligence Committee members, former Director of
National Intelligence James Clapper (2010 – 2017) said the following:
"I never saw any direct empirical evidence that the Trump campaign or someone in it was
plotting (or) conspiring with the Russians to meddle with the election."
"I do not recall any instance when I had direct evidence of the content of" alleged Trump
team-Russia collusion.
Remarks like the above, along with failure of probes by Mueller, House and Senate members to
present evidence of Russian US election meddling should have ended the Russiagate witch-hunt
once and for all.
While largely dormant in the run-up to and aftermath of US Election 2020, it could resurface
any time in old or new form.
In following NYT reports on other issues, most recently with regard to Trump v.
Biden/Harris, I haven't seen a Russiagate report in its online editions for some time.
Belatedly I discovered an August 2020 mini-book-length article in the NYT Magazine
(online), a publication I don't follow.
It discusses a classified National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) of various geopolitical
issues, this one prepared in July 2019.
The Times: "According to multiple officials who saw it, the document discussed Russia's
ongoing efforts to influence US elections: the 2020 presidential contest and 2024's as well
(sic)."
Its so-called "interest" is much the same as in other nations.
"Interest" has nothing to do with meddling. No credible evidence ever surfaced to show US
election interference by any nations.
It's in sharp contrast to credible evidence of US meddling in scores of elections abroad
throughout the post-WW II period and earlier.
According to "key judgments" of US intelligence officials, "Russia favored the current
president: Donald Trump," adding:
Ahead of the summer 2020 party national conventions, "Russia worked in support of the (Dem)
presidential candidate Bernie Sanders," said the Times, based on the NIE report.
It wasn't "genuine" support for Sanders, just an effort "to weaken that party and ultimately
help the current US president (sic)."
The Times: "Just as this article was going to press," the Office of the Director of National
Intelligence (ODNI) claimed the following:
Moscow "is using a range of measures to primarily denigrate former (Joe) Biden and what it
sees as an anti-Russia 'establishment (sic).' "
The ODNI accused Moscow of "sophisticated election-disrupting capabilities (sic)."
An unnamed intelligence community source familiar with the NIE was quoted, saying it's "100
percent reliable (sic)."
Left unexplained by the Times was that from inception to the present day, Russiagate was and
remains a colossal hoax.
No evidence ever surfaced to suggest Kremlin US election meddling, nor by any other foreign
country.
What the NIE allegedly called "100 percent reliable" defied reality. It's part of
longstanding Russia bashing.
In January 2017, a US intelligence community report titled "Assessing Russian Activities and
Intentions in Recent US Elections: The Analytic Process and Cyber Incident Attribution" --
claiming Trump v. Hillary election meddling -- included no evidence proving it.
None existed then or now to present day.
When Vladimir Putin was asked if he wanted Trump to win in 2016 -- at a joint Helsinki,
Finland news conference with DJT in July 2018 -- he replied: "Yes, I did."
His preference for Trump over Hillary was unrelated to election meddling.
If other foreign leaders expressed a preference for one US presidential candidate over
another, the same logic holds.
One thing has nothing to do with the other. Implying otherwise is an act of deception, a
longstanding US intelligence community and Times specialty.
Trump was justifiably skeptical about accusations of Russian US election meddling that
favored him over Hillary in 2016 or over Biden/Harris this month.
According to the Times, Trump's objections to claims about alleged Russia US election
meddling "alarm(ed) the intelligence community."
Former acting CIA director/Hillary campaign advisor Michael Morell was quoted calling Trump
"an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation."
He's a political novice, geopolitical know-nothing, first ever US reality TV president.
He's no witting or unwitting Russian agent.
Separately, Morell defied reality, claiming:
Election 2016 was "the only time in American history when we've been attacked by a foreign
country and not come together as a nation," adding:
"In fact, it split us further apart."
"It was an inexpensive, relatively easy to carry out covert mission." It deepened our
divisions."
"I'm absolutely convinced that those Russian intelligence officers who put together and
managed the attack on our democracy (sic) in 2016 all received medals personally from
Vladimir Putin (sic)."
The above claims and others about a DJT/Russia connection et al are pure rubbish.
The lengthy Times magazine piece was all about smearing Russia, falsely claiming Kremlin US
election meddling, and demeaning Trump for defeating media darling Hillary.
No evidence was included to back any of the above claims. None exists.
In the run-up to and aftermath of US election 2020, Russiagate simmers largely below the
surface.
If Trump's legal action against brazen election fraud to deny him a second term succeeds --
what's highly unlikely but possible -- will a phony DJT/Russia connection again make headline
news?
Will there be claims of Kremlin involvement in backing litigation to discredit
Biden/Harris?
No matter how often the Russiagate Big Lie was debunked before, it may never die.
It may be around as long as the Russian Federation and China remain Washington's favorite
national security threats.
Real ones don't exist so they're invented as pretexts to advance US imperial interests.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email
lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Award-winning author Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected] . He is a Research
Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)
His new book as editor and contributor is titled "Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for
Hegemony Risks WW III."
"... Trump and Giuliani are vulgar and buffoonish, but they play the same slimy game as their Democratic opponents. The Republicans scapegoat the deep state, communists and now, bizarrely, Venezuela; the Democrats scapegoat Russia. The widening disconnect from reality by the ruling elite is intended to mask their complicity in the seizure of power by predatory global corporations and billionaires. ..."
"... Silicon Valley billionaires, including Facebook cofounder Dustin Moskovitz and ex-Google CEO Eric Schmidt, donated more than $100 million to a Democratic super PAC that created a torrent of anti-Trump TV ads in the final weeks of the campaign to elect Biden. The heavy infusion of corporate money to support Biden wasn't done to protect democracy. It was done because these corporations and billionaires know a Biden administration will serve their interests. ..."
"... Democratic Senator Chris Murphy told CNN during this campaign that Russian disinformation efforts are "more problematic" than in 2016. He warned that "this time around, the Russians have decided to cultivate U.S. citizens as assets. They are attempting to try to spread their propaganda in the mainstream media." ..."
"... This will be the official mantra of the Democratic Party, a vicious redbaiting campaign without actual reds, especially as the country spirals out of control. The reason I have a show on Russia-funded RT America ..."
"... Voice of America ..."
"... World Socialist Web Site, ..."
"... We let these companies get this monopolistic share of the distribution system. Now they're exercising that power. ..."
"... In the Soviet Union the truth was passed, often hand to hand, in underground samizdat documents, clandestine copies of news and literature banned by the state. The truth will endure. It will be heard by those who seek it out. It will expose the mendacity of the powerful, however hard it will be to obtain. Despotisms fear the truth. They know it is a mortal threat. If we remain determined to live in truth, no matter the cost, we have a chance. ..."
40
Comments on Chris Hedges: The Ruling Elite's War on Truth American political leaders
display a widening disconnect from reality intended to mask their complicity in the seizure of
power by global corporations and billionaires. By Chris Hedges / Original to ScheerPost
Joe Biden's victory instantly obliterated the Democratic Party's longstanding charge that
Russia was hijacking and compromising US elections. The Biden victory, the Democratic Party
leaders and their courtiers in the media now insist, is evidence that the democratic process is
strong and untainted, that the system works. The elections ratified the will of the people.
But imagine if Donald Trump had been reelected. Would the Democrats and pundits at The New
York Time s , CNN and MSNBC pay homage to a fair electoral process? Or, having spent
four years trying to impugn the integrity of the 2016 presidential race, would they once again
haul out the blunt instrument of Russian interference to paint Trump as Vladimir Putin's
Manchurian candidate?
Trump and Giuliani are vulgar and buffoonish, but they play the same slimy game as their
Democratic opponents. The Republicans scapegoat the deep state, communists and now, bizarrely,
Venezuela; the Democrats scapegoat Russia. The widening disconnect from reality by the ruling
elite is intended to mask their complicity in the seizure of power by predatory global
corporations and billionaires.
... ... ...
The two warring factions within the ruling elite, which fight primarily over the spoils of
power while abjectly serving corporate interests, peddle alternative realities. If the deep
state and Venezuelan socialists or Russia intelligence operatives are pulling the strings no
one in power is accountable for the rage and alienation caused by the social inequality, the
unassailability of corporate power, the legalized bribery that defines our political process,
the endless wars, austerity and de-industrialization. The social breakdown is, instead, the
fault of shadowy phantom enemies manipulating groups such as Black Lives Matters or the Green
Party.
"The people who run this country have run out of workable myths with which to distract the
public, and in a moment of extreme crisis have chosen to stoke civil war and defame the rest of
us – black and white – rather than admit to a generation of corruption, betrayal,
and mismanagement," Matt Taibbi writes.
These fictional narratives are dangerous. They erode the credibility of democratic
institutions and electoral politics. They posit that news and facts are no longer true or
false. Information is accepted or discarded based on whether it hurts or promotes one faction
over another. While outlets such as Fox News have always existed as an arm of the Republican
Party, this partisanship has now infected nearly all news organizations, including publications
such as The New York Times and The Washington Post , along with the major tech
platforms that disseminate information and news. A fragmented public with no common narrative
believes whatever it wants to believe.
... ... ...
The flagrant partisanship and discrediting of truth across the political spectrum are
swiftly fueling the rise of an authoritarian state. The credibility of democratic institutions
and electoral politics, already deeply corrupted by PACs, the electoral college, lobbyists, the
disenfranchisement of third-party candidates, gerrymandering and voter suppression, is being
eviscerated.
Silicon Valley billionaires, including Facebook cofounder Dustin Moskovitz and ex-Google
CEO Eric Schmidt, donated more than $100 million to a Democratic super PAC that created a
torrent of anti-Trump TV ads in the final weeks of the campaign to elect Biden. The heavy
infusion of corporate money to support Biden wasn't done to protect democracy. It was done
because these corporations and billionaires know a Biden administration will serve their
interests.
The press, meanwhile, has largely given up on journalism. It has retreated into competing
echo chambers that only speak to true believers. This catering exclusively to one demographic,
which it sets against another demographic, is commercially profitable. But it also guarantees
the balkanization of the United States and edges us closer and closer to fratricide.
When Trump leaves the White House millions of his enraged supports, hermetically sealed
inside hyperventilating media platforms that feed back to them their rage and hate, will see
the vote as fraudulent, the political system as rigged, and the establishment press as
propaganda. They will target, I fear, through violence, the Democratic Party politicians,
mainstream media outlets and those they demonize as conspiratorial members of the deep state,
such as Dr. Anthony Fauci. The Democratic Party is as much to blame for this disintegration as
Trump and the Republican Party.
The election of Biden is also very bad news for journalists such as Matt Taibbi, Glen Ford,
Margaret Kimberley, Glenn Greenwald, Jeffrey St. Clair or Robert Scheer who refuse to be
courtiers to the ruling elites. Journalists that do not spew the approved narrative of the
right-wing, or, alternatively, the approved narrative of the Democratic Party, have a
credibility the ruling elite fears.
The worse things get – and they will get worse as the pandemic leaves hundreds of
thousands dead and thrusts millions of Americans into severe economic distress –the more
those who seek to hold the ruling elites, and in particular the Democratic Party, accountable
will be targeted and censored in ways familiar to WikiLeaks and Julian Assange, now in a London
prison and facing possible extradition to the United States and life imprisonment.
Barack Obama's assault on civil liberties, which included the repeated misuse of the
Espionage Act to prosecute whistleblowers, the passage of Section 1021 of the National Defense
Authorization Act (NDAA) to permit the military to act as a domestic police force and the
ordering of the assassination of U.S. citizens deemed to be terrorists in Yemen, was far worse
than those of George W. Bush. Biden's assault on civil liberties, I suspect, will surpass those
of the Obama administration.
The censorship was heavy handed during the campaign. Digital media platforms, including
Google, Twitter, YouTube and Facebook, along with the establishment press worked shamelessly as
propaganda arms for the Biden campaign. They were determined not to make the "mistake" they
made in 2016 when they reported on the damaging emails, released by WikiLeaks, from Hillary
Clinton's campaign chairman John Podesta. Although the emails were genuine, papers such as The
New York Times routinely refer to the Podesta emails as "disinformation." This, no doubt,
pleases its readership, 91 percent of whom identify as Democrats according to the Pew Research
Center. But it is another example of journalistic malfeasance.
Following the election of Trump, the media outlets that cater to a Democratic Party
readership made amends. The New York Times was one of the principal platforms that amplified
Russiagate conspiracies, most of which turned out to be false. At the same time, the paper
largely ignored the plight of the disposed working class that supported Trump. When the
Russiagate story collapsed, the paper pivoted to focus on race, embodied in the 1619 Project.
The root cause of social disintegration -- the neoliberal order, austerity and
deindustrialization -- was ignored since naming it would alienate the paper's corporate
advertisers and the elites on whom the paper depends for access.
Once the 2020 election started, The New York Times and other mainstream outlets censored and
discredited information that could hurt Biden, including a tape of Joe Biden speaking with
former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, which appears to be authentic. They gave
credibility to any rumor, however spurious, which was unfavorable to Trump. Twitter and
Facebook blocked access to a New York Post story about the emails allegedly found on Hunter
Biden's discarded laptop.
Twitter locked the New York Post out of its own account for over a week. Glenn Greenwald,
whose article on Hunter Biden was censored by his editors at The Intercept, which he helped
found, resigned. He released the email exchanges with his editors over his article. Ignoring
the textual evidence of censorship, editors and writers at The Intercept engaged in a public
campaign of character assassination against Greenwald. This sordid behavior by self-identified
progressive journalists is a page out of the Trump playbook and a sad commentary on the
collapse of journalistic integrity.
The censorship and manipulation of information was honed and perfected against WikiLeaks.
When WikiLeaks tries to release information, it is hit with botnets or distributed denial of
service attacks. Malware attacks WikiLeaks' domain and website. The WikiLeaks site is
routinely shut down or unable to serve its content to its readers. Attempts by WikiLeaks to
hold press conferences see the audio distorted and the visual images corrupted. Links to
WikiLeaks events are delayed or cut. Algorithms block the dissemination of WikiLeaks content.
Hosting services, including Amazon, removed WikiLeaks from its servers. Julian Assange, after
releasing the Iraqi war logs, saw his bank accounts and credit cards frozen. WikiLeaks' PayPal
accounts were disabled to cut off donations. The Freedom of the Press Foundation in December
2017 closed down the anonymous funding channel to WikiLeaks which was set up to protect the
anonymity of donors. A well-orchestrated smear campaign against Assange was amplified and given
credibility by the mass media and filmmakers such as Alex Gibney. Assange and WikiLeaks were
first. We are next.
Democratic Senator Chris Murphy told CNN during this campaign that Russian
disinformation efforts are "more problematic" than in 2016. He warned that "this time around,
the Russians have decided to cultivate U.S. citizens as assets. They are attempting to try to
spread their propaganda in the mainstream media."
This will be the official mantra of the Democratic Party, a vicious redbaiting campaign
without actual reds, especially as the country spirals out of control. The reason I have a show
on Russia-funded RT America is the same reason Vaclav Havel could only be heard on the
US-funded Voice of America during the communist control of Czechoslovakia. I did not
choose to leave the mainstream media. I was pushed out. And once anyone is pushed out, the
ruling elite is relentless about discrediting the few platforms left willing to give them, and
the issues they raise, a hearing.
"If the problem is 'American citizens' being cultivated as 'assets' trying to put
'interference' in the mainstream media, the logical next step is to start asking Internet
platforms to shut down accounts belonging to any American journalist with the temerity to
report material leaked by foreigners (the wrong foreigners, of course – it will continue
to be okay to report things like the 'black ledger')," writes Taibbi , who has done some of the best reporting on
the emerging censorship. "From Fox or the Daily Caller on the right
, to left-leaning outlets like Consortium or the World Socialist Web
Site, to writers like me even – we're all now clearly in range of new speech
restrictions, even if we stick to long-ago-established factual standards."
Taibbi argues that the precedent for overt censorship took place when the major digital
platforms – Facebook, Twitter, Google, Spotify, YouTube – in a coordinated move
blacklisted the right-wing talk show host Alex Jones.
"Liberal America cheered," Taibbi told me when I interviewed him for my show, " On Contact ":
They said 'Well this is a noxious figure. This is a great thing. Finally, someone's taking
action.' What they didn't realize is that we were trading an old system of speech regulation
for a new one without any public discussion. You and I were raised in a system where you got
punished for speech if you committed libel or slander or if there was imminent incitement to
lawless action, right? That was the standard that the Supreme Court set, but that was done
through litigation. There was an open process where you had a chance to rebut charges. That
is all gone now.
Now, basically there's a handful of these tech distribution platforms that control how
people get their media.
They've been pressured by the Senate, which has called all of their CEOs in, and basically
ordered them, 'We need you to come up with a plan to prevent the sowing of discord and
spreading of misinformation.' This has finally come into fruition. You see a major reputable
news organization like the New York Post -- with a 200-year history -- locked out of its own
Twitter account.
The story [Hunter Biden's emails] has not been disproven. It's not disinformation or
misinformation. It's been suppressed as it would be suppressed in a Third World country. It's
a remarkable historic moment. The danger is that we end up with a one-party informational
system. There's going to be approved dialogue and unapproved dialogue that you can only get
through certain fringe avenues. That's the problem. We let these companies get this
monopolistic share of the distribution system. Now they're exercising that power.
In the Soviet Union the truth was passed, often hand to hand, in underground samizdat
documents, clandestine copies of news and literature banned by the state. The truth will
endure. It will be heard by those who seek it out. It will expose the mendacity of the
powerful, however hard it will be to obtain. Despotisms fear the truth. They know it is a
mortal threat. If we remain determined to live in truth, no matter the cost, we have a
chance.
Chris Hedges Chris Hedges is a Pulitzer Prize–winning journalist who
was a foreign correspondent for fifteen years forThe New York Times,where he
served as the Middle East Bureau Chief and Balkan Bureau Chief for the paper. He previously
worked overseas forThe Dallas Morning News,The Christian Science
Monitor, and NPR. He is the host of the Emmy Award-nominated RT America showOn Contact.paul eastonNOVEMBER
23, 2020 AT 10:28 AM
It seems like the masters are just as deluded as the slaves. But the situation is
unsustainable. When many millions of slaves become homeless and hungry that reality will become
unavoidable. Who will they blame? Will they attack one another or will they revolt against the
system? Soon we will see. Carolyn L ZarembaNOVEMBER
24, 2020 AT 10:30 AM
I share only alternative media since I don't trust "mainstream" media one iota. I post
articles from the World Socialist Web Site, Consortium News, the Grayzone, Caitlin Johnstone
and others all the time. I am a socialist. I was only banned from posting on FB once, for
criticizing Israel. No surprise there. But I suspect FB of shadow banning, i.e., making it look
like you've posted an article but making it invisible to others in their news feeds. I first
learned of this practice from Craig Murray, another whose articles I post regularly. paul
eastonNOVEMBER
25, 2020 AT 1:35 AM
That is a chilling thought. I was shadow banned by medium.com a few years ago. It appeared
to me that my posts and comments went in, but no one else could see them. At least with them I
could tell something was wrong because I had regular conversations with some people. With FB I
don't know if you could ever be sure. R ZwarichNOVEMBER
25, 2020 AT 5:37 AM
Mr. Easton is indeed correct. It is VERY chilling, especially if people would imagine what
THEY would do, if they had our Enemy's morally depraved motivations, and if they had the
control our Enemy has over ALL our communications switches.
There are three basic types of mass communications. One to many. Many to one. And many to
many.
The Enemy has complete access to 'one to many' communications, and complete control over
anyone's else's access to same. Many to one communications are ineffective for intrinsic
reasons. Many to many communications offer myriad methods of cunningly creative control.
If we send out group emails, for example, in simple old-fashioned list-serves, they who
control the switches could easily 'filter', to determine who among addressees gets any message,
and who doesn't.
I used to write comments in the Boston Globe, the wholly owned plaything of a VERY weird old
Billionaire and his proud and beautiful young trophy wife. (Less than half his age, of course).
At first I thought the Globe NEVER censored. I could write anything, and it would post. Ahh but
then I learned that the Globe is a HEAVY handed censor, but was clever enough to put a 'cookie'
in your browser folder to tell their server to let you see your own comments, so you would not
even know that no one else could see them. It was 'stealth censorship'.
We should try to remember that these people are morally depraved, in their constant
paroxysms of raw Greed and raw Lust. No force exists any longer in our nation to restrain them.
Anything we can 'see' that they CAN do, we can pretty much figure they already DO do, or else
sooner or later will. Carol ShapiroNOVEMBER
23, 2020 AT 1:44 PM
While I don't agree with you, Chris Hedges, all the time, I believe you are our one. true.
journalist. Thankful for your honesty. Insight. Huge intellect. Global experience. I am an
"unenrolled" voter -- an extremely disillusioned former Bernie Sanders supporter. Truly, I feel
like he would have been our closest attempt to achieving a real "citizen government". What a
laughable term that is these days. Bernie never would have had a chance running as a Democrat
– absurd. He should have walked out of that convention four years ago and taken his
supporters with him. Oh wait- you said that. NeverNOVEMBER
23, 2020 AT 2:59 PM
Don't forget that the selective coverage by the NY Times in this campaign didn't start when
Biden became the nominee. Up to that time, the Times ran one or two articles on Sanders it
seems. Whatever the number, it was miniscule. They almost completely ignored one of the most
significant campaigns in modern history, thus helping to ensure it died on the vine. And when
they did cover it one or two times, it was always negative.
US liberals more fascist than conservatives–long observed by historians/social
philosophers
"amerikans do not converse as Tocqueville wrote, amerikans entertain each other. amerikans do
not exchange ideas, they exchange images. the problem w amerikans is not Orwellian–it is
huxleyan: amerikans love their oppression: Neil Postman Stephen MorrellNOVEMBER
24, 2020 AT 1:18 AM
Glenn Greenwald's points need stressing: (i) some of the most vociferous proponents of
online censorship are mainstream and 'alternative' 'journalists' who on repeated occasions have
egged on the carriers to shut sites, pages, accounts or postings; (ii) these 'journalists'
aren't just serving the narrowest band of oligarchic media empires in history, but also are
ivy-league bourgeois brats with no interest at all in exposing the injustices or malfeasance of
bourgeois society, unlike many journalists of the past; and (iii) that it's not in the
immediate material interests of the carriers to conduct the censorship, especially in the
longterm, since it consumes resources and lowers traffic and profits. They'd much rather the
government do it and for them to be compensated at taxpayer expense.
To avoid future potential government antitrust measures or nationalisation (heaven forbid!),
Zuckerberg and his ilk have been censoring in heavyhanded and hamfisted ways that aren't so
'autonomous' but for the moment at least can be traced along the usual Democrat-controlled
thinktank and CIA/FBI lines, which of course also are beyond public scrutiny. Despite the
prospects for freedom of reach (and reach is what it's really about) apparently growing dimmer
with each senate committee appearance by the carrier oligarchs, ways and means will be found to
circumvent their draconian measures. While alternative non-censoring platforms have yet to gain
significant traction, it likely won't take much for one to catch on, perhaps sparked by an
outrageous event of suppression, that turns Facebook, Twitter, etc, into museum pieces. One
might imagine, for instance, Wikileaks-style YouTube, Facebook, Twitter equivalents that act as
true carriers, purely machine-based and devoid of human interference, that precludes them
becoming the 'moral guardians' that Twitter, Facebook etc, are quickly metamorphising into.
As increasing swathes of the population appear not to be aligning within the bourgeoisie's
preset ideological 'tribal' boundaries, there's a certain schadenfreude in seeing the rulers in
dread of the truth getting out and spreading uncontrollably. Their tailored counter-narratives
simply are too enfeebled and slight to square with the hard reality that's hitting everyone,
from the most educated and brainwashed to the least. That ivy-league stenographers are being
pressed into the service of censorship gives some indication of the desperation of the rulers.
We all know, as do they but can never admit it publicly, that censorship and repression are
frank admissions that they've lost all 'arguments' for their very existence.
To an extent, Trump has been responsible for letting the genie out of the bottle, as the
first president probably since before Andrew Jackson to have failed, repeatedly, to put
lipstick on the racist, capitalist imperial pig. The efforts by the ruling class at censorship
and naked suppression of freedom of reach and of access to sources of truthful information will
only increase in desperation as their myth-making narratives become ever more unable to
rationalise a crisis that's they're beginning to see as intractable and endangering their
rule.
Easy question: Is it illegal to steal an election or not?
You would have to assume that it is no big deal based on the response to claims of
widespread fraud in the contest between President Trump and Joe Biden. Big Media says the
evidence just doesn't exist, and most Americans seem to be lost in a blue haze of blind
acceptance that whatever they are told by the talking heads on TV must be true.
This kind of unthinking obedience to authority is a frightening harbinger of an America that
is no longer a nation of laws, but rather a nation of edicts. You can already see that
unfolding in the sheep-like acceptance of COVID-19 restrictions that blatantly ignore the
Constitution. But if you dare do your own independent assessment of facts -- whether regarding
the efficacy of mask use in preventing spread of coronavirus or regarding the security of
electronic voting -- you will quickly come to a different conclusion than that which is
approved by Big Tech, Big Media and Big Money.
Unfortunately, most people don't take the time to do their own research. They simply believe
whatever is told to them. For those in thrall to the establishment media, that means they
believe that Trump's allegations of election fraud are "baseless." Remember, the media made
that declaration within hours of the election, long before any evidence had been presented in a
court of law and before analysis had begun on the raw vote totals. Once that narrative was
established, it didn't matter how many affidavits were presented, how many witnesses came
forward, or how much analysis suggested that the vote count may have been manipulated. The jury
of the American people had already been tainted by Big Media to believe the narrative that
Trump is a sore loser.
Don't forget, the mainstream media -- in the interests of public enlightenment (now known as
wokeness) -- have spent the past four years reporting as fact that the duly elected president
of the United States is a liar, a tax cheat, a Russian puppet, and a racist. In other words, he
is a con man who never should have been anywhere near the Oval Office in the first place. So
why would anyone now believe his claims that Democrats used phony mail ballots, vote-counting
software and foreign manipulation to steal the election? Most of the media is pretending that
there is not even a real story to report in what, if true, would be one of the gravest
constitutional crises in the history of our republic.
As Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani said in his press conference Thursday, "The coverage of this
has been almost as dishonest as the scheme itself. The American people are entitled to know
this," he warned the press. "You don't have a right to keep it from them. You don't have a
right to lie about it."
But, the newsrooms at CNN and MSNBC are keeping it from the public. They refused to
even carry Giuliani's press conference laying out the evidence of election fraud. As for Fox
News, they covered it, and then put a reporter on the air to say the claims were "simply not
true" or "baseless." Clearly, we are not going to get the truth from the media. Has there been
even one reporter for a mainstream outlet such as the Washington Post asking questions about
the vulnerability of electronic voting systems to hacking or manipulation? Is any news
organization demanding that the Justice Department or FBI get to the bottom of the story?
The loss of a free and neutral press means that democracy cannot work even if its elections
were completely above board. The capacity of the people to self-govern is dependent on their
access to true and accurate information. Sadly, the opposite principle applies as well. When
journalism abandons objectivity in favor of an agenda, then the people are in the position of
cattle being led to slaughter.
Thomas Jefferson described the abuses of a free press in 1814 in a letter to his friend
Walter Jones:
"I deplore the putrid state into which our newspapers have passed and the malignity, the
vulgarity and the mendacious spirit of those who write for them These ordures are rapidly
depraving the public taste and lessening its relish for sound food. As vehicles of information
and a curb on our functionaries, they have rendered themselves useless by forfeiting all title
to belief This has, in a great degree, been produced by the violence and malignity of party
spirit."
Ouch! Take that, New York Times! Take that, CNN!
Of course, it is just such a malign "party spirit" that informs almost all mainstream
journalism in the Age of Trump -- a spirit that is visible in the hostility towards Trump
himself, but also in the accommodation towards Democrats such as Joe Biden. Last Monday's Biden
press conference was a stunning abdication of responsibility by the media for its much-vaunted
role of "speaking truth to power" -- or at least asking tough questions.
Three of the first four queries were merely anti-Trump questions asked in a new way. Instead
of asking Trump "How do you justify your unprecedented attempt to obstruct and delay a smooth
transfer of power?" the reporters merely asked Biden what he thought about Trump's
"unprecedented attempt" blah blah blah. Then the next three questions were about COVID, which
after six months of campaigning, even Sleepy Joe Biden could answer with his eyes closed.
Isn't the media going to hold Biden accountable just like they claimed to hold Trump
accountable? Why not ask about the curious patterns of vote counting in Michigan, Pennsylvania,
Wisconsin and Georgia that make millions of people think Biden tried to steal the election?
Shouldn't he be asked to support a full investigation to prove his victory was legitimate? How
about a question about whether Hunter Biden will come out of hiding now that the election is
over? How about asking the "president-in-waiting" to condemn the BLM and antifa violence that
sent several innocent Trump supporters to the hospital two weeks ago?
How about our celebrity journalists celebrate their own crucial role as defenders of
democracy? If they don't want to "render themselves useless," they need to swear allegiance to
facts, wherever they lead, and not to one party. Or as Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana put it
more indelicately, "They have to be equal opportunity assholes."
But they aren't -- and sooner or later the American people will get tired of being
manipulated. Journalism is supposed to give an honest account of the facts so that people can
make up their own minds what they believe to be true. Propaganda, on the other hand, is a
dishonest attempt to persuade people not to examine the facts for themselves. Journalism starts
with facts and allows people to reach their own conclusion. Propaganda starts with a conclusion
and manipulates people into accepting it as fact. You can decide for yourself whether what we
have today is journalism or propaganda.
But the bottom line is this: Whether or not Donald Trump can prove his case in court should
be irrelevant to the job of the press. What honest reporters ought to recognize is the
significance of the allegation itself, the historical nature of the crime being alleged, and
the importance to the future of our republic that the case must be heard.
"... Once you've learned a bit more you realize it's not quite happening that way. Most mainstream news reporters are not really witting propagandists – those are to be found more in plutocrat-funded think tanks and other narrative management firms, and in the opaque government agencies which feed news media outlets information designed to advance their interests. The predominant reason mainstream news reporters say things that aren't true is because in order to be hired by mainstream news outlets, you need to jack your mind into a power-serving worldview that is not based in truth. ..."
"... Mainstream establishment orthodoxy is essentially a religion, as fake and power-serving as any other, and if you want to work in mainstream politics or media you need to demonstrate that you are a member of that religion. ..."
"... That's all you're ever seeing when you notice blue-checkmarked reporters tweeting in promotion of imperialist interests and status quo politics. They are not laboring under the delusion that they are saying anything new or insightful that a hundred other people aren't saying at the exact same time; they are signaling. ..."
By Caitlin Johnstone , an independent journalist based in Melbourne, Australia. Her
website is here and you can follow
her on Twitter @caitoz
People who are only just beginning to research what's wrong with the world often hold an
assumption that mainstream news reporters are just knowingly propagandizing people all the
time.
That they sit around scheming up ways to deceive their audiences into supporting war,
oligarchy and oppression for the benefit of their plutocratic masters.
Once you've learned a bit more you realize it's not quite happening that way. Most
mainstream news reporters are not really witting propagandists – those are to be found
more in plutocrat-funded think tanks and other narrative management firms, and in the opaque
government agencies which feed news media outlets information designed to advance their
interests. The predominant reason mainstream news reporters say things that aren't true is
because in order to be hired by mainstream news outlets, you need to jack your mind into a
power-serving worldview that is not based in truth.
A recent job listing for a New York
Times Russia Correspondent which was flagged by Russia-based
journalist Bryan MacDonald illustrates this dynamic perfectly. The listing reads as
follows:
"Vladimir Putin's Russia remains one of the biggest stories in the world.
It sends out hit squads armed with nerve agents against its enemies, most recently the
opposition leader Aleksei Navalny. It has its cyber agents sow chaos and disharmony in the West
to tarnish its democratic systems, while promoting its faux version of democracy. It has
deployed private military contractors around the globe to secretly spread its influence. At
home, its hospitals are filling up fast with Covid patients as its president hides out in his
villa.
If that sounds like a place you want to cover, then we have good news: We will have an
opening for a new correspondent as Andy Higgins takes over as our next Eastern Europe Bureau
Chief early next year."
Does this sound like the sort of job someone with a less than hostile attitude toward the
Russian government would apply to? Is it a job listing that indicates it might welcome someone
who sees mainstream Russia hysteria as cartoonish hyperbole designed to advance the
longstanding geostrategic interests of Western power structures against a government which has
long resisted bowing to the dictates of those power structures? Someone who voices skepticism
about the
plot hole - riddled
establishment narratives of Russian election meddling and
Novichok assassinations ? Someone who, as
Moon of Alabama
notes , might point out that Putin is in fact at work in the Kremlin right now and not "hiding
out" in a "villa" ?
Of course not. In order to get a job at the New York Times, you need to demonstrate that you
subscribe to the mainstream oligarchic imperialist worldview which forms the entirety of
Western mass media output. You need to demonstrate that you have been properly indoctrinated,
and that you can be guided into toeing the imperial line with simple
attaboys and tisk-tisks from your superiors rather than being explicitly told to knowingly
lie.
Because if they did tell you to knowingly lie to the public to advance the interests of the
powerful, that would be propaganda. And propaganda is what happens in evil backwards countries
like Russia.
Mainstream establishment orthodoxy is essentially a religion, as fake and power-serving as
any other, and if you want to work in mainstream politics or media you need to demonstrate that
you are a member of that religion.
That's all you're ever seeing when you notice blue-checkmarked reporters tweeting in
promotion of imperialist interests and status quo politics. They are not laboring under the
delusion that they are saying anything new or insightful that a hundred other people aren't
saying at the exact same time; they are signaling. They are letting current and prospective
peers and employers know, "I am a believer. I am a member of the faith." This way they
are ensured the continued advancement of their careers in mainstream news media.
This is why you have labels for anyone expressing skepticism of establishment narratives
like "conspiracy theorist," "useful idiot," "Russian asset" or "Assadist" ; the
powerful people who understand that whoever controls the narrative controls the world need
labels to separate the faithful from the heathens. It means the same thing as "heretic .
"
The fast and easy way to get rich and famous has always been to promote the interests of the
powerful. This is as true in every other sector as it is in media. For this reason, those who
pour their energy into criticizing existing power structures and shining a bright light on
their dynamics aren't likely to be living in fancy mansions or going to ritzy parties any time
soon, while those who do the opposite actually will. And yet when someone sets up a Substack or
a Patreon account to make criticizing the powerful their life's work, it is they who will get
called money-grubbing grifters by the propagandized.
The faces you see thrust onto screens by the plutocratic media are not spouting falsehoods
while being aware of their deception, any more than any preacher is knowingly lying when they
say you'll burn for eternity if you don't accept the gospel. Most of them believe everything they are saying ,
because they have been propagandized into becoming good acolytes and proselytizers of the
faith.
The most propagandized people on earth are those who are responsible for promulgating
propaganda.
Naughtylus 15 hours ago 22 Nov, 2020 04:08 AM
Spot on article. Journalists in MSM media constantly brag about their independence,
impartiality, truthfulness, etc. and I always wanted to ask them how long they think they
would keep their job if they simply questioned the established narrative of their company.
People hired in the media these days are not hired for the job of informing or being
journalists, but to act as a mere transmission for opinion manipulation campaigns, devised by
those in real power circles.
KennethKeen 15 hours ago 22 Nov, 2020 04:18 AM
Excellent explanation. I would add an additional method of climbing the career ladder. If you
do something criminal, that others in the system are aware of, then you can soar up the
ranks, as they are guaranteed the possibility of blackmailing you. That is how the house of
cards is held in place.
1justssayn 12 hours ago 22 Nov, 2020 07:26 AM
Absolutely spot on. It applies to a lot of other occupations as well.
shadow1369 15 hours ago 22 Nov, 2020 04:27 AM
The strange thing is that while not a single statement in the NYT summary was true of Russia,
they cvould all be applied to the us. I guess that is the point, applicants must be prepared
to simply substitute the Russia for the US whenever thery describe crimes against humanity.
So zero intelligence is required, but more importantly zero integrity either.
Fenianfromcork 12 hours ago 22 Nov, 2020 07:47 AM
Sounds more like an add for joining the CIA.
Insulyn Fenianfromcork 9 hours ago 22 Nov, 2020 10:11 AM
I wonder just how many who are hired either work for the CIA already or start working for the
CIA soon after? The add was possibly written with CIA direction. Embedded propagandists. The
ad just shows how journalism simply doesn't matter to the MSM, it's all narrative and spin.
Geo Graphy 12 hours ago 22 Nov, 2020 07:50 AM
The fourth estate has let their ego override their common sense. They are not an elected
representation of any portion of the American or any other country's public. They are
employees of organizations that operate for profit. They do not have a public mandate to
provide their opinion as news. They are incapable of reporting news without slanting the view
they present. Since it is slanted, it is not news, it is garbage. What the media presents to
the public is pure propaganda made up by the staff and management of the so called news
organizations. If the fourth estate will not return to reporting the news, then they
rightfully belong on the trash heap of history.
PhillisStein 8 hours ago 22 Nov, 2020 12:04 PM
'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.' - Edward Bernays In other words, democracy is a 'majority rules' model and, since,
in our current consciousness, you can fool most of the people most of the time, then
democracy is able to be easily manipulated, and thus is not true democracy. We cannot have
anything approaching civil society until we are able to exercise our free will with informed
consent, which requires objective information. Sadly, everything is based upon the 'victim'
model, which treats us as children - 'don't worry, we'll just do all your thinking for you
and just tell you what to think.'
bos000 11 hours ago 22 Nov, 2020 08:23 AM
Propaganda for americans: "US army "heroes" are around the world to protect america,s freedom
and democracy", by killing innocents in other countries, when no one ever attack US.
Smythe_Mogg 7 hours ago 22 Nov, 2020 12:38 PM
Perhaps journalists are not responsible for the content of propaganda but they are complicit
in its transmission. Journalism for the most part, if ever it was, is not a profession with
respect to practitioners upholding standards they refuse to deviate from. 'Hacks' working for
the popular press are commonly derided. These days it is those employed by 'broadsheet'
papers (and equivalent digital media) who truly merit opprobrium. The days when the Times
fielded gentlemen are long gone. Few independent thinkers are to be found among prominent
journalists. 'Broadsheet' decline has far more serious consequences than the worst the
popular press can do. The popular press always has catered for 'low brow' and 'middle brow'
readers; its lower reaches being little more than scandal sheets with titillating pictures.
These readers are not movers and shakers: they are followers. The educated class, nowadays
sadly depleted, relies on news outlets to be under editorial control capable of picking wheat
from amidst chaff of no consequence and seeking accurate reporting thereof. A concomitant is
choosing informed individuals to offer opinion pieces; top of this pile is the editorial
which at one time could shake government. Lack of a properly informed upper tier of the
population capable of challenging the self-styled political elite (and their owners) betokens
descent into oligarchy and thereby kakistocracy.
OneGenericUser Gatineau25deA 15 hours ago 22 Nov, 2020 04:50 AM
I have a somewhat cliche' opinion. I don't care Americans want their country to rule the
world, I want the world to have a choice on wether they want America as a leader, and I bet
the majority of countries don't. If you're impose your "leadership" then you're not a leader,
you're a dictator.
"... Greenwald earlier this week said NBC "has always existed to disseminate US government, CIA and corporate propaganda." ..."
"... NBC also helped the CIA sell the Iraq War on its Meet the Press program, and sister network MSNBC was "ground zero for mindless CIA stenography of the most unhinged Russiagate conspiracy theories," he said. ..."
"... The C.I.A. owns anyone of any significance in the media. -William Colby. Former Director of the CIA. In 1974, the Rockefeller Commission was established to investigate shennanigans carried out by the Agency. President Ford fired William Colby and replaced him with George Herbert Walker Bush. Why? Because Gerald Ford thought that Colby was being too honest with the Commission about CIA wrong doings. ..."
"... Interestingly, Gerald Ford was often referred to as "The CIA's Best Friend in The Senate", which would explain his old appointment to the Warren Commission. It was Ford who ordered JFK's bullet wound in the back to be raised six inches up to his neck, thus allowing Arlen Specter to float his "Magic bullet Theory" ..."
"... As is not generally known, Bush I was lifetime CIA and became I believe the first CIA President. There is a little known picture of a young Bush standing outside the Texas Book Depository on the day of the assassination. ..."
"... The CIA controls the media in subtle ways. Blacklists for instance. I have experience after one of my buddies fell for the spiel of an agent provocateur. Never trust anyone, always assume they could be CIA and assess what damage they can do to you (and your associates) before you interact with them. Misleading them would be best. ..."
"... As shocking as it may sound, Glenn is stating the obvious. Even AFP and Reuters are CIA mouthpieces. Look up Operation Mockingbird. Look up "propaganda multiplier" by the Swiss policy research. ..."
"... Interesting that nobody even tried to deny it, they just come up with the same line they used to attack Wikileaks for telling the truth: exposing this might put out operatives at risk. ..."
"... Perilous Environments because the CIA is probably manipulating another of its regimes change, to very undemocratically put someone they control into office. Surely you remember Poroshenko? ..."
"... Operation Mockingbird was a secret CIA effort to influence and control the American media. The first report of the program came in 1979 in the biography of Katharine Graham, the owner of the Washington Post, written by Deborah Davis. Davis wrote that the program was established by Frank Wisner, the director of the Office of Policy Coordination, a covert operations unit created under the National Security Council. ..."
"... Reporters who work for the CIA are not spies, because the CIA is a lying agency, not a spying agency. If a terrorist accuses you of being a CIA agent, you can honestly reply that the CIA is the terrorist's friend. ..."
"... The CIA wants the world to believe that China, Russia and Iran are the leading state sponsors of terrorism, and that those seeking the overthrow of Syria's Bashar al-Assad are freedom fighters, not terrorists... ..."
Independent journalist Glenn Greenwald torched accusations that he endangered reporters by
saying NBC News spouts CIA propaganda, saying he only spoke of a well-known fact, and the
effort to shame him was "manipulative bulls**t."
"Profoundly sorry for endangering the lives of NBC executives and TV personalities by
spilling the extremely well-kept secret of their close working relationship with the CIA,"
Greenwald tweeted sarcastically on Saturday. His message showed a picture of a headline about
NBC's 2018 hiring of ex-CIA chief John Brennan as an NBC and MSNBC contributor.
Greenwald's retort came in reply to reporter Sulome Anderson, who accused him of endangering
journalists who work in places where any CIA affiliation is "life-threatening."Greenwald earlier this week said NBC "has always existed to disseminate US government, CIA
and corporate propaganda."
"This crosses a line," Anderson said. "Like some of his proteges, Glenn is
endangering journalists working in perilous environments by telling his massive following that
they are mouthpieces for US intelligence."
Greenwald said on Saturday that NBC has a "long-standing role" in spouting CIA
propaganda, as evidenced by its hiring of Ken Dilanian, who was accused of sharing stories with the CIA press
office prior to publication while working as a Los Angeles Times reporter. NBC also helped the
CIA sell the Iraq War on its Meet the Press program, and sister network MSNBC was "ground
zero for mindless CIA stenography of the most unhinged Russiagate conspiracy theories," he
said.
"If you don't want to be known as a CIA outpost, then don't be one," Greenwald
tweeted. He added that NBC hired "John Brennan, Ken Dilanian and every other operative puked
up by the security state. People already know."
Anderson has written at least
two opinion
pieces on Lebanon for NBC in recent months. She has been critical of Hezbollah, designated
a terrorist group by the US government, but also has interviewed some of its fighters.
Anderson, who said she is "morally opposed" to journalists working as intelligence
agents, may have good reason for her sensitivity about alleged CIA ties. Her parents were both
journalists who covered Lebanon's 15-year civil war, and she said her father was kidnapped by
terrorists.
"They tortured him again and again for years, calling him CIA," she said
Saturday on Twitter. "'I am not a spy,' he would scream. 'I am a reporter.' It never stopped
them."
Anderson acknowledged journalists being used as intelligence-agency assets, but said such
cases are rare. "Time and again, American hostages – journalists and otherwise –
have been falsely called spies, tortured and killed," she said. "I have been in many
situations where I've had to convince the very dangerous men I am with that I am not a spy. My
saving grace has always been that I am not."
Greenwald came to international fame by breaking the Edward Snowden NSA whistleblower story
in 2013. He later co-founded the Intercept but quit the outlet last month after saying editors
there suppressed his coverage of Democrat presidential candidate Joe Biden.
fezzie035fezzm 19 hours ago 21 Nov, 2020 11:52 PM
The C.I.A. owns anyone of any significance in the media. -William Colby. Former Director of
the CIA. In 1974, the Rockefeller Commission was established to investigate shennanigans
carried out by the Agency. President Ford fired William Colby and replaced him with George
Herbert Walker Bush. Why? Because Gerald Ford thought that Colby was being too honest with
the Commission about CIA wrong doings.
Bush, as the new Director, stonewalled the hearings
and put the lid on any information coming out, which would explain why CIA Headquarters in
Langley was named after Bush. Colby is no longer among the living. Let's just say that he
didn't die from "natural causes".
Interestingly, Gerald Ford was often referred to as "The
CIA's Best Friend in The Senate", which would explain his old appointment to the Warren
Commission. It was Ford who ordered JFK's bullet wound in the back to be raised six inches up
to his neck, thus allowing Arlen Specter to float his "Magic bullet Theory"
JOHNCHUCKMAN fezzie035fezzm 1 hour ago 22 Nov, 2020 05:48 PM
Yes, Colby was an unusually frank man at times. He also told us about the ghastly Operation
Phoenix in Vietnam, a CIA run assassination scheme of village leaders and prominent men. They
killed 30 or 40 thousand people by sending in belly-crawling special forces guys to enter
villages at night and cut throats.
As is not generally known, Bush I was lifetime CIA and
became I believe the first CIA President. There is a little known picture of a young Bush
standing outside the Texas Book Depository on the day of the assassination. You'll find it on
my site Chuckman's Words in Comments on Wordpress. Its title to search is: A REMARKABLE DULL
LITTLE PHOTOGRAPH OF GEORGE H W BUSH WITH EXPLOSIVE SUGGESTIONS. Sorry, but RT doesn't like
links.
Of course, Colby himself may have been assassinated. He had a very odd boating
accident.
Ally Hauptmann-Gurski 20 hours ago 21 Nov, 2020 11:14 PM
The CIA controls the media in subtle ways. Blacklists for instance. I have experience after
one of my buddies fell for the spiel of an agent provocateur. Never trust anyone, always
assume they could be CIA and assess what damage they can do to you (and your associates)
before you interact with them. Misleading them would be best.
Enorm 22 hours ago 21 Nov, 2020 09:01 PM
NBC operatives don't have an opinion. They follow da money,. I feel sorry for folks glued to
propaganda TV.
WikiLeaks and other investigative outfits have looked at the conglomerates over the years and
over half of them are CIA "assets"...
Chris Cottrell 22 hours ago 21 Nov, 2020 08:25 PM
Are they spies? Probably not. Are they tools of the CIA even if unwittingly, yes.
Oregon Observer Chris Cottrell 21 hours ago 21 Nov, 2020 09:43 PM
Most ARE spies in every sense of the term. They look for specific information that they
pass onto their handler(s). It bears noting that the FBI and the 10,000 or so outfits that
contract with them and NSA and DHS and the pentagon and the various state Fusion programs are
as bad or worse and every stinking one if those outfits recruits reporters.
fakiho2 21 hours ago 21 Nov, 2020 09:28 PM
As shocking as it may sound, Glenn is stating the obvious. Even AFP and Reuters are CIA
mouthpieces. Look up Operation Mockingbird. Look up "propaganda multiplier" by the Swiss
policy research.
shadow1369 fakiho2 6 hours ago 22 Nov, 2020 12:30 PM
Interesting that nobody even tried to deny it, they just come up with the same line they used
to attack Wikileaks for telling the truth: exposing this might put out operatives at risk. My
response to that is good, time to have these roaches taken out.
Edward698 18 hours ago 22 Nov, 2020 01:43 AM
You can bet on Glenn to tell you the truth unlike the main stream media which fed us with
lots of non sense on Syria. Read his interview with "Democracy now": .... Glenn Greenwald on
"Submissive" Media's Drumbeat for War and "Despicable" Anti-Muslim Scapegoating By Democracy
Now! ....
GLENN GREENWALD: Well, first of all, that clip is unbelievable. It is literally one
of the three most important military officials of the entire war on terror, General Flynn,
who was the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency. He's saying that the U.S. government
knew that by creating a vacuum in Syria and then flooding that region with arms and money,
that it was likely to result in the establishment of a caliphate by Islamic extremists in
eastern Syria -- which is, of course, exactly what happened.
They knew that that was going to
happen, and they proceeded to do it anyway. So when the U.S. government starts trying to
point the finger at other people for helping ISIS, they really need to have a mirror put in
front of them, because, by their own documents, as that extraordinary clip demonstrates, they
bear huge responsibility for that happening, to say nothing of the fact that, as I said,
their closest allies in the region actually fund it.
Debra Edward698 14 hours ago 22 Nov, 2020 05:37 AM
The US was not only counting on their ISIS creation to destabilize Syria in the hope of an
Assad exit but also to decimate the Hezbollah. I credit the Hezbollah for saving Lebanon,
Syria, and Iraq, but they suffered heavy, heavy losses. "So when the U.S. government starts
trying to point the finger at other people for helping ISIS, they really need to have a
mirror put in front of them, because, by their own documents, as that extraordinary clip
demonstrates, they bear huge responsibility for that happening, to say nothing of the fact
that, as I said, their closest allies in the region actually fund it."
frankfalseflag 19 hours ago 22 Nov, 2020 12:08 AM
** "Glenn is endangering journalists working in perilous environments by telling. . ." ** . .
Perilous Environments because the CIA is probably manipulating another of its regimes change,
to very undemocratically put someone they control into office. Surely you remember
Poroshenko? ...
pogohere 21 hours ago 21 Nov, 2020 10:16 PM
Operation Mockingbird was a secret CIA effort to influence and control the American media.
The first report of the program came in 1979 in the biography of Katharine Graham, the owner
of the Washington Post, written by Deborah Davis. Davis wrote that the program was
established by Frank Wisner, the director of the Office of Policy Coordination, a covert
operations unit created under the National Security Council.
According to Davis, Wisner
recruited Philip Graham of the Washington Post to head the project within the media industry.
Davis wrote that, "By the early 1950s, Wisner 'owned' respected members of The New York
Times, Newsweek, CBS and other communications vehicles."
Davis also writes that Allen Dulles
convinced Cord Meyer, who later became Mockingbird's "principal operative," to join the CIA
in 1951.
The Taliban Won the War 7 hours ago 22 Nov, 2020 12:28 PM
It is true and it is an undisputed fact that all Western governments use Journalists, aid
workers and so called human relief organisations as cover for espionage, undercover and dark
operations. Not just that, they also use exchange teachers and students, they use priests and
pastors. They use anything and anyone that can hid
Isiah Steele 8 hours ago 22 Nov, 2020 11:45 AM
The Motion Picture Industry of Hollywood, too are CIA! Propagates: war and constant US
Military dominated narratives.
Sergio Weigel 16 hours ago 22 Nov, 2020 03:31 AM
I'm pretty sure that most journalists don't know, or don't wanna know, the dirty open secret
that editorial lines of most outlets are indeed determined or influenced by the CIA. The
trouble is their working conditions. There are far more journalists than job openings, and
they already earn badly. In order to keep the job, they just play ball, and as humans are,
they make themselves believe that what they were doing was just right. Cognitive dissonance,
and the result is outrage and defensive anger when someone points out their hypocrisy. That
is also why they avoid to even read alternative media, they don't have their noses pointed to
it. In a way, we can pity them. Then again, why become a journalist these days?
I used to think maybe 'journalists' were simply misled, but the narrative on too many
stories, from 9/11 to Iraq, from Syria to the ukraine, from the Skripals to Navalny, was so
ludicrous that a five year old could see through the lies. Nope, they know full well that
they are lying, and do so regardless. A great example was when some bbc l!cksp!ttle was
interviewing a general about events in Syria. Somehow they got the wrong guy, or he had not
been properly briefed, because his responses were factual and balanced. After trying to
challenge him, the interviewer finally said 'Don't you realise this is an informatioon war'.
Debra 4 hours ago 22 Nov, 2020 03:11 PM
This is another warning for people: Over the last two years Facebook has been advertising for
viewers to join Facebook groups. Many political groups on Facebook are set up by CIA and FBI
agents. Facebook is full of agents, and that is why the ones in Michigan were caught in their
attempted coup against the Michigan governor...
Quick Draw 22 hours ago 21 Nov, 2020 09:46 PM
Just NBC?
imnotarobot22 16 hours ago 22 Nov, 2020 03:05 AM
google 'Udo Ulfkotte' ex editor of the Frankfurter Allgemeine - he'll tell you about it.
Richard Burden 2 hours ago 22 Nov, 2020 05:07 PM
Reporters who work for the CIA are not spies, because the CIA is a lying agency, not a spying
agency. If a terrorist accuses you of being a CIA agent, you can honestly reply that the CIA
is the terrorist's friend.
The CIA wants the world to believe that China, Russia and Iran are
the leading state sponsors of terrorism, and that those seeking the overthrow of Syria's Bashar al-Assad are freedom fighters, not terrorists...
According to Merriam-Webster
, a "secret police" is "a police organization that is run by a governm
e
nt
and that operates in a secret way to control the actions of people who oppose the government." Of course, in this day and age, it's
not easy to define "the government". We live in an oligarchical society. There are elected officials, including the President, who
stay in office for a fixed amount of time and have a certain amount of power to change the way that things are done. But on the
other hand, there are permanent institutions, both within the government itself and within society at large, that also wield
significant power and are responsible for safeguarding the interests of the oligarchy, should they be threatened by the policies of
the temporary, elected government.
There are various ways to describe this superstructure of oligarchic rule. One term which has become popular of late is "Deep
State." Because the term has been used by Donald Trump, it has been ridiculed in the press as a "conspiracy theory," an expression
which is often used to identify an "unauthorized narrative". A more technical term, favored by the British and the
neocons
,
is "Continuity of Government" (COG.) There has been plenty of
analysis
of
this concept, some well-founded, some highly speculative.
But a few things are self-evident here. One is that there is a huge number of career civil servants working in all branches of
government who don't leave their jobs at the end of a 4- or 8-year presidential term. They remain, offering their professional
experience, as well as their established political allegiances and ideological habits, to the incoming administration. Secondly,
these career professionals are connected in multiple ways to non-governmental institutions with which they have formed closed
working relationships, such as the media and the financial community, or the arms industry (the famed "
Military
Industrial Complex
.")
Agencies such as the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) devote much of their efforts to
covert activity, and these agencies have at times clashed with elected officials. There have been allegations that these agencies
are more loyal to permanent oligarchic power centers than to any temporary occupant of the White House. There are even compelling
reasons to believe that these secretive agencies have been
deployed
against U.S. elected officials
and
even
presidents
.
Senator Frank Church
In the early 1970s there were troubling revelations about covert operations, including illegal spying on American citizens and
assassinations of dissident leaders such as
Fred
Hampton.
Growing public concern about these abuses led to the formation of the United States Senate Select Committee to Study
Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, better known as the Church Committee after its chairman, Democratic
Senator Frank Church of Idaho. Creation of the Committee was approved on January 27, 1975 by the U.S. Senate. It published an
extensive final report in April of 1976.
The Committee investigated the activities of the CIA and FBI, as well as the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Internal Revenue
Service (IRS). It investigated assassinations of foreign leaders, unauthorized surveillance of U.S. citizens, and other covert
operations. Efforts were made by political leaders, including President Gerald Ford, to keep these findings secret. These efforts
were only partially successful.
Some of the projects which were exposed by the Church Committee included:
COINTELPRO, the FBI program to infiltrate and disrupt dissident organizations, including the movement of Dr. Martin Luther King
Jr. as well as many other civil rights or anti-war organizations.
MK-ULTRA, the CIA program to develop mind control techniques including the use of psychedelic drugs such as LSD
Operation Mockingbird, the CIA program to manipulate the news media for propaganda purposes
Edward Snowden
Typically, the agencies under investigation would issue a
mea culpa
and
assure the public that these naughty activities had all been discontinued. However, new revelations over the past decades have
demonstrated that nothing could be further from the truth. Of particular interest is the case of
Edward
Snowden
, the NSA whistleblower who revealed the truly staggering extent of the unlawful surveillance being carried out on
American citizens.
Some things which were once done with utmost discretion, such as the infiltration of the news media by the CIA under Operation
Mockingbird, are now done completely out in the open without the public batting an eye. For example, former CIA Director
John
Brennan
and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who both lied under oath to the US Congress about illegal
activity by the CIA and NSA, now hold high-profile positions at MSNBC and CNN respectively.
It was
Russiagate
that
brought into sharp relief the depth and breadth of CIA/NSA/FBI involvement in the manipulation of domestic politics. It originated
in London, the great mecca of the neocons, with the preparation of the "Steele Dossier" by a "former" operative of MI6. For four
years in the U.S., Russiagate was propagated through regular leaks of anonymous "assessments" from members of the "intel community"
to their assets in the media, some of whom were themselves ostensibly retirees from the "intel community."
These leakers were dutifully characterized in the media as courageous, patriotic whistleblowers, unlike those individuals such as
Edward Snowden, Chelsea Manning or Julian Assange who revealed material that was embarrassing to the neocons. The
condemnation
of those latter persons
by intel community appendage Congressman Adam Schiff, who had
his
own personal whistleblower
on tap for his impeachment effort, is also illuminating.
One organization which has earned the gratitude of the American public for shedding light on the malignant activities of the "intel
community" is group of genuine, high-profile whistleblowers that calls itself
Veteran
Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).
They have played an important role in
debunking
the
story that Russia "hacked" the DNC servers and furnished information on DNC misconduct to Wikileaks. A particularly insightful voice
is that of
Ray
McGovern
, who was a CIA analyst from 1963 to 1990, and in the 1980s chaired National Intelligence Estimates and prepared the
President's Daily Brief.
But what has come out of the shadows and into full view during the past four years is a new sort of complex, where the covert
agencies, the media, and the corporations which now monopolize social media, join forces to create an unprecedented, "total
immersion" propaganda environment. Initially, the internet and social media appeared to be a "wild west" sort of venue where anyone
could say anything. Much of the population soon began to prefer this as a source for news over the corporate media, and the neocons
cried foul.
Facebook
hastened to accomodate them
, bringing in the vociferously neocon Atlantic Council and the mother of all Regime Change
organizations, the National Endowment for Democracy, as consultants in 2018 to help decide which voices should be silenced.
The FBI joined the fun,
seizing
over 100 internet domains
in late 2020 and claiming that they were operated by Iran. This included the site for the
American
Herald Tribune
, an alternative press organ with a substantial following. The FBI Special Agent in charge issued a statement,
saying that "Thanks to our ongoing collaboration with Google, Facebook, and Twitter, the FBI was able to disrupt this Iranian
propaganda campaign and we will continue to pursue any attempts by foreign actors to spread disinformation in our country."
However, it doesn't stop with propaganda and censorship. During the presidential election of 2020, there was an escalated
intervention by the secret police agencies into the electoral process. A few
courageous
individuals
spoke out against this.
When election day arrived, numerous vote-counting anomalies were reported
all
around the country
, partially obscured by deliberate disinformation, "fact-checking", and general hysteria. One particularly
noteworthy allegation was made by Sidney Powell, an attorney who has represented General Michael Flynn. She alleged that computer
programs called HAMMER and SCORECARD, which had been developed for the intelligence agencies for use in rigging elections in other
countries, had been used to benefit
Biden
in
the election. Former NSA senior analyst and member of VIPS, Kirk Wiebe, explained the use of these cyber-weapons, and reported that
the man who developed them, Dennis Montgomery, was prepared to testify to this effect:
Why would the covert agencies attack Trump, who supposedly is a hardline right-winger? Well, apparently he is not regarded as such
in establishment circles. One of the preeminent establishment megaphones,
The
Atlantic
, published
a
very revealing article
in which they compared Trump to Henry Wallace, who served as Vice President under FDR and went on to
found the Progressive Party. Wallace opposed the Cold War, and Trump's reluctance to embrace the Cold War 2.0 that began with the
neocon-sponsored 2014 coup in Ukraine appears to be what put him on the enemies list.
The many allegations of fraud in the 2020 election may be the subject of controversy, litigation, and even civil unrest for possibly
years to come. As Republicans so often do, Sidney Powell has damaged her credibility by
alleging
that the Venezuelan government and assorted communists
played a role in orchestrating vote fraud, a red herring on a par with
Democratic Party claims of Russian interference in the 2016 election. If the CIA and/or NSA did in fact use cyber-warfare techniques
to manipulate the outcome, they most certainly did not do so at the behest of Hugo Chavez. And if they did tamper with the vote
totals, they will have ample opportunity to wipe the evidence.
But at this point, can anyone argue that it is not urgent for the Congress to resume an investigation of misconduct by our secret
police agencies, and that this time they not be satisfied with polite assurances that the bad behavior will cease? Trump has many
warts, but there is a proper way to remove him from office, if that is what the electorate wants. A
color
revolution
, or any other form of coup run by secret police agencies, is odious.
Thanks for reading. If you find this material interesting, perhaps
you might contact Twitter and ask them why
my
account was suspended
on June 30 of this year. I would very
much like to find out the reason.
How 'Western' Media Select Their Foreign Correspondentsgottlieb , Nov 20 2020
19:21 utc |
1
Did you ever wonder why 'western' mainstream media get stories about Russia and other
foreign countries so wrong?
It is simple. They hire the most brainwashed, biased and cynic writers they can get for
the job. Those who are corrupt enough to tell any lie required to support the world view of
their editors and media owners.
They are quite upfront about it.
Here is evidence in form of a New York Times
job description for a foreign correspondent position in Moscow:
Russia Correspondent
Job Description
Vladimir Putin's Russia remains one of the biggest stories in the world.
It sends out hit squads armed with nerve agents against its enemies, most recently the
opposition leader Aleksei Navalny. It has its cyber agents sow chaos and disharmony in the
West to tarnish its democratic systems, while promoting its faux version of democracy. It
has deployed private military contractors around the globe to secretly spread its
influence. At home, its hospitals are filling up fast with Covid patients as its president
hides out in his villa.
If that sounds like a place you want to cover, then we have good news: We will have an
opening for a new correspondent as Andy Higgins takes over as our next Eastern Europe
Bureau Chief early next year.
To be allowed to write for the Times one must see the Russian Federation as a
country that is ruled by just one man.
One must be a fervent believer in MI6 produced Novichok hogwash. One must also believe in
Russiagate and in the multiple idiocies it produced even after all of them have been
debunked.
One must know that vote counts in Russia are always wrong while U.S. vote counting is the
most reliable ever. Russian private military contractors (which one must know to be evil men)
are 'secretly deployed' to wherever the editors claim them to be. Russia's hospitals are of
cause always much worse than ours.
Even when it is easy to check that Vladimir Putin (the most evil man ever) is at work in the
Kremlin the job will require one to claim that he is hiding in a villa.
Most people writing for the Times will actually not believe the above nonsense.
But the description is not for a position that requires one to weight and report the facts.
It is for a job that requires one to lie. That the Times lists all the recent
nonsense about Russia right at the top of the job description makes it clear that only people
who support those past lies will be considered adequate to tell future lies about Russia.
No honest unbiased person will want such a job. But as it comes with social prestige, a
good paycheck and a probably nice flat in Moscow the New York Times will surely find
a number of people who are willing to sell their souls to take it.
Interestingly the job advertisement does not list Russian language capabilities as a
requirement. It only says that 'Fluency in Russian is preferred'.
'Western' mainstream media are filled with such biased, cynic and self-censoring
correspondents who have little if any knowledge of the country they are reporting from. It is
therefore not astonishing that 'western' populations as well as their politicians have often
no knowledge of what is really happening in the world.
Hilarious. Don't need no stinking
Operation Mockingbird anymore. Just put out a want-ad and plenty of brainwashed folks will
come flocking. Propaganda works.
This is such an odd job description with very few specific requirements and none detailing
how much experience or what level of knowledge or skill is required (in the form of X number
of years worked in some area requiring Russian language skills or university qualifications
obtained) that I almost wonder if this advertisement is for real.
One notices also that "Vladimir Putin's Russia" is presented as a story. Everything else
that follows in the second paragraph of the advertisement is also a story. Indeed everything
in the news media industry is a "story" as if instead of employing investigative reporters on
the beat grimly searching for hard facts like old pulp fiction detectives, the media now only
wants Hollywood script writers or graduates straight out of creative writing courses.
But then I suppose whoever gets the job at the NYT can hardly do worse than what the hack
Luke Harding did as The Fraudian's Moscow correspondent nearly 15 years ago, so much so that
the Russian govt must have suspected that he was more than just a bad paranoid plagiarist ...
he must have been a spy as well, that it would initially refuse to renew his visa. One would
like to see the job specifications for the position of The Fraudian's Moscow reporter that
Harding held for a number of years.
Incredible. What the acronym 'SMH' (shake my head) was invented for.
It's no wonder I switched off CBC radio, our national broadcaster here in Canada. Their
music programs were okay, but every hour they had a news update, and those were
stomach-turning. Superficial, biased, Empire-friendly nonsense...
Norman Solomon wrote about this problem fifteen years ago in his book "War Made Easy, How
Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us To Death"
. . .from Amazon: In War Made Easy, nationally syndicated columnist, media critic, and author
Norman Solomon cuts through the dense web of spin to probe and scrutinize the key "perception
management" techniques that have played huge rolls in the promotion of American wars in
recent decades.
p.116
. . .The attitudes of reporters covering U.S. foreign policy officials are generally
similar to the attitudes of those officials. "Most journalists who get plum foreign
assignments already accept the assumptions of empire," according to longtime foreign
correspondent Reese Erlick. He added, "I didn't meet a single foreign reporter in Iraq who
disagreed with the notion that the U.S. and Britain have the right to overthrow the Iraq
government by force. They disagreed only about timing, whether the action should be
unilateral, and whether a long-term occupation is practical." After decades of freelancing
for major U.S. news organizations, Erlich offered this blunt conclusion: "Money, prestige,
career options, ideological predilections--combined with the down sides of filing stories
unpopular with the government--all cast their influence on foreign correspondents. You
don't win a Pulitzer prize for challenging the basic assumptions of empire."
> social prestige, a good paycheck and a probably nice flat
The term that Paul Craig Roberts often uses, " presstitute ", comes to mind.
Echoing JimmyG. @4 and spudski @7, in Canada, our taxpayer-funded state news agency's
flagship program "The National" gives us regular Two Minutes Hate pieces currently
being churned out every two weeks or so by Moscow correspondent Chris Brown who fits this
article's description to a T.
I've lost count of how many times he and CBC The National's editors have singled out
Russia's handling of COVID-19 for criticism, when so many other countries have far worse per
capita fatality numbers than Russia.
While decrying Russia's COVID-19 deaths, they, of course, never mention the fact that
Canada has had more COVID-19 deaths per capita than Russia ...
It's absolutely pathetic.
5 years ago the truly great journalist Robert Fisk made the following observations during an
interview with the journal.ie amongst others.
Back's up everything you have pointed out about the sheer disappearance of any impartial
reportage from the NYT and printed media in general.
"Most newspapers that have lost circulation, particularly in the States, it's not because
of the internet, it's because those newspapers were simply no good. When I go to San
Francisco the coverage of the Middle East in its papers is frightened, cowardly, pathetic,
there's no serious foreign coverage at all."
"Newspapers themselves are to blame for the deterioration in their readership. I read the
New York Times when its free, period, it doesn't deserve to be paid for. It's not worth
it.
It doesn't matter whether it's online or not. If a paper's not worth buying you'll read for
free online regardless"
"Most people writing for the Times will actually not believe the above
nonsense."
Our host is much too charitable to the presstitutes. Those in the "Mockingbird"
mass media eat their own effluent like a sort of group ouroboric scatophagia. To maintain
their perverse form of "mental hygiene" they studiously avoid information sources
outside of their own circular reprocessing of yesterday's delusions into fresh steaming piles
for today's consumption. They have become so accustomed to feeding off their own delusions
that if a hint of reality were to intrude into their looped intellectual food chain their
minds would reject it like poison. They would likely exhibit physical symptoms, which
doubtless would be attributed to evil Soviet mind rays from Havana.
Stengel stated clearly that a "news cartel" of mainstream corporate media outlets had
long dominated US society, but he bemoaned that those "cartels don't have hegemony like they
used to."
Stengel made it clear that his mission is to counter the alternative perspectives given
a voice by foreign media platforms that challenge the US-dominated media landscape.
"The bad actors use journalistic objectivity against us."
Wow ...
I clicked on the New York Times job link, and journalistic objectivity and integrity are
nowhere to be found in the job descripton. But I did notice these lines that add to the ones
that b brought to our attention:
We are looking for someone who will embrace the prospect of traversing 11 time zones to
track a populace that is growing increasingly frustrated with an economy dragged down by
corruption, cronyism and excessive reliance on natural resources. This posting offers the
chance to chronicle the continuing reign of one of the world's most charismatic leaders,
President Vladimir V. Putin.
Not to mention, Putin ushered in changes to the constitution, so he will likely stay in
power for many years to come.
And, of course, we are on the cusp of a new, less Putin-friendly president in the US,
which should only raise the temperature between Washington and Moscow.
It's not Russia it's "Vladimir Putin's Russia," so that's one mandatory term checked off,
i.e. personalizing the appointed enemy. But then we read "It sends out hit squads. . ."
instead of the usual obligatory: 'The regime' . . . . .but the Times can't get everything
right.
The amount of hourly propaganda directed at and leveled at American people is
unprecedented, I had not seen it this intense in past years it reminds me of my High school
days in Shah's Iran. This kind and this intense of control on news can only be due to
instability of the regime. IMO in coming Biden Adminstration regime will impose new rules for
control of internet and access to foreign news. Currently using my Mobil cellular I can't
access any Iranian news site.
DNC PoliticalPrisoner 31
minutes ago Many wouldn't have believed there was election fraud except the media and Big
Tech keep insisting that there wasn't. Facebook, Twitter, Google, Fox News, CNN, and more giant
corporations keep screaming at us via notifications, messages, and broadcasts that there was no
election fraud. Now, we're starting to think maybe there is something fishy going on.
"The personnel of 77 th Brigade is not that of your typical military unit.
Soldiers in the 77th Brigade, which was formed in 2015, are based in Berkshire and spend
their time producing video and audio content, using data to understand how the public receives
different messages, and creating "attitude and sentiment awareness" from large sets of social
media data
One of their most infamous members is Gordon MacMillan, a Senior Twitter executive. He
joined the social media company's UK office in 2013, and has for several years also served with
the 77th Brigade, a unit formed in 2015 to develop "non-lethal" ways of waging war.
The 77th Brigade uses social media platforms such as Twitter, Instagram and Facebook, as
well as podcasts, data analysis and audience research to conduct what the head of the UK
military, General Nick Carter, describes as "information warfare".
Carter says the 77th Brigade is giving the British military "the capability to compete in
the war of narratives at the tactical level" and to shape perceptions of conflict. Some
soldiers who have served with the unit say they have been engaged in operations intended to
change the behaviour of target audiences.
What exactly MacMillan is doing with the unit is difficult to determine, however: he has
declined to answer any questions about his role, as has Twitter and the UK's Ministry of
Defence (MoD).
Twitter would say only that "we actively encourage all our employees t o pursue external
interests". The MoD said that the 77th Brigade had no relationship with Twitter, other than
using it for communication.
The current training regime of the soldiers is unclear. Back in 2008, an annual report by 15
(UK) Psychological Operations Group showed that there was a "robust training" going on for all
incoming troops, and current ones as well.
This involved internal, as well as external trainings."
-------------
There is something vaguely ominous about all this. The US capability to do similar things is
spread all over the government; CIA, USAID, Army Psyops, USIA, etc.
This UK thing is consolidated, has a lot of social media people and academics as reservists
and has the typical clubbiness of British upper class institutions. I wonder what the tie looks
like.
The White Helmet film company has to be connected to this as well as the Syrian Observatory
for Human Rights.
and as far as i am concerned the UK and USA are tied at the hip in all of this too... sad
kettle of fish when your own country is propagandizing you.. 5 eyes is like the blind leading
the blind at this point...
Great. More sources of gaslighting and censorship. Just what's needed to advance
authoritarianism and thwart democracy.
I read some thought-provoking comments somewhere yesterday that essentially said if
leftists' ideas were truly popular, why do they have to resort to censorship, election fraud
and other unscrupulous means?
So we've come full circle to the subject of the article I posted damned near exactly four
years ago. That one got a lot of people's panties in a twist. Propaganda. Information
operations. The theory of reflexive control. We all do it. Rather than using pamphlets and
loudspeakers, we now use the internet and social media. The difference lies in the speed and
spread of these "dark arts" in the world today. That and the complete obliteration of the
line between tactical and strategic in this field.
Used to be that little chat rooms would pop up on the internet run by employees of this or
that organisation. I remember one run by a senior police officer that was devoted to the
dubious doings of even more senior officers. That one got taken down suddenly when the doings
spoken of got a bit too dubious.
I imagine that having spent the best part of his career feeling collars the blogging
Inspector found an irate superior feeling his. The entire site, back numbers and all,
disappeared in a flash and was never seen again.
Similarly a few years back I happened upon a chat room allegedly run by army personnel. At
that time 77 Brigade was putting the word out that it was needing staff. The comments weren't
enthusiastic. Housing tricky. Terrible commute. It'd be no more than "Three men and a Doris
in a hut". And the comments then tailed off into a seemingly well-informed discussion about
the local talent in the Aldershot area.
So well informed that, knowing how interested Army men are in that subject, I marked the
site down as possibly genuine. Probably was genuine too, since that chat room disappeared in
a flash as well.
So I took something of a proprietorial interest in 77 Brigade. Adopted it, one might say.
When submitting comments to English sites on Brexit (Don't go there. Could be the saddest
subject on the planet.) I was sometimes accused of being a troll for Brussels. Or of course
for Putin. I would rebut all such suggestions by proudly announcing I was with 77 Brigade and
the tea was dreadful. I remembered Doris, you see, and something told me that tea-making
wasn't one of her strengths.
And now my draughty hut (I had imagined typewriters and bulky coding machines but that
would surely be anachronistic) has morphed into just another part of the squalid world of
information warfare. From Oxbridge and Dearlove and Halpern and the select souls in academia
down through the media and the think tanks and right down to the scrubby little subsidised
websites and the Bellingcats. Your article has substituted reality for my cosy little troll
farm and I suppose I'll have to give my allegiance to the BND now or some such boring
outfit.
Shame. Not something one would mention to SHMBO but I'd always got on well with
Doris.
and thus part of a service family over several generations.
I have heard suggestions that in "retirement" Sir Gordon MacMillan was encouraged to
engage in gentlemanly lobbying on behalf of local, beleaguered Clyde shipbuilding yards when
tenders for constructing new vessels were issued by HMG up to around 1980.
It can be quite good sport finding their interactions, they have shall we say, a certain
style. Some are good at spotting the tell tell signs, in such cases you will see 77 in the
reply.
"... Democracy cannot work in America because the money of the elite prevails. American democracy is organized in order to prevent the people from having a voice. A political campaign is expensive. The money for candidates comes from interest groups, such as defense contractors, Wall Street, the pharmaceutical industry, the Israel Lobby. Consequently, the winning candidate is indebted to his funders, and these are the people whom he serves. ..."
.... Digital technology has also made it easy to alter vote counts. US Air Force General
Thomas McInerney is familiar with this technology. He says it was developed by the National
Security Agency in order to interfere in foreign elections, but now is in the hands of the
CIA and was used to defeat Trump. Trump is considered to be an enemy of the military/security
complex because of his wish to normalize relations with Russia, thus taking away the enemy
that justifies the CIA's budget and power.
... ... ...
Mainstream media in Europe claim, that Trump had "divided" the United States. But isn`t
it actually the other way around, that his opponents have divided the country?
As the German newspaper editor Udo Ulfkotte revealed in his book, Bought Journalism
, the European and US media speak with one voice -- the voice of the CIA. The very profitable
and powerful US military/security complex needs foreign enemies. Russiagate was a CIA/FBI
successful effort to block Trump from reducing tensions with Russia. In 1961 in his last
address to the American people President Dwight Eisenhower warned that the growing power of
the military/industrial complex was a threat to American democracy. We ignored his warning
and now have security agencies more powerful than the President.
The military/security complex favors the disunity that the Democrat Party and media have
fostered with their ideology of Identity Politics. Identity politics replaced Marxist class
war with race and gender war. White people, and especially white heterosexual males, are the
new oppressor class. This ideology causes race and gender disunity and prevents any unified
opposition to the security agencies ability to impose its agendas by controlling
explanations. Opposition to Trump cemented the alliance between Democrats, media, and the
Deep State.
... ... ...
The introduction of a report of the Heritage Foundation states that "the United States
has a long and unfortunate history of election fraud". Are the 2020 presidential elections
another inglorious chapter in this long history?
This time the fraud is not local as in the past. It is the result of a well organized
national effort to get rid of a president that the Establishment does not accept.
Somehow you get the impression that in the USA – as in many European countries
democracy is just a facade – or am I wrong?
You are correct. Trump is the first non-establishment president who became President
without being vetted by the Establishment since Ronald Reagan. Trump was able to be elected
only because the Establishment thought he had no chance and took no measures to prevent his
election. A number of studies have concluded that in the US the people, despite democracy and
voting, have zero input into public policy.
Democracy cannot work in America because the money of the elite prevails. American
democracy is organized in order to prevent the people from having a voice. A political
campaign is expensive. The money for candidates comes from interest groups, such as defense
contractors, Wall Street, the pharmaceutical industry, the Israel Lobby. Consequently, the
winning candidate is indebted to his funders, and these are the people whom he
serves.
European mainstream media are portraying Biden as a luminous figure. Should Biden
become president, what can be expected in terms of foreign and security policy, especially in
regard to China, Russia and the Middle East? I mean, the deep state and the
military-industrial complex remain surely nearly unchanged.
...The military/security complex needs enemies for its power and profit and will be
certain to retain the list of desirable foreign enemies -- Russia, Iran, China, and any
independent-inclined country in Latin America. Being at war is also a way of distracting the
people of the war against their liberties.
What the military/security complex might not appreciate is that among its Democrat allies
there are some, such as Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who are ideological
revolutionaries...
When Brennan's already purple face almost burst because Trump disputed a CNN story, we
ALREADY had proof that its the CIA who SPONSORS CNN, that without that support CNN could simply
not exist.
I base that on 15 months of LEGALLY living in Russia, long before Trump, and the Russians
themselves were shocked about how much CNN misrepresented Russia.
Half of their coverage of Russia was simply made up, and the half that was based on some
facts was so distorted that it was worthless--giving them more than a 50% error rate.
I never thought they could be off by more than 50% on anything until Trump came along, with
a 92% error rate by their OWN count. Joe Jones Secret Squirrel •
10 hours ago
Forget about the Chinese and the Russians, this fraud was carried out by the douchebags at
our very own, CIA. Those people are the most arrogant bunch of low life's that you will ever
meet. I had to deal with a bunch of them while overseas.
I feel the original Q was probably an actual civil servant with a bit of a speculation,
and gradually was replaced by increasingly more parodical versions of himself.
"... Plenty has been said about the cheapness of Borat's humor, and the tiredness of the shtick. Likewise, many have observed that Cohen's comedy -- always heavily political -- has crossed the line into blatant politicking, especially with respect to the Giuliani interview. But there is more than enough here to suggest that the politics run much deeper than might be evident at first glance. ..."
Ayman Abu Aita is a family man. For years, he was a grocer by trade, running his shop in
Bethlehem while serving on the board of the Holy Land Trust, a nonprofit group working for
peaceful reconciliation in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Like many Palestinians, he is a
Christian, a practicing member of the Greek Orthodox Church.
He must have been as shocked as everybody else to see his face broadcast across the world
above the identifier: "ayman abu aita, terrorist group leader, al-aqsa martyrs brigade."
The interview in question -- conducted in character by Sacha Baron Cohen and featured in his
movie Bruno -- had been held under false pretenses, and deceptively edited to boot.
Abu Aita pursued legal action and, in a rare (albeit measured) victory for one of Cohen's
victims, managed to settle out of court. The lawsuit
ended in 2012, and the interview had been conducted in 2009, so this all may seem like
ancient history. But a few of the episode's more bizarre details have never been adequately
explained, and Borat's carefully timed return ought to revive our interest.
In addition to his long record of peaceful activism -- which had earned Abu Aita two years
in an Israeli jail on unsubstantiated charges -- Baron Cohen's fake terrorist just happens to
have been a parliamentary candidate in Palestine at the time of the Bruno debacle.
Thanks to Cohen's actions, Abu Aita received
death threats and sustained serious damage to his reputation, his business, and his
campaign.
While it remains possible that Abu Aita was a random victim, it practically defies belief:
why travel halfway across the world to interview a random person who is manifestly not
a terrorist? Had the goal here solely been the bit, the same scene could have been shot for a
fraction of the cost in a cheap LA motel, with an unknown actor of a reasonably believable
ethnic extraction. It is immensely difficult to consider the great lengths to which Cohen went
in painting Abu Aita as a terrorist to be somehow independent of who he was, of his years of
political activity, and of the damage done to him by the stunt. It is hard to see any of this
as accidental.
In Abu Aita's account , the
interview "was set up via Awni Jubran, a journalist for the Palestinian news agency, PNN," with
the supposed purpose of discussing peace efforts and life in Palestine. Cohen, in an interview
with David Letterman the week after Bruno 's premiere, offered a somewhat different
account of how he first became interested in Abu Aita. Out of character, clean-shaven, sporting
a t-shirt, a blazer, and the Queen's English, Cohen provided a sometimes-necessary reminder
that he is neither a poor Kazakh reporter nor a gay Austrian fashionista, but an obscenely
wealthy, Cambridge-educated Brit. This rarely seen, authentic Cohen informed Letterman that he
had sought a list of names from a contact at the CIA, and from there did some asking around in
the Middle East until he located the "terrorist" he wound up interviewing. The million
questions that ought to arise from this admission -- Who does Cohen know at the CIA, and why?
Why did this CIA contact share any information with him? What was the CIA's interest in Abu
Aita? and countless others -- were simply brushed aside, and the conversation continued.
In his answer to Abu Aita's complaints, Cohen swore, through his lawyers, that the
statements in question were "substantially true." Likewise, Letterman's answer attested to the
substantial truth of the interview while also "admit[ting] Cohen stated that he received
information from a contact at the 'C.I.A.'" While substantial truth in libel and slander law
allows for "slight inaccuracies of expression," any conceivable definition of the term still
includes Cohen's insistence on the sincerity of the CIA claim.
* * *
Fast forward eight years, and Cohen once again has his sights set on a candidate for office.
This time it's the vice president of the United States, in the midst of a heated reelection
campaign. (Cohen has never been shy about his Trump/Pence hatred, and has often stated publicly
that his sole reason for returning to his trademark brand of activist comedy was to help bring
an end to the present administration.)
On Thursday, February 27th, a man dressed as Donald Trump burst into the Potomac Ballroom at
the Gaylord in National Harbor, MD, where Vice President Pence was addressing the Conservative
Political Action Conference (CPAC). With a woman in a green dress and ripped tights slung over
his shoulder, the man shouted something at the vice president in labored and heavily accented
English. Ian Walters, communications director of the American Conservative Union which runs
CPAC, said that it sounded vaguely obscene (suffice it to say the impersonator bungled the VP's
surname) but he could not make out clearly what the man was saying. Video footage of the
incident shows the crowd clearly appalled, and the pair were quickly escorted out by CPAC
security, Secret Service agents, and officers of the Prince George's County Police
Department.
Though no charges were pursued, the police report from the incident identifies the man as
Sacha Noem Cohen, while the woman identified is a stunt double who has worked extensively in
Hollywood. ( TAC has been in touch with the woman in question, but she had not
responded to our inquiries as of press time.) The PGPD report claims that all information was
shared with CPAC security, who then confiscated the pair's access passes. But CPAC personnel
maintain that they were never informed of Cohen's identity, and did not confiscate any pass
that would have tipped them off.
The police department's claim is hard to square with CPAC personnel's obvious confusion
about the events that followed. Over the next two days, two more Trump impersonators appeared
at the convention, both in professional-grade costumes. The third and final Trump impersonator
was detained by the Secret Service. His prosthetics were so elaborate that he had to call an
associate -- a professional makeup artist -- to assist in their removal so that the Secret
Service could confirm his identity. That wasn't the only person who came to help him, though:
Brian Stolarz, an attorney specializing in white-collar criminal defense, was at the ready.
From there, an hour and a half passed before the big event: somebody ran through a highly
trafficked area of the hotel in full Klan robes, while numerous CPAC attendees looked on in
horror. Security arrived quickly, and the Klan impersonator was detained as well. Stolarz --
the lawyer who had shown up for the Trump impersonator that same day -- was on the scene here
too, further confirming the link between what otherwise might have passed for unrelated
episodes.
Given everything that has occurred in the interim -- COVID became the big news just a few
days after CPAC -- most people seem to have forgotten that the Klansman story took on a life of
its own at the time. Because Cohen's presence was not made public at the time, despite the
discovery of his identity on Thursday, speculation ran wild. Clips of a man in Klan robes
running through CPAC made the rounds on the internet -- often, according to Walters, via
accounts that seemed obviously bogus. In addition to the social media buzz, the CPAC incidents
were given a good bit of airtime in major news outlets. The ACU fielded calls from, among
others, leaders of D.C.'s Black Lives Matter, outraged that one of the largest gatherings of
mainstream conservatives in the country would tolerate a Klansman strolling through. (The
initial clips that surfaced did not show the horrified reactions of actual CPAC attendees, nor
the actor's detainment by security.) Just as with the Abu Aita interview, what was ostensibly a
comedy act apparently doubled as a very real political influence operation.
It was more than six months before what actually happened at CPAC became apparent to the
public. With Borat Subsequent Moviefilm 's hurried release (a week and a half before
Election Day), the Trump impersonators and the Klansman were all shown to be part of a massive
Cohen stunt -- perhaps his biggest to date. But it is worth considering how carefully the film
itself glosses over the complexity of this production. Walters estimates that a team of a dozen
unauthorized security personnel were operating at CPAC, accompanying a slightly larger,
undercover film crew. It came to the attention of CPAC personnel that this group had rented,
and were operating out of, a block of rooms at the nearby Westin. All of these personnel had
purchased access passes to CPAC (which aren't cheap) and security also suspected that some
registration credentials may have been forged -- with top-notch equipment and skill, at that.
Walters estimated the cost of the operation to be somewhere around a quarter of a million
dollars, if not more.
To an impartial observer, this all would seem to be not a goofy comedy sketch, but a serious
information op at a major political event in the midst of an important election year. In a way,
it was: all these scenes existed independently, floating around the internet -- forming
opinions and sparking controversies and stoking hatred -- for months before they were folded
into the context of the film. First as tragedy and then as farce, right?
* * *
Between the CPAC saga and the movie's release, another major operation -- in some ways more
complex than that in February -- had been carried out at the end of June. The third annual
March for Our Rights rally was set to be a small affair, operated out of one organizer's
flatbed truck, run by a local crew with hardly any budget to speak of.
A few months before the event, though, the rally's three organizers -- Allen Acosta, Matt
Marshall, and Tessa Ashley -- were contacted by a production company who asked to film at the
event for a documentary. Something seemed off, and the organizers declined. Then, just a few
weeks out from the rally, they were contacted by a group representing themselves as a PAC based
in Southern California. The name they used was "Back-to-Work USA," and beside a cell phone
number -- which now goes to voicemail -- and one press release, there was little out there to
attest to their existence. Again, the organizers were skeptical, but the group seemed eager to
offer financial support.
Acosta, who has been the event's lead organizer in each of the three years it's occurred,
started out slow. He asked the two women from "Back-to-Work" -- the names they gave were Tamara
Young and Mary Harris -- if their group would pay to rent out porta-potties for the event. When
they followed through, he took it as a sign that they were legitimate, and that their offer of
support was sincere. At breakneck pace, the supposed PAC contracted a professional stage and
other equipment, an army of security, and a number of legitimate musical acts, including Larry
Gatlin. In all, the expenses -- the group virtually paid for the whole event -- amounted to
tens of thousands of dollars.
The morning of June 27th, Acosta kept close watch over the setup. He directed participants,
including Young and Harris, exactly where to park their cars. He gave a security briefing to
the team that Back-to-Work USA had hired -- about 40 locals hired for the day. Once the event
began, he immersed himself in the crowd, making conversation with attendees and making sure
everything went smoothly audience-side.
Meanwhile, the Back-to-Work crew claimed they were rushing to get one more act to warm the
crowd up for Gatlin. They told Marshall that they had found one at the last minute, and in the
middle of the action neither he nor any of the other event organizers had much time to vet the
new find.
The first portion of the event, which featured stump speeches from conservative political
candidates, was wrapping up, and they were ready to pivot to the entertainment segment, with
Gatlin headlining. At this point, organizers noticed a substantial swell in the crowd. Acosta
didn't think anything of it at the time, as he had encouraged people who might not be
interested in the political rally to come enjoy the music nonetheless. In retrospect, a number
of the new arrivals seem suspect. Notably, a group with Gadsden and Confederate flags were
standing off in the back, hesitant to join the main body of people even at Acosta's urging.
Looking back on the moment months later, he said it was "like they were waiting for a cue."
It was then that Acosta got a call from the police. One woman, upset by some Trump flags at
the rally, was causing a scene across the street. A few attendees were engaging with her
verbally. Acosta went over to help get a handle on the situation. The lone protestor continued
for about 15 minutes, and her outburst escalated until she was eventually arrested. At that
point, Acosta crossed back over to rejoin the event.
As soon as he returned, he was met with complaints from worried parents: somebody was
walking through the crowd with a backward-facing camera in his backpack, which the parents
thought was pointed down to the level of their children. Acosta actually found the man, and was
questioning him when a commotion broke out in the area of the stage. Acosta turned in that
direction, and in the blink of an eye the man had bolted for the parking lot.
The ruckus that caught Acosta's attention has been widely publicized, though very little of
what actually happened has broken into the mainstream narrative. The second act which
"Back-to-Work" had supposedly booked last minute was actually Sacha Baron Cohen, in character
as Borat who was in character as "Country Steve." Country Steve sang a song about injecting
various liberals with the Wuhan flu, as well as chopping up journalists "like the Saudis do."
Parts of the song also featured anti-Semitic undertones.
This was hardly met without resistance: one video -- distinctly absent from most reporting
of the event -- shows a young attendee, draped in an Israeli flag, grabbing a bullhorn and
rushing to the front of the crowd to confront Cohen. At the same time, Marshall and one other
rally participant (who happens to be the son of a Holocaust survivor) managed to get past
Cohen's security -- with a good bit of effort -- and chase him off the stage. In a late-October
interview with Steven Colbert, Cohen claimed that one of the two men reached for his gun while
rushing the stage. Marshall, who was carrying an unloaded pistol at the event, denies that this
ever happened. Cohen seems to relish the idea that he has placed himself in danger for these
stunts: he claimed to Letterman that his interview with Abu Aita was conducted at a secret
location, with two hulking bodyguards accompanying the "terrorist," while in reality it was
conducted at a popular hotel under Israeli jurisdiction, with Abu Aita accompanied by a
journalist friend and the peace activist who runs the Holy Land Trust.
Country Steve, clearly unwelcome, ran into a staged ambulance that rushed away with the
lights on. Acosta hurried to the parking lot and saw that the cars of the Back-to-Work crew had
all disappeared as well. In a matter of seconds the scam became apparent. But the spin was
quickly applied online: clips of the violent and anti-Semitic song started to pop up on social
media, with the confrontation by the young Jewish activist and the moment where Marshall chased
Cohen offstage conveniently left out. Special attention was given to the members of the crowd
who enthusiastically sang along. But, by and large, these do not seem to be actual attendees of
the March for Our Rights. For the most part, they seem to have come from the group of
bystanders that Acosta suggests were "waiting for a cue." Marshall -- who is convinced that
these were hired extras -- points out that these people are dressed in over-the-top,
stereotypical MAGA get-ups, complete with straw hats and Rebel flags. He also notes that, given
Washington's history and location, Confederate flags simply aren't a part of the culture, even
in more provocative corners of the right.
Nevertheless, the episode was cast as a classic Borat sting: Cohen, it was assumed, had
shown up at this rally, hopped on stage, and easily gotten the right-wingers to show their
racist side. Nobody looked into the immense effort that had gone into the scene. That somebody
had spent tens of thousands of dollars even to get him there, and apparently planted willing
collaborators in the crowd, was hardly considered at all.
Once again, the stunt took on a substantial political character. Reports that right-wing
rally-goers had gleefully participated in Country Steve's act cropped up all over the internet,
bolstered by social media buzz -- supposedly showing the dark underbelly of MAGA-world right
before the election. And once again -- as with CPAC, and Abu Aita, and any number of Cohen's
marks -- great pains were taken to hide just how orchestrated the whole thing was.
* * *
It's interesting how Borat -- within the plot of the movie -- is supposed to have wound up
at the rally in Washington. While quarantining with two new friends -- Jim Russell and Jerry
Holleman, two supposed QAnoners with virtually no online presence -- Borat stumbles upon a
video of his daughter, Tutar (played by newcomer Maria Bakalova) pretending to be a journalist
named Grace. In the clip, Tutar/Grace/Bakalova is interviewing two anti-lockdown activists
about the risk COVID emergency measures pose for a long-term slide into authoritarianism.
What's really interesting here is that this interview actually happened. The two
interviewees, Ashley and Adam Smith, are leaders of ReopenNC, a grassroots movement with over
80,000 members in their Facebook group. On April 22nd -- long before the March for Our Rights
rally in late June -- Ashley received an email from someone using the name Charlotte
Richardson, claiming to be "a producer for More Than Sports TV, a production company working
together with One America News Network on a documentary that explores the horrors of socialism
and its corrosive impact on creativity, success and innovation here in America." More Than
Sports TV had a website, registered in November of 2019. Likewise, Held Back, the supposed
documentary project in the works, had a website that was just registered on March 9th of this
year. (Neither website remains active today.) Given the apparently legitimate websites and the
purported connection to OAN, Smith agreed to the interview.
She conducted a 40-minute interview over Zoom with "Grace," in which the two talked
seriously about the subject matter; Bakalova did not break character once, and Smith never
suspected a thing. Charlotte even reached out to set up another interview, this time with
Ashley's husband, Adam, participating. It was from this second interview that a brief clip was
pulled and posted to The Patriots Report, ostensibly a news site. It is this posting that Borat
stumbles upon in the film.
The Patriots Report domain was registered in September of 2019. Like all the other sites in
play here, it was registered using an anonymous proxy service, making it impossible to
determine who purchased the domain. The bulk of its content is plagiarized from popular sites
like The Gateway Pundit -- though some portion, notably the Bakalova/Smith interview, is
original, fabricated content. As of October 31st, The Patriots Report is still active, still
masquerading as a news site, and still posting new content. In these last days before the
election, there seems to be a focus on just that. One
story , pulled from Politico
without attribution, warns that "Most social media users in three key states have seen ads
questioning the election." Another
story , ripped straight from
Daily Kos , has been pinned to the site's homepage for days: "It's not just social media:
Election disinformation now spreading through text, emails." If the site was meant solely as a
prop for a comedy film, it's hard to imagine why it's being used to spread fears over "election
disinformation" a week after the movie opened and mere days before the election itself.
This is particularly interesting given Cohen's public activism calling for stricter
censorship of speech by tech platforms, with a special focus on Facebook, in close association
with the Anti-Defamation League. Cohen is fond of talking about "fake news" on the talk show
circuit, but he has not offered any explanation as to why he is apparently running a fake news
outlet himself.
* * *
Besides the Smith interview and the widely discussed Rudy Giuliani interview, Borat revealed
in a tweet on October 24th that Bakalova, posing as an aspiring journalist for The Patriots
Report, had been given a brief tour of the White House press room by One America News Network's
chief White House correspondent, Chanel Rion. (That a White House correspondent generously
offered advice and a tour to a hopeful fellow journalist is somehow meant to be taken as a
prank.) On the surface level, he seems to just be suggesting that the current White House is
unserious because this actor -- who passed a Secret Service background check two days before
the tour -- was allowed into the press room and onto the north lawn.
But another interesting (and deeply concerning) dimension to Sacha Baron Cohen's operation
-- on top of CIA sources connecting with Palestinian activists, small fortunes spent crafting
political scenes that spread through the internet like a virus, and online disinformation
campaigns undertaken in earnest while publicly pushing for tech censorship -- is added by a
detail that Rion observed.
The camera crew Bakalova used in her White House stunt were neither amateur pranksters nor
Hollywood professionals: they were credentialed members of the press corp. When Rion inquired
about this, Bakalova's producer "shrugged and told [her] he has friends at CBS." According to
Rion, all three members of the crew had congressional press badges, and at least two of the
three had White House hard passes. Hard passes are issued to those who have been on the White
House grounds at least 180 times within a six month period -- suggesting that Bakalova's
accomplices were full-time, long-term members of the White House press.
Plenty has been said about the cheapness of Borat's humor, and the tiredness of the
shtick. Likewise, many have observed that Cohen's comedy -- always heavily political -- has
crossed the line into blatant politicking, especially with respect to the Giuliani interview.
But there is more than enough here to suggest that the politics run much deeper than might be
evident at first glance.
If we're supposed to be so worried about "election disinformation" and foreign election
meddling, shouldn't we be concerned about a British multimillionaire -- with unexplained
connections to the CIA and the White House press corps, and public affiliation with other
institutions clearly hostile to Trump like the ADL -- carrying out massive information ops in
the lead-up to an election that he has publicly expressed an interest in influencing? Or should
we just pretend it's all okay because the press told us we're supposed to be laughing?
I thought Borat was Mossad, not CIA - but you always learn something new here.
...with respect to the Giuliani interview
It was my impression that the President's personal lawyer was conducting a
counterintelligence operation to catch the deep state in the act. As you can see in the
movie, he caught them red handed. They infiltrated much closer than anybody thought.
Great expose! It's always interesting to find out that what appears to be random leftist
filthy-minded comedy is in fact well planned deep state conspiracy. The matrix is far more
complex and evil than we suspected.
*Lisa reads Comic Book Guy's Shirt*
Lisa: C:, C:\Dos, C:\Dos\Run. Ha! Only one person in a million would find that funny.
Prof. Frink: Yes, we call that the Dennis Miller Ratio
Misdirection. Your point was that this was an overly detailed analysis of a minor
comedian, and then mocked the sincerity of the article's concern. When confronted with the
reality that this is in no way minor, but in fact a widely promoted film, you insist I'm
free not to watch it, which is completely irrelevant.
Misdirection. Your point was that some random comedian has a movie on Amazon, and
somehow this is upsetting (?) to conservatives. When confronted with the reality that it's
just a silly film, you insist that it is "plastered" all over a streaming service, which is
completely irrelevant.
Oh my. A lot of hang wringing over a cheap, silly, no account, failed movie. No one with
any sense would take Cohen seriously. He is a known provocateur. His movies aren't funny
any more. And , while a Democrat, he has me feeling some sympathy for the targets he
exploits.
Except for Giuliani. He gets what he sows. He the king of disinformation. But one thing
which I have noticed. The successful parodies are by left leaning protagonists. Mostly
showing the stupidity of Trump supporters at his rallies. The Daily Show has made a staple
of humiliating boring Trump supporters.
Surely there are Biden supporters who are just as wacky. If not, that is interesting. It
does seem that right leaning Trump supporters are subject to believing the right's
disinformation. Now that is a problem which our author should investigate. And that is
actually important. Cohen's movies, not so much.
Update. It was just revealed that a Republican ad doctored a video of Biden being
confused about whether he was in Minnesota or Florida. While actually in Florida, the ad
doctored the clip to make it seem like he was in Minneapolis. Big difference. One has to
pay to be deceived by a liberal. It is free to be deceived by a conservative.
Cohen's pro-Israel turn in "The Spy" could have been produced by the Mossad. While the
story is in broad strokes true, every Arab and Syrian is depicted as drunk, incompetent,
corrupt, or a cuckold. Would appear being used by or in cahoots intelligence services is
nothing new for him.
Did you actually read the article or just scan it for something to complain about? Take
your own advice and get over yourself "petal".
If you read the actual reviews of the movie, or bother to watch it for yourself, people
are interpreting the actual events in the film, other than Cohen's actual actions, as real.
If the entire thing is a hoax, guess what? It IS a big deal.
Read the article, watched the film. Again - it's called satire, and it couldn't have
been made without interrupting things like CPAC; that a lot of work went in to getting it
right isn't a surprise. If it's a big deal, I imagine that's just how Cohen wanted it.
No, not all of it is satire. Don't just reflexively defend Cohen because he went after
Republicans. Now, if all you are going to talk about is CPAC and you ignore everything else
in the article, it's just a complex and expensive prank. However that's not all there is in
the article. Portraying a Palestinian politicians who isn't even Muslim as an Islamist
terrorist is NOT satire. It's slander. Don't pretend you don't understand that. If they
brought in fake protesters to perform as right wing fanatics at the March for Our Rights,
that's not satire. The film has two kids of jokes. Borat is a fictional character. The
viewer is aware of that. So there are the jokes which are based on his misunderstandings
and stranger from a strange land persona. The other jokes depend on his character evoking
legitimate reactions from unsuspecting people he is pranking. Either way the audience is in
on what's real and what isn't. In the Country Steve sequence the flag waving protesters
joining in to sing about killing and torturing their political enemies are being depicted
as authentic to the audience. If they aren't real that's not satire, it's slander against
the actual participants and it's fraud at the expense of the audience. I am sure on an
intellectual level you can understand this even if you really want to disagree with me for
the sake of not conceding the argument and defending a person who is theoretically on your
side.
Right. And I suppose if Cohen were a right-winger interrupting the sacred ritual of baby
dismemberment at Planned Parenthood, this would be acceptable to you in the name of
satire?
I thought it interesting the Borat character is jailed in a gulag at the start. So he's
aware of their awfulness.
Did SBC not make the connection that gulags exist in nations with totalitarian
governments? It seems unlikely, since he regularly flatters the party of more government at
the expense of the liberty-loving conservatives.
The pearl clutching over the fact that an extremely elaborate and well-organized stunt
at CPAC required high levels of coordination to pull off is extremely funny to me.
For some reason we need to believe that entertainers and pranksters are dumb people
getting by on luck and audaciousness, so we are somehow offended when it turns out they're
professionals who make things that are extraordinarily complex look easy.
Outrage isn't pearl-clutching and it is not in this case concerned merely with the fact
that this stunt took time and money, or that a political leader or his supporters were
mocked. It is concerned with the fact that something that was initially portrayed as a
spontaneous event, and latterly as a mere humorous 'stunt' - and that is where the scale
and above all the expense of the thing becomes relevant - genuinely reflects the nature of
one political party and its supporters. In the case of the 'stunt' in Israel, it seems at
face value - I'm not familiar with the story so I can't say - that the detestable Mr Baron
Cohen deliberately tried to influence an election and ruin a man's reputation. So much the
worse for him if he did it all in good fun.
It's almost as if the writer has no idea how movies are made; that movies just
spontaneously appear on the screen; that the credits which list the names of scores of
specialists, are some kind of inside Hollywood joke; and that movie making, unlike every
other business, doesn't requires financing.
Okay for a lot of you this is going to fall on deaf ears because you just come to The
American Conservative to whine about the existence of American Conservatives and whine
further if any actual American conservative objects. I suppose some of you will whine about
me pointing this out too. It just proves my point, so spare me the snark.
Okay that said.
The reason this article matters is that Sacha Baron Cohen's whole angle is that the
absurd characters he portrays lure the unsuspecting into revealing the unpleasantness of
their true selves. If you've actually taken the time to watch the movie you know that the
sing along at the March for Our Rights really is treated as actually documentary footage,
Cohen's charterer is supposed to be fake, but we are supposed to believe that that crowd
singing enthusiastically about murdering and torturing their political opponents is
completely real. If all of that was staged then what Cohen is doing is extremely deceptive
and probably grounds for a civil suit by the event's original organizers.
If you read the actual reviews, both professional reviews and user reviews, (the
professional reviews are overwhelmingly positive BTW) all of that is taken at face value
and many people are commenting on how Cohen had once again "hilariously" uncovered the dark
nature of American culture.
If he's fabricating large parts of this movie, which Amazon Prime is both giving away
and heavily promoting, that's a big deal. If partisanship is just going to lead you to
respond to this by blowing the whole thing off as Republicans not being able to take being
the butt of the joke Cohen has uncovered a dark aspect of our culture, not racism, sexism
and violence, but gullibility, apathy and partisanship.
Grow up! Comedians have been ridiculing politicians since mass media was invented. Cohen
is very successful, and he's not on your side. So you hint at some sort of Jewish
conspiracy and demand an investigation. Paranoid thinking at its finest.
The President of these United States tweets that the killing OBL was fake, and that the
then VP of the United States ordered the murders of the SEALS who killed the stand-in OBL,
and you want to talk about how a comedian is unfairly going after Trump?
Aww, now, how bad can Cohen be? After all, he was the keynote speaker at the ADL's 2019
Summit, and even received their International Leadership Award. Those are some pretty high
honors.
Cohen is a sick freak. I told him so in my one-star review of his latest freak show
"movie." If he violates US law against foreign meddling in elections, he should be deported
or arrested.
I would observe that even though Cohen insisted "on the sincerity of the CIA claim" in
court the assertion might not be true as there is no way to check or verify it. If Cohen
has an intelligence relationship it is far more likely to be with an agency from where he
was born (Israel) or where he lives (UK). Neither Mossad nor SIS would be likely to confirm
any such relationship if it does exist, so Cohen is quite free to make something up that
enhances his story without any fear of being exposed.
It makes me nauseous just thinking about who might be chosen for a Biden
administration.
There will be no hope for reform within the Democratic Party, ever, with a 2020 win.
A win will be the formal announcement of the death of "the left" as the ideology that has
traditionally represented the interests of the people. The credibility of "the left" has been
eroding with each regime change war the U.S. has been initiating and participating in, with
NATO, since the war on Yugoslavia, but particularly in the Middle East and Libya. There has
not been a reckoning. Moral transgressions and cowardice, greed and inertia have in fact been
rewarded, and institutionalised. Eichman's plea a badge of honour and the whistleblower blown
away. The neocons, those influential Jewish, X-Trotskyite political chameleons pushed those
wars, and soft sold them through their many corporate media connections to produce "left
wing" journalism which manipulated concern for cruel dictators, for persecuted ethnic
minorities, refugees, weapons of mass destruction (the latest toxic version is chemical
weapons) and the unavailability of certain kinds of human rights, in nations which were
experiencing wars of "bomb them back to the stone age" aggression and psychopathic proxy
terror arranged by these very same neocons.
"The left" signalled their virtue by believing the war propaganda, and have not sufficiently
grasped the gravity of the sham perpetrated on their minds by this array of war criminals.
The derangement by Donald syndrome has also proven to be a most emphatic signal of virtue
with "the left", a commandment of wokeness. It is also most apparent that the deplorables,
aka the rednecks, can never be included in a census of the left- oh that is just way beyond
the pale! Very hard to imagine a large group of people who are so denigrated, and not just
within the US. Even the bourgeois left has become elitist, and the elitist as in Marxist left
has paradoxically no time for people, let alone the common ones. Vk has left us in no
doubt.
Glen Greenwald is at his peak in his Tucker Carlson interview, talking of infiltration of
"the left" by the agencies. This is compelling journalism because these truths are dangerous.
If there is a deep state, then it is the Dems, they've got it covered and the Atlanticists
are their allies. It fits in with Giraldi's latest prognostications, and what would be a
counterrevolution and not a revolution should "the left" decide to make the push. By left he
means Dems and their corporate sponsored affiliates, partisan elements of the spy agencies
and big tech. (I think of Mark2 and his misspelt slogans straight from the Gene Sharpe
handbook and wonder if earnest Mark2 is a typical lefty cadre, and muse over his enthusiasm
for the gutless Jeremy Corbyn, whom I'm sure is a very nice chap personally, but look at the
Labour Party now. Mark2, have you heard of the two forms of fascism, fascism and anti
fascism?). Jimmy Dore continues to be heroic when faced with unpleasant truths. Keep being
mad Jimmy, and just don't stand for it anymore!
Some of us are grateful for these individuals (and thanks to b for his meta commentary)
because they are publically enacting a kind of meaculpa, and they have premonitions and we
are being warned. There is grace in that. There still are still some good people who can
speak publically.
I used to be left politically, but got disillusioned some time ago. Not knowing what
progressivism is leading to, and not trusting its practitioners, I find conservatism to be
the more reasonable and tolerant position for these times.
b, you may want to file this one
All the so-called social media platforms have become near totally taken over by the
intelligence agencies and their allies, so I guess they themselves are propaganda networks,
eh? The Empire can't tolerate the least bit of 'election interference' now can it
Dr. Scott Atlas, White House Coronavirus Task Force adviser, apologizes for interview with
Russian propaganda network
Dr. Scott Atlas, an adviser on the White House Coronavirus Task Force, apologized after
appearing in an interview with Russian state broadcaster RT, just days before Election Day.
In his apology, Atlas claimed he was unaware RT was a registered foreign agent.
....The Kremlin uses RT to spread English-language propaganda to American audiences, and
was part of Russia's election meddling in 2016, according to a 2017 report from the US Office
of the Director of National Intelligence.
Twitter labeled a video from the Russian-state controlled broadcaster RT as election
misinformation on Thursday. YouTube videos posted by RT carry the disclaimer: "RT is funded
in whole or in part by the Russian government.".....
The ban against domestic propaganda that had been in place since shortly after WW2 was
repealed in 2013. It was known as the Smith-Mundt Act. As part of the repeal, NDAA authorized
a huge grant program for NGOs, think tanks, civil society and other experts outside
government who are engaged in "counter-propaganda" related work. Sounds like doublespeak for
censorship and support for "fake news." I hope Glenn will investigate and connect the dots
some day.
omg. I read the whole article...and I'm not really that smart.
Best line: " ...but in journalism, evidence is required before news outlets can validly
start blaming some foreign government for the release of information. And none has ever been
presented."
Four years ago I was railing against Hillary Clinton on Facebook without any
censoring.
Tonight I watched an interview Tucker Carlson did with Glenn Greenwald regarding the
Hunter Biden/Joe Biden scandal and Tucker showed a poll revealing that 51% of those polled
believe this scandal is "Russian Disinformation" with ZERO evidence.
Why do those being polled believe this? Because the bulk of the MSM they watch have told
them so and the major tech platforms have ALL censored the pertinent information so there is
NO debate amongst the electorate. All of this less than one week from our national
election.
With Facebook and Twitter and Google's and the bulk of the MSM's heavy fingers on the
scales of public information there are only two words to describe this:
ELECTION INTERFERENCE.
And this with over 70 million voters already having cast their ballots!
Regardless of the outcome next Tuesday, these tech/media corporations should ALL be
brought down at least to the point where they can never be allowed to interfere in another
American election again, regardless of the higher-ups personal political preferences.
And this is the system the war-mongering DNC wants to "spread around the world" with their
"regime change wars"?!
Stephanie, why do you want Trump gone? Trump is bait. His presence is resulting in many,
many bad actors revealing themselves to be nefarious. Just look at Twitter/Facebook censoring
this blockbuster news (along with the rest of the media). We, The People, are finally seeing
first had the level of tyranny that's upon us. None of it has anything to do with Trump. But
it's Trump's existence in the White House that is bringing it to light. Without him, we would
have never seen it for what it is. Think about that.
I may disagree with your take on CIA involvement, but the above paragraph couldn't be more
accurate. Trump's election was like throwing a brick through a rotten, wasp-infested
beehive.
I'll second that. Though perhaps to be fair to the original sentiment, perhaps the brick has
only knicked the beehive, and then smashed a window or two along it's way. He is arguably
inevitable, even desirable from some perspective, but the degree of nuisance is not erased, so
much as outweighed, by the necessity. We would be living in a better world, by definition, if
someone like him had never been required to improve it.
Agreed. I have been telling Democrats all they need do is run better candidates - and
virtually every time, I get people trying to claim there was never anything wrong with Hillary
or Joe and also Trump is Literally Hitler Incarnate.
I grew up watching psychos in the Extreme Right talk that way about whoever THEY didn't like
politically. Arguing that Bill Clinton was going to send Janet Reno to take their guns and cart
them off to FEMA camps like a scene out of "Red Dawn" or something. But this isn't the fringes
talking anymore. It's the mainstream, and it's on the Left.
Glen, I just paid for a subscription so that I can say this one FACT. The PODESTA EMAILS
WERE NOT THE RESULT OF A HACK.
Please stop reporting this nonsense. The cover story was all part of the plan (approved by
HRC) to shift attention to a Trump-Russia collusion narrative that has always been fiction.
Guccifer 2.0 was created out of this same scheme. The meta data on the files prove that it's
impossible that those emails were hacked, they had to be downloaded on a local device
(thumbdrive most likely).
The FISA Abuse, the spying on Trump, The plan to implicate collusion, the Flynn frameup,
the Impeachment, The Mueller investigation were not the base crimes, those were all part of a
cover up. By you insinuating that the DNC server got hacked (which there is zero evidence
for), you are wittingly or unwittingly complicit in perpetuating the lie that it was. You're
missing a much, much bigger story here. The biden laptop isn't even the tip of the icebeg
here.
Ask yourself this; "Why would dozens of high level DOJ, FBI, CIA and Whitehouse officials
in the Obama Administration put their careers on the line and commit literally hundreds of
felonies all in an effort to obstruct/neutralize Trump?" That is first question any true
journo should be asking right now.
You mention in this article that the media is basically over-compensating for helping Trump
win in 2016. That is extremely naive on your part. The media/twitter/facebook/CNN/MSNBC, etc.
is too well orchestrated, too well coordinated to be operating even vaguely independently. This
is project Mockingbird happening on a scale almost unimaginable. Maybe even the Intercept was
intercepted. Why would the publication that you founded not allow you to publish this? If you
look back at 2016, the entire media industrial complex was just as coordinated as it is now,
they just got sloppy because they were certain Trump wasn't going to win. Who's being naive now
Kay?
I also get frustrated with what I see as a naive interpretation, by figures like Dan
Bongino, Tim Pool, etc. I wonder if there is a fear by some to point behind the curtain, that
they will be attacked and cancelled for "conspiracy theories."
Neither Tim or Dan are really journalists and besides, this story is so massive and so
incomprehensibly large in scope/scale/magnitude that we shouldn't get too frustrated.
The main point to remember here is that none of this has anything to do with Trump. Look at
the timeline in its entirety, the best we are able to do and then plot a graph of the Media
Industrial Complex's behavior. They were out to derail Trump from the moment he came down the
escalator and it's not because he's a womanizer or that he's a game show host. They couldn't
afford to have an non-establishment player come in and wreck their plans. The question is, what
the f#$% were their plans? Why did they risk so much to keep him out of the WH?
My view is that the constant sturm und drang about the corruption of the elections (voter
suppression, mail fraud, ballot harvesting, etc, etc) is a ploy to distract from the fact that
the real corruption already happened long before the election.
The real corruption is even mentioned by Glenn in his draft: the SELECTION process.
The media do what they're told, and what they are doing is keeping up the drumbeat of
election corruption. In other words, they've been told to distract all attention from the real
story.
The real story is that, to the people who control candidate selection, IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO
WINS.
That is the whole point of controlling the selection process. Oh yes, I know the media hates
Trump and so do the establishment. Really? The same establishment that just benefitted from the
greatest upward transfer of wealth in human history, during a pandemic panic, under Trump?
Bezos has gained over 70 billion in net worth this year, under Trump. You think he hates Trump?
Really?
You think Biden will do less? Or perhaps you think he would do more than the greatest upward
transfer of wealth in human history?
Republicans versus Democrats is a con game. It's a kabuki theatre of manipulation of
parochial tribalism, a Punch n Judy Show for the rubes.
As was once mentioned in the UT threads at Salon, isn't it time for a second political
party, Mr Greenwald?
It's not about their plans. It's just a non-violent (so far) class war. Trump is a vessel
for the working classes to carry their dissatisfaction of elite leadership. It's easier to
communicate directly to the people now due to social media, so the traditional media can't tell
the people how to vote (can't declare a candidate to be beyond the pale any more, squashing
their chances, and they used to have that power). The media are part of the elite leadership,
they don't like the working classes not listening to them, and they don't like the loss of
power. That's their agenda.
They have taken to "any means necessary" to keep that power, even though now it's basically
lying and obfuscation. They are trading off their legacy trustworthiness for short term
benefit, but they are destroying that foundation of trust as well. That happens slowly but
surely as more people see through them. Takes too long in the experience of everyone who is
reading this, because we're well ahead of the curve. The average mid level elite is a working
professional with kids too busy and not interested enough to dig to the next level and has been
taking their word - but they too see the truth every time they really look and over time that
is going to go as we all hope it will. It's just going to take a while.
"The guy who co-founded one of the current-day major online journalism outlets isn't really
a journalist" - Someone Posting to the Comments on an Article by a Guy Who Co-Founded One of
the Current-Day Major Online Journalism Outlets
There is good cause to question the Snowden story. He was CIA. Once a CIA agent, always a
CIA agent. It's plausible that he was inserted into booz allen hamilton in an attempt to harm
the NSA (on behalf of the CIA). Tell me this Glen, how did Snowden evade the largest
dragnet/manhunt ever on the planet to evade the authorities and make it to Moscow? Am I the
only one who finds this a little fishy? As someone who has been in software for 40 years, when
I heard him on Joe Rogan podcast about a year ago, I didn't find his backstory credible at all.
He sounds intelligent, but when you get beyond that and listen to him from a technological
perspective, his story doesn't add up. I find it hard to believe.
Why would a "patriot" doing work on behalf of the CIA be thrown to the wolves? Why wouldn't
they cover for him after it was released? I haven't been in software for 40 years, but I
believe that the Snowden story is extremely credible.
Snowden was a libertarian high school dropout hacker
The Deep State hired 800,000 employees/contractors around the Beltway after 9/11 on a war
footing, so anyone that was seen as clean and patriotic may not have needed a lot of standard
credentials by the usual bureaucratic managerial idiot types working for the Feds
I've been told that military field grade IT is all from the 1990s, dunno about national
security agencies, but unless you have actually worked with national security IT stuff I'm not
sure why your views should hold much weight
Senior people I know in the military and national security apparatus have told me that
corruption, waste and inefficiency are rampant (80-90%?)
Sorry, but I've heard that "anything CIA is automatically X" way too many times in my life.
Often from people trying to sell books about how we never landed on the Moon (you'd be amazed
how many ex-[alphabet agency] agents "back up" these claims with the worst sort of
pseudo-authoritative malarkey).
Hah! They "helped" Trump by running two billion dollars' worth of 95% negative coverage. It
made Trump look like the victim of a massive smear campaign by partisan hacks. What have they
been doing to "over-compensate", exactly? Make it 99%?
Whether or not they helped Trump, Greenwald's article claimst that journalists feel
responsible for Trump being elected last time so they are trying not to make the same
'mistake'. At least that's what Glenn is asserting here.
They're not wrong. They helped elect him with their sheer negativity. I've seen these people
argue the point, and they always point the finger at other journalists somehow NOT being
negative enough. It's never themselves.
So there's no collective soul-searching going on, no self-awareness, only a drive to be
angrier and finger-wagging with less concern for the actual facts of any given matter. They
don't realize how transparent it's become for those not already personally invested in the
extant narratives.
This, I think, is why we are seeing many more people defect to Trump rather than away from
him; when one is personally and deeply invested in a narrative, it's an article of faith.
Imagine you walk into church one day and the pastor says "this just in: the Archangel Gabriel
was a child molestor who felt up Baby Jesus". Next week, they accuse the Virgin Mary of the
same. Would a member of the faithful just roll with that, or consider moving to another church
altogether just to avoid the emotional whiplash?
More to the point, the head of Crowdstrike, the company run by a known Russia-hater the
Democrats sent their server to instead of the FBI, and who never provided that server to the
FBI, admitted in a Senate hearing that there was, in fact, no evidence of hacking. He was under
oath that time. Russiagate remains one of the most successful propaganda campaign in
history.
Just before or just after Trump's 2016 election I was in a Manhattan restaurant with my
domestic partner talking with strangers from DC. It turned out that they worked in the State
Dept. and they told us that since Trump questioned the veracity of some things the intelligence
establishment had said, they would absolutely bring him down. We were shocked but have
remembered this throughout the FISA debacle,the Mueller mess,the impeachment and this election
cycle.
Right. Thank you. I wrote to Matt T. about this same issue in his article. I'm hoping they
will do the investigation required for them to amend their articles. It really is a fundamental
mistake to perpetuate this propaganda.
It's literally in the Mueller report that the DNC server was hacked, without a shred of
evidence. As Fox Mulder said "Trust No One". Matt & Glen really need to get to the point
where they chuck everything they think they know and start over. Everything has been a lie. Why
would anyone believe ANYTHING the FBI or DOJ of Obama WH put out at this point? The MSM has no
credibility, FBI/DOJ/CIA? This cancer has metasticized to the point where the patient is on
life support.
We need to understand that Trump is Chemo. It takes an outsider to come in, someone who
didn't need this job, someone who couldn't be bought, to come in and kill that cancer.
Just to offer some confirmation for that, Here is a CNN article from the time: "A phishing
email sent to Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta may have been so sophisticated
that it fooled the campaign's own IT staffers, who at one point advised him it was a legitimate
warning to change his password."
However, they also report that the link was from " [email protected] ." I searched
for whether that email address had been reported as malicious on the day that the story broke.
Far from being "sophisticated", it was just a phishing link that was going around randomly, and
had already been reported to this spam reporting site:
So, despite (much of) the media converging on a "sophisticated spear phishing" narrative,
this looks to be a link that was sent to a large number of people over a long period, and just
a case of random spam phishing that got lucky.
re: "so sophisticated that it fooled the campaign's own IT staffers"
I'm not a google mail user, but in general it is pretty rare for a phishing email to NOT
have extended headers (server route log) that reveal a bogus or weird looking origin.
"Alleging" would be more accurate. They've been acting quite more brazenly as a
misinfo/disinfo arm of the DNC. Whether or not the DNC has deep enough connections with the CIA
to provide a useful and reliable data/policy bridge is another question, but both DNC and GOP
likely have enough connections to establish semi-functional "lamprey" networks just due to
their longevity and resulting personal/professional contacts therein.
Hi Frank. " The PODESTA EMAILS WERE NOT THE RESULT OF A HACK.
Please stop reporting this nonsense. The cover story was all part of the plan (approved by
HRC) to shift attention to a Trump-Russia collusion narrative that has always been fiction.
Guccifer 2.0 was created out of this same scheme. The meta data on the files prove that it's
impossible that those emails were hacked, they had to be downloaded on a local device
(thumbdrive most likely)."
Based on the forensics that was my conclusion but beware of these rabbit holes. It has never
been discussed that those details can also be faked (the meta data.) Certainly Gucifer which
seemed like damage control. I am unsure of the claims about his being backtracked tho.
So it's possible that the evidence is faked having accepted the conclusions of VIPS
analysts.
Could be. It would also mean that it was the first time Wikileaks published something that
wasn't authentic. Assange knows where the emails came from and he asserted that they didn't
come from Russia.
Note to all: You must use actual (historical) ISP speeds as of the specific months in
question. They increased a good deal in the months that followed in that area.
I agree that there was a massive fake Russia story created by GPS Fusion, the Clinton
campaign, Clinton allies, with the help of US intelligence, often willing and sometimes just
incompetent.
But there is definitely some evidence of a DNC hack. Among other things, the Dutch
intelligence services seem to have observed evidence in their spying on the Internet Research
Agency - reported by mutliple sources including Dutch media. What the nature of the hack was
and how it gibes with the evidence that there must have been a person on the ground to transfer
the data files that fast is of course fair to discuss.
There is also evidence, both purposely forgotten in media coverage after Jan 2017, of an
attempted RNC hack and the overt public hack and release of Colin Powell's email to embarass
and hurt Trump. There is plenty of other evidence of Internet Research Agency activity that was
pro-BLM and anti-Trump, making their more likely overall goal the sowing of chaos than only
supporting Trump. Thus the need for GPS/Clintonistas/Intelligence/Mueller's team to spin a
narrative.
I became a fan of yours when I was in law school at UC Hastings in 2003. Your the best, for
sure. But fuck...
I got to be honest...I'm glad the press is ignoring this story. There's just too much at
stake. Biden might be losing his edge, his family might be trading in his name, but who gives a
shit? The alternative is worse by light years.
And yeah, I don't trust the "people" out there to get it right. The "people" are rubes.
Those idiots voted for this piece of shit once before, they'll do it again, in a heartbeat.
More importantly, you really want to do Rudy Giuliani's work for him? I don't know, I don't
get it...why so eager to make the campaign's case for them? It's not a rhetorical question. I
just don't get it.
Alex: you are saying that we should not have independent press, that the media ought to be
agents of propaganda, consciously decieving the public for the greater good.
Maybe Biden is the lesser evil in this election. But without actual journalists like Glenn
we could never know.
I get the frustrations over Trump. He is a disaster. But the answer to that disaster does
not concist in advocating for more lies and propaganda.
I have yet to hear a reasonable case for Trump being either the greater evil or a disaster.
Many of the allegations against Trump have remained that - allegations - but in Biden's case
some of the same accusations (particular about racism) is in his Senate record. He was a
terrible candidate to position against Trump, and he picked as his veep the only person in the
entire primary season to get blown out by a single phrase from Tulsi Gabbard - who the rest of
the party's establishment absolutely despised because Hillary said so.
With Trump? Roaring economy brought to a halt not even by coronavirus, but massive economic
lockdowns that break the economy down to virtually Blue-State (down) / Red-State (up)
comparisons. Democrats were accusing Trump of "meddling" when he was still a candidate and
nonetheless pressured a Detroit factory into staying in the US. The man understands economic
leverage, and to ignore or deny that is like denying the Sun heats the Earth.
Three Middle East peace deals leading to an equal number of Nobel nominations. He is roasted
for de-escalating international tensions, lauded only when he fires missiles at nations
Democrats think need shooting at, and then castigated for killing a terrorist leader in the
same nation they were cheering him for firing missiles at.
I see very little criticism of Trump that isn't associated with bald-faced party-based
opposition, from establishment Republicans who hated his cockblocking of JEB BUSH FOR GODSAKE
to Democrats who still think Hillary's shit job as Secretary of State (ruining more nations
than Trump has cut peace deals for) is beyond reproach.
Speaking as a lifetime independent, please: the naked, incessant and baseless fury
demonstrated by Democrats and the Radical Left since 2016 has NOT been a selling point for
us.
Biden has been credibly accused of actually pinning a staffer against the wall and stuffing
his fingers up her vagina. The media didn't attack her story, but her college credentials, and
dumped the story after.
Biden has actually authored racist legislation and in recent years spoke of "being able to
work across the aisle" - with racist segregationists.
Trump's been merely ACCUSED of a shit-ton of things. But I don't join lynch-mobs. Same
reason the lynching of Justice Kavanaugh (seriously, you guys went after him over "I like beer"
and school calendars you had to try and reinterpret as codebooks?) made me see the Democratic
Party as a progressively more lunatic outfit. Reducing impeachment to "who needs criminal
charges? we really just hate the guy" wasn't a winner with us independents either, not just
speaking for myself there.
A pox on both your damned parties, and thank Trump for being that pox.
Gee Alex, elitist much? You don't like Trump so the people making an informed choice is not
a worthy goal? Anyone who disagrees with your world view is a rube who is not smart enough to
see the light - as defined by you? And you wonder why Trump won last time. The left is
populated by arrogant asses who think because they came out of college with a degree in some
worthless major, they are smarter than everyone else. Well, I went to college to but got a
degree in engineering vice sociology but I guess I'm just an educated rube.
Your law school tuition dollars were clearly wasted. Most of the people/rubes/idiots I know
and love learned the difference between "your" and "you're" in high school - and acquired
critical thinking skills at the same time. Too bad you missed out.
Yeah, we the people (rubes) are fn sick of the fn lawyers (especially from UC Hastings)
being in political control of our country and want a non-political person to clean up. What's
so hard for you to understand?
How's your guy doing you fucking rube? Great choice! Job well done!! If you ever wonder why
nobody gives a shit about your opinion, the fact that you chose a fucking reality star who ran
every business he ever owned into the ground, and fancies a bizarre hairdo, that's why no one
cares what you say. You're fucking stupid.
bahahahahaha...go crawl back into your fucking prol shit hole dwelling and latch onto
Tucker's teat. You're a fucking joke and always will be, no matter how special your dear leader
makes you feel.
Our local sanitation workers are much more thoughtful and respectful actually. I am voting
for Biden but I find this lawyer's response detestable. We need to grow up and stop with ad
hominem attacks that do nothing to advance the discussion.
Morals and ethics obviously mean nothing to a lawyer. If this was Don Jr, you would be out
for blood. As an independent voter, I want to know that I'm not voting for a piece of shit that
has been compromised by the Russians and Chinese! People like you, the FAKE NEWS media, and
antifa, etc are a major reason why I won't ever give my vote to Biden!
Elitists like Alex G. made the election of Donald Trump as president both inevitable and
necessary. The more he disses the "people" aka "rubes," the more President Trump's re-election
becomes equally inevitable and necessary. To borrow from Sen. Ted Cruz's exchange with Twitter
CEO Jack Dorsey, "Who the hell made Alex G. the final authority on how and what people should
think, say and do?"
One thing we know for sure is Alex G. never learned any humility or manners growing up. To
substantiate this, he stands condemned out of his own mouth. Last thing this country needs is
to have an authoritarian demagogue like him anywhere near the levers of power.
Please go back and fact check the old stories that made us hate Trump in the first place.
They've proven to be lies. He isn't perfect, but Biden will destroy this country. He's beyond
corrupt. Go look at the source materials.
Arrogant, smug D party loyalist goons and assholes like you are a very large part of why
people voted for Trump in 2016 and will vote for him in this election. T-R-0-L-L
I believe in the democratic system. The people may make mistakes, but so can anyone else. An
average of all the people is more accurate than randomly picking subsets of people to make
decisions. You say that you and your friends are not a random subset, you are better than
average. Your opponents say the same thing. We have a system for resolving these disputes.
Maybe you can invent a better one, but "I'm right and my opponents are wrong" is not a new
approach.
In answer to your "Why" question, perhaps Mr. Greenwald believes the same thing.
Glenn - new subscriber today (saw you with Tucker Carlson). As a conservative voter, I
support your new venture, not because your story is critical or suspicious of Biden, but
because we need more talented journalists willing to just investigate possible corruption and
inform the public. I also support Matt Taibbi for the same reason. The last line of your
article sums it up best for me.
"The whole point is that the press loses its way when it cares more about who benefits from
information than whether it's true."
Good luck, I hope you find this new path rewarding professionally and financially.
Agreed, I also like reading Quillette for it's equal publication of articles (they printed
that big article from the Environmentalist who demonized Environmentalism after he was banned
from his original publisher), and I also like reading Sharyl Attkisson as well.
I find it interesting how Glenn sees all the propoganda from these agencies in the media,
but fails to see the full extent of it in social media and therefore is unable to report on it
adequately. The DNC server hack is more of the same.
I paid for a subscription precisely because I believe that, despite what you may or may not
personally believe, you don't allow it to influence your pursuit of the truth. I want the truth
- nothing less and nothing more.
I just signed up, too, for that very reason. When those in positions of power put on a mask
and practice deception, they must be exposed. Sunlight is the cure for the disease of
corruption.
Personally, having read your work going back to Cato Institute and Volokh, I'm happy you're
independent and I can directly fund you. I'm willing to throw even more money at your projects.
Consider crowdfunding video documentary teams and other large projects. Your following after
all of this is going to be as large as ever.
I've supported him here as well because I think he is an important voice right now. There
are few journos out there right now who have Glenn's credibility who are willing to take on
media groupthink. But it is a tough environment. With NYT offering their digital for 4$ a month
that gives access to all of their writers/content, it is very difficult for writers like Glenn
to compete.
If this is humor, this is very dark humor. The saddest thing of all in this is that very
little of Glenn's excellent article is new. One of Donald Trump's presidency greatest
accomplishment has been to show me how the main stream media 'plays' its dirty games... The
entire mainstream media collectively abandoned its integrity during the last decade.
It's beyond what Orwell could have ever possibly imagined. Targeted gaslighting on an
individual basis using social media to brainwash people into believing whatever they want you
to believe?
I just paid for an annual subscription out of a total frustration with the current
outrageous, unfair, evil and dishonest media situation in the US (and elsewhere also).
Totalitarism is approaching and I have decided to participate in the fight against the
threatening darkness. Good luck.
You would be justified in thinking that the various news conferences put on by US law
enforcement and intelligence officials in which foreign actors – Russia, China and Iran
are the usual suspects – are accused of meddling in all things American are little more
than a giant practical joke, a parody of how a government should behave, instead of the damning
indictment of reality that they are.
The most recent iteration of this embarrassing spectacle took place on Wednesday evening,
during a hastily convened press conference suspiciously timed to coincide with former president
Barack Obama's inaugural stump speech in support of Democratic presidential candidate Joe
Biden.
Normally, the citation of such coincidences would relegate any subsequent analysis to the
rabbit hole of conspiracy theory. However, we do not live in normal times. The press conference
was convened by the Director of National Intelligence, John Ratcliffe, who was in turn
accompanied by the Director of the FBI, Christopher Wray.
Ratcliffe has come under fire from Congressional Democrats for his
selective declassification of documents pertaining to allegations of Russian involvement in
the 2016 US presidential campaign. Former CIA director John Brennan, who was the subject of
some of the leaked documents, accused Ratcliffe of releasing them to
"advance the political interests" of President Donald Trump ahead of the November 3
election.
The declassification caper was followed by Ratcliffe's
unsolicited intervention regarding the acquisition by the FBI of computer hard drives
allegedly belonging to Joe Biden's son, Hunter. Ratcliffe declared that the contents of the
drives were not part of a Russian disinformation campaign and thereby drew the ire of
Democrats, who view the sordid computer story as a smear campaign against the former vice
president.
The October 21 press conference followed in the path of Ratcliffe's prior interventions, and
appeared to be little more than an insufficiently sourced allegation wrapped in highly
politicized conclusions.
Ratcliffe claimed the US intelligence community had " confirmed that some voter
registration information has been obtained by Iran, and separately, by Russia ." This was
the gist of the press conference, and it added virtually nothing to the
statement released by Ratcliffe in August in which he noted that the US intelligence
community was " primarily concerned about the ongoing and potential activity by China,
Russia, and Iran ."
What made Ratcliffe's announcement even less spectacular was the fact that the data he
accused Iran and Russia of stealing was publicly available, leading some anonymous intelligence
officials to speculate that the hacking operations were little more than an effort to avoid
paying the fees associated with accessing this data. As far as crimes go, this one was
eminently forgettable.
Ratcliffe noted that the US officials " have already seen Iran sending spoofed emails
designed to intimidate voters, incite social unrest, and damage President Trump ,"
referring to a scheme alleged to have been implemented by Iran, using this information,
to
disseminate emails to potential voters claiming to be from the controversial Proud Boys
organization, that threatened physical violence unless the recipient voted for Trump in the
coming election.
The purpose of this scheme appears to be less about actually changing votes (voting is done
in secret, so the sender of the letter would have no way of confirming an outcome, thereby
negating the threat) and more about undermining confidence in the electoral process as a whole.
Both Iran and the Proud Boys have denied any involvement in the letter writing campaign.
This latest incursion by the US intelligence community into the topic of election
interference by outside powers has been loudly condemned by the Democrats, with the House
Homeland Security Committee, chaired by Mississippi Democrat Bennie Thompson, tweeting "
Ratcliffe has TOO OFTEN politicized the Intelligence Community to carry water for the
President ."
But Ratcliffe's actions only continue in the vein of a history of electioneering by the US
intelligence community during contentious presidential elections. Much of the Democrats'
current ire against Ratcliffe stems from his exposing documents that point to similar
politically motivated interventions by John Brennan and others during the 2016 election,
ostensibly for the purpose of undermining the campaign of then-candidate Trump.
The fact is, what passes for domestic US politics is virtually impossible to manipulate by
outside agencies. The effort by
Cambridge Analytica to predict voting preferences in 2016 by accessing the confidential
online data of millions of Americans has been shown to have been spectacularly ineffective, and
it exceeded by some way the sophistication and data collection activities attributed to foreign
powers such as Russia, China, and Iran.
The mind of the American voter is influenced by a wide variety of inputs that are highly
individualized and, in many instances, virtually unquantifiable. The notion that a
sophisticated data mining organization such as Cambridge Analytica, or the intelligence
services of any of those three nations, could succeed in doing over the course of months what
American political organizations have been struggling to achieve over two-plus centuries is not
only laughable, but insulting.
Yet the level of domestic political insecurity that exists today is such that both political
parties, lacking confidence in their own inherent messaging capability, have succumbed to the
psychosis of political victimhood, blaming others for their own inherent failures. By allowing
the work of the US intelligence community to be used as a foil in this self-destructive blame
game, a succession of US intelligence professionals, led by John Brennan, James Clapper, James
Comey, Richard Grenell, John Ratcliffe, and others, have turned the once respected profession
of intelligence into a politicized joke.
In this, however, it is in good company, joined by both political parties, the US media and,
frankly speaking, the US electorate. American democracy is a mirror image of the nation it
purports to serve, and, at the moment, the reflection displayed is a thoroughly tragic one.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
The CIA's domestic propaganda campaign has been massively successful over the past four
years. There are tens of millions who literally believe that Trump is a Russian agent. They
believe that everyone should wear masks on their faces, forever, and they believe there are
Nazis everywhere. They believe there were no riots this summer, that thousands of blacks are
murdered every year by police, and that Christians are trying to establish a theocracy in the
US. They believe that little children should be able to have their genitals surgically
removed. They believe that the 2016 election was stolen, but that the one coming up cannot
be, even if ballots without postmarks show up on trucks ten days after November 3rd.
These are just a few of their insane beliefs that have been put into their heads through
social media and television.
Trump never had any power to stop this. Both the Democrats and Republicans are completely
in thrall to the intelligence and police agencies. It's all an act. There's no democracy left
in this country and there is no chance of reforming this system, ever. It has to collapse or
be seized and turned mercilessly against those who are perpetrating this horror show.
Dragonlord , 59 minutes ago
FBI and CIA betraying the country is no longer surprising, what surprising is how fast
tech giants jump onto the scum train even though some only exist less than 20 years. This
reveal why quickly the globalists can turn anyone into scumbags.
Finally, depths of Biden corruption proves our hypothesis that the so called ruling class
like Nancy, Obama, Clinton, etc, are not at the top echelon, there is a group or class of
people higher than them. They are probably the overlord class of the globalists.
philmannwright , 56 minutes ago
The FBI has always been a tool. Recall J Edgar.
Big Tech has enabled all of this. NSA/Data collection - Big brother goodbye freedom. seems
like a natural progression.
Gold Pedant , 1 hour ago
Hahaha, William Colby is the third man in the newspaper clipping above, but he isn't even
mentioned. Well after he retired from the CIA, he was assassinated to send a message. Look up
"WHO MURDERED THE CIA CHIEF?" It's a good quick read.
"Colby was fired on Nov. 2, 1975, as head of the CIA after being accused of talking too
much. He was said to have been too candid in testimony to congressional investigators; he had
long ago aroused the ire of the agency's old guard for trying to channel more effort into the
gathering, evaluation and analysis of information and less into covert operation."
And Lisa Page, Andrew McCabe, Weissman, Sally Yates, Bruce And Nellie Ord, James Baker,
Comey, Rosenstein, the entire brench of the FISA Court, and about 500 Senators and
Congressmen out of 535. It's a start.
Eastern Whale , 1 hour ago
"National Security" in the US is the get out of free card for politicians and the rich
with clout. paedophile, corruption, murder you name it.
PigmanExecutioner , 23 minutes ago
Anytime I hear "Russia" or "Democracy" these days, I have to ponder for the fate of
mankind. Imagine being that infantile in one's worldview and devoid of the ability to
critically analyze information? "National Security" is a made up term to excuse criminal
actions that somehow leaked out through unauthorized channels.
philmannwright , 1 hour ago
So, we have all been educated on how when the Democrats accuse, they are most likely
projecting upon their target their own behavior. Over and over again we see the blatant and
obvious hypocrisy in almost everything we hear from the likes of Hillary, Pelosi, Schumer,
Shiff, Obama, and on and on.
It stands to reason then, that what is going on now is no different and involves all of
them, including the left wing media - they are actually and in reality agents of the
Kremlin/China/the communist world order, aligned in agenda, and working toward tipping the
largest Domino, and I believe they have the U.S. teetering on the ropes.
It seems like it's either 1) the left is a national security risk or 2) Trumpers, welcome
to reeducation camp.
kudocast , 46 minutes ago
Yes we agree that JFK and MLK were assassinated by a group including the CIA, NSA, FBI,
Mafia, Nixon, LBJ, Bush and more.
But to suggest that Trump is in a similar situation as JFK and MLK, and on their moral,
intellectual, and visionary level is ludicrous.
Trump's a criminal, looting, lying, incompetent idiot. Why would the CIA, NSA, FBI, and
others waste their time trying to destroy Trump? Fat Orange Man accomplishes that all by
himself, no assistance required.
PigmanExecutioner , 31 minutes ago
Imagine thinking that the US was any different than the Soviet Union all these decades?
They just hid the tyranny better due to all the material distractions.
KGB, CIA.............All the same demons.
Automatic Choke , 23 minutes ago
my aha moment came when i started subscribing to John Williams "Shadow Govt Statistics" to
track the markets.....way back nearly 20 years ago. it quickly became clear that our trusted
government financial agencies were no more trustworthy than the old soviet "5 year plans"
that we all (in the US) used to laugh at. a mirror is a painful thing.
turkey george palmer , 54 minutes ago
empire looks pretty shaky. suppose a lot will go wrong. at least we have bill and melinda
talking about basic human rights are a threat to the population and only those who are
billionaires can decide what goes in your body. ok sure.
they say there will be a trade your debt for ubi. give up personal property. live where
and how by state dictate. unplanned breeding a crime. isolation camps for non compliance.
wonder where all the property will end up. I know there's only one type of person they all
say are the bad ones just one color. mein
The Washington Post , whose sole owner
is a CIA contractor , has published yet another anonymously sourced CIA press release
disguised as a news report which just so happens to facilitate longstanding CIA foreign
policy.
True to form ,
at no point does WaPo follow standard journalistic protocol and disclose its blatant financial
conflict of interest with the CIA when promoting an unproven CIA narrative which happens to
serve the consent-manufacturing agendas of the CIA for its new cold war with Russia.
And somehow in our crazy, propaganda-addled society, this is accepted as "news".
The CIA has had a hard-on for the collapse of the Russian Federation
for many years , and preventing the rise of another multipolar world at all cost has been
an open agenda of US imperialism since the fall of the Soviet Union. Indeed it is clear
that the escalations
we've been watching unfold against Russia were in fact
planned well in advance of 2016, and it is only by propaganda narratives like this one that
consent has been manufactured for a new cold war which imperils the life of every organism on
this planet.
There is no excuse for a prominent news outlet publishing a CIA press release disguised as
news in facilitation of these CIA agendas. It is still more inexcusable to merely publish
anonymous assertions about the contents of that CIA press release. It is especially inexcusable
to publish anonymous assertions about a CIA press release which merely says that something is
"probably" happening, meaning those making the claim don't even know.
None of this stopped The Washington Post from publishing this propaganda piece on behalf of
the CIA. None of it stopped this story from being widely shared by prominent voices on social
media and repeated by major news outlets like
CNN , The New
York Times , and
NBC . And none of it stopped all the usual liberal influencers from taking the claims and
exaggerating the certainty:
The CIA-to-pundit pipeline, wherein intelligence agencies "leak" information that is picked
up by news agencies and then wildly exaggerated by popular influencers, has always been an
important part of manufacturing establishment Russia hysteria. We saw it recently when the
now completely debunked claim that Russia paid bounties on US troops to Taliban-linked
fighters in Afghanistan first surfaced;
unverified anonymous intelligence claims were published by mass media news outlets, then by
the time it got to spinmeisters like Rachel
Maddow it was being treated not as an unconfirmed analysis but as an established fact:
If you've ever wondered how rank-and-file members of the public can be so certain of
completely unproven intelligence claims, the CIA-to-pundit pipeline is a big part of it. The
most influential voices who political partisans actually hear things from are often a few
clicks removed from the news report they're talking about, and by the time it gets to them it's
being waved around like a rock-solid truth when at the beginning it was just presented as a
tenuous speculation (the original aforementioned WaPo report appeared on the opinion page).
The CIA has a well-documented history of
infiltrating and manipulating the mass media for propaganda purposes, and to this day the
largest supplier of leaked information from the Central Intelligence Agency to the news media
is the CIA itself. They have a whole process for
leaking information to reporters they like (with an internal form that asks whether
the information is Accurate, Partially Accurate, or Inaccurate), as was
highlighted in a recent court case which found that the CIA can even leak documents to
select journalists while refusing to release them to others via Freedom of Information Act
requests.
The way mainstream media has become split along increasingly hostile ideological
lines means that all the manipulators need to do to advance a given narrative is set it up
to make one side look bad and then share it with a news outlet from the other side. The way
media is set up to masturbate people's confirmation bias instead of report objective facts will
then cause the narrative to go viral throughout that partisan faction, regardless of how true
or false it might be.
https://platform.twitter.com/embed/index.html?dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-4&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1291936114698153984&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fpolitical%2Fmsm-promotes-yet-another-cia-press-release-news&siteScreenName=zerohedge&theme=light&widgetsVersion=219d021%3A1598982042171&width=550px
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
The coming US election and its aftermath is looking like it will be even more insane and
hysterical than the last one, and the enmity and outrage it creates will give manipulators
every opportunity to slide favorable narratives into the slipstream of people's hot-headed
abandonment of their own critical faculties.
And indeed they are clearly prepared to do exactly that. An
ODNI press release last month which was uncritically passed along by the most prominent US
media outlets reported that China and Iran are trying to help Biden win the November election
while Russia is trying to help Trump. So no matter which way these things go the US
intelligence cartel will be able to surf its own consent-manufacturing foreign policy agendas
upon the tide of outrage which ensues.
The propaganda machine is only getting louder and more aggressive. We're being prepped for
something.
* * *
Thanks for reading! The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see
the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for at my website or on Substack , which will get you an email
notification for everything I publish. My work is
entirely reader-supported , so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around,
liking me on Facebook
, following my antics on Twitter ,
throwing some money into my tip jar on Patreon or Paypal , purchasing some of my sweet merchandise ,
buying my books Rogue Nation:
Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone and
Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers . For more info on who I am, where I stand, and
what I'm trying to do with this platform,
click here . Everyone, racist platforms excluded,
has my permission to republish, use or translate any part of this work (or anything else
I've written) in any way they like free of charge.
'It's Easier to Fool People Than to Convince Them That They Have Been Fooled'
- Mark Twain
palmereldritch , 49 seconds ago
And prior to Bezos/CIA ownership the paper was managed by heirs whose ownership stake
was originally acquired through a bankruptcy sale by a board member/trustee of The Federal
Reserve.
So maybe it was just a share transfer...
Freeman of the City , 1 minute ago
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free"
"... The blogger Caitlin Johnstone accurately states that these most of these mainstream corporate journalists are really *narrative managers* in that their primary role is to peddle the official narrative of the US corporate/political establishment for any given topic. ..."
"... I would add that the managing editors of these "journalists"/narrative managers would be more honestly described as "handlers," to use the parlance of spooks. ..."
"... Waste of time. They control the media. The Internet may have lots of influence, but it still does not set "consensus reality" - that remains with the MSM. The MSM issues one coordinated narrative. The Internet is all over the place. Without one coordinated narrative, you can't set "reality". ..."
"... In addition, those who issue the narrative and control the MSM have the power. People want to believe those in power, due to cognitive dissonance - otherwise they'd have to accept that everyone ruling their lives is a corrupt liar. The electorate may *say* they understand that their rulers are corrupt - but they can't act* on that realization without compromising their own internal belief systems. So again, waste of time to try ..."
snake , Sep 22 2020 0:59 utc | 22 can we not invent a method that can counter this tactic of using propaganda to control
the narrative?
1) Hack them. Release their planning documents, emails, phone calls, etc. showing how the scam was set up.
2) Waste of time. They control the media. The Internet may have lots of influence, but it still does not set "consensus reality"
- that remains with the MSM. The MSM issues one coordinated narrative. The Internet is all over the place. Without one coordinated
narrative, you can't set "reality".
3) In addition, those who issue the narrative and control the MSM have the power. People want to believe those in power, due to
cognitive dissonance - otherwise they'd have to accept that everyone ruling their lives is a corrupt liar. The electorate may *say*
they understand that their rulers are corrupt - but they can't act* on that realization without compromising their own internal belief
systems. So again, waste of time to try.
Well....as always, and especially if it involves anything even remotely relating to 'Russia', or Iran, or whatever adversarial
operational target of the day might be -- one can reliably count on our very own "Izvestia on the Hudson" to faithfully execute
their officially sanctioned nation security state propaganda mission by dutifully steno-graphing as much dis/mis-information as
their NSA/CIA/Pentagon handlers request (require) from them.
It was a shock on arriving at the New York Times in 2004, as the paper's movie editor, to realize that its editorial dynamic
was essentially the reverse. By and large, talented reporters scrambled to match stories with what internally was often called
"the narrative." We were occasionally asked to map a narrative for our various beats a year in advance, square the plan with
editors, then generate stories that fit the pre-designated line.
Reality usually had a way of intervening. But I knew one senior reporter who would play solitaire on his computer in the
mornings, waiting for his editors to come through with marching orders. Once, in the Los Angeles bureau, I listened to a visiting
National staff reporter tell a contact, more or less: "My editor needs someone to say such-and-such, could you say that?"
The bigger shock came on being told, at least twice, by Times editors who were describing the paper's daily Page One meeting:
"We set the agenda for the country in that room.
The blogger Caitlin Johnstone accurately states that these most of these mainstream corporate journalists are really *narrative
managers* in that their primary role is to peddle the official narrative of the US corporate/political establishment for any given
topic.
I would add that the managing editors of these "journalists"/narrative managers would be more honestly described as "handlers,"
to use the parlance of spooks.
In fact, it would be apt to described venerable institution of journalism itself as an intelligence operation.
@snake | Sep 22 2020 0:59 utc | 22 can we not invent a method that can counter this tactic of using propaganda to control the
narrative?
1) Hack them. Release their planning documents, emails, phone calls, etc. showing how the scam was set up.
2) Waste of time. They control the media. The Internet may have lots of influence, but it still does not set "consensus
reality" - that remains with the MSM. The MSM issues one coordinated narrative. The Internet is all over the place. Without one
coordinated narrative, you can't set "reality".
3) In addition, those who issue the narrative and control the MSM have the power. People want to believe those in power,
due to cognitive dissonance - otherwise they'd have to accept that everyone ruling their lives is a corrupt liar. The electorate
may *say* they understand that their rulers are corrupt - but they can't act* on that realization without compromising their own
internal belief systems. So again, waste of time to try.
By
Tony
Cox
, a US journalist who has written or edited for Bloomberg and several major daily newspapers.
The New York Times and CNN are desperate to paint Donald Trump as an enemy of the military, due to his desire not to get
involved in pointless wars. But this is simply not true, and Trump has the backing of many soldiers.
Someone should tell the
New York Times, CNN and other mainstream media outlets that soldiers don't actually like getting killed or maimed for no good
reason. Nor do they like generals and presidents who spill their blood in vain.
Alas, ignorance of these
obvious truths probably isn't the issue. This is likely just another case of the biggest names in news pretending to not get
the point so they can take the rest of us along for a ride in their confidence game of alternative reality.
The latest example is the
New York Times spinning President Donald Trump's critique this week of Pentagon leadership and the military industrial complex
as disrespect for the military at large.
"Trump has lost the right and authority to be
commander in chief,"
the
Times quoted
retired US Marines General Anthony Zinni as saying. Zinni cited Trump's alleged
"despicable
comments"
about the nation's war dead – reported last week by
The
Atlantic
, citing anonymous sources – as one of the reasons Trump "must go."
Never mind that Trump and all on-the-record administration sources denied The Atlantic's report. The Times couldn't resist
when the pieces seemed to fit so well together for the military's latest propaganda campaign against Trump. First the
president disses the troops, calling them "losers" and "suckers," then he has the
temerity
to say
Pentagon leaders want to fight wars to keep defense contractors happy.
Except the pieces don't
fit. The many people who occupy so-called boots on the ground don't have the same interests as the few people who send them to
war. In fact, combat troops are given reason to hate the generals who send them to die when there's not a legitimate national
security reason for the war they're fighting. And the US has fought a long line of wars that didn't serve the nation's
national security interests. Even when a war is justified, the interests of top brass and front-line soldiers often clash.
Remember that great 1967
war movie, '
The
Dirty Dozen'
? A group of 12 soldiers who were condemned to long prison sentences or execution in military prison for their
crimes were sent on a 1944 suicide mission to kill high-ranking German officers at a heavily defended chateau far behind enemy
lines. After succeeding in the mission and escaping the Germans, the lone surviving convict, played by tough-guy actor Charles
Bronson, told the mission leader,
"Killing generals could get to be a habit with me."
So no, New York Times, speaking out against ill-advised wars does not equal bashing the military. And sorry, General Zinni,
but generals, defense contractors and their media mouthpieces don't get to decide who has the
"right
and authority"
to be commander in chief. The voters decided that already, and they expressed clearly that they don't want
senseless and endless wars and foreign interventions.
The Times cited General
James McConville, the Army's chief of staff, as saying Pentagon leaders would only recommend sending troops to combat
"when
it's required for national security and a last resort."
And no, it wasn't a comedy skit. What's the last US war or combat
intervention that measured up to that standard? Let's just say the late Bronson, who died in 2003 at the age of 81, was a
young man the last time that happened.
CNN tried a similar ploy
on Sunday, while trying to sell the "losers" and "suckers" story in an interview with US Veterans Affairs Secretary Robert
Wilkie. Host Dana Bash said the allegations fit a
"pattern of public statements
" by
the president because Trump called US Senator John McCain a "loser" in 2015 and said McCain shouldn't be considered a hero for
being captured in the Vietnam War. She repeatedly suggested to Wilkie, who didn't take the bait, that Trump's attacks on
McCain, who died in 2018, showed disrespect for the troops.
Apparently, this follows
the same line of propagandist thought which told us that saying there are rapists among the illegal aliens entering the US
from Mexico – which is undeniably true –
equals
saying
all Mexicans are rapists. In CNN land, a bad word about McCain is a bad word about all soldiers.
McCain was
a
warmonger
who didn't mind getting US troops killed or backing terrorist groups in Syria. If
he
had his way
, many more GIs would be dead or disabled, because the intervention in Syria would have been escalated and the
US might be at war with Iran. Soldiers wouldn't want their lives wasted in such conflicts.
All wars are hard on the
people who have to fight them, but senseless wars are spirit-crushing. An average of about 17 veterans commit suicide each day
in the US, according to Veterans Administration
data
.
Veterans account for 11 percent of the US adult population but more than 18 percent of suicides.
The media's deceiving
technique of trying to pretend that ruling-class chieftains and front-line grunts are in the same boat reflects a broader
campaign of top-down revolution against populism. The
military
is
just one of several pro-Trump segments of the population that must be turned against the president. Other pro-Trump segments,
such as
police
,
are demonized and attacked.
Trump has managed to keep
the US out of new wars and has drawn down deployments to Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan – despite Pentagon opposition. His rival,
Democrat presidential nominee Joe Biden, can be expected to rev up the war machine if he takes charge. His foreign policy
adviser, Antony Blinken, lamented in a May
interview
with CBS News
that Trump had given up US "leverage" in Syria.
Trump also has turned
around the VA hospital system, ending
decades
of neglect
that left many veterans to die on waiting lists.
Like past campaigns to
oust Trump, the notion that he's not sufficiently devoted to the troops might be a tough sell. No matter how good their words
may sound, the people who promote endless wars without clear objectives aren't true supporters of the rank and file.
Doug Valentine's new book, The CIA as Organized Crime: How Illegal
Operations Corrupt America and the World , is a compilation of newly updated articles
and recent interviews. The book, which discusses a part of history that is rarely mentioned
nowadays but is vital to understand as we enter the Trump era, is divided into four sections.
The first covers the CIA's Phoenix program in Vietnam; the second looks at how the agency
manages the War on Drugs; the third reviews how the Phoenix program became the model for
Homeland Security and the War on Terror; and the fourth takes a look at the the CIA's influence
on the media.
The CIA created the Phoenix program in South Vietnam in 1967 as a means of identifying,
capturing, detaining, interrogating and assassinating the civilian leaders of the insurgency.
As detailed in the book, the program has become the template for Homeland Security, as well as
for waging the War on Terror and the War on Drugs.
The following edited excerpt, which focuses on the CIA's illegal domestic spying program,
Chaos, was omitted from the book. It is taken from an interview Valentine did with Guillermo
Jimenez in November 2014, originally titled "The CIA Has Become the Phoenix."
Cloaked in secrecy, the CIA is rarely written about and poorly understood. But while
researching the infamous Phoenix program, Valentine managed to penetrate the agency and
interview dozens of agency officers. His
Phoenix research materials are available to the public at the National Security Archive.
His interviews with several CIA officers are available online here and here
.
GUILLERMO JIMENEZ: The Phoenix Program has recently been republished by Open Road
Media as part of their Forbidden Bookshelves series. Would you mind sharing with us how your
book was chosen for the series? What do you make of this new-found interest in Phoenix; what
the CIA was up to in Vietnam; and what the CIA is up to generally?
VALENTINE: When the book came out in 1990, it got a terrible review in The New York
Times . Morley Safer, who'd been a reporter in Vietnam, wrote the review. Safer and the
Times killed the book because in it I said Phoenix never would have succeeded if the
reporters in Vietnam hadn't covered for the CIA.
Several senior CIA officers said the same thing, that "So and so was always in my office.
He'd bring a bottle of scotch and I'd tell him what was going on." The celebrity reporters knew
what was going on, but they didn't report about it in exchange for having access. I said that
in the book specifically about The New York Times . So I not only got the CIA angry at
me, I also got the Vietnam press corps angry at me too.
Between those two things, the book did not get off to an auspicious start. The Times
gave Safer half a page to write his review, which was bizarre. The usual response is just to
ignore a book like The Phoenix Program . But The New York Times Book Review
serves a larger function; it teaches the media elite and "intelligentsia" what to think and how
to say it. So Safer said my book was incoherent, because it unraveled the bureaucratic networks
that conceal the contradictions between policy and operational reality. It exposed Bill Colby
[who ran Phoenix for the agency and later became CIA director] as a liar. Safer was upset that
I didn't portray his friend and patron as a symbol of the elite, as a modern day Odysseus.
Luckily, with the Internet revolution, people aren't bound by the Times and network
news anymore. They can listen to Russia Today and get another side of the story. So Mark
Crispin Miller and Philip Rappaport at Open Road chose The Phoenix Program to be the
first book they published. And it's been reborn. Thanks to the advent of the e-book, we've
reached an audience of concerned and knowledgeable people in a way that wasn't possible 25
years ago.
It's also because of these Internet developments that John Brennan, the director of CIA,
thought of reorganizing the the agency. All these things are connected. It's a vastly different
world than it was in 1947 when the CIA was created. The nature of the American empire has
changed, and what the empire needs from the CIA has changed. The CIA is allocated about $30
billion a year, so the organizational changes are massive undertakings. If you want to
understand the CIA, you have to understand how it's organized.
JIMENEZ: I want to talk to you about that but first I'd like to touch upon the CIA's
infiltration of the US media. I find it curious, because the way that you describe it, it's not
so much a deliberate attempt to censor the media. There's a lot of self-censorship as a result
of that already existing relationship. Is that how you see this?
VALENTINE: Yes. The media organizes itself the way the CIA does. The CIA has case
officers running around the world, engaged in murder and mayhem, and the media has reporters
covering them. The reporter and the case officer both have bosses, and the higher you get in
each organization, the closer the bosses become.
The ideological guidelines get more restrictive the higher up you go. To join the CIA,
you have to pass a psychological assessment test. They're not going to hire anybody who is
sympathetic towards poor people. These are ruthless people who serve capitalist bosses .
They're very rightwing, and t he media's job is to protect them. Editors only hire reporters
who are ideologically pure, just like you can't get into the CIA if you're a Communist or think
the CIA should obey the law.
It's the same thing in the media. You can't get a job at CNN if you sympathize with the
Palestinians or report how Israel has been stealing their land for 67 years. The minute you say
something that is anathema or upsets the Israelis, you're out. The people who enforce these
ideological restraints are the editors and the publishers. For example, while covering the
merciless Israeli bombardment of civilians in Gaza in 2014, Diana Magnay was harassed and
threatened by a group of bloodthirsty Israelis who were cheering the slaughter. Disgusted,
Magnay later referred to them as "scum" in a tweet. She was forced to apologize, transferred to
Moscow, and banished forever from Israel.
In a similar case, NBC correspondent Ayman Mohyeldin was playing soccer with four young boys
in Gaza when Israel shelled the playing field. Mohyeldin witnessed their murders, which he
reported in a series of tweets. Without ever providing a reason, NBC pulled Mohyeldin from Gaza
and prevented him from ever returning. NBC replaced Mohyeldin with Israeli sympathizer Richard
Engel.
Any dictator would be happy with the way American media is organized. The minute you step
out of the box, they fire you or send you off to Siberia . It's a homogenous system. Not
just the media and CIA, but politicians too. As the 2016 primaries proved, you can't be a
candidate for either party unless you pass the ideological test. You must be a freewheeling
capitalist. You must support Israel with billions of tax payer dollars. You must give the
military whatever weapons it wants. That's the nature of the American state. These things
naturally work together because that is the way it has been structured for 240 years.
JIMENEZ: We've seen pseudo alternatives emerge in the Internet posing as adversarial or
anti-establishment when they're anything but. We've seen this growing trend, and it's something
to be mindful of as we look for these sources on the Internet.
VALENTINE: The Internet is a free for all, so you have to approach it the way any
enlightened person approaches every part of America, which is buyer beware. Capitalism is not
designed to protect poor people or make sure people lead healthy, fulfilling lives. It's
designed to make sure the super-rich can steal from the poor. There's only so much wealth and
the rich want it.
The rich want to monopolize information too. Is a particular piece of information on the
Internet coming from a reliable source? Who knows? Just because some of it is true doesn't mean
that all of it is true. To be able to discern whether the information is accurate or complete,
you must be grounded in the reality that the capitalist system are organized to oppress you,
keep you in the dark and off balance as much as possible. It's a game of wits and you've got to
be smart about it. Buyer beware.
JIMENEZ: Now I'd like to talk about the recent organizational changes in the CIA. It stems
from an article in The Washington Post by Greg Miller. The headline is "CIA Director
John Brennan Considering Sweeping Organizational Changes." What the article is saying is that
Brennan wants to restructure the CIA using the model of their Counterterrorism Center; merging
different units and divisions, combining analysts with operatives into hybrid teams that will
focus on specific regions of the world. This sounds to me like the organizational changes that
were born out of Phoenix and that were exported to other parts of the world over the years. The
CIA appears to be applying the same structure to all of its operations. Is that how you read
this?
VALENTINE: Yes, and it's something that, from my perspective, was predictable, which is why
The Phoenix Program was re-released now, because what I predicted 25 years ago has
happened. And you can only predict accurately if you know the history.
The CIA initially, and for decades, had four directorates under an executive management
staff: Administration, Intelligence, Operations, and Science and Technology. Executive
management had staff for congressional liaison, legal issues, security, public relations,
inspections, etc. Administration is just that: staff for finance, personnel, and support
services like interrogators, translators and construction companies. Science and Technology is
self-explanatory too, but with a typical CIA twist – science for the CIA means better
ways to kill and control people, like the MKULTRA program. And now there's a fifth directorate,
Digital, that keystrokes and hacks foreign governments and corporations.
The Operations people overthrew foreign governments the old fashioned way, through sabotage
and subversion. The Operations Directorate is now the National Clandestine Service. The
Intelligence Directorate, which is now called Analysis, studied political, economic and social
trends around the world so that executive management could mount better operations to control
them.
The Operations Directorate was divided into several branches. The Counterintelligence (CI)
branch detected foreign spies. Foreign Intelligence (FI) staff "liaison" officers worked with
secret policemen and other officials in foreign nations. They collected "positive intelligence"
by eavesdropping or by recruiting agents. The Covert Action branch engaged in deniable
political action. The Special Operations Division (now the Special Activities Division)
supplied paramilitary officers. There was also a Political and Psychological branch that
specialized in all forms of propaganda.
These branches and directorates were career paths for operations officers (operators)
assigned to geographical divisions. An FI staff officer might spend his or her entire career in
the Far East Asia Division. The managers could move people around, but those things, generally
speaking, were in place when the CIA began. The events that led to the formation of the
current Counterterrorism Center began in 1967, when US security services began to suspect that
the Cubans and the Soviets were infiltrating the anti-war movement. Lyndon Johnson wanted to
know the details, so his attorney general, Ramsay Clark, formed the Interdepartmental
Intelligence Unit (IDIU) within the Department of Justice. The IDIU's job was to coordinate the
elements of the CIA, FBI and military that were investigating dissenters. The White House
wanted to control and provide political direction to these investigations.
The Phoenix program was created simultaneously in 1967 and did the same thing in Vietnam.
It brought together 25 agencies and aimed them at civilians in the insurgency. It's political
warfare. It's secret. It's against the rules of war. It violated the Geneva Conventions. It's
what Homeland Security does in the US: bringing agencies together and focusing them on
civilians who they think look like terrorists.
The goal of this kind of bureaucratic centralization is to improve intelligence collection
and analysis so reaction forces can leap into the breach more quickly and effectively. In 1967,
the CIA already had computer experts who were traveling around by jet. The world was getting
smaller and the CIA, which had all the cutting edge technology, was way out in front. It hired
Ivy Leaguers like Nelson Brickham to make the machine run smoothly.
Brickham, as I've explained elsewhere, was the Foreign Intelligence staff officer who
organized the Phoenix program based on principles Rensis Likert articulated in his book New
Patterns of Management . Brickham believed he could use reporting formats as a tool to
shape the behavior of CIA officers in the field. In particular, he hoped to correct "the grave
problem of distortion and cover-up which a reporting system must address."
Likert organized industries to be adaptable, and the CIA organized itself the same way. It
was always reorganizing itself to adapt to new threats. And in 1967, while Brickham was forming
Phoenix to neutralize the leaders of the insurgency in South Vietnam, James Angleton and the
CIA's Counterintelligence staff were creating the MHCHAOS program in Langley, Virginia, to spy
on members of the anti-war movement, and turn as many of them as possible into double
agents.
Chaos was the codename for the Special Operations Group within Angleton's
Counterintelligence staff. The CIA's current Counterterrorism Center, which was established in
1986, is a direct descendent of Chaos.
The CIA's CT Center evolved from the Chaos domestic spying mechanism into the nerve center
of the CIA's clandestine staff. Same thing happened with the CIA's Counter-Narcotics Center at
the same time. Both are modeled on Phoenix, and both are wonderful tools for White House cadres
to exercise political control over the bureaucracies they coordinate. These "centers" are the
perfect means for policing and expanding the empire; they make it easier than ever for the CIA
to track people and events in every corner of the world. The need for the old-fashioned
directorates is fading away. You don't need an entire directorate to understand the political,
social and economic movements around the world anymore, because the United States is
controlling them all.
The US has color revolutions going everywhere. It's got the World Bank and the IMF
strangling countries with debt, like the banks are strangling college students and home owners
here. The War on Terror is the best thing that ever happened to US capitalists and their secret
police force, the CIA. Terrorism is the pretext that allows the CIA to coordinate and transcend
every government agency and civic institution, including the media, to the extent that we don't
even see its wars anymore. Its control is so pervasive, so ubiquitous; the CIA has actually
become the Phoenix.
JIMENEZ: Right.
VALENTINE: It's the eye of god in the sky; it's able to determine what's going to happen
next because it's controlling all of these political, social and economic movements. It pits
the Sunnis against the Shiites. It doesn't need slow and outdated directorates. These Phoenix
centers enable it to determine events instantaneously anywhere. There are now Counterterror
Intelligence Centers all over the world. In Phoenix they were called Intelligence Operations
Coordinating Centers. So it's basically exactly the same thing. It's been evolving that way and
everybody on the inside was gearing themselves for this glorious moment for 30 years. They even
have a new staff position called Targeting Officers. You can Google this.
JIMENEZ: Right, right, exactly.
VALENTINE: The centers represent the unification of military, intelligence and media
operations under political control. White House political appointees oversee them, but the
determinant force is the CIA careerists who slither into private industry when their careers
are over. They form the consulting firms that direct the corporations that drive the empire.
Through their informal "old boy" network, the CIA guys and gals keep America at war so they can
make a million dollars when their civil service career is over.
JIMENEZ: The Washington Post and subsequent articles frame it as if these changes are
drastic. But to hear you, it's a natural progression. So what does this announcement mean? Is
the CIA putting out its own press release through the Washington Post just to give
everyone the heads up?
VALENTINE: Well, everybody in the CIA was worried that if the directorates were reorganized,
it would negatively affect their careers. But executive management usually does what its
political bosses tell them to do, and Brennan reorganized in 2015. He created a fifth
directorate, the Directorate for Digital Innovation (DDI) ostensibly as the CIA's
"mantelpiece". But, as the Washington Times reported, "it is the formation of the new
'mission' centers – including ones for counterintelligence, weapons and
counter-proliferation, and counterterrorism – that is most likely to shake up the
agency's personnel around the world."
The CIA's "ten new Mission Centers" are designed to "serve as locations to integrate
capabilities and bring the full range of CIA's operational, analytic, support, technical and
digital skill sets to bear against the nation's most pressing national security problems."
This modernization means the CIA is better able to control people politically, starting with
its own officers, then everyone else. That's the ultimate goal. Politicians, speaking in a
unified voice, create the illusion of a crime-fighting CIA and an America with a responsibility
to protect benighted foreigners from themselves. But they can't tell you what the CIA does,
because it's all illegal. It's all a lie. In order for the politicians to hold office, they
have to cover for the CIA. Their concern is how to explain the reorganization and exploit it.
They squabble among themselves and cut the best deals possible.
"... The fresh orgy of anti-Russian invective in the lickspittle media (LSM) has the feel of fin de siècle . The last four reality-impaired years do seem as though they add up to a century. And no definitive fin is in sight, as long as most people don't know what's going on. ..."
"... The LSM should be confronted: "At long last have you left no sense of decency?" But who would hear the question -- much less any answer? ..."
"... Thus the reckless abandon with which The New York Times is leading the current full-court press to improve on what it regards as Special Counsel Robert Mueller's weak-kneed effort to blame the Russians for giving us Donald Trump. The press is on, and there are no referees to call the fouls. ..."
"... Incidentally, Mueller's report apparently was insufficient, only two years in the making, and just 448 pages. The Senate committee's magnum opus took three years, is almost 1,000 pages -- and fortified. So there. ..."
"... is a good offense, and the Senate Intelligence Committee's release of its study -- call it "Mueller (Enhanced)" -- and the propaganda fanfare -- come at a key point in the Russiagate/Spygate imbroglio. It also came, curiously, as the Democratic Convention was beginning, as if the Republican-controlled Senate was sending Trump a message. ..."
"... The cognoscenti and the big fish themselves may be guessing that Trump/Barr/Durham will not throw out heavier lines for former FBI Director James Comey, his deputy Andrew McCabe, CIA Director John Brennan, and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, for example. But how can they be sure? What has become clear is that the certainty they all shared that Hillary Clinton would be the next president prompted them not only to take serious liberties with the Constitution and the law, but also to do so without taking rudimentary steps to hide their tracks. ..."
"... The incriminating evidence is there. And as Trump becomes more and more vulnerable and defensive about his ineptness -- particularly with regard to Covid-19 -- he may summon the courage to order Barr and Durham to hook the big fish, not just minnows like Clinesmith. The neuralgic reality is that no one knows at this point how far Trump will go. To say that this kind of uncertainty is unsettling to all concerned is to say the obvious. ..."
"... None of that takes us much beyond the Mueller report and other things generally well known -- even in the LSM. Nor does the drivel about people like Paul Manafort "sharing polling data with Russians" who might be intelligence officers. That data was "mostly public" the Times itself reported , and the paper had to correct a story that the data was intended for Russian oligarchs, when it was meant for Ukrainian oligarchs instead. That Manafort was working to turn Ukraine towards the West and not Russia is rarely mentioned. ..."
"... On the Steele Dossier, the committee also missed a ruling by a British judge against Christopher Steele, labeling his dossier an attempt to help Hillary Clinton get elected. Consortium News explained back in October 2017 that both CrowdStrike and Steele were paid for by the Democratic Party and Clinton campaign to push Russiagate. ..."
"... the description of #WikiLeaks ' publishing activities by this #SenateIntelligenceCommittee 's Report appears a true #EdgarHoover 's disinformation campaign to make a legitimate media org completely radioactive ..."
"... And that's not the half of it. In September 2018, Mazzetti and his NYT colleague Scott Shane wrote a 10,000-word feature, "The Plot to Subvert an Election," trying to convince readers that the Russian Internet Research Agency (IRA) had successfully swayed U.S. opinion during the 2016 election with 80,000 Facebook posts that they said had reached 126 million Americans. ..."
"... That turned out to be a grotesquely deceptive claim. Mazzetti and Shane failed to mention the fact that those 80,000 IRA posts (from early 2015 through 2017, meaning about half came after the election), had been engulfed in a vast ocean of more than 33 trillion Facebook posts in people's news feeds – 413 million times more than the IRA posts. Not to mention the lack of evidence that the IRA was the Russian government, as Mueller claimed. ..."
"... "Liberals are embracing every negative claim about Russia just because elements of the CIA, FBI and National Security Agency produced a report last Jan. 6 that blamed Russia for 'hacking' Democratic emails and releasing them to WikiLeaks ." ..."
The New York Times is leading the full-court press to improve on what it regards as Special Counsel Robert Mueller's weak-kneed
effort to blame the Russians for giving us Donald Trump...
The fresh orgy of anti-Russian invective in the lickspittle media (LSM) has the feel of fin de siècle . The last four reality-impaired
years do seem as though they add up to a century. And no definitive fin is in sight, as long as most people don't know what's going
on.
The LSM should be confronted: "At long last have you left no sense of decency?" But who would hear the question -- much less any
answer? The corporate media have a lock on what Americans are permitted or not permitted to hear. Checking the truth, once routine
in journalism, is a thing of the past.
Thus the reckless abandon with which The New York Times is leading the current full-court press to improve on what it regards
as Special Counsel Robert Mueller's weak-kneed effort to blame the Russians for giving us Donald Trump. The press is on, and there
are no referees to call the fouls.
The recent release of a 1,000-page, sans bombshells and already out-of-date report by the Senate Intelligence Committee has provided
the occasion to "catapult the propaganda," as President George W. Bush once put it.
As the the Times 's Mark Mazzetti put it in his
article Wednesday:
"Releasing the report less than 100 days before Election Day, Republican-majority senators hoped it would refocus attention
on the interference by Russia and other hostile foreign powers in the American political process, which has continued unabated."
Mazzetti is telling his readers, soto voce : regarding that interference four years ago, and the "continued-unabated" part, you
just have to trust us and our intelligence community sources who would never lie to you. And if, nevertheless, you persist in asking
for actual evidence, you are clearly in Putin's pocket.
Incidentally, Mueller's report apparently was insufficient, only two years in the making, and just 448 pages. The Senate committee's
magnum opus took three years, is almost 1,000 pages -- and fortified. So there.
Iron Pills
Recall how disappointed the LSM and the rest of the Establishment were with Mueller's anemic findings in spring 2019. His report
claimed that the Russian government "interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion" via a social
media campaign run by the Internet Research Agency (IRA) and by "hacking" Democratic emails. But the evidence behind those charges
could not bear close scrutiny.
You would hardly know it from the LSM, but the accusation against the IRA was thrown out of court when the U.S. government admitted
it could not prove that the IRA was working for the Russian government. Mueller's ipse dixit did not suffice, as we
explained a year ago
in "Sic Transit Gloria Mueller."
The Best Defense
is a good offense, and the Senate Intelligence Committee's release of its study -- call it "Mueller (Enhanced)" -- and the propaganda
fanfare -- come at a key point in the Russiagate/Spygate imbroglio. It also came, curiously, as the Democratic Convention was beginning,
as if the Republican-controlled Senate was sending Trump a message.
Durham
One chief worry, of course, derives from the uncertainty as to whether John Durham, the US Attorney investigating those FBI and
other officials who launched the Trump-Russia investigation will let some heavy shoes drop before the election. Barr has said he
expects "developments in Durham's investigation hopefully before the end of the summer."
FBI attorney Kevin Clinesmith already has decided to plead guilty to the felony of falsifying evidence used to support a warrant
from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to surveillance to spy on Trump associate Carter Page. It is abundantly clear that
Clinesmith was just a small cog in the deep-state machine in action against candidate and then President Trump. And those running
the machine are well known. The president has named names, and Barr has made no bones about his disdain for what he calls spying
on the president.
The cognoscenti and the big fish themselves may be guessing that Trump/Barr/Durham will not throw out heavier lines for former
FBI Director James Comey, his deputy Andrew McCabe, CIA Director John Brennan, and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper,
for example. But how can they be sure? What has become clear is that the certainty they all shared that Hillary Clinton would be
the next president prompted them not only to take serious liberties with the Constitution and the law, but also to do so without
taking rudimentary steps to hide their tracks.
The incriminating evidence is there. And as Trump becomes more and more vulnerable and defensive about his ineptness -- particularly
with regard to Covid-19 -- he may summon the courage to order Barr and Durham to hook the big fish, not just minnows like Clinesmith.
The neuralgic reality is that no one knows at this point how far Trump will go. To say that this kind of uncertainty is unsettling
to all concerned is to say the obvious.
So, the stakes are high -- for the Democrats, as well -- and, not least, the LSM. In these circumstances it would seem imperative
not just to circle the wagons but to mount the best offense/defense possible, despite the fact that virtually all the ammunition
(as in the Senate report) is familiar and stale ("enhanced" or not).
Black eyes might well be in store for the very top former law enforcement and intelligence officials, the Democrats, and the LSM
-- and in the key pre-election period. So, the calculation: launch "Mueller Report (Enhanced)" and catapult the truth now with propaganda,
before it is too late.
No Evidence of Hacking
The "hacking of the DNC" charge suffered a fatal blow three months ago when it became known that Shawn Henry, president of the
DNC-hired cyber-security firm CrowdStrike,
admitted under oath that his firm had no evidence that the DNC emails were hacked -- by Russia or anyone else.
(YouTube)
Henry gave his testimony on Dec. 5, 2017,
but House Intelligence Committee chair Adam Schiff was able to keep it hidden until May 7, 2020.
Here's a brief taste of how Henry's testimony went: Asked by Schiff for "the date on which the Russians exfiltrated the data",
Henry replied, "We just don't have the evidence that says it actually left."
You did not know that? You may be forgiven -- up until now -- if your information diet is limited to the LSM and you believe The
New York Times still publishes "all the news that's fit to print." I am taking bets on how much longer the NYT will be able to keep
Henry's testimony hidden; Schiff's record of 29 months will be hard to beat.
Putting Lipstick on the Pig of Russian 'Tampering'
Worse still for the LSM and other Russiagate diehards, Mueller's findings last year enabled Trump to shout "No Collusion" with
Russia. What seems clear at this point is that a key objective of the current catapulting of the truth is to apply lipstick to Mueller's
findings.
After all, he was supposed to find treacherous plotting between the Trump campaign and the Russians and failed miserably. Most
LSM-suffused Americans remain blissfully unaware of this, and the likes of Pulitzer Prize winner Mazzetti have been commissioned
to keep it that way.
In Wednesday's
article , for example, Mazzetti puts it somewhat plaintively:
"Like the special counsel the Senate report did not conclude that the Trump campaign engaged in a coordinated conspiracy with
the Russian government -- a fact that the Republicans seized on to argue that there was 'no collusion'."
How could they!
Mazzetti is playing with words. "Collusion," however one defines it, is not a crime; conspiracy is.
'Breathtaking' Contacts: Mueller (Enhanced)
Mark Mazzetti (YouTube)
Mazzetti emphasizes that the Senate report "showed extensive evidence of contacts between Trump campaign advisers and people tied
to the Kremlin," and Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA), the intelligence committee's vice chairman,
said the committee report details "a breathtaking level of contacts between Trump officials and Russian government operatives
that is a very real counterintelligence threat to our elections."
None of that takes us much beyond the Mueller report and other things generally well known -- even in the LSM. Nor does the drivel
about people like Paul Manafort "sharing polling data with Russians" who might be intelligence officers. That data was "mostly public"
the Times itself
reported
, and the paper had to correct
a story that the data was intended for Russian oligarchs, when it was meant for Ukrainian oligarchs instead. That Manafort was working
to turn Ukraine towards the West and not Russia is rarely mentioned.
Recent revelations regarding the false data given the FISA court by an FBI lawyer to "justify" eavesdropping on Trump associate
Carter Page show the Senate report to be not up to date and misguided in endorsing the FBI's decision to investigate Page. The committee
may wish to revisit that endorsement -- at least.
On the Steele Dossier, the committee also missed a ruling by a British judge against Christopher Steele,
labeling his dossier an attempt to help Hillary Clinton get elected. Consortium News
explained back in October 2017 that both CrowdStrike and Steele were paid for by the Democratic Party and Clinton campaign to
push Russiagate.
Also missed by the intelligence committee was a document released by the Senate Judiciary Committee last month that
revealed that Steele's "Primary Subsource and his friends peddled warmed-over rumors and laughable gossip that Steele dressed
up as formal intelligence memos."
Smearing WikiLeaks
The Intelligence Committee report also repeats thoroughly
debunked
myths about WikiLeaks and, like Mueller, the committee made no effort to interview Julian Assange before launching its smears.
Italian journalist Stefania Maurizi, who partnered with WikiLeaks in the publication of the Podesta emails, described the report's
treatment of WikiLeaks in this Twitter thread
:
2. the description of #WikiLeaks ' publishing activities
by this #SenateIntelligenceCommittee
's Report appears a true #EdgarHoover 's disinformation
campaign to make a legitimate media org completely radioactive
3. Clearly, to describe #WikiLeaks and its publishing activities the #SenateIntelligenceCommittee's Report completely rely
on #US intelligence community+ #MikePompeo's characterisation of #WikiLeaks. There is not even any pretense of an independent
approach
4. there are also unsubstantiated claims like:
– "[WikiLeaks'] disclosures have jeopardized the safety of individual Americans and foreign allies" (p.200)
– "WikiLeaks has passed information to U.S. adversaries" (p.201)
5. it's completely false that "#WikiLeaks does not seem to weigh whether its disclosures add any public interest value" (p.200)
and any longtime media partner like me could provide you dozens of examples on how wrong this characterisation [is].
Titillating
Mazzetti did add some spice to the version of his article that dominated the two top right columns of Wednesday's Times with the
blaring headline: "Senate Panel Ties Russian Officials to Trump's Aides: G.O.P.-Led Committee Echoes Mueller's Findings on Election
Tampering."
Those who make it to the end of Mazzetti's piece will learn that the Senate committee report "did not establish" that the Russian
government obtained any compromising material on Mr. Trump or that they tried to use such materials [that they didn't have] as leverage
against him." However, Mazzetti adds,
"According to the report, Mr. Trump met a former Miss Moscow at a party during one trip in 1996. After the party, a Trump associate
told others he had seen Mr. Trump with the woman on multiple occasions and that they 'might have had a brief romantic relationship.'
"The report also raised the possibility that, during that trip, Mr. Trump spent the night with two young women who joined him
the next morning at a business meeting with the mayor of Moscow."
This is journalism?
Another Pulitzer in Store?
The Times appends a note reminding us that Mazzetti was part of a team that won a Pulitzer Prize in 2018 for reporting on Donald
Trump's advisers and their connections to Russia.
And that's not the half of it. In September 2018, Mazzetti and his NYT colleague Scott Shane wrote a 10,000-word
feature, "The Plot to Subvert an Election," trying to convince readers that the Russian Internet Research Agency (IRA) had successfully
swayed U.S. opinion during the 2016 election with 80,000 Facebook posts that they said had reached 126 million Americans.
That turned out to be a grotesquely deceptive claim. Mazzetti and Shane failed to mention the
fact that those 80,000 IRA posts (from early 2015 through 2017, meaning about half came after the election), had been engulfed
in a vast ocean of more than 33 trillion Facebook posts in people's news feeds – 413 million times more than the IRA posts. Not to
mention the lack of evidence that the IRA was the Russian government, as Mueller claimed.
In exposing that chicanery, prize-winning investigative reporter Gareth Porter
commented :
"The descent of The New York Times into this unprecedented level of propagandizing for the narrative of Russia's threat to
U.S. democracy is dramatic evidence of a broader problem of abuses by corporate media Greater awareness of the dishonesty at the
heart of the Times' coverage of that issue is a key to leveraging media reform and political change."
Nothingburgers With Russian Dressing: the Backstory
The late Robert Parry.
"It's too much; it's just too much, too much", a sedated, semi-conscious Robert Parry kept telling me from his hospital bed in
late January 2018 a couple of days before he died. Bob was founder of Consortium News .
It was already clear what Bob meant; he had taken care to see to that. On Dec. 31, 2017 the reason for saying that came in what
he titled "An Apology
& Explanation" for "spotty production in recent days." A stroke on Christmas Eve had left Bob with impaired vision, but he was able
to summon enough strength to write an Apologia -- his vision for honest journalism and his dismay at what had happened to his profession
before he died on Jan. 27, 2018. The dichotomy was "just too much".
Parry rued the role that journalism was playing in the "unrelenting ugliness that has become Official Washington. Facts and logic
no longer mattered. It was a case of using whatever you had to diminish and destroy your opponent this loss of objective standards
reached deeply into the most prestigious halls of American media."
What bothered Bob most was the needless, dishonest tweaking of the Russian bear. "The U.S. media's approach to Russia," he wrote,
"is now virtually 100 percent propaganda. Does any sentient human being read The New York Times ' or The Washington Post 's coverage
of Russia and think that he or she is getting a neutral or unbiased treatment of the facts? Western journalists now apparently see
it as their patriotic duty to hide facts that otherwise would undermine the demonizing of Putin and Russia."
Parry, who was no conservative, continued:
"Liberals are embracing every negative claim about Russia just because elements of the CIA, FBI and National Security Agency
produced a report last Jan. 6 that blamed Russia for 'hacking' Democratic emails and releasing them to WikiLeaks ."
Bob noted that the 'hand-picked' authors "evinced no evidence and even admitted that they weren't asserting any of this as fact."
It was just too much.
Robert Parry's Last Article
Peter Strzok during congressional hearing in July 2018. (Wikimedia Commons)
Bob posted his last substantive article on Dec. 13, 2017, the day after text exchanges between senior FBI officials Peter Strzok
and Lisa Page were made public. (Typically, readers of The New York Times the following day would altogether
miss the
importance of the text-exchanges.)
Bob Parry rarely felt any need for a "sanity check." Dec. 12, 2017 was an exception. He called me about the Strzok-Page texts;
we agreed they were explosive. FBI Agent Peter Strzok was on Special Counsel Robert Mueller's staff investigating alleged Russian
interference, until Mueller removed him.
Strzok reportedly was a "hand-picked" FBI agent taking part in the Jan 2017 evidence-impoverished, rump, misnomered "intelligence
community" assessment that blamed Russia for hacking and other election meddling. And he had helped lead the investigation into Hillary
Clinton's misuse of her computer servers. Page was Deputy Director Andrew McCabe's right-hand lawyer.
His Dec. 13, 2017 piece
would be his fourth related article in less than two weeks; it turned out to be his last substantive article. All three of the earlier
ones are worth a re-read as examples of fearless, unbiased, perceptive journalism. Here
are the links .
Bob began his article
on the Strzok-Page bombshell:
"The disclosure of fiercely anti-Trump text messages between two romantically involved senior FBI officials who played key
roles in the early Russia-gate inquiry has turned the supposed Russian-election-meddling "scandal" into its own scandal, by providing
evidence that some government investigators saw it as their duty to block or destroy Donald Trump's presidency.?
"As much as the U.S. mainstream media has mocked the idea that an American 'deep state' exists and that it has maneuvered to
remove Trump from office, the text messages between senior FBI counterintelligence official Peter Strzok and senior FBI lawyer
Lisa Page reveal how two high-ranking members of the government's intelligence/legal bureaucracy saw their role as protecting
the United States from an election that might elevate to the presidency someone as unfit as Trump."
Not a fragment of Bob's or other Consortium News analysis made any impact on what Bob used to call the Establishment media. As
a matter of fact, eight months later during a talk in Seattle that I titled "Russia-gate: Can You Handle the Truth?", only three
out of a very progressive audience of some 150 had ever heard of Strzok and Page.
Lest I am accused of being "in Putin's pocket," let me add the explanatory note that we Veteran Intelligence Professionals for
Sanity included in our
most explosive Memorandum for President Trump, on "Russian hacking."
Full Disclosure: Over recent decades the ethos of our intelligence profession has eroded in the public mind to the point that
agenda-free analysis is deemed well nigh impossible. Thus, we add this disclaimer, which applies to everything we in VIPS say
and do: We have no political agenda; our sole purpose is to spread truth around and, when necessary, hold to account our former
intelligence colleagues.
We speak and write without fear or favor. Consequently, any resemblance between what we say and what presidents, politicians
and pundits say is purely coincidental. The fact we find it is necessary to include that reminder speaks volumes about these highly
politicized times.
somecallmetimmah , 1 hour ago
Only brain-washed losers read the new york times. Garbage propaganda for garbage people.
AtATrESICI , 43 minutes ago
"developments in Durham's investigation hopefully before the end of the summer." What summer? The summer of 2099.
Mouldy , 1 hour ago
So in a nutshell.. They just called half the USA too stupid to make an informed decision for themselves.
ominous , 1 hour ago
the disagreement is over which half is the stupid half
homeskillet , 25 minutes ago
The MIC's bogey man. What a crock of **** this whole country has become. Pravda puts out more truth than our MSM. I trust
Putin more than the Dem leaders at this point.
Demeter55 , 1 hour ago
The Globalist/New World Order/Deep State/Elitists (or whatever other arrogant subsection of the psychopaths among us you
wish to consider) have one great failing which will defeat them utterly in the end:
They do not know when to cut their losses.
As a result of that irrational stubbornness, born of a "Manifest Destiny" assumption of an eternal lock on the situation,
they will go too far.
Having more wealth than anyone is temporary.
Having more power than anyone is temporary.
Life is temporary.
And we outnumber them by several billion.
Even if they systematically try to destroy us, they will not have the ability unless we are complicit in our own destruction.
While there are many who have "taken the knee" to these tyrants in training, there are more who have no intention of doing
so.
Most nations are not so buffaloed as to fall for this propaganda, but the United States especially was created with the
notion that all men are created equal, and this is ingrained in the national character. We don't buy it.
And our numbers are growing daily, as people wake up and realize they have to take a side for themselves, their families,
their communities.
The global covid-panic was a masterful attack, but it will fail. Indeed, it has failed already. The building counter-attack
will take out those who chose to declare war on humanity. There really is no alternative for us, the humans. Live Free or Die,
as they say in New Hampshire.
And despite the full support of the MSM and the DNC, the Would-Be Masters of the Universe will not succeed.
sborovay07 , 1 hour ago
Sad Assange wasn't granted immunity to testify and was silenced just prior to the release of the Mueller report. Little
has been heard since except his health is horrific. Now, all the Deep State figures on both sides are just throwing as much
mud against Trump as possible to hide the truth. If Durnham does not indict the Deep State figures who participated in the
Obama led coup, all is for not. Only the foot soldiers marching in lock step will be charged.
wn , 1 hour ago
To sum it up.
Conclusion of the Democrats.
Americans need Russian brains to decide their leader in order to move forward.
nokilli , 25 minutes ago
Once the MO for "Russian hacking" is published to the international intelligence community, any (((party))) can pose as
a "Russian hacker."
This is the way computers work. Sybil is eponymous.
KuriousKat , 35 minutes ago
Mazzeti looks like the typical Gopher boy for the CIA Station Chiefs around the world..they retire or become contributors
to NewsWeek Wapo or NYT. ..not Any major network w/o one...Doing **** like this is mandatory..not elective.
If 'liberal' dogs can't bark at Jews and Deep State, they bark at Russia.
The Origins of Mass Manipulation of the Public Mind
Many years ago, the American political commentator Walter Lippmann realised that
political ideology could be completely fabricated, using the media to control both presentation
and conceptualisation, not only to create deeply-ingrained false beliefs in a population, but
also to entirely erase undesirable political ideas from the public mind. This was the beginning
of not only the American hysteria for freedom, democracy and patriotism, but of all
manufactured political opinion, a process that has been operative ever since. Lippmann created
these theories of mass persuasion of the public, using totally fabricated "facts" deeply
insinuated into the minds of a gullible public, but there is much more to this story. An
Austrian Jew named Edward Louis Bernays who was the nephew of Sigmund Freud, was one of
Lippmann's most precocious students and it was he who put Lippmann's theories into practice.
Bernays is widely known in America as the father of Public Relations, but he would be much more
accurately described as the father of American war marketing as well as the father of mass
manipulation of the public mind.
Bernays claimed "If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind" it will be
possible "to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing
about it". He called this scientific technique of opinion-molding the 'engineering of
consent', and to accomplish it he merged theories of crowd psychology with the psychoanalytical
ideas of his uncle Sigmund Freud. [10] [11]
Bernays regarded society as irrational and dangerous, with a "herd instinct", and that if the
multi-party electoral system (which evidence indicates was created by a group of European
elites as a population control mechanism) were to survive and continue to serve those elites,
massive manipulation of the public mind was necessary. These elites, "invisible people", would
have, through their influence on government and their control of the media, a monopoly on the
power to shape thoughts, values, and responses of the citizenry. His conviction was that this
group should flood the public with misinformation and emotionally-loaded propaganda to
"engineer" the acquiescence of the masses and thereby rule over them. According to Bernays,
this manufactured consent of the masses, creating conformity of opinion molded by the tool of
false propaganda, would be vital for the survival of "democracy". Bernays wrote:
"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized 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. People are governed, their minds molded, their tastes formed, their ideas suggested,
largely by men they have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our
democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner
. In almost every act of our daily lives 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."[12]
In his main work titled 'Propaganda', [13] which he
wrote in 1928, Bernays argued that the manipulation of public opinion was a necessary part of
democracy because individuals were inherently dangerous (to the control and looting of the
elites) but could be harnessed and channeled by these same elites for their economic benefit.
He clearly believed that virtually total control of a population was possible, and perhaps easy
to accomplish. He wrote further that:
"No serious sociologist any longer believes that the voice of the people expresses any
wise idea. The voice of the people expresses the mind of the people, and that mind is made up
for it by those persons who understand the manipulation of public opinion. It is composed of
inherited prejudices and symbols and clichés and verbal formulas supplied to them by
the leaders. Fortunately, the politician is able, by the instrument of propaganda, to mold
and form the will of the people. So vast are the numbers of minds which can be regimented,
and so tenacious are they when regimented, that [they produce] an irresistible pressure
before which legislators, editors, and teachers are helpless. "
And it wasn't only the public masses that were 'inherently dangerous', but a nation's
leaders fit this description as well, therefore also requiring manipulation and control.
Bernays realised that if you can influence the leaders of a nation, either with or without
their conscious cooperation, you can control the government and the country, and that is
precisely where he set his sights. Bernays again:
"In some departments of our daily life, in which we imagine ourselves free agents, we are
ruled by dictators exercising great power. There are invisible rulers who control the
destinies of millions. It is not generally realized to what extent the words and actions
of our most influential public men are dictated by shrewd persons operating behind the
scenes. Nor, what is still more important, the extent to which our thoughts and habits
are modified by authorities. The invisible government tends to be concentrated in the
hands of the few because of the expense of manipulating the social machinery which
controls the opinions and habits of the masses."
And in this case, the "few" are the wealthy industrial elites, their even wealthier banker
friends, and their brethren who control the media, publishing and entertainment industries.
Until the First World War, these theories of creating an entirely false public opinion based
on misinformation, then manipulating this for population control, were still only theories, but
the astounding success of propaganda by Bernays and his group during the war laid bare the
possibilities of perpetually controlling the public mind on all matters. The "shrewd" designers
of Bernays' "invisible government" developed a standard technique for what was essentially
propaganda and mind control, or at least opinion control, and infiltrated it throughout the US
government, its departments and agencies, and its leaders and politicians. Coincident with
this, they practiced infecting the leaders of every identifiable group – fraternal,
religious, commercial, patriotic, social – and encouraging these men to likewise infect
their supporters.
Many have noted the black and white mentality that pervades America. Much of the blame must
be laid on Bernays' propaganda methods. Bernays himself asserted that propaganda could produce
rapid and strong emotional responses in the public, but that the range of these responses was
limited because the emotional loading inherent in his propaganda would create a kind of binary
mentality, eventually forcing the population into a programmed black and white world –
which is precisely what we see in the US today. This isn't difficult to understand. When
Bernays flooded the public with fabricated tales of Germans shiskababbing babies, the range of
potential responses was entirely emotional and would be limited to either abhorrence or perhaps
a blocking of the information. In a sense, our emotional switch will be forced into either
an 'on' or 'off' position , with no other reasonable choices.
The elite few, as Bernays called them, realised early on the potential for control of
governments, and in every subsequent US administration the president and his White House staff,
the politicians, the leaders of the military and intelligence agencies, all fell prey to this
same disease of shrewd manipulation. Roosevelt's "intense desire for war" in 1939 [14] [15]
[16] was the result of this same infection process and, once infected, he of course
approved of the infection of the entire American population. Walter Lippmann and Edward Bernays
succeeded beyond their wildest expectations.
Bernays – Marketing War
In the discovery of propaganda as a tool of public mind control and in its use for war
marketing, it is worthwhile to take a quick look at the historical background of Bernays' war
effort. At the time, the European Zionists had made an agreement with England to bring the US
into the war against Germany, on the side of England, a favor for which England would grant
them the possession of Palestine as a location for a new homeland. [19]
Palestine did not 'belong' to England, it was not England's to give, and England had no legal
or moral right to make such an agreement, but it was made nevertheless.
US President Wilson was desperate to fulfill his obligations to his handlers by putting the
US into the First World War as they wished, but the American population had no interest in the
European war and public sentiment was entirely against participating. To facilitate the desired
result, Wilson created the Committee on Public Information (The Creel Commission), [20] to
propagandise the war by the mass brainwashing of America, but Creel was merely the 'front' of a
group that consisted of specially hand-picked men from the media, advertising, the movie
industry, and academia, as well as specialists in psychology. The two most important members
were Walter Lippman, whom Wilson described as "the most brilliant man of his age", and Bernays
who was the group's top mind-control expert, both Jews and both aware of the stakes in this
game. Bernays planned to combine his uncle Freud's psychiatric insights with mass psychology
blended with modern advertising techniques, and apply them to the task of mass mind control. It
was Bernays' vast propaganda schemes and his influence in promoting the patently false idea
that US entry to the war was primarily aimed at "bringing democracy to all of Europe", that
proved so successful in altering public opinion about the war. Thanks to Edward Bernays,
American war marketing was born and would never die.
Note to Readers: Some portion of the immediately following content which details the
specifics of the propaganda of Lippman and Bernays for World War I is not my own work. It was
extracted some years ago from a longer document for which I cannot now locate the original
source. If a reader is able to identify this source, I would be grateful to receive that
information so I can properly credit the author for his extensive research.
"Wilson's creation of the CPI was a turning point in world history, the first truly
scientific attempt to form, manipulate and control the perceptions and beliefs of an entire
population." With Wilson's authority, these men were given almost unlimited scope to work
their magic, and in order to ensure the success of their program and guarantee the eventual
possession of Palestine, these men and their committee carried out "a program of
psychological warfare against the American people on a scale unprecedented in human history and
with a degree of success that most propagandists could only dream about".
Having received permission and broad authority from the US President and the White House to
"lead the public mind into war"[21] and,
with their success threatened by widespread anti-war sentiment among the public, these men
determined to engineer what Lippman called "the manufacture of consent" . The committee
assumed the task to "examine the different ways that information flowed to the population and
to flood these channels with pro-war material". Their effort was unparalleled in its scale and
sophistication, since the Committee had the power not only to officially censor news and
withhold information from the public, but to manufacture false news and distribute it
nationally through all channels. In a very short time, Lippman and Bernays were well enough
organised to begin flooding the US with anti-German propaganda consisting of hate literature,
movies, songs, media articles and much more.
... ... ...
Everything we have read above about the marketing of war during preparation for the two
World Wars, is from a template created by Lippman and Bernays exclusively to support the
creation of a Jewish state in Palestine and to promote the agenda of Zionism. That template
has been in constant use by the US government (as the Bankers' Private Army) since the Second
World War, 'engineering consent and ignorance' in the American and Western populations to mask
almost seven decades of atrocities, demonising innocent countries and peoples in preparation
for 60 or 70 politically-inspired color revolutions or 'wars of liberation' fought exclusively
for the financial and political benefit of a handful of European bankers using the US military
as a private army for this purpose, resulting in the deaths and miseries of hundreds of
millions of innocent civilians.
... ... ...
We can easily think of George W. Bush's demonisation of Iraq, the sordid tales of mass
slaughters, the gassing of hundreds of thousands and burial in mass graves, the nuclear weapons
ready to launch within 15 minutes, the responsibility for 9-11, the babies tossed out of
incubators, Saddam using wood shredders to eliminate political opponents and dissidents. We can
think of the tales of Libyan Viagra, all proven to have been groundless fabrications –
typical atrocity propaganda. Vietnam, Afghanistan, Syria, Iran and dozens of other wars and
invasions followed this same template to get the public mind onside for an unjustified war
launched only for political and commercial objectives.
Fast Forward to 2020
We are at the same place today, with the same people conducting the same "anger campaign"
against China in preparation for World War III. John Pilger agrees with me , evidenced in
his recent article "Another Hiroshima is coming – unless we stop it now." [43] And so
does Gordon Duff . [44] The
signs now are everywhere, and the campaign is successful. It is necessary to point out the need
for an 'anger campaign' as opposed to a 'hate campaign'. We are not moved to action from hate,
but from anger. I may thoroughly despise you, but that in itself will do nothing. It is only if
I am moved to anger that I want to punch your lights out. And this, as Lippman and Bernays so
clearly noted, requires emotionally-charged atrocity propaganda of the kind used so well
against Germany and being so well used against China today. Since we need atrocity propaganda
to start a war, there seems to be no shortage.
... ... ...
Then, Mr. Pompeo tells us, "The truth is that our policies . . . resurrected China's
failing economy, only to see Beijing bite the international hands that were feeding it."[55] Further,
that (due to COVID-19) China "caused an enormous amount of pain, loss of life," and the
"Chinese Communist Party will pay a price". [56] Of
course, we all know that "China" stole the COVID-19 virus from a lab in Winnipeg, Canada, then
released it onto the world – and Pompeo has proof [57] , and
even "A Chinese virologist has proof" that "China" engaged in a massive cover-up while
contaminating the world [58] and then
"fleeing Hong Kong" because "I know how they treat whistle-blowers." [59] And of
course, "China needs to be held accountable for Covid-19's destruction"[60] which is
why everyone in the US wants to sue "China". "Australia" demands an international criminal
investigation of China's role in COVID-19. [61] What a
surprise.
And of course we have an almost unlimited number of serious provocations , from Hong
Kong, Tibet, Xinjiang, Taiwan, the South China Seas, to Chinese consulates, media reporters,
students, researchers, visa restrictions, spying, Huawei, the trade war, all done in the hope
of making the Chinese leaders panic and over-react, the easiest way to justify a new war.
The list could continue for several hundred pages. Never in my life have I seen such a
continuous, unabating flood of hate propaganda against one nation, surely equivalent to what
was done against Germany as described above to prepare for US entry into the First World War.
And it's working, doing what it is intended to do. Canada, Australia, the UK, Germany, India,
Brazil, are buying into the war-mongering and turning against China. More will follow. The
Global Times reported "Mutual trust between Australia and China at all-time low". [62]
"Boycott China" T-shirts and caps are flooding India, Huawei is being increasingly banned
from Western nations, Chinese social media APPs like Tik-Tok are being banned, and Bryan
Adams recently slammed all Chinese as "Bat-eating, wet-market-animal-selling, virus-making,
greedy bastards".[63] [64] In
a recent poll (taken because we need to measure the success of our handiwork in the same way
Bernays and the Tavistock Institute did as noted earlier), half of all ethnic Chinese in
Canada have been threatened and harassed over COVID-19.
About 45% of Chinese in Canada said they had been " threatened or intimidated in some
way", fully 50% said they had recently been insulted in public, 30% said they had experienced
. . . "some kind of physical altercation", and 60% said the abuse was so bad "they had to
reorganise their daily routine to avoid it". One woman in her 60s said a man told her and her
daughter "Every day I pray that you people die".[65]
... ... ...
Several years ago, CNN was sued by one of their news anchors for being ordered to lie in the
newscasts. CNN won the case. They did not deny ordering the news anchor to lie. Their defense
was based simply on the position that American news media have "no obligation to tell the
truth". And RT recently reported that nearly 9 out of 10 Americans see a "medium or
high" bias in all media coverage,[65] yet, as
we can see, most of those same people, and a very large portion of the population of many
nations still succumb to the same hate propaganda.
Mass media throughout the western world are uncritically passing along a press release from
the US intelligence community, because that's what passes for journalism in a world where God
is dead and everything is stupid.
US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has voiced his opposition to a proposed Russian rule that
would require labeling of propaganda content, saying it would burden "independent" information
work by outlets such as Voice of America.
"This decree will impose new burdensome requirements that will further inhibit RFE/RL's
and VOA's ability to operate within Russia," Pompeo said
Monday, commenting on the draft rule published by the media regulator Roskomnadzor.
Pompeo called VOA and its sister outlet Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty "vital sources
of independent news and information for the people of Russia" for "more than 70
years."
Far from independent, however, they were both established as US propaganda outlets at the
dawn of the Cold War. They are fully funded by the government, and the charter of their parent
organization – now known as US Agency for Global Media (USAGM) – mandates that they
"be consistent with the broad foreign policy objectives of the United States" and
"provide a surge capacity to support United States foreign policy objectives during crises
abroad."
The 1948 law that established these outlets outright prohibited their content from being
broadcast in the US itself, until the Obama administration amended it in 2013.
The proposed rule would require all content produced by designated "foreign agents"
in the Russian Federation to be clearly labeled. When the draft of it was made public last
month, acting RFE/RL president Daisy Sindelar protested that its purpose was to
"intimidate" her audience and make them "feel like criminals, or believe that they
are in danger when they watch or read our materials."
Yet the Russian regulation is the mirror image of the requirement imposed under the US
Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) on RT, Sputnik and China Global Television Network
(CTGN) since 2017, which only a handful of groups such as the Committee to Protect Journalists
(CPJ) condemned as
an attack on free speech. The USAGM remained conspicuously silent even as the designated
outlets were denied credentials to access government press conferences.
US-based social media companies have also bowed to political pressure and labeled Russian-
and Chinese-based outlets as "state-affiliated," while refraining from using that
descriptor for the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), German outlet Deutsche Welle, the
French AFP, Turkish TRT, or any of the USAGM outlets, once again showcasing the double
standard.
jangosimba 10 August, 2020
He cheats, he lies, he murders, he steals.
Zogg jangosimba 11 August, 2020
That's a small part of CIA job description.
Harbin
William Johnson 1 hour ago
Mike reminds me that character from "Godfather" series, the old , dumb henchman ready to
follow any order...
Is not Q-anon a disinformation operation run by intelligence againces?
From comments: "Being a true believer in "Q" is literally no different than being a true believer in the
Democrat-Republican kosher sandwich." and "After almost four years of Trump's presidency, QAnon is an attempt to explain the
President's failure to "Make America Great Again.""
Notable quotes:
"... This doesn't mean there's a Satanic cabal running the government. It does mean some bureaucrats opposed or even sabotaged President Trump's agenda. They investigated his subordinates or leaked information to the press. If we substitute "the permanent bureaucracy" for the more ominous sounding term "Deep State," this "conspiracy theory" becomes plausible. ..."
"... What is truly implausible about QAnon is the idea that President Trump knows about everything and will destroy this vast conspiracy. ..."
"... If you desperately want to believe something, you'll find evidence for it . This is confirmation bias at best, schizophrenia at worst. If President Trump truly is about to reveal a vast Satanic conspiracy, he's taking his time. ..."
"... What is especially dangerous about QAnon is not that it promotes dangerous extremism, but that it urges complacency. Its core message is that Donald Trump knows all about the secret conspiracy running the world and has the power to crush it; after all, he's President. ..."
"... After almost four years of Trump's presidency, QAnon is an attempt to explain the President's failure to "Make America Great Again." ..."
"... QAnon isn't dangerous. Conspiracy theories are as old as the Anti-Masonic Party , maybe older. Some unstable people may latch on to them, but they are not notably violent. If anything, if they really believe a Satanic cabal runs the world, they are showing remarkable restraint. ..."
"... I suspect the real reason journalists don't like QAnon is because at its core, it tells people the media are lying. It encourages independent investigation and citizen journalism. ..."
"... Journalists promote a conspiracy far more dangerous and deadly than QAnon. That is the "white privilege" conspiracy theory . ..."
"... Liberals are right to think QAnon is dangerous, but not in the way they think. QAnon is dangerous to whites. It tells them that everything is under control, that an evil conspiracy will be exposed, and that we just need to trust President Trump. We can't be under any illusions that President Trump will save us . "The Storm" is not coming, the cavalry won't ride over the hill, and there isn't a secret military force ready to scoop up our foes and liberate America. It's up to us. ..."
"... The Qanon phenomenon exploits the most fundamental psychological need which is hope, that hope dies last. The hope in order not to die will accept and forgive anything including the greatest nonsense. The hopeful ones can be strung along for ever because hope wants to last as it is the last to die. You just have to keep giving them a dose and keep stringing them alone. ..."
"... Sadly, the author is pretty much on-the-money. If Trump is for real, that is, if he believes what he says, he has been completely incompetent at accomplishing anything. ..."
"... I came late to the QAnon crap and saw it was the same soup as Black Lives Matter. Why, in fact, wouldn't the same crooks behind the one not foment the other? One says "blacks gonna make you kneel and take away all your stuff" while the other says, "don't worry, the least effective president in history has got us covered." ..."
"... They're all in show biz and Americans just happen to be an unusually gullible audience. ' ..."
"... I believe Trump is just another minion of the Deep State and is acting in accordance with their wishes. He is helping play out a charade a good cop (Trump) against a bad cop (Deep State). At any rate, he is not fulfilling his promises to those that elected him whether through incompetence or scheme. ..."
"... The logic of Hood's article is hard to beat either way. Trump/QAnon are just there for show, dangling hope in front of people that there's some person or entity that cares about them. It's the same as the infamous Pentagon Papers fifty years ago: Even after Americans knew the fix was in, the Vietnam War didn't stop until the plutocrats were good and ready to end it. ..."
"... The first sign of trouble was back when they adopted that ridiculous slogan, 'Trust the plan.' Sorry: this is politics. And in politics, I trust no one. The Q ought to be putting pressure on Trump (and the Republican Party generally), not sitting around waiting for them to grow a pair and save the country. ..."
"... The school system is promoting liberal indoctrination, and a whole bunch of kids are dropping out. Why? Because they like weed and don't like math. I see QAnon the same way. Sure, the media can't be trusted. But the enemy of my enemy is not my friend. ..."
"... I'm not prepared to defend the Qanon thing but, clearly, it is more than a pysop. It has revealed enormous amounts of sordid detail about what really goes on this country/ world and who many of the crooks are. The vast majority of the readers would not have learned that info any other way. Period. ..."
"... Great article. It covers the good and the bad and the hopelessly implausible very well. In times of a pandemic of lying generated by the USA Media Leviathan, the vulture capitalism of Wall Street, the exponentiating hate-Whitey rhetoric, the economy-killing Covid Scamdemic,the dwindling Euro-demographic numbers, along with a vurulent virus called Cultural Marxism, "extremism is no vice" ..."
"... A very insightful analysis and I think I now understand Q Anon. This seems to be an evolution from the people who early on were claiming that Trump was playing 4 (or 5 or 6) dimensional chess. I never supported him and don't now. He couldn't play one dimensional checkers if he wanted to and he probably doesn't. ..."
"... It has taken on a life of its own, constantly adapting to changes in situation. I kind of follow it as an unintentional experiment in human psychology. It's also interesting that it has absorbed a great deal of Christian mythology without actually being a Christian religion. ..."
What is QAnon? This question is harder to answer than you might think. There are several
books about QAnon, including QAnon and The Great Awakening by Michael Knight, QAnon: An Invitation to The Great Awakening by "WWG1WGA," and Revolution Q by "Neon Revolt." After reading these and other books and websites, I'd
identify three main points.
"Q," an anonymous, highly placed government official, knows that President Trump is planning
a series of dramatic events that will expose crimes and even treason implicating many
Democrats and government bureaucrats. Q communicates what's coming by posting on various
forums, including 4chan and 8kun (formerly 8chan). He says there's a fierce battle over this
at the highest levels of the government.
President Trump himself communicates with followers
of the movement through code phrases, gestures, and imagery. He and his family also
occasionally retweet accounts linked to QAnon.
"The Storm," the righteous day of justice that
President Trump is bringing, is opposed by a cabal of financial and media elites who want to
keep people from learning the truth. Thus, people must do their own research and not trust
what the mainstream media tell them.
The initial post that spawned "Q" could have been made by anyone. Further "drops" by "Q" or
people in the movement could also be made by anyone. There is no way to verify any of their
claims, except through vague references to key phrases that will supposedly be uttered in the
days following the posts. For example, before President's rally in Tulsa, Eric Trump posted an
American-flag QAnon meme with the #WWG1WGA (this is supposed to stand for "Where We Go One, We
Go All") at the bottom to Instagram. Does this mean anything, or was Eric Trump simply passing
along an image he liked?
QAnon is so popular it has spawned its own "watchdog" groups. NPR's Michael Martin
interviewed
Travis View, the co-host of the QAnon Anonymous podcast. Mr. Martin prepped the
audience by calling QAnon "a group of people who adhere to some far-right conspiracies and
believe a number of absurd things." Mr. View obliged by saying that according to QAnon, "The
world is controlled by a Satanic cabal of pedophiles that they believe control everything like
the media, politics and entertainment." He adds that QAnon also thinks President Trump knows
all about this and will "defeat this global cabal once and for all and free all of us." "QAnon
Anonymous" host Travis View added that it is a "domestic extremist movement" and said President
Trump had "tweeted or retweeted QAnon accounts over 160 times." However, he also admitted "no
one in the current administration has ever done anything to endorse QAnon."
Nevertheless, it seems that at least some of President Trump's advisors know about the
movement and are playing to it. President Trump has directly retweeted
memes from accounts linked to QAnon. Republican congressional candidate Angela Stanton-King
tweeted , " THE STORM IS HERE ."
Tess Owen, Vice's reporter on the "far right" beat,
wrote , "Welp, the GOP Now Has 15 QAnon-Linked Candidates on the November Ballot."
"There is no evidence to these claims" about a "cabal of criminals run by
politicians like Hillary Clinton and the Hollywood elite."
However, after Jeffrey Epstein's
alleged "suicide" and news that powerful figures such as former President Bill Clinton and
Prince Andrew were part of Epstein's strange network, it's hardly absurd to claim there could
be sick stuff going on among the political and cultural elite.
Jimmy Saville was a well-known British media personality, knighted, and honored by many
institutions including the Vatican and the Sovereign Military Order of Malta. After his death,
it emerged that he had sexually abused children
; some suggested hundreds of them. Most honors were rescinded posthumously.
A jury recently convicted Harvey
Weinstein, once the most powerful producer in Hollywood, of sexual crimes. Several actresses
including Allison Mack were alleged to be part of a bizarre sexual
cult called NXIVM, and she pleaded guilty to racketeering . During the 2016 election, Wikileaks
released email tying John Podesta's
brother to "artist" Marina Abramovic and her bizarre, occult performance piece "Spirit
Cooking."
If a crazy man approached you in the street raving about these plots, you'd run, but these
things happened. Non-whites sexually abused
thousands of young women in Rotherham, England. Police and local government officials did
nothing because they didn't want to be called racists. This is a sick world, and evildoers
often get away with evil. It's not absurd to think powerful men and women are no better than
middling Labour politicians who looked the other way instead of stopping rape and sex
slavery.
Is there a "Deep State" opposing President Trump? In 2019, the New York Times ran an
editorial called " The
'Deep State' Exists to Battle People Like Trump. " In 2018, an anonymous official wrote, "
I Am
Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration ." Recent evidence suggests that the
FBI bullied General Michael Flynn, President Trump's former national security advisor, and made
him confess he had lied to agents after they threatened his son. The Department of Justice
recently
concluded that the interview of General Flynn was not "conducted with a legitimate
investigative basis."
This doesn't mean there's a Satanic cabal running the government. It does mean some
bureaucrats opposed or even sabotaged President Trump's agenda. They investigated his
subordinates or leaked information to the press. If we substitute "the permanent bureaucracy"
for the more ominous sounding term "Deep State," this "conspiracy theory" becomes plausible.
Incidentally, General Flynn recently posted a
video that uses QAnon slogans.
What is truly implausible about QAnon is the idea that President Trump knows about
everything and will destroy this vast conspiracy. The proof for such assertions lies in
gestures, vague statements, or even the background of where he is speaking. For example, in
QAnon and the Great Awakening, the author says that President Trump's phrases "this is
the calm before the storm" and "tippy top," his supposed circular motions with his hands, and
occasional pointing towards supposed Q supporters are proof that he is on to it. "Q offers
hundreds of data points that demonstrate Q is indeed linked to the Trump Administration," the
book says.
If you desperately want to believe something, you'll find evidence for it .
This is confirmation bias at best, schizophrenia at worst. If President Trump truly is about to
reveal a vast Satanic conspiracy, he's taking his time.
What is especially dangerous about QAnon is not that it promotes dangerous extremism, but
that it urges complacency. Its core message is that Donald Trump knows all about the secret
conspiracy running the world and has the power to crush it; after all, he's President. All we
have to do is wait. "Nothing can stop what is coming," says one popular slogan. If this were
true, President Trump and his followers have already won, and there's no reason to do anything
but scour the internet for clues about what's coming next.
After almost four years of Trump's presidency, QAnon is an attempt to explain the
President's failure to "Make America Great Again." It's true that he's hobbled by powerful
elites. However, President Trump's biggest personnel problems, from John Bolton to Anthony Scaramucci, were people he appointed himself. No one forced him to make Reince Priebus his
chief of staff, expel Steve Bannon, or pick a fight with Attorney General Jeff Sessions.
Indeed, according to QAnon, Attorney General Sessions was the one who was supposed to
rout the evildoers .
QAnon assures Trump supporters that he has everything well in hand and that justice is
coming. It's far more terrifying to realize that he doesn't. He is politically isolated,
surrounded by foes, and losing the presidential campaign to a confused and
combative man who occasionally forgets what office he's running for or where he is . President Trump's
not mustering his legions. Instead, his own defense secretary publicly
opposed his plans to use soldiers to suppress riots. The brass
overruled his wishes to leave bases named after Confederate heroes alone. Unless President
Trump has a Praetorian Guard we don't know about (perhaps the Space Force?), there's nothing he
can use against domestic opponents.
The real question is why reporters fear QAnon. Some of its supporters have allegedly
committed crimes. One alleged QAnon believer killed
a Gambino mob boss. In February, another
blocked a bridge with an armored vehicle. Two
others had family troubles, which may or may not be related to their QAnon beliefs. If
these people did those things, they are criminals, but this is hardly a wave of violence. All
together, this would be a
peaceful weekend in Chicago .
QAnon isn't dangerous. Conspiracy theories are as old as the Anti-Masonic Party , maybe older. Some
unstable people may latch on to them, but they are not notably violent. If anything, if they
really believe a Satanic cabal runs the world, they are showing remarkable restraint.
I suspect the real reason journalists don't like QAnon is because at its core, it tells
people the media are lying. It encourages independent investigation and citizen journalism.
This occasionally leads to absurdities, such as building a worldview around 4chan posts.
However, it's healthy to distrust elites. Sometimes, journalists lie ,
stretch
the
truth , or hide
it entirely . Sometimes, they
demand citizens be silenced .
Ordinary Americans looking for truth are a threat. I believe mainstream journalists truly
regard themselves as a Fourth Estate, an independent political power . They
think they have the right to determine what Americans should and should not be allowed to hear
or say. Their efforts to censor and suppress QAnon only fuel the movement.
Journalists promote a conspiracy far more dangerous and deadly than QAnon. That is the
"white
privilege" conspiracy theory . Many journalists and academics tell non-whites that racist
whites hold them down. This implicitly justifies protests,
shakedowns, and even anti-white violence. When George Floyd died, Americans
weren't allowed to see the bodycam videos . Instead, many journalists told a fable about a
white policeman murdering an innocent black man. This was the spark, but journalists had soaked
the country in gasoline years before with endless
sensationalist coverage of race and "racism." Now, riots are destroying cities, ruining
businesses, probably spreading disease, and creating a huge crime wave
. I blame journalists for inciting this violence. It's not QAnon spreading a violent conspiracy
theory, but journalists at CNN
, the New York Times , the Washington Post, and others who manufactured
a fake crisis .
Liberals are right to think QAnon is dangerous, but not in the way they think. QAnon
is dangerous to whites. It tells them that everything is under control, that an evil conspiracy
will be exposed, and that we just need to trust President Trump. We can't be under any
illusions that President Trump will save us .
"The Storm" is not coming, the cavalry won't ride over the hill, and there isn't a secret
military force ready to scoop up our foes and liberate America. It's up to us.
Liberals should be thankful for a conspiracy theory that urges complacency. Our message is
more urgent: Our people, country, and civilization are at stake. You don't need to pore through
websites to see what's happening; just walk down any city street. Time is running out.
You have a duty to
resist . Don't look for a savior. Instead, join us, and be worthy of our ancestors .
"What is especially dangerous about QAnon is not that it promotes dangerous extremism,
but that it urges complacency . "
"We can't be under any illusions that President Trump will save us. "The Storm"
is not coming, the cavalry won't ride over the hill, and there isn't a secret military
force ready to scoop up our foes and liberate America."
The Qanon phenomenon exploits the most fundamental psychological need which is hope, that
hope dies last. The hope in order not to die will accept and forgive anything including the
greatest nonsense. The hopeful ones can be strung along for ever because hope wants to last
as it is the last to die. You just have to keep giving them a dose and keep stringing them
alone.
There is is a blogger Benjamin Fulford that precedes Qanon and uses exactly the same
technique and very similar narratives of hidden forces of Good and Evil fighting for the
dominance and the forces of Good always being very close to the final victory to give you
enough hope to keep you interested till the next installment.. There is a mixture of Free
Masons, Rockefellers, Rothschild, Zionists, Trump, Pope Sabbatean mafia, Khazarian mafia and
Asian Secret Societies. The latter are on the side of Good in Fulford's universe. Fulford, I
think, is located somewhere in Asia, most likely Japan. Fulford missed his calling of being a
script writer of the never ending TV series and dramas like TWD and so on. But I suspect he
makes some money from his series about the world in battle between forces of Good and Evil
and the victory being just around the corner.
From August 10, 2020. Benjamin Fulford installment:
"The Khazarian mafia is preparing the public for some form of alien disclosure or invasion
scenario as they struggle to stay in power, Pentagon and other sources claim. The most likely
scenario for this autumn is the cancellation of the U.S. Presidential election followed by a
UFO distraction, the sources say. U.S. President Donald Trump himself is saying the election
needs to be called off even as he continues to promote a "Space force.""
Or from August 3 installment:
"The P3 Freemasons are saying the Covid-19 campaign is only going to intensify until an
agreement is reached to set up a "World Republic." Certainly, the P3 lodge involvement is
easier to spot in Japan and Korea where all positive test results are being traced to either
Christian (P3) sects or Khazarian Mafia hedge funds."
"The other big theme being pushed by the Zionists is an escalating conflict between the
U.S. and China. The U.S. State Department propaganda machine is pushing a doctored document
known as "The Secret Speech of General Chi Haotian," which claims to contain secret Chinese
plans to invade the U.S., kill women and children and use biological warfare."
"Of course, the opposite is true, since everybody who read the Project for a New American
Century knows the Zionist regime has been touting race-specific or ethnic-specific biological
warfare as a "useful political tool." "
Or from July 27:
"The rest of the world, especially the main creditors Japan and China, are willing to
write off the debt but they want a change in management first. In other words, they want the
Americans to free themselves from the Babylonian debt slavery of the Khazarian mafia.
That process has started with arrests and extra-judicial killings of top Khazarian,
Satan-worshipping elites. The Bush family is gone, the Rockefellers lost the presidency when
Hillary Rockefeller was defeated, and many politicians and so-called celebrities have
vanished.
However, the situation is still like a lizard shaking off its tail in order to escape. The
real control of the United States is still in the hands of "
Sadly, the author is pretty much on-the-money. If Trump is for real, that is, if he
believes what he says, he has been completely incompetent at accomplishing anything. As for
the media, I'd disagree that they sometimes lie; they lie pretty much ALL the time.
What is especially dangerous about QAnon is not that it promotes dangerous extremism,
but that it urges complacency.
So does Trump and the GOP in general. The GOP, MAGA and NeverTrump alike, exists only to sap our will, acclimate us to defeat
and put us to sleep with the comforting illusion that some authority or institution is
fighting for us.
Until the American Right realizes this, it will never gain back one inch of ground. And no
one worth marching with or behind will join their ranks or rise from them.
I came late to the QAnon crap and saw it was the same soup as Black Lives Matter. Why, in
fact, wouldn't the same crooks behind the one not foment the other? One says "blacks gonna
make you kneel and take away all your stuff" while the other says, "don't worry, the least
effective president in history has got us covered."
There's no war in heaven. They're all in show biz and Americans just happen to be an
unusually gullible audience.
'
If Trump is for real, that is, if he believes what he says, he has been completely
incompetent at accomplishing anything.
That is the dilemma. I believe Trump is just another minion of the Deep State and is
acting in accordance with their wishes. He is helping play out a charade a good cop (Trump)
against a bad cop (Deep State). At any rate, he is not fulfilling his promises to those that
elected him whether through incompetence or scheme.
Uhhh, Donald Trump as well as Slickster Billy Bob was part of the Epstein network. This
piece jumps the shark and the rails right there at the start and goes further into PR
turd-polishing land after that.
The logic of Hood's article is hard to beat either way. Trump/QAnon are just there for
show, dangling hope in front of people that there's some person or entity that cares about
them. It's the same as the infamous Pentagon Papers fifty years ago: Even after Americans
knew the fix was in, the Vietnam War didn't stop until the plutocrats were good and ready to
end it.
The truth sets nobody free. Power is a vehicle to find truth and do something about it.
Truth without power just equals more frustration. And the world's full to bursting with
frustration already.
What is especially dangerous about QAnon is not that it promotes dangerous extremism,
but that it urges complacency. Its core message is that Donald Trump knows all about the
secret conspiracy running the world and has the power to crush it; after all, he's
President. All we have to do is wait.
Yup. The first sign of trouble was back when they adopted that ridiculous slogan, 'Trust
the plan.' Sorry: this is politics. And in politics, I trust no one. The Q ought to be
putting pressure on Trump (and the Republican Party generally), not sitting around waiting
for them to grow a pair and save the country.
The school system is promoting liberal indoctrination, and a whole bunch of kids are
dropping out. Why? Because they like weed and don't like math. I see QAnon the same way. Sure, the media can't be trusted. But the enemy of my enemy is
not my friend.
These guys are mostly mentally unstable white knights and while I'm not
much concerned that they will actually harm Justin Beiber by baselessly accusing him of rape,
their behavior contributes to the culture of white knighting and social media witch hunts I
mean citizen journalism which only strengthens the feminist movement.
"You have a duty to resist." The QAnon people, intellectual and moral descendants of the
Scofield Reference Bible, don't want to hear this. They just want to eat and watch TV. After
all, Ben Franklin and George Washington will save us just in time!
QAnon is just another Zionist-pro Israeli psyop. Q never talks about the Israel conspiracy
or how AIPAC controls America. Trump is always, about ready, to bring the hammer down on the
deep state, but never does as he appoints Neocon after Neocon, the latest is Elliott Abrams,
as bad or worse than John Bolton.
Remember back when Hillary was in chains, or Obama went to Gitmo and got executed? QAnon
is false hope being served up to Trump's conservative base who want the criminal government
exposed and prosecuted. But that never happens under Trump.
According to many researchers, including me, Beirut got nuked, and that story is already
gone, swept under the Jewmedia rug, written off as a fertilizer accident. Where's Q on that
one? No where to be found because Q is Jew protecting Israel at every turn.
You all listen to Q at your own peril. And oh yeah, have you noticed the world going to
hell? Where's Trump's secret plan you all? It's fake, Q Anon led you all into a blind alley,
it pacified you as your nation was stolen right in front of your eyes. Q is a pied piper for
adults who think like children. Q Anon was the latest hopium injected into the body politic,
Trump is the swamp, he is working for Israel, he is selling you out, he is the snake who
betrays you. But the q followers can't see that or even hear it because they need hope, and
the opposition is worse than Trump.
I'm not prepared to defend the Qanon thing but, clearly, it is more than a pysop. It has revealed enormous amounts of sordid detail about what really goes on this
country/ world and who many of the crooks are. The vast majority of the readers would
not have learned that info any other way. Period.
Now that a fair amount is exposed, it's up to Trump and Barr to indict and convict a slew
of high level people. If they don't then they are worthless and can go fvck themselves for
jerking the public around and not sealing the deal.
The Christians in the Repub Party are so easy to play. They are taught to 'follow the
leader' from Day 1 of their lives and Trump has provided himself as their golden savior to
worship and trust. God sent him to us, you know. (lol)
That segment of the Repub Party doesn't have a pair to grow. So, it won't happen. Marxism
is in our future, it's only a matter of time.
Very good.
A close friend of mine who I didn't consider too interested in these matters mentioned QAnon
to me while I was telling him how Trump is being sabotaged by some of his own people. I was
surprised he knew, probably more than me.
PS. I would wear a Q tee shirt except that I'm old school and 'Q' connotes queer. So maybe
an Anon one might do. (Big grin)
Great article. It covers the good and the bad and the hopelessly implausible very well. In
times of a pandemic of lying generated by the USA Media Leviathan, the vulture capitalism of
Wall Street, the exponentiating hate-Whitey rhetoric, the economy-killing Covid Scamdemic,the
dwindling Euro-demographic numbers, along with a vurulent virus called Cultural Marxism,
"extremism is no vice"
After laughing themselves silly over the gullible idiots who ran with their 911
'no-planes' psychological operation, the CIA bugmen cooked up a new one. They're laughing
themselves silly all over again.
"Journalists promote a conspiracy far more dangerous and deadly than QAnon. That is the
"white privilege" conspiracy theory. Many journalists and academics tell non-whites that
racist whites hold them down."
A very insightful analysis and I think I now understand Q Anon. This seems to be an
evolution from the people who early on were claiming that Trump was playing 4 (or 5 or 6)
dimensional chess. I never supported him and don't now. He couldn't play one dimensional
checkers if he wanted to and he probably doesn't.
...it
has awakened something of a frustration in a lot of people.
It has taken on a life of its
own, constantly adapting to changes in situation. I kind of follow it as an unintentional
experiment in human psychology. It's also interesting that it has absorbed a great deal of
Christian mythology without actually being a Christian religion. In the end though it is
people trying to feel they have some control (and indeed, considering the fear in the media)
that might be true.
[For fun, dig up and read Asimov's "I Spell My Name with an S" from 1958.]
There is no indication that anyone forced Trump into making any of the bad decisions
mentioned. Your first point is asking Hood to weave some fanciful alternative to what is
outright obvious. No serious author does that. If he were to have used "most likely" before
giving his sensible opinion, would that have satisfied you? The Easter Bunny holding a gun to
Trump's head and telling him to disavow Session is also a possibility, you know, but not a
likely one.
Frankly, I think you are the one who's intellectually deficient.
People who
actually have good instincts but just cannot bring themselves to face the harsh reality in
front of them.
The deplatforming of QAnon crap is not due to "Q" itself, but where "Q" supporters might
find themselves next, once this psyop has run its course. They wanna kill it now to keep the
delusion itself alive, lest all these "Q" true believer stumble into some anti-semitism and
other truths that actually challenge the status quo.
Being a true believer in "Q" is literally no different than being a true believer in the
Democrat-Republican kosher sandwich.
Correct. And when we're talking about the "Deep state," organized pedophilia, human
trafficking, etc, many of these "Q" people will inevitably find their way to the Rabbi behind
the curtain. It is the natural destination if one does not self-censor or cling to their
priors. There is no other destination, in fact.
Do you imagine that I am ignorantly using overly broad terminology when I say that the
CIA's "Mighty Wurlitzer" encompasses the whole of the capitalist mass media ?
Only juveniles would think the CIA limit their influence efforts to just CNN, FOX News, and
MSNBC. Country music, like hiphop music and pop music, is part of capitalist mass media. The
entertainment industry is an even more important vector for programming of media consumers
than is the infotainment industry.
"In reality, the IS intel agencies recruit primarily from certain Ivy
League all US universities."
Fixed that for you.
Or perhaps you mean strictly recruitment of only salaried CIA personnel with federal
employee identification numbers? I would have hoped that a poster here at MoA should know
that there is a clear distinction between an intelligence "operator" and an
intelligence "agent" . It seems it should be obvious that non-employee intelligence
assets require recruitment of one form or another as well.
I think it would be wise to assume that all of the top 5% students at all major
universities have been evaluated and scouted by CIA "recruiters" . Any student who
looks like they might go any place where they have any influence, either through talent or
connections, will have a CIA "recruiter" sniffing their ass.
Naturally, nobody should assume that the CIA "recruiter" will approach their target
and announce, "Hi! I'm your friendly neighborhood CIA recruiter!" Most recruits will
be unlikely to ever even realize that they have been recruited.
Ex: CIA scum: "Hey, you told me you want to do investigative journalism after you
graduate, right? I know someone over at Buzzfeed who says they're looking for someone right
now. I could put in a good word for you!"
Now, the "recruit" could probably get a position at Buzzfeed after graduation
anyway, but when she gets a call for an interview it seems too good to be true, so she puts
her education on hold and takes the job. Meanwhile her "friend" introduces her to
another "friend" with inside government info (the CIA controller hands off the asset
to another controller). Our cub presstitute is grateful and indebted to both, now. When they
approach her later requesting favors, she will gladly deliver, but at no point will she ever
realize that she is in fact a CIA agent... an off-budget asset.
The thing with Faustian bargains is that they seem like a super good deal at the time, and
the CIA shame the devil with their Faustian bargaining.
The above is, of course, just one of many approaches used by the CIA for recruitment. They
are good at blackmail also, of course. As well, this is no extreme accusation. If you've
spent any significant amount of time on a university campus with your eyes open (most people
on university campuses are deeply engrossed in their own immediate situations) then you will
have noticed these recruiters, and if you are recruitment material then you will have been
approached by one or more of them. If you were engrossed in your own university trials and
tribulations like most students then you could have been "befriended" by one without
ever even knowing it.
In any case, Clinton absolutely worked with the CIA at Oxford. Even The
Atlantic admits it, but tries to downplay it, which is exactly what you would expect from
one of the parts of the "Mighty Wurlitzer" . They give a little bit of the truth to
make the lie easier to swallow. Due to the Clintons' later involvement in the CIA's drug
running schemes, it has become important in the official narrative for the Clintons'
association with the CIA to be minimized.
Do bear in mind, though, that one can never retire from being an intelligence agent so
long as the agency one was managed by continues to exist, in the same way and for the same
reasons that one can never retire from being a goon for the mob. Clinton was a CIA agent from
his time in Oxford to the present, and at all point in between. This requires no proof beyond
the admission that Clinton was once a CIA agent. For processes that have no end, all you need
to know about is their starting point.
By
Caitlin
Johnstone
, an independent journalist based in Melbourne, Australia. Her website is
here
and
you can follow her on Twitter
@caitoz
In the American corporatist system, where wealthy elites control the elected government through lobbyists, corporate media is
state media, promoting narratives that help maintain the corporate-approved status quo.
The New York Times
published an astonishingly horrible
article
the
other day titled
"Latin America Is Facing a 'Decline of Democracy' Under the Pandemic"
accusing
governments like Venezuela and Nicaragua of exploiting Covid-19 to quash opposition and oppress democracy.
The article sources its jarringly propagandistic claims in multiple US government-funded narrative management operations like
the
Wilson Center
and the National Endowment for
Democracy
-sponsored
Freedom
House
, the
extensively
plutocrat-funded Carnegie
Endowment for International Peace, and the United States Naval Academy.
The crown jewel of this piece of State Department stenography reads as follows:
"Adding to these challenges, democracy in Latin America has also lost a champion in the
United States, which had played an important role in promoting democracy after the end of the Cold War by financing good
governance programs and calling out authoritarian abuses."
The fact that America's most widely regarded newspaper feels perfectly comfortable making such a spectacularly in-your-face
lie on behalf of the US government tells you everything you need to know about what the mass media in America really are and
what they do.
The United States has never at any time been a champion of democracy in Latin America, before or since the Cold War. It has
intervened hundreds of
times
in
the continent's affairs throughout history, with everything from murderous corporate
colonialism
to deadly
CIA regime-change
operations
to overt
military
invasions
.
It is currently trying to orchestrate a
coup
in
Venezuela after
failing
to
stage one during the Bush administration, it's pushing regime
change
in
Nicaragua, and
The New York Times
itself
admitted
this
year that it was wrong to promote the false US government
narrative
of
electoral shenanigans in Bolivia's presidential race last year, a narrative which
facilitated
a bloody
fascist
coup
.
This is propaganda. There is no other word for it. And yet the only time Western politicians and news reporters use that word
is to talk about nations like Russia and China.
Why is propaganda used in an ostensibly free democracy with an ostensibly free media? Why are its news media outlets so
consistently in alignment with every foreign policy objective of US government agencies, no matter how destructive and
inexcusable? If the media and the government are two separate institutions, why do they so consistently function as though
they are not separate?
Well, that's easy. It's because they aren't separate. The only thing keeping this from being seen is the fact that America's
real government isn't located where people think it is.
In a corporatist system of government, where no hard lines are drawn between corporate/financial power and state power,
corporate media is state media. Since bribery is legal in the US political
system
in
the form of corporate lobbying and campaign donations, America's elected government is controlled by wealthy elites who have
money to burn and who benefit from maintaining a specific status quo arrangement.
The fact that this same plutocratic class
also
owns
America's media, which is now so consolidated that it's almost entirely run by just six
corporations
,
means that the people who run the government also run the media. This allows America's true rulers to set up a system which
promotes
narratives
that
are favorable to their desired status quo.
Which means that the US has state propaganda. They just don't call it that themselves.
Strip away the phony two-handed sock puppet show of US electoral politics and look at how power actually moves in that
country, and you just see one more tyrannical regime which propagandizes its citizens, brutally cracks down on
protesters
, deliberately
keeps its populace
impoverished
so
they don't get powerful enough to change things, and attacks any nation which dares to
disobey
its
dictates.
Beneath the thin layer of narrative overlay about freedom and democracy, the US is just one more despotic, bloodthirsty
empire. It's no better than any of the other despotic, bloodthirsty empires throughout history. It just has good PR.
Plutocrats not only exert control over America's media and politics, they also form alliances with the secretive government
agencies whose operators remain amid the comings and goings of the official elected government. We see examples of this in the
way new-money tech plutocrats like
Jeff
Bezos
,
Peter
Thiel
and
Pierre
Omidyar
have direct relationships with the CIA and its proxies.
We also see it in the sexual blackmail
operation
which
was facilitated by the late Jeffrey Epstein in connection with billionaire Leslie Wexner and Israeli
intelligence
,
along with potentially the
FBI
and/or other
US intelligence
agencies
.
Today the internet is
abuzz
as newly
unsealed court
documents
relating
to Epstein and
his
co-conspirator Ghislaine
Maxwell reveal witness testimony regarding underage sex trafficking, with such high-profile names appearing in the documents
as
Alan
Dershowitz
,
Bill
Clinton
and
Prince
Andrew
.
The Overton window of acceptable political discourse has been
shrunk
into
such a narrow spectrum of debate that talking about even well-known and extensively documented facts involving the real nature
of America's government and media will get you laughingly dismissed as a conspiracy theorist, which is itself a symptom of
tight narrative control by a ruling class which much prefers Americans thinking they live in a free democracy whose government
they control with their votes.
In the old days you used to be able to tell who your rulers were because they'd sit on thrones and wear golden crowns and make
you bow before them. Human consciousness eventually evolved beyond the acceptability of such brazen indignities, so it became
necessary for rulers to take on more of a background role while the citizenry clap and cheer for the illusory puppet show of
electoral politics.
But the kings are still among us, just as cruel and tyrannical as ever. They've just figured out how to mask their tyranny
behind the facade of freedom.
But 2020 has been a year of
revelations
,
a trend which seems likely to continue
accelerating
.
Truth cannot stay hidden forever.
Think your friends would be
interested? Share this story!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those
of RT.
Roberto is what folks in Latin America would deem is "un gusano sin vergüenza'. A
willing neo-colonial lapdog for the ghoulish intelligence agencies. You can disregard this
sad waste of matter. The governments of Brasil & Ecuador are willingly allowing their
countries to succumb to COVID-19. Bio-genocide, in other words. It's a nightmare.
The above link exhaustively details how the fraud was perpetrated and how the White
Helmets were funded. The most disturbing facts were the murder of captive Syrian civilians
including children for use as props for Western media. There is little doubt in my mind that
these murders were viewed as standard business practice with the only concern being related
to complication from being caught. Of course, being "caught" was a minor inconvenience that
the MSM could easily manage into oblivion.
Mr. Le Mesurier may have been killed as the White Helmets no longer had value and dead men
rarely talk:
His wife was not very helpful in the investigation having changed her story several
times.
Winberg said she looked for her husband inside the house and saw his lifeless body when
she looked out of the window. Police are investigating now how she was able to wake up about
half an hour after she took a sleeping pill and why she stacked a large amount of money
inside the house into bags immediately after Le Mesurier's body was found.
Among questions that are needed to be addressed in the case is why Le Mesurier, who intended
to sleep, did not change his clothes, did not even loosen his belt or remove his watch. It is
also not known why he did not choose a definitive suicidal action to kill himself, instead of
jumping from a relatively low height and why he chose to walk along the roof, passing around
the air conditioning devices on the roof, instead of jumping to the street directly from the
section of the roof closer to his window.
"... There was a deeply held assumption that, when the countries of Central and Eastern Europe joined NATO and the European Union in 2004, these countries would continue their positive democratic and economic transformation. Yet more than a decade later, the region has experienced a steady decline in democratic standards and governance practices at the same time that Russia's economic engagement with the region expanded significantly. ..."
"... Are these developments coincidental, or has the Kremlin sought deliberately to erode the region's democratic institutions through its influence to 'break the internal coherence of the enemy system'? ..."
"... a false flag operation" involving "an alliance of the far right organizations, specifically the Right Sector and Svoboda, and oligarchic parties, such as Fatherland". There is little in Sharp's book to suggest that non-violent resistance would have had much effect on a really brutal and determined government. He also has the naïve habit of using "democrat" and "dictator" as if these words were as precisely defined as coconuts and codfish. But any "dictatorship" – for example Stalin's is a very complex affair with many shades of opinion in it. So, in terms of what he was apparently trying to do, one can see it only succeeding against rather mild "dictators" presiding over extremely unpopular polities. With a great deal of outside effort and resources. ..."
"... His "playbook" is useful to outside powers that want to overthrow governments they don't like. Especially those run by "dictators" not brutal enough to shoot the protesters down. ..."
Once I'd seen this mention of The Russian Playbook (aka KGB, Kremlin or Putin's Playbook), I
saw the expression all over the place. Here's an early – perhaps the earliest – use
of the term. In October 2016, the Center for Strategic and International studies (" Ranked #1 ") informed us of the "
Kremlin Playbook "
with this ominous beginning
There was a deeply held assumption that, when the countries of Central and Eastern
Europe joined NATO and the European Union in 2004, these countries would continue their
positive democratic and economic transformation. Yet more than a decade later, the region has
experienced a steady decline in democratic standards and governance practices at the same
time that Russia's economic engagement with the region expanded significantly.
And asks
Are these developments coincidental, or has the Kremlin sought deliberately to erode
the region's democratic institutions through its influence to 'break the internal coherence
of the enemy system'?
Well, to these people, to ask the question is to answer it: can't possibly be disappointment
at the gap between 2004's expectations and 2020's reality, can't be that they don't like the
total Western values package that they have to accept, it must be those crafty Russians
deceiving them. This was the earliest reference to The Playbook that I found, but it certainly
wasn't the last.
Of course, all these people are convinced Moscow interfered in the 2016 presidential
election. Somehow. To some effect. Never really specified but the latest outburst of insanity
is this video from the
Lincoln Project . As Anatoly Karlin observes: "I think it's really
cool how we Russians took over America just by shitposting online. How does it feel to be
subhuman?" He has a point: the Lincoln Project, and the others shrieking about Russian
interference, take it for granted that American democracy is so flimsy and Americans so
gullible that a few Facebook ads can bring the whole facade down. A curious mental state
indeed.
What can we know about The Playbook? For a start it must be written in Russian, a language
that those crafty Russians insist on speaking among themselves. Secondly such an important
document would be protected the way that highly classified material is protected. There would
be a very restricted need to know; underlings participating in one of the many plays would not
know how their part fitted into The Playbook; few would ever see The Playbook itself. The
Playbook would be brought to the desk of the few authorised to see it by a courier, signed for,
the courier would watch the reader and take away the copy afterwards. The very few copies in
existence would be securely locked away; each numbered and differing subtly from the others so
that, should a leak occur, the authorities would know which copy read by whom had been leaked.
Printed on paper that could not be photographed or duplicated. As much protection as human
cunning could devise; right up there with
the nuclear codes .
And so on. It's all quite ridiculous: we're supposed to believe that Moscow easily controls
far-away countries but can't keep its neighbours under control.
There is no Russian Playbook, that's just projection. But there is a "playbook" and it's
written in English, it's freely available and it's inexpensive enough that every pundit can
have a personal copy: it's named "
From Dictatorship To Democracy: A Conceptual Framework for Liberation " and it's written by
Gene Sharp (1928-2018) .
Whatever Sharp may have thought he was doing, whatever good cause he thought he was assisting,
his book has been used as a guide to create regime changes around the world. Billed as
"democracy" and "freedom", their results are not so benign. Witness Ukraine today. Or Libya. Or
Kosovo whose long-time leader has just been indicted for numerous crimes .
Curiously enough, these efforts always take place in countries that resist Washington's line
but never in countries that don't. Here we do see training, financing, propaganda, discord
being sown, divisions exploited to effect regime change – all the things in the imaginary
"Russian Playbook". So, whatever he may have thought he was helping, Sharp's advice has been
used to produce what only the propagandists could call "
model interventions "; to the "liberated" themselves, the reality is poverty , destruction ,
war and
refugees .
Reading Sharp's book, however, makes one wonder if he was just fooling himself. Has there
ever been a "dictatorship" overthrown by "non-violent" resistance along the lines of what he is
suggesting? He mentions Norwegians who resisted Hitler; but Norway was liberated, along with
the rest of Occupied Europe, by extremely violent warfare. While some Jews escaped, most didn't
and it was the conquest of Berlin that saved the rest: the nazi state was killed . The
USSR went away, together with its satellite governments in Europe but that was a top-down
event. He likes Gandhi but Gandhi wouldn't have lasted a minute under Stalin. Otpor was greatly aided by NATO's war
on Serbia. And, they're only "non-violent" because the Western media doesn't talk much about
the violence ;
"non-violent" is not the first word that comes to mind in this video of Kiev 2014 . "Colour revolutions" are
manufactured from existing grievances, to be sure, but with a great deal of outside assistance,
direction and funding; upon inspection, there's much design behind their "spontaneity". And,
not infrequently, with mysterious sniping at a expedient moment – see Katchanovski's
research on the "Heavenly Hundred" of the Maidan showing pretty convincingly that the
shootings were " a false flag operation" involving "an alliance of the far right
organizations, specifically the Right Sector and Svoboda, and oligarchic parties, such as
Fatherland". There is little in Sharp's book to suggest that non-violent resistance would have
had much effect on a really brutal and determined government. He also has the naïve habit
of using "democrat" and "dictator" as if these words were as precisely defined as coconuts and
codfish. But any "dictatorship" – for example Stalin's is a very complex affair with many
shades of opinion in it. So, in terms of what he was apparently trying to do, one can see it
only succeeding against rather mild "dictators" presiding over extremely unpopular polities.
With a great deal of outside effort and resources.
Has there been another mutiny in Trump's White House, as Obama's former ambassador to Russia
piles on the nonsense about Trump being in Putin's pocket?
Special to Consortium News
C orporate media are binging on leaked Kool Aid not unlike the WMD concoction they offered
18 years ago to "justify" the U.S.-UK war of aggression on Iraq.
Now Michael McFaul, ambassador to Russia under President Obama, has been enlisted by The
Washington Post 's editorial page honcho, Fred Hiatt, to draw on his expertise (read,
incurable Russophobia) to help stick President Donald Trump back into "Putin's pocket." (This
has become increasingly urgent as the canard of "Russiagate" -- including the linchpin claim
that Russia hacked the DNC -- lies gasping for air.)
In an
oped on Thursday McFaul presented a long list of Vladimir Putin's alleged crimes, offering
a more ostensibly sophisticated version of amateur Russian specialist, Rep. Jason Crow's (D-CO)
claim that: "Vladimir Putin wakes up every morning and goes to bed every night trying to figure
out how to destroy American democracy."
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry with McFaul meeting Vladimir Putin and Russian Foreign
Minister Sergey Lavrov in Moscow, Russia, on May 7, 2013. (State Department)
McFaul had -- well, let's call it an undistinguished career in Moscow. He arrived with a
huge chip on his shoulder and proceeded to alienate just about all his hosts, save for the
rabidly anti-Putin folks he openly and proudly cultivated. In a sense, McFaul became the
epitome of what Henry Wooton described as the role of ambassador -- "an honest man sent to lie
abroad for the good of his country." What should not be so readily accepted is an ambassador
who comes back home and just can't stop misleading.
Not to doubt McFaul's ulterior motives; one must assume him to be an "honest man" -- however
misguided, in my opinion. He seems to be a disciple of the James Clapper-Curtis LeMay-Joe
McCarthy School of Russian Analysis.
Clapper, a graduate summa cum laude , certainly had the Russians pegged! Clapper was
allowed to stay as Barack Obama's director of national intelligence for three and a half years
after perjuring himself in formal Senate testimony (on NSA's illegal eavesdropping). On May 28,
2017 Clapper told NBC's Chuck
Todd about "the historical practices of the Russians, who typically, are almost genetically
driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever, which is a typical Russian technique."
As a finale, in full knowledge of Clapper's proclivities regarding Russia, Obama appointed
him to prepare the evidence-impoverished, misnomered "Intelligence Community Assessment"
claiming that Putin did all he could, including hacking the DNC, to help Trump get elected --
the most embarrassing such "intelligence assessment" I have seen in half a century .
Obama and the National Security State
I have asked myself if Obama also had earned some kind of degree from the
Clapper/LeMay/McCarthy School, or whether he simply lacked the courage to challenge the
pitiably self-serving "analysis" of the National Security State. Then I re-read "Obama Misses the Afghan
Exit-Ramp" of June 24, 2010 and was reminded of how deferential Obama was to the generals and
the intelligence gurus, and how unconscionable the generals were -- like their predecessors in
Vietnam -- in lying about always seeing light at the end of the proverbial tunnel.
Thankfully, now ten years later, this is all
documented in Craig Whitlock's, "The Afghanistan Papers: At War With the Truth." Corporate
media, who played an essential role in that "war with the truth", have not given Whitlock's
damning story the attention it should command (surprise, surprise!). In any case, it strains
credulity to think that Obama was unaware he was being lied to on Afghanistan.
Some Questions
Clark Gable (l.) with Charles Laughton (r.) in Mutiny on the Bounty, 1935.
Does no one see the irony today in the Democrats' bashing Trump on Afghanistan, with the
full support of the Establishment media? The inevitable defeat there is one of the few
demonstrable disasters not attributable directly to Trump, but you would not know that from the
media. Are the uncorroborated reports of Russian bounties to kill U.S. troops aimed at making
it appear that Trump, unable to stand up to Putin, let the Russians drive the rest of U.S.
troops out of Afghanistan?
Does the current flap bespeak some kind of "Mutiny on the Bounties," so to speak, by a
leaker aping Eric Chiaramella? Recall that the Democrats lionized the CIA official seconded to
Trump's national security council as a "whistleblower" and proceeded to impeach Trump after
Chiaramella leaked information on Trump's telephone call with the president of Ukraine. Far
from being held to account, Chiaramella is probably expecting an influential job if his patron,
Joe Biden, is elected president. Has there been another mutiny in Trump's White House?
And what does one make of the
spectacle of Crow teaming up with Rep. Liz Cheney (R, WY) to restrict Trump's planned
pull-out of troops from Afghanistan, which The Los Angeles Timesreports
has now been blocked until after the election?
Hiatt & McFaul: Caveat Editor
And who published McFaul's oped? Fred Hiatt, Washington Post editorial page editor
for the past 20 years, who has a long record of listening to the whispers of anonymous
intelligence sources and submerging/drowning the subjunctive mood with flat fact. This was the
case with the (non-existent) weapons of mass destruction in Iraq before the U.S.-UK attack.
Readers of the Post were sure there were tons of WMD in Iraq. That Hiatt has invited
McFaul on stage should come as no surprise.
To be fair, Hiatt belatedly acknowledged that the Post should have been more
circumspect in its confident claims about the WMD. "If you look at the editorials we write
running up [to the war], we state as flat fact that he [Saddam Hussein] has weapons of mass
destruction," Hiatt said in an interview with the Columbia Journalism Review . "If
that's not true, it would have been better not to say it." [CJR, March/April 2004]
At this word of wisdom, Consortium News founder, the late Robert Parry,
offered this comment: "Yes, that is a common principle of journalism, that if something isn't
real, we're not supposed to confidently declare that it is." That Hiatt is still in that job
speaks volumes.
'Uncorroborated, Contradicted, or Even Non-Existent'
It is sad to have to remind folks 18 years later that the "intelligence" on WMD in Iraq was
not "mistaken;" it was fraudulent from the get-go. The culprits were finally exposed but never
held to account.
Announcing on June 5, 2008, the bipartisan conclusions from a five-year study by the Senate
Intelligence Committee, Sen. Jay Rockefeller ( D-WV)
said the attack on Iraq was launched "under false pretenses." He described the intelligence
conjured up to "justify" war on Iraq as "uncorroborated, contradicted, or even
non-existent."
Homework
Yogi Berra in 1956. (Wikipedia)
Here's an assignment due on Monday. Read McFaul's
oped carefully. It appears under the title: "Trump would do anything for Putin. No wonder
he's ignoring the Russian bounties: Russia's pattern of hostility matches Trump's pattern of
accommodation."
And to give you a further taste, here is the first paragraph:
"Russian President Vladimir Putin appears to have paid Taliban rebels in Afghanistan to
kill U.S. soldiers. Having resulted in at least one American death, and maybe more, these
Russian bounties reportedly produced the desired outcome. While deeply disturbing, this
effort by Putin is not surprising: It follows a clear pattern of ignoring international
norms, rules and laws -- and daring the United States to do anything about it."
Full assignment for Monday: Read carefully through each paragraph of McFaul's text and
select which of his claims you would put into one or more of the three categories adduced by
Sen. Rockefeller 12 years ago about WMD on Iraq. With particular attention to the evidence
behind McFaul's claims, determine which of the claims is (a) "uncorroborated"; which (b)
"contradicted"; and which (c) "non-existent;" or (d) all of the above. For extra credit, find
one that is supported by plausible evidence.
Yogi Berra might be surprised to hear us keep quoting him with "Deja vu, all over again."
Sorry, Yogi, that's what it is; you coined it.
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the
Saviour in inner-city Washington. During his 27-year career as a CIA analyst, he prepared and
briefed The President's Daily Brief for Presidents Nixon, Ford, and Reagan. He is
co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).
The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of
Consortium News.
PleaseContributeto Consortium News on its25th Anniversary
Gad, one wonders if it can ever get much lower in the press and the answer is yes, it can
and will go lower, i.e. the mcfaul/hiatt tag team. They are still plumbing for the lows.
The question becomes just how stupid these two are or how stupid do they believe the
readership is to read and believe this garbage.
Voice from Europe , July 6, 2020 at 11:58
By now the Russia did it ! is in effect a joke in Russia. Economically, politically, geo
strategically China and Asia and Africa have become more important and reliable partners of
Russia than the USA. And Europe is also dropping fast on the trustworthy partners
list…..
John , July 5, 2020 at 12:55
Michael McFaul and Fred Hiatt are both long-time members of the Council on Foreign
Relations (CFR), flagship of the globalist “liberal world order”. The CFR and its
many interlocking affiliates, along with their media assets and frontmen in government, have
dominated US policy since WW2. Most of the Fed chairmen and secretaries of State, Treasury,
Defense and CIA have been CFR members, including Jerome Powell and Mark Esper.
The major finance, energy, defense and media corporations are CFR sponsors, and several of
their execs are members. David Rubenstein, billionaire founder of the notorious Carlyle
Group, is the current CFR chairman. Laurence Fink, billionaire chairman of BlackRock, is a
CFR director. See lists at the CFR website.
Anna , July 6, 2020 at 09:38
Michael McFaul and Fred Hiatt are both very active promoters of hate crimes. Neither has
any decency hence decency is allergic to war profiteers and opportunistic liars.
The poor USA; to descend to such a deep moral hole that both Michael McFaul and Fred Hiatt
are still alive and prospering. Shamelessness and presstituting are paid well in the US.
Dems and Reps are already mad.You cannot destroy what does not exist;like Democracy in
these United States.Nor God or Putin could.This has always being a fallacy.This is not a
democracy;same thing with”comunist China or the USSR.Those two were never
socialist.There has never being a real Socialist or Communist country.
Guy , July 4, 2020 at 12:26
“It is sad to have to remind folks 18 years later that the
“intelligence” on WMD in Iraq was not “mistaken;” it was fraudulent
from the get-go. The culprits were finally exposed but never held to account.”
That statement goes to the crux of the matter .Why should journalists care about what is true
or a lie in their reports ,they know they will never be held to account .They should be held
to account through the court system . A lie by any journalist should be actionable by any
court of law . The fear of jail time would sort out the scam journalists we presently have to
endure . As it is they have perverted the profession of journalism and it is the law of the
jungle .No true democracy should put up with this. We are surrounded with lies that are
generated by the very establishment that should protect it’s citizens from same .
Skip Scott , July 4, 2020 at 15:36
They are spoon fed those lies by our “intelligence” agencies. As CNN’s
Jeff Zucker said, “We’re not investigators, we’re journalists”.
Replace “journalists” with “toadies” or “shills” for our
“intelligence” community and you’ve gotten to the truth of the matter.
Anna , July 6, 2020 at 09:50
The ‘journalists’ observe how things have been going on for Cheney the Traitor
and Bush the lesser — nothing happened to the mega criminals. The hate-bursting and
war-profiteering Cheney’s daughter has even squeezed into US Congress.
In a healthy society where human dignity is cherished, the Cheney family will be ostracized
and the family name became a synonym for the word ‘traitor.’ In the unhealthy
scoiety of Clintons, Obamas, Epstein, Mueller, Adelsons, Clapper, and Krystols, human dignity
is a sin.
Ricard Coleman , July 6, 2020 at 11:42
Our institutions including journalism are not merely corrupt, they are degenerate. That
is, the corruption is not occasional or the exception is is by design, desired and entirely
normal.
Stan W. , July 4, 2020 at 12:10
I’m still confident that Durham’s investigation will expose and successfully
prosecute the maggots that infest our government.
Skip Scott , July 4, 2020 at 15:29
What is the basis for this confidence?
John Puma , July 4, 2020 at 12:03
Re: whether Obumma “had earned some kind of degree from the Clapper/LeMay/McCarthy
School” of Russia Analytics.
It would be a worthy addition to his degree collection featuring that earned from the
Neville Chamberlain Night School of Critical Political Negotiation.
Jeff Harrison , July 4, 2020 at 11:16
Hmmm. Lessee. The US attacks Afghanistan with about the same legitimacy that we had when
we attacked Iraq and the Taliban are in charge. We oust the Taliban from power and put our
own puppets in place. What idiot thinks that the Taliban are going to need a bounty to kill
Americans?
Jeff Harrison, I like your logic. Plus, I understand that far fewer Americans are being
killed in Afghanistan than were under Obama’s administration.
AnneR , July 4, 2020 at 10:27
Frankly, I am sick to death of the unwarranted, indeed bestial Russophobia that is
megaphoned minute by minute on NPR and the BBC World Service (only radio here since my
husband died). If it isn’t this latest trumped up (ho ho) charge, there are repeated
mentions, in passing, of course, of the Russiagate, hacking, Kremlin control of the Strumpet
to back up the latest bunch of lies. Doesn’t matter at *all* that Russiagate was
debunked, that even Mueller couldn’t actually demonstrably pull the DNC/ruling elites
rabbit out of the hat, that the impeachment of the Strumpet went nowhere. And it clearly
– by its total absence on the above radio broadcasts – doesn’t matter one
iota that the Pentagonal hasn’t gone along, that gaping holes in the confabulation are
(and were) obvious to those who cared to think with half a mind awake and reflecting on past
US ruling elite lies, untruths, obfuscations. Nope. Just repeat, repeat, repeat. Orwell would
clap his hands (not because he agreed with the atrocious politics but the lesson is
learnt).
Added to the whipped up anti-Russia, decidedly anti-Putin crapola – is of course the
Russian peoples’ vote, decision making on their own country’s changes to the
Basic Law (a form of Constitution). When the radio broadcasts the usual sickening
anti-Russian/Putin propaganda regarding this vote immediately prior they would state that the
changes would install Putin for many more years: no mention that he would have to be elected,
i.e. voted by the populace into the presidency. (This was repeated ad infinitum without any
elaboration.) No other proposed changes were mentioned – certainly not that the Duma
would gain greater control over the governance of the country and over the president’s
cabinet. I.e. that the popularly elected (ain’t that what we call democracy??)
representatives in the Duma (parliament) would essentially have more power than the
president.
But most significantly, to my mind, no one has (well of course not – this is Russia)
raised the issue of the fact that it was the Russian people, the vox populi/hoi polloi, who
have had some say in how they are to be governed, how their government will work for them.
HOW much say have we had/do we have in how our government functions, works – let alone
for us, the hoi polloi? When did we the citizenry last have a voting say on ANY sentence in
the Constitution that governs us??? Ummm I do believe it was the creation of the wealthy
British descended slave holding, real estate ethnic-cleansing lot who wrote and ratified the
original document and the hardly dissimilar Congressional and state types who have over the
years written and voted on various amendments. And it is the members of the upper classes in
the Supreme Court who adjudicate on its application to various problems.
BUT We the hoi polloi have never, ever had a direct opportunity to individually vote for
or against any single part of the Constitution which is supposed to be the
“democratic” superstructure which governs us. Unlike the Russians a couple of
days ago.
Richard Coleman , July 6, 2020 at 15:48
“HOW much say have we had/do we have in how our government functions,
works…” See, that’s your mistake right there. WE don’t have a
government. We need one, but we ain’t got one. THEY have a government which they let us
go through the motions of electing. ‘Member back when Bernie was talking about a
Political Revolution?
Here’s a little fact for you. The five most populous states have a total of
123,000,000 people. That’s 10 Senators. The five least populated states have a total of
3.5 million. That’s also 10 Senators. Democracy anyone?
vinnieoh , July 4, 2020 at 09:37
There have been three coup d’état within the US within the lifetimes of most
that read these pages. The first was explained to us by Eisenhower only as he was exiting his
time from the national stage; the MIC had co-opted our government. The second happened in
2000, with the putsch in Florida and then the adoption by the neocon cabal of Bush /Chaney of
the PNAC blueprint “Strategies for Rebuilding America’s Defenses” (Defenses
– hahahaha – shit!). The third happened late last year and early this year when
the bottom-up grass-roots movement of progressivism was crushed by the DNC and the
cold-warrior hack Biden was inserted as the champion of “the opposition
party.”
And, make no mistake that Kamala Harris WILL be his running mate. It was always going to
be Harris. It was to be Harris at the TOP of the ticket as the primaries began, but she
wasn’t even placing in the top tier in any of the contests. However, the poohbahs and
strategists of the DNC are nothing if not determined and consistent. If Biden should win, we
should all start practicing now saying “President Harris” because that is what
the future holds. For the DNC, she looks the part, she sounds the part, but more importantly
she is the very definition of the status quo, corporate ass-kisser, MIC tool.
The professional political class have fully colluded to fatally cripple this democratic
republic. “Democracy” is just a word they say like, “Where’s my
kickback?” (excuse me – my “motivation”.) This bounty scam and the
rehabilitation of GW Bush are nothing but a full blitzkrieg flanking of Trump on the right.
And Trump of course is so far out of his depth that he actually believes that Israel is his
friend. (A hint Donny: Israel is NO-ONE’S friend.)
What is most infuriating? hope-crushing? plain f$%&*#g scary? is that the majority of
Americans from all quarters do not want any of what the professional political class keeps
dumping on us. The very attempt at performing this upcoming election will finally and forever
lay completely bare the collapse of a functioning government. It’s going to be very
ugly, and it may very well be the end. Dog help us all.
Richard Coleman , July 6, 2020 at 15:51
Don’t you think that the assassination of JFK counts as a coup d’etat?
Zhu , July 7, 2020 at 02:10
Apres moi, le Deluge.
John Drake , July 7, 2020 at 11:25
Oh gosh how can you forget the Kennedy Assassination. Most people don’t realize he
was had ordered the removal of a thousand advisors from Vietnam starting the process of
completely cutting bait there, as he had in Laos and Cambodia. All of which made the generals
apoplectic. The great secret about Vietnam-which Ellsberg discovered much latter, and
mentioned in his book Secrets, another good read- was that every president had been warned it
was likely futile. Kennedy was the only one who took that intelligence seriously-like it was
actually intelligent intelligence.
Enter stage right Allen Dulles(fired CIA chief), the anti Castro Cubans, the Mafia and
most important the MIC; exit Jack Kennedy.
Douglas, JFK why he died and why it matters is the best work on the subject. And no Oswald
did not do it; it was a sniper team from different angles, but read the book it gets
complicated.
Roger , July 4, 2020 at 09:11
from Counterpunch.org : “Around 15,000 Soviet troops perished in the Afghan War
between 1979 and 1989. The US funneled more than $20 billion to the Mujahideen and other
anti-Soviet fighters over that same period. This works out to a “bounty” of $1.33
million for each Soviet soldier killed.”
Skip Scott , July 4, 2020 at 08:35
I am wondering how Cheney and Crow can block Trump from withdrawing the troops from
Afghanistan. Is Trump Commander in Chief, or not? How can two senators stop the Commander in
Chief from commanding troop movements? I realize they control the budget, but aren’t
they crossing into illegality by restricting Trump’s ability to
“command”?
Toad Sprocket , July 4, 2020 at 16:49
Yeah, I imagine it’s illegal. Didn’t Lindsay Graham threaten the same thing
when Trump was thinking of pulling troops/”advisers” from Syria? And other
congress warmongers joined in though I don’t think any legislation was passed. They
can’t be bothered to authorize the starts of wars but want to step in when someone
tries to end them.
Oh, and Schumer on South Korea troops, I think that one did pass. Almost certainly illegal
if it came down to it, but our government is of course lawless. And our courts full of judges
who are bought off or moronic or both.
dean 1000 , July 4, 2020 at 06:52
The soft coup attempt continues Ray. More lies and bullshit. It may continue until
election day. Will the media fess-up to its lies after the fact again?
Francis Lee , July 4, 2020 at 04:49
“Vladimir Putin wakes up every morning and goes to bed every night trying to figure
out how to destroy American democracy.”
Yes, of course it is a well-known ‘fact’ that Putin has nothing better to do
than destory American democracy, and I bet he has dreams about it too! But I am minded to
think that if anybody has a penchant for destroying American democracy it is the powers that
be in the US deep state, intelligence agencies, and zionist cliques controlling the President
and Congress.
”Those whom the gods would destroy they first make mad.”
The American establishment seems to be suffering from a bad case of
‘projection’ as psychiatrists call it. That is to say accusing others of what
they are themselves actually doing.
The whole idiotic circus would be hilarious if it were not so serious.
Antonia Young , July 4, 2020 at 12:20
Putin’s (and by extension the Russian Federation’s) primary objective is
international stability. “Destroying America, dividing Americans is the last thing he
wants.) Putin learned many lessons during the break-up of the U.S.S.R. observing the carpet
baggers/oligarchs/vultures who descended on the weak nation, absconding with it’s
wealth and resources at mere fractions of their real value. The deep state’s worst fear
is the co-operation btwn Putin and President Trump to make the world more peaceful, stable,
co-operative and prosperous.
rosemerry , July 4, 2020 at 16:10
The whole conceited and arrogant “belief” that
1. the USA has any resemblance to a democracy and
2 Pres. Putin has nothing else to do but think how he could do a better job of showing the
destructive and irresponsible behavior of the USA than its own leaders” and media can
do with no help
has no basis in reality.
If anything, Putin is such a stickler for international law, negotiations, avoidance of
conflict that he is regarded by many as too Christian for this modern, individualistic,
LBGTQ,”nobody matters but me” worldview of the USA!
Steve Naidamast , July 5, 2020 at 19:54
“If the enemy is self destructing, let them continue to do so…”
Napoleon
Zhu , July 7, 2020 at 02:17
“zionist cliques”: Christian Zionist fighting Fundies, eager for the End of
the World, the Second Coming of Jesus.
delia ruhe , July 4, 2020 at 01:09
Yup, we got a Bountygate. Since my early morning visit to the Foreign Policy site, the
place has exploded with breathless articles on the dastardly Putin and the cowardly Trump,
who has so far failed to hold Putin to account. Reminded me of a similar explosion there when
Russiagate finally got the attention the Dems thought it deserved.
(Anyone think that the intel community pays a fee to each of the FP columnists whenever
one of their a propaganda narratives needs a push to get it off the ground?)
He wrote a sensational book about the practices he experienced of the CIA paying German
journalists to publish certain stories.
The book was a big best seller in Germany.
Its English translation was suppressed for years, but I believe is now available.
Susan Siens , July 5, 2020 at 16:30
Reply to John Chuckman: I’d love to read this book but it wasn’t available a
few years ago when I looked. I’ll look again!
Voice from Europe , July 6, 2020 at 11:52
Gekaufte journalisten.
Ulfkotte admitted he signed off on numerous articles that were prepared for him during his
career. The last year’s of his life he changed his mores and advocated “better
die in truth than live with lies”.
Richard A. , July 4, 2020 at 00:59
I remember the MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour from decades ago. Real experts on Russia like
Dimitri Simes and Stephen Cohen were the ones to appear on that NewsHour. The NewsHour of
today rarely has experts on Russia, just experts on Russia bashing–like Michael McFaul.
Oh how the mighty have fallen.
Antonia Young , July 3, 2020 at 23:35
Thank you, Ray for your clarion voice in the midst of WMD-seventeen-point-oh. Will the
American people have the wisdom to notice how many times we’re being fooled? And
finally wake up and stop supporting these questionable news outlets? With appreciation for
your excellent analysis, as usual. ~Tonia Young (Formerly with the Topanga Peace
Alliance)
The majority of Americans have a lot more to worry about than the latest nonsense about
Russia. I think most people just tune it out.
The ones being fooled are the fools who have been lapping this crap up from the get go. The
supposed educated class who think themselves superior and well informed because they read and
listen to the propaganda of PBS, NPR, NYT etc.
They don’t seem to realize the ship is sinking while they’re playing these
ridiculous games.
Susan Siens , July 5, 2020 at 16:34
The supposedly educated class, yes! It can be stunning how people believe anything they
hear on PBS or NPR, and then they make fun of people who believe anything they hear on Fox
News. What’s the difference? Both are propaganda tools.
And, yes, watch us go down in flames while so-called progressives boo-hoo about Trump
thinking he’s above the law (like every other president before him). Our local
“peace and justice” group sent me an email asking me to sign a petition
supporting Robert Mueller. I was gobsmacked, and then I realized our local “peace and
justice” group had been taken over by Democratic Party “resisters.”
Jeezums, why is every word hijacked?
When Colin Powell of all people has to appear on MSNBC to slam
fake reporting you know mainstream media has lost the plot.
In a rare moment, the former Secretary of State under Bush slammed the wall-to-wall coverage
of the Russian bounties in Afghanistan story as "almost hysterical" . It's all the more awkard
for MSNBC, which had him on the network Thursday to talk about it, given he's one of those
'never Trump' Bush-era officials, who despite a legacy of having fed the world lie after lie to
invade Iraq, has since been given "resistance hero" status among liberals.
Describing that military commanders on the ground didn't give credence to The New York Times
claim that Russia's GRU was paying Taliban and other militants to kill American soldiers,
Powell said the media "got kind of out of control" in the first days after the initial report
weeks ago.
"I know that our military commanders on the ground did not think that it was as serious a
problem as the newspapers were reporting and television was reporting," Powell told MSNBC's
Andrea Mitchell. "It got kind of out of control before we really had an understanding of what
had happened. I'm not sure we fully understand now."
"It's our commanders who are going to go deal with this kind of a threat, using intelligence
given to them by the intelligence community," Powell continued. "But that has to be analyzed.
It has to be attested. And then you have to go find out who the enemy is. And I think we were
on top of that one, but it just got almost hysterical in the first few days."
He also deflated the ongoing manufactured atmosphere which seeks to maintain a perpetual
Washington hawkish position vis-a-vis Moscow, based on perceived "Russian aggression".
"I don't think we're in a position to go to war with the Russians," Powell said. "I know Mr.
Putin rather well. He's just figuring out a way to stay in power until 2036. The last thing
he's looking for is a war, and the last thing he's looking for is a war with the United States
of America."
@36 Jackrabbit Sure, Kayfabe explains why the NYTimes ran with this story NOW, as in, July
2020.
I'm pointing out how and why that story originated back in 2018 i.e. way back then.
The story was concocted then as a way for the CIA to divert everyone else's attention away
from the massive cash-flow that resulted from the Taliban/CIA cooperative business venture
otherwise known as "the heroin trade".
That was why the "Russian bounty" nonsense was created, to blind the US military to what
was happening.
Nothing more.
No less.
It is NOW being bandied around in the New York Times and the Washington Post for a
completely different reason i.e. to create a new scandal in an attempt - once more, yet again
- to "get" Trump for reasons of... reasons. Whatever. He's not liked in most corridors of
power in Washington.
I don't doubt that this story coming out NOW has horrified the CIA because - and let's be
honest here - the "Russian Bounty!!!" story is so preposterous that it really can't stand up
to much scrutiny at all, as we have all just seen.
As a fanciful story it worked with the US military in Afghanistan because it validated
their worse fears and prejudices.
It doesn't work as a front-page story in the New York Times because (did I mention this
already?) it is preposterous nonsense.
"The memo said that the C.I.A. and the National Counterterrorism Center had
assessed".....
I said a week ago that the CIA - not the US military in Afghanistan - was responsible for
concocting this original story about "Russian Bounties".
They did so because the US military in Afghanistan had noticed all the cash sloshing
around the Taliban and wanted the CIA to find out where it came from.
The CIA could hardly admit It Came From Us, Baby! but also couldn't just shrug the
shoulders and mutter "I dunno, go find out for yer'self" in case the military did exactly
that.
But this? Why, "Russian bounty" is sure to push all the right buttons with the military,
and is guaranteed to concentrate the minds of both the soldiers and the generals. It's a
perfect distraction.
But I think b might be onto something here. Even if the claim originated as a bit of
deliberate misdirection for the benefit of a puzzled Army of Occupation, once the story gets
into the ears of someone like Schiff then it's going to be like a red rag to a bull.
Everytime Trump says he is going to pull out of somewhere something comes up that allows
him to not do so.
The Dems just playing their role so he can explain to his base why he could not pull out
of Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan.
The US will never, ever leave Iraq (oil), Syria (Israel), or Afghanistan (poppy), just
like we never left Germany, Japan or Korea (and many other places)
Trump never had any intention of pulling out. Which is one reason he stopped reporting on
deployments to Afghanistan. Iraq and Syria in 2017
He has bipartisan support for staying in, the MIC wants to stay in, more important is
Israel demands it.
Try and give up your false 2 party paradigm. Both parties are united on almost every major
issue except the fluff social issues . Its just Kayfabe.
You conclude: "But the short live (sic) of the false claims made certain that it failed to
achieve this." This is not true. A bipartisan bill has now been introduced that, if enacted,
will give Congress oversight of the drawdown of troops in Afghanistan. Trump wants the troops
out, the sooner the better. Congress clearly wants to prevent that. So the false story in the
NYT and the WaPo does appear to be achieving its purpose.
Did CIA launched this provocation on its own or this is another Ciaramella from NSC in play?
This psy-op was a stunning success. But reaction of the part of the US audience was very damaging
for the NYT credibility, if such was left.
NYT is not journalism. It's good only to wipe your ***.
Salsa Verde , 1 hour ago
Doesn't matter what gets proven or disproven; rumors and baseless allegations ARE the new
"facts" of the woke left.
naro , 2 hours ago
NYSlimes has lost all credibility. When I see "anonymouse" source I just see a lazy,
lying, affirmative action hired reporter. ay_arrow
WTFUD , 2 hours ago
The only way you can stop this diarrhea is to publicly hang the perpetrators.
fackbankz , 2 hours ago
I can't believe they're still trying to sell that "Russian interference" nonsense.
No, actually, I can because they're still trying to sell this COVID-1984 nonsense.
scaleindependent , 2 hours ago
Now they tells us, right after the fake story was used to cancel the end of the
Afghanistan war.
JedClampIt , 3 hours ago
I'm surprised Tyler hasn't yet ripped apart today's NYT editorial, which proves that when
you're wrong, just keep repeating it louder.
Stable-Genius , 3 hours ago
I would trust a Russian far more than I would trust any democrat
zerohedgeguy , 3 hours ago
Here's another theory : the democrats placed these bounties
Thordoom , 3 hours ago
It doesn't matter it was a BS story.
Everybody who at least have some sense and knowledge of the world knew it made no sense
whatsoever.
The damage has been done.
Most of the americans now hate russians even more than ever and even want them dead or
sanctioned to hell.
This psy-op was a stunning success.
consider me gone , 3 hours ago
Like the Taliban needs money to inspire them to kill Americans. They do that as community
service work on their days off. Now if you told me the Russians gave them some weapons to
help, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised. But the US would never do that to the Russians
and certainly not in Afghanistan.
as usual, by the time the truth had its boots on the lie had already spread halfway
around the world . the liars have an intrinsic edge here as long as they still have some
credibility with the msm consuming public. as long as they own the msm.
"... I basically doubt that Trump will matter more then Obama did. Didn't Trump claim more or less directly Obama created ISIS by withdrawing the troops from Iraq? ..."
"... Only when foreign-policy elites cease to cite isolationism to explain why the "sole superpower" has stumbled of late will they be able to confront the issues that matter. Ranking high among those issues is an egregious misuse of American military power and an equally egregious abuse of American soldiers. Confronting the vast disparity between U.S. military ambitions since 9/11 and the results actually achieved is a necessary first step toward devising a serious response to Donald Trump's reckless assault on even the possibility of principled statecraft. ..."
We're under attack so we must stay to get killed??
...
@Caliman | Jul 7 2020 17:25 utc | 1
I basically doubt that Trump will matter more then Obama did. Didn't Trump claim more or less directly Obama created ISIS by
withdrawing the troops from Iraq?
The Old Normal. Why we can't beat our addiction to war, by Andrew J. Bacevich, Harper's March 2020 issue:
Only when foreign-policy elites cease to cite isolationism to explain why the "sole superpower" has stumbled of late will
they be able to confront the issues that matter. Ranking high among those issues is an egregious misuse of American military
power and an equally egregious abuse of American soldiers. Confronting the vast disparity between U.S. military ambitions
since 9/11 and the results actually achieved is a necessary first step toward devising a serious response to Donald Trump's reckless
assault on even the possibility of principled statecraft.
So they dusted of McFaul to provide the support for bounty provocation. I wonder whether
McFaul one one of Epstein guests, or what ?
So who was the clone of Ciaramella this time? People want to know the hero
Notable quotes:
"... Not to doubt McFaul's ulterior motives; one must assume him to be an "honest man" -- however misguided, in my opinion. He seems to be a disciple of the James Clapper-Curtis LeMay-Joe McCarthy School of Russian Analysis. ..."
"... Clapper, a graduate summa cum laude , certainly had the Russians pegged! Clapper was allowed to stay as Barack Obama's director of national intelligence for three and a half years after perjuring himself in formal Senate testimony (on NSA's illegal eavesdropping). On May 28, 2017 Clapper told NBC's Chuck Todd about "the historical practices of the Russians, who typically, are almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever, which is a typical Russian technique." ..."
"... As a finale, in full knowledge of Clapper's proclivities regarding Russia, Obama appointed him to prepare the evidence-impoverished, misnomered "Intelligence Community Assessment" claiming that Putin did all he could, including hacking the DNC, to help Trump get elected -- the most embarrassing such "intelligence assessment" I have seen in half a century . ..."
"... Does no one see the irony today in the Democrats' bashing Trump on Afghanistan, with the full support of the Establishment media? The inevitable defeat there is one of the few demonstrable disasters not attributable directly to Trump, but you would not know that from the media. Are the uncorroborated reports of Russian bounties to kill U.S. troops aimed at making it appear that Trump, unable to stand up to Putin, let the Russians drive the rest of U.S. troops out of Afghanistan? ..."
"... Does the current flap bespeak some kind of "Mutiny on the Bounties," so to speak, by a leaker aping Eric Chiaramella? Recall that the Democrats lionized the CIA official seconded to Trump's national security council as a "whistleblower" and proceeded to impeach Trump after Chiaramella leaked information on Trump's telephone call with the president of Ukraine. Far from being held to account, Chiaramella is probably expecting an influential job if his patron, Joe Biden, is elected president. Has there been another mutiny in Trump's White House? ..."
"... It is sad to have to remind folks 18 years later that the "intelligence" on WMD in Iraq was not "mistaken;" it was fraudulent from the get-go. The culprits were finally exposed but never held to account. ..."
"... Here's an assignment due on Monday. Read McFaul's oped carefully. It appears under the title: "Trump would do anything for Putin. No wonder he's ignoring the Russian bounties: Russia's pattern of hostility matches Trump's pattern of accommodation." ..."
"... Full assignment for Monday: Read carefully through each paragraph of McFaul's text and select which of his claims you would put into one or more of the three categories adduced by Sen. Rockefeller 12 years ago about WMD on Iraq. With particular attention to the evidence behind McFaul's claims, determine which of the claims is (a) "uncorroborated"; which (b) "contradicted"; and which (c) "non-existent;" or (d) all of the above. For extra credit, find one that is supported by plausible evidence. ..."
"... Michael McFaul and Fred Hiatt are both long-time members of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), flagship of the globalist “liberal world order”. The CFR and its many interlocking affiliates, along with their media assets and frontmen in government, have dominated US policy since WW2. Most of the Fed chairmen and secretaries of State, Treasury, Defense and CIA have been CFR members, including Jerome Powell and Mark Esper. ..."
"... The major finance, energy, defense and media corporations are CFR sponsors, and several of their execs are members. David Rubenstein, billionaire founder of the notorious Carlyle Group, is the current CFR chairman. Laurence Fink, billionaire chairman of BlackRock, is a CFR director. See lists at the CFR website. ..."
"... “It is sad to have to remind folks 18 years later that the “intelligence” on WMD in Iraq was not “mistaken;” it was fraudulent from the get-go. The culprits were finally exposed but never held to account.” ..."
"... They are spoon fed those lies by our “intelligence” agencies. As CNN’s Jeff Zucker said, “We’re not investigators, we’re journalists”. Replace “journalists” with “toadies” or “shills” for our “intelligence” community and you’ve gotten to the truth of the matter. ..."
"... In the unhealthy society of Clintons, Obamas, Epstein, Mueller, Adelsons, Clapper, and Krystols, human dignity is a sin. ..."
"... Our institutions including journalism are not merely corrupt, they are degenerate. That is, the corruption is not occasional or the exception is is by design, desired and entirely normal. ..."
"... from Counterpunch.org : “Around 15,000 Soviet troops perished in the Afghan War between 1979 and 1989. The US funneled more than $20 billion to the Mujahideen and other anti-Soviet fighters over that same period. This works out to a “bounty” of $1.33 million for each Soviet soldier killed.” ..."
"... Yes, of course it is a well-known ‘fact’ that Putin has nothing better to do than destory American democracy, and I bet he has dreams about it too! But I am minded to think that if anybody has a penchant for destroying American democracy it is the powers that be in the US deep state, intelligence agencies, and zionist cliques controlling the President and Congress. ..."
"... Udo Ulfkotte was a German journalist. He wrote a sensational book about the practices he experienced of the CIA paying German journalists to publish certain stories. The book was a big best seller in Germany. Its English translation was suppressed for years, but I believe is now available. ..."
"... Gekaufte journalisten. Ulfkotte admitted he signed off on numerous articles that were prepared for him during his career. The last year’s of his life he changed his mores and advocated “better die in truth than live with lies”. ..."
Has there been another mutiny in Trump's White House, as Obama's former ambassador to Russia
piles on the nonsense about Trump being in Putin's pocket?
C orporate media are binging on leaked Kool Aid not unlike the WMD concoction they offered
18 years ago to "justify" the U.S.-UK war of aggression on Iraq.
Now Michael McFaul, ambassador to Russia under President Obama, has been enlisted by The
Washington Post 's editorial page honcho, Fred Hiatt, to draw on his expertise (read,
incurable Russophobia) to help stick President Donald Trump back into "Putin's pocket." (This
has become increasingly urgent as the canard of "Russiagate" -- including the linchpin claim
that Russia hacked the DNC -- lies gasping for air.)
In an
oped on Thursday McFaul presented a long list of Vladimir Putin's alleged crimes, offering
a more ostensibly sophisticated version of amateur Russian specialist, Rep. Jason Crow's (D-CO)
claim that: "Vladimir Putin wakes up every morning and goes to bed every night trying to figure
out how to destroy American democracy."
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry with McFaul meeting Vladimir Putin and Russian Foreign
Minister Sergey Lavrov in Moscow, Russia, on May 7, 2013. (State Department)
McFaul had -- well, let's call it an undistinguished career in Moscow. He arrived with a
huge chip on his shoulder and proceeded to alienate just about all his hosts, save for the
rabidly anti-Putin folks he openly and proudly cultivated. In a sense, McFaul became the
epitome of what Henry Wooton described as the role of ambassador -- "an honest man sent to lie
abroad for the good of his country." What should not be so readily accepted is an ambassador
who comes back home and just can't stop misleading.
Not to doubt McFaul's ulterior motives; one must assume him to be an "honest man" --
however misguided, in my opinion. He seems to be a disciple of the James Clapper-Curtis
LeMay-Joe McCarthy School of Russian Analysis.
Clapper, a graduate summa cum laude , certainly had the Russians pegged! Clapper
was allowed to stay as Barack Obama's director of national intelligence for three and a half
years after perjuring himself in formal Senate testimony (on NSA's illegal eavesdropping). On
May 28, 2017 Clapper told NBC's Chuck
Todd about "the historical practices of the Russians, who typically, are almost genetically
driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever, which is a typical Russian
technique."
As a finale, in full knowledge of Clapper's proclivities regarding Russia, Obama
appointed him to prepare the evidence-impoverished, misnomered "Intelligence Community
Assessment" claiming that Putin did all he could, including hacking the DNC, to help Trump get
elected -- the most embarrassing such "intelligence assessment" I have seen in half a century
.
Obama and the National Security State
I have asked myself if Obama also had earned some kind of degree from the
Clapper/LeMay/McCarthy School, or whether he simply lacked the courage to challenge the
pitiably self-serving "analysis" of the National Security State. Then I re-read "Obama Misses the Afghan
Exit-Ramp" of June 24, 2010 and was reminded of how deferential Obama was to the generals and
the intelligence gurus, and how unconscionable the generals were -- like their predecessors in
Vietnam -- in lying about always seeing light at the end of the proverbial tunnel.
Thankfully, now ten years later, this is all
documented in Craig Whitlock's, "The Afghanistan Papers: At War With the Truth." Corporate
media, who played an essential role in that "war with the truth", have not given Whitlock's
damning story the attention it should command (surprise, surprise!). In any case, it strains
credulity to think that Obama was unaware he was being lied to on Afghanistan.
Some Questions
Clark Gable (l.) with Charles Laughton (r.) in Mutiny on the Bounty, 1935.
Does no one see the irony today in the Democrats' bashing Trump on Afghanistan, with the
full support of the Establishment media? The inevitable defeat there is one of the few
demonstrable disasters not attributable directly to Trump, but you would not know that from the
media. Are the uncorroborated reports of Russian bounties to kill U.S. troops aimed at making
it appear that Trump, unable to stand up to Putin, let the Russians drive the rest of U.S.
troops out of Afghanistan?
Does the current flap bespeak some kind of "Mutiny on the Bounties," so to speak, by a
leaker aping Eric Chiaramella? Recall that the Democrats lionized the CIA official seconded to
Trump's national security council as a "whistleblower" and proceeded to impeach Trump after
Chiaramella leaked information on Trump's telephone call with the president of Ukraine. Far
from being held to account, Chiaramella is probably expecting an influential job if his patron,
Joe Biden, is elected president. Has there been another mutiny in Trump's White House?
And what does one make of the
spectacle of Crow teaming up with Rep. Liz Cheney (R, WY) to restrict Trump's planned
pull-out of troops from Afghanistan, which The Los Angeles Timesreports
has now been blocked until after the election?
Hiatt & McFaul: Caveat Editor
And who published McFaul's oped? Fred Hiatt, Washington Post editorial page editor
for the past 20 years, who has a long record of listening to the whispers of anonymous
intelligence sources and submerging/drowning the subjunctive mood with flat fact. This was the
case with the (non-existent) weapons of mass destruction in Iraq before the U.S.-UK attack.
Readers of the Post were sure there were tons of WMD in Iraq. That Hiatt has invited
McFaul on stage should come as no surprise.
To be fair, Hiatt belatedly acknowledged that the Post should have been more
circumspect in its confident claims about the WMD. "If you look at the editorials we write
running up [to the war], we state as flat fact that he [Saddam Hussein] has weapons of mass
destruction," Hiatt said in an interview with the Columbia Journalism Review . "If
that's not true, it would have been better not to say it." [CJR, March/April 2004]
At this word of wisdom, Consortium News founder, the late Robert Parry,
offered this comment: "Yes, that is a common principle of journalism, that if something isn't
real, we're not supposed to confidently declare that it is." That Hiatt is still in that job
speaks volumes.
'Uncorroborated, Contradicted, or Even Non-Existent'
It is sad to have to remind folks 18 years later that the "intelligence" on WMD in Iraq was
not "mistaken;" it was fraudulent from the get-go. The culprits were finally exposed but never
held to account.
Announcing on June 5, 2008, the bipartisan conclusions from a five-year study by the Senate
Intelligence Committee, Sen. Jay Rockefeller ( D-WV)
said the attack on Iraq was launched "under false pretenses." He described the intelligence
conjured up to "justify" war on Iraq as "uncorroborated, contradicted, or even
non-existent."
Homework
Yogi Berra in 1956. (Wikipedia)
Here's an assignment due on Monday. Read McFaul's
oped carefully. It appears under the title: "Trump would do anything for Putin. No wonder
he's ignoring the Russian bounties: Russia's pattern of hostility matches Trump's pattern of
accommodation."
And to give you a further taste, here is the first paragraph:
"Russian President Vladimir Putin appears to have paid Taliban rebels in Afghanistan to
kill U.S. soldiers. Having resulted in at least one American death, and maybe more, these
Russian bounties reportedly produced the desired outcome. While deeply disturbing, this
effort by Putin is not surprising: It follows a clear pattern of ignoring international
norms, rules and laws -- and daring the United States to do anything about it."
Full assignment for Monday: Read carefully through each paragraph of McFaul's text and
select which of his claims you would put into one or more of the three categories adduced by
Sen. Rockefeller 12 years ago about WMD on Iraq. With particular attention to the evidence
behind McFaul's claims, determine which of the claims is (a) "uncorroborated"; which (b)
"contradicted"; and which (c) "non-existent;" or (d) all of the above. For extra credit, find
one that is supported by plausible evidence.
Yogi Berra might be surprised to hear us keep quoting him with "Deja vu, all over again."
Sorry, Yogi, that's what it is; you coined it.
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the
Saviour in inner-city Washington. During his 27-year career as a CIA analyst, he prepared and
briefed The President's Daily Brief for Presidents Nixon, Ford, and Reagan. He is
co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).
The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of
Consortium News.
Tarus77 , July 6, 2020 at 14:25
Gad, one wonders if it can ever get much lower in the press and the answer is yes, it can
and will go lower, i.e. the mcfaul/hiatt tag team. They are still plumbing for the lows.
The question becomes just how stupid these two are or how stupid do they believe the
readership is to read and believe this garbage.
Voice from Europe , July 6, 2020 at 11:58
By now the Russia did it ! is in effect a joke in Russia. Economically, politically, geo
strategically China and Asia and Africa have become more important and reliable partners of
Russia than the USA. And Europe is also dropping fast on the trustworthy partners
list…..
John , July 5, 2020 at 12:55
Michael McFaul and Fred Hiatt are both long-time members of the Council on Foreign
Relations (CFR), flagship of the globalist “liberal world order”. The CFR and its
many interlocking affiliates, along with their media assets and frontmen in government, have
dominated US policy since WW2. Most of the Fed chairmen and secretaries of State, Treasury,
Defense and CIA have been CFR members, including Jerome Powell and Mark Esper.
The major finance, energy, defense and media corporations are CFR sponsors, and several of
their execs are members. David Rubenstein, billionaire founder of the notorious Carlyle
Group, is the current CFR chairman. Laurence Fink, billionaire chairman of BlackRock, is a
CFR director. See lists at the CFR website.
Anna , July 6, 2020 at 09:38
Michael McFaul and Fred Hiatt are both very active promoters of hate crimes. Neither has
any decency hence decency is allergic to war profiteers and opportunistic liars.
The poor USA; to descend to such a deep moral hole that both Michael McFaul and Fred Hiatt
are still alive and prospering. Shamelessness and presstituting are paid well in the US.
Dems and Reps are already mad. You cannot destroy what does not exist; like Democracy in
these United States. Nor God or Putin could. This has always being a fallacy. This is not a
democracy; same thing with ”communist" China or the USSR .Those two were never
socialist. There has never being a real Socialist or Communist country.
Guy , July 4, 2020 at 12:26
“It is sad to have to remind folks 18 years later that the
“intelligence” on WMD in Iraq was not “mistaken;” it was fraudulent
from the get-go. The culprits were finally exposed but never held to account.”
That statement goes to the crux of the matter.Why should journalists care about what is true
or a lie in their reports ,they know they will never be held to account .They should be held
to account through the court system . A lie by any journalist should be actionable by any
court of law . The fear of jail time would sort out the scam journalists we presently have to
endure .
As it is they have perverted the profession of journalism and it is the law of the
jungle .No true democracy should put up with this. We are surrounded with lies that are
generated by the very establishment that should protect it’s citizens from same .
Skip Scott , July 4, 2020 at 15:36
They are spoon fed those lies by our “intelligence” agencies. As CNN’s
Jeff Zucker said, “We’re not investigators, we’re journalists”.
Replace “journalists” with “toadies” or “shills” for our
“intelligence” community and you’ve gotten to the truth of the matter.
Anna , July 6, 2020 at 09:50
The ‘journalists’ observe how things have been going on for Cheney the Traitor
and Bush the lesser — nothing happened to the mega criminals. The hate-bursting and
war-profiteering Cheney’s daughter has even squeezed into US Congress.
In a healthy society where human dignity is cherished, the Cheney family will be ostracized
and the family name became a synonym for the word ‘traitor.’ In the unhealthy society of Clintons, Obamas, Epstein, Mueller, Adelsons, Clapper, and Krystols, human dignity
is a sin.
Ricard Coleman , July 6, 2020 at 11:42
Our institutions including journalism are not merely corrupt, they are degenerate. That
is, the corruption is not occasional or the exception is is by design, desired and entirely
normal.
Stan W. , July 4, 2020 at 12:10
I’m still confident that Durham’s investigation will expose and successfully
prosecute the maggots that infest our government.
Skip Scott , July 4, 2020 at 15:29
What is the basis for this confidence?
John Puma , July 4, 2020 at 12:03
Re: whether Obumma “had earned some kind of degree from the Clapper/LeMay/McCarthy
School” of Russia Analytics.
It would be a worthy addition to his degree collection featuring that earned from the
Neville Chamberlain Night School of Critical Political Negotiation.
Jeff Harrison , July 4, 2020 at 11:16
Hmmm. Lessee. The US attacks Afghanistan with about the same legitimacy that we had when
we attacked Iraq and the Taliban are in charge. We oust the Taliban from power and put our
own puppets in place. What idiot thinks that the Taliban are going to need a bounty to kill
Americans?
Jeff Harrison, I like your logic. Plus, I understand that far fewer Americans are being
killed in Afghanistan than were under Obama’s administration.
AnneR , July 4, 2020 at 10:27
Frankly, I am sick to death of the unwarranted, indeed bestial Russophobia that is
megaphoned minute by minute on NPR and the BBC World Service (only radio here since my
husband died). If it isn’t this latest trumped up (ho ho) charge, there are repeated
mentions, in passing, of course, of the Russiagate, hacking, Kremlin control of the Strumpet
to back up the latest bunch of lies.
Doesn’t matter at *all* that Russiagate was
debunked, that even Mueller couldn’t actually demonstrably pull the DNC/ruling elites
rabbit out of the hat, that the impeachment of the Strumpet went nowhere. And it clearly
– by its total absence on the above radio broadcasts – doesn’t matter one
iota that the Pentagonal hasn’t gone along, that gaping holes in the confabulation are
(and were) obvious to those who cared to think with half a mind awake and reflecting on past
US ruling elite lies, untruths, obfuscations. Nope. Just repeat, repeat, repeat. Orwell would
clap his hands (not because he agreed with the atrocious politics but the lesson is
learnt).
Added to the whipped up anti-Russia, decidedly anti-Putin crapola – is of course the
Russian peoples’ vote, decision making on their own country’s changes to the
Basic Law (a form of Constitution). When the radio broadcasts the usual sickening
anti-Russian/Putin propaganda regarding this vote immediately prior they would state that the
changes would install Putin for many more years: no mention that he would have to be elected,
i.e. voted by the populace into the presidency. (This was repeated ad infinitum without any
elaboration.) No other proposed changes were mentioned – certainly not that the Duma
would gain greater control over the governance of the country and over the president’s
cabinet. I.e. that the popularly elected (ain’t that what we call democracy??)
representatives in the Duma (parliament) would essentially have more power than the
president.
But most significantly, to my mind, no one has (well of course not – this is Russia)
raised the issue of the fact that it was the Russian people, the vox populi/hoi polloi, who
have had some say in how they are to be governed, how their government will work for them.
HOW much say have we had/do we have in how our government functions, works – let alone
for us, the hoi polloi? When did we the citizenry last have a voting say on ANY sentence in
the Constitution that governs us??? Ummm I do believe it was the creation of the wealthy
British descended slave holding, real estate ethnic-cleansing lot who wrote and ratified the
original document and the hardly dissimilar Congressional and state types who have over the
years written and voted on various amendments. And it is the members of the upper classes in
the Supreme Court who adjudicate on its application to various problems.
BUT We the hoi polloi have never, ever had a direct opportunity to individually vote for
or against any single part of the Constitution which is supposed to be the
“democratic” superstructure which governs us. Unlike the Russians a couple of
days ago.
Richard Coleman , July 6, 2020 at 15:48
“HOW much say have we had/do we have in how our government functions,
works…” See, that’s your mistake right there. WE don’t have a
government. We need one, but we ain’t got one. THEY have a government which they let us
go through the motions of electing. ‘Member back when Bernie was talking about a
Political Revolution?
Here’s a little fact for you. The five most populous states have a total of
123,000,000 people. That’s 10 Senators. The five least populated states have a total of
3.5 million. That’s also 10 Senators. Democracy anyone?
vinnieoh , July 4, 2020 at 09:37
There have been three coup d’état within the US within the lifetimes of most
that read these pages. The first was explained to us by Eisenhower only as he was exiting his
time from the national stage; the MIC had co-opted our government. The second happened in
2000, with the putsch in Florida and then the adoption by the neocon cabal of Bush /Chaney of
the PNAC blueprint “Strategies for Rebuilding America’s Defenses” (Defenses
– hahahaha – shit!). The third happened late last year and early this year when
the bottom-up grass-roots movement of progressivism was crushed by the DNC and the
cold-warrior hack Biden was inserted as the champion of “the opposition
party.”
And, make no mistake that Kamala Harris WILL be his running mate. It was always going to
be Harris. It was to be Harris at the TOP of the ticket as the primaries began, but she
wasn’t even placing in the top tier in any of the contests. However, the poohbahs and
strategists of the DNC are nothing if not determined and consistent. If Biden should win, we
should all start practicing now saying “President Harris” because that is what
the future holds. For the DNC, she looks the part, she sounds the part, but more importantly
she is the very definition of the status quo, corporate ass-kisser, MIC tool.
The professional political class have fully colluded to fatally cripple this democratic
republic. “Democracy” is just a word they say like, “Where’s my
kickback?” (excuse me – my “motivation”.) This bounty scam and the
rehabilitation of GW Bush are nothing but a full blitzkrieg flanking of Trump on the right.
And Trump of course is so far out of his depth that he actually believes that Israel is his
friend. (A hint Donny: Israel is NO-ONE’S friend.)
What is most infuriating? hope-crushing? plain f$%&*#g scary? is that the majority of
Americans from all quarters do not want any of what the professional political class keeps
dumping on us. The very attempt at performing this upcoming election will finally and forever
lay completely bare the collapse of a functioning government. It’s going to be very
ugly, and it may very well be the end. Dog help us all.
Richard Coleman , July 6, 2020 at 15:51
Don’t you think that the assassination of JFK counts as a coup d’etat?
Zhu , July 7, 2020 at 02:10
Apres moi, le Deluge.
John Drake , July 7, 2020 at 11:25
Oh gosh how can you forget the Kennedy Assassination. Most people don’t realize he
was had ordered the removal of a thousand advisors from Vietnam starting the process of
completely cutting bait there, as he had in Laos and Cambodia. All of which made the generals
apoplectic. The great secret about Vietnam-which Ellsberg discovered much latter, and
mentioned in his book Secrets, another good read- was that every president had been warned it
was likely futile. Kennedy was the only one who took that intelligence seriously-like it was
actually intelligent intelligence.
Enter stage right Allen Dulles (fired CIA chief), the anti Castro Cubans, the Mafia and
most important the MIC; exit Jack Kennedy.
Douglas, JFK why he died and why it matters is the best work on the subject. And no Oswald
did not do it; it was a sniper team from different angles, but read the book it gets
complicated.
Roger , July 4, 2020 at 09:11
from Counterpunch.org : “Around 15,000 Soviet troops perished in the Afghan War
between 1979 and 1989. The US funneled more than $20 billion to the Mujahideen and other
anti-Soviet fighters over that same period. This works out to a “bounty” of $1.33
million for each Soviet soldier killed.”
Skip Scott , July 4, 2020 at 08:35
I am wondering how Cheney and Crow can block Trump from withdrawing the troops from
Afghanistan. Is Trump Commander in Chief, or not? How can two senators stop the Commander in
Chief from commanding troop movements? I realize they control the budget, but aren’t
they crossing into illegality by restricting Trump’s ability to
“command”?
Toad Sprocket , July 4, 2020 at 16:49
Yeah, I imagine it’s illegal. Didn’t Lindsay Graham threaten the same thing
when Trump was thinking of pulling troops/”advisers” from Syria? And other
congress warmongers joined in though I don’t think any legislation was passed. They
can’t be bothered to authorize the starts of wars but want to step in when someone
tries to end them.
Oh, and Schumer on South Korea troops, I think that one did pass. Almost certainly illegal
if it came down to it, but our government is of course lawless. And our courts full of judges
who are bought off or moronic or both.
dean 1000 , July 4, 2020 at 06:52
The soft coup attempt continues Ray. More lies and bullshit. It may continue until
election day. Will the media fess-up to its lies after the fact again?
Francis Lee , July 4, 2020 at 04:49
“Vladimir Putin wakes up every morning and goes to bed every night trying to figure
out how to destroy American democracy.”
Yes, of course it is a well-known ‘fact’ that Putin has nothing better to do
than destory American democracy, and I bet he has dreams about it too! But I am minded to
think that if anybody has a penchant for destroying American democracy it is the powers that
be in the US deep state, intelligence agencies, and zionist cliques controlling the President
and Congress.
”Those whom the gods would destroy they first make mad.”
The American establishment seems to be suffering from a bad case of
‘projection’ as psychiatrists call it. That is to say accusing others of what
they are themselves actually doing.
The whole idiotic circus would be hilarious if it were not so serious.
Antonia Young , July 4, 2020 at 12:20
Putin’s (and by extension the Russian Federation’s) primary objective is
international stability. “Destroying America, dividing Americans is the last thing he
wants.) Putin learned many lessons during the break-up of the U.S.S.R. observing the carpet
baggers/oligarchs/vultures who descended on the weak nation, absconding with it’s
wealth and resources at mere fractions of their real value. The deep state’s worst fear
is the co-operation btwn Putin and President Trump to make the world more peaceful, stable,
co-operative and prosperous.
rosemerry , July 4, 2020 at 16:10
The whole conceited and arrogant “belief” that
The USA has any resemblance to a democracy and
Pres. Putin has nothing else to do but think how he could do a better job of showing the
destructive and irresponsible behavior of the USA than its own leaders” and media can
do with no help
has no basis in reality.
If anything, Putin is such a stickler for international law, negotiations, avoidance of
conflict that he is regarded by many as too Christian for this modern, individualistic,
LBGTQ, ”nobody matters but me” worldview of the USA!
Steve Naidamast , July 5, 2020 at 19:54
“If the enemy is self destructing, let them continue to do so…”
Napoleon
Zhu , July 7, 2020 at 02:17
“zionist cliques”: Christian Zionist fighting Fundies, eager for the End of
the World, the Second Coming of Jesus.
delia ruhe , July 4, 2020 at 01:09
Yup, we got a Bountygate. Since my early morning visit to the Foreign Policy site, the
place has exploded with breathless articles on the dastardly Putin and the cowardly Trump,
who has so far failed to hold Putin to account. Reminded me of a similar explosion there when
Russiagate finally got the attention the Dems thought it deserved.
(Anyone think that the intel community pays a fee to each of the FP columnists whenever
one of their a propaganda narratives needs a push to get it off the ground?)
Udo Ulfkotte was a German journalist. He wrote a sensational book about the practices he experienced of the CIA paying German
journalists to publish certain stories. The book was a big best seller in Germany. Its English translation was suppressed for years, but I believe is now available.
Susan Siens , July 5, 2020 at 16:30
Reply to John Chuckman: I’d love to read this book but it wasn’t available a
few years ago when I looked. I’ll look again!
Voice from Europe , July 6, 2020 at 11:52
Gekaufte journalisten.
Ulfkotte admitted he signed off on numerous articles that were prepared for him during his
career. The last year’s of his life he changed his mores and advocated “better
die in truth than live with lies”.
Richard A. , July 4, 2020 at 00:59
I remember the MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour from decades ago. Real experts on Russia like
Dimitri Simes and Stephen Cohen were the ones to appear on that NewsHour. The NewsHour of
today rarely has experts on Russia, just experts on Russia bashing–like Michael McFaul.
Oh how the mighty have fallen.
Antonia Young , July 3, 2020 at 23:35
Thank you, Ray for your clarion voice in the midst of WMD-seventeen-point-oh. Will the
American people have the wisdom to notice how many times we’re being fooled? And
finally wake up and stop supporting these questionable news outlets? With appreciation for
your excellent analysis, as usual. ~Tonia Young (Formerly with the Topanga Peace
Alliance)
The majority of Americans have a lot more to worry about than the latest nonsense about
Russia. I think most people just tune it out.
The ones being fooled are the fools who have been lapping this crap up from the get go. The
supposed educated class who think themselves superior and well informed because they read and
listen to the propaganda of PBS, NPR, NYT etc.
They don’t seem to realize the ship is sinking while they’re playing these
ridiculous games.
Susan Siens , July 5, 2020 at 16:34
The supposedly educated class, yes! It can be stunning how people believe anything they
hear on PBS or NPR, and then they make fun of people who believe anything they hear on Fox
News. What’s the difference? Both are propaganda tools.
And, yes, watch us go down in flames while so-called progressives boo-hoo about Trump
thinking he’s above the law (like every other president before him). Our local
“peace and justice” group sent me an email asking me to sign a petition
supporting Robert Mueller. I was gobsmacked, and then I realized our local “peace and
justice” group had been taken over by Democratic Party “resisters.”
Jeezums, why is every word hijacked?
"... "The purpose of this shabby round of 'Russiagate' nonsense was to hinder Trump's plans to withdraw all troops from Afghanistan before the election ..." ..."
"... is the part I don't understand from the MSM: so, even if it was true that the Russkies and the Iranians (our go-to baddies in the area) WERE paying bounties to kill American soldiers, how the Hell is that an argument for staying longer? We're under attack so we must stay to get killed?? ..."
"... Once again the Democrats of being stupid will probably lose the election. I always thought Russia could be great friend to the west and the USA , in the mean time China is more dangerous than Russia ..."
"... If you're a military-industrial contractor, or for that matter, one that is helping smuggle opium out of Afghanistan, you want the US to stay. Saying that Russians are paying the Taliban bounties might cause the US to reinforce its force level in Afghanistan. ..."
"... Don't neglect American mass psychology. Americans never retreat. Advance to the rear, perhaps, but America's mighty military machine will never run away. If the narrative that American troops are being hunted for bounties takes root in the American public's warped imaginations, then the New York Langley Times and the Washington Bezos Post can attack Trump as a coward who runs away while the fight is still on. That's not an image Trump can tolerate so he would be forced to keep troops there and even do some air strikes. ..."
"... No doubt China is laughing its ass off at this latest attempt at RussiaGate 2.0. Both the Dems and Trump continue to do Beijing's bidding, whether it's witting or not. ..."
"... Taliban isn't truly the enemy when you remove the veil, or certainly not anymore than al Qaeda is/was and Daesh. They're all American inventions and as such, America will tell them when and where to kill American soldiers, not uppity Russia. ..."
"... SEARCHING FOR LEAKERS THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION has opened an internal investigation to try to uncover who leaked intelligence about Russians paying the Taliban bounties to kill American soldiers. The administration maintains the story is overcooked and the leaks cherry-picked despite a steady stream of follow-ups from media outlets across the globe. ..."
"... "How the Hell is than an argument for staying longer?" -- It is the result of 'staying in Afghanistan' that matters to these folks, not the quality or the rationale of the argument. With the MSM echo chamber and Trump's ability to put his tweet in his mouth I don't think anyone can predict in advance what might stick. Throw enough shit at a wall, something will stick. They can't control trump, they can't really bruise him more than they have, so they just continually shotgun hopeful crisis at him. Pass the popcorn, I have a feeling this is about to get really good. ..."
"... The reasons for staying in Afghanistan are the true problem. Opioids (the CIA might go bankrupt), Pipelines (US control of oil), and Military Power Projection (borders with Iran, China, and the Russian dominated Stans). It is hard to say how much or if any of this benefits the American people, but it certainly benefits those clinging to corporate profits and retaining their piece fo the global economic pie. ..."
"... It seems likely that the 'Russian bounties' story was arranged with the full knowledge of the Trump Administration. USA doesn't really want to pull out. ..."
"... Unfortunately, the trumped up story is NOT a dud; it did its job. Congress has made it impossible to bring home troops from Afghanistan, ensuring that the murder machine/grift combo can continue, with more money to be made by those on the inside getting paid to support the efforts. ..."
"... The CIA won't go broke when the flow of afghani opium dries up. That stuff is just a trickle anyway, compared to the tidal waves of cocaine coming out of South America. And I don't even believe that they really need any dope money to keep themselves afloat. It's simply important that noone else gets to benefit from that mountain of easy cash. ..."
"... This says Russia paying bounties to the Taliban was exposed as a hoax. Yes, it was a partisan hoax. No, it is not really "exposed." It is believed as an article of faith now by a vast number of people. It is now in the "birther" phase: nonsense people believe because they want to believe it. ..."
"... There is a good chance that the origins of this story lie with MI6, The Guardian's current proprietor. Like the Steele dossier, Skripal, the links between Manafort and Wikileaks, the "hacking" of the DNC and much else in the attempt to revive the Cold War (when MI6 had lots of fun and money was no object- the halcyon days of LeCarre and Ian Fleming) this bears the fingerprints of British spooks. ..."
"... Luke Harding's friends and colleagues at the Integrity Initiative and the Institute for Statecraft would like a honorable mention too, for all the hard work they put in, even if it is well rewarded at the British tax payers's expense. ..."
July 07, 2020
The Latest 'Russiagate' BOMBSHELL Took Just One Week To Be Exposed As Dud. Who Was Its
Source?
Within just one week the recent attempt to revive 'Russiagate' has failed. It was an
embarrassing failure for the media who pushed it. Their 'journalists' fell for obvious
nonsense. They let their sources abused them for political purposes.
On June 27 the New York Times and the Washington Postpublished
stories which claimed that Trump was informed about alleged Russian bounty payments to the
Taliban for killing U.S. soldiers and did nothing about it:
A Russian military spy unit offered bounties to Taliban-linked militants to attack coalition
forces in Afghanistan, including U.S. and British troops, in a striking escalation of the
Kremlin's hostility toward the United States, American intelligence has found.
The Russian operation, first reported by the New York Times, has generated an intense
debate within the Trump administration about how best to respond to a troubling new tactic by
a nation that most U.S. officials regard as a potential foe but that President Trump has
frequently embraced as a friend, said the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity
to discuss a sensitive intelligence matter.
The story ran on page A-1 of the paper version of the NYT .
We immediately
called it out as the obvious nonsense that it was:
Now the intelligence services make another claim that fits right into the above
['Russiagate'] scheme.
Reporters from the New York Times and the Washington Post were called up by
unnamed 'officials' and told to write that Russia pays some Afghans to kill U.S. soldiers in
Afghanistan. There is zero evidence that the claim is true. The Taliban spokesman denies it.
The numbers of U.S. soldiers killed in Afghanistan is minimal. The alleged sources of the
claims are criminals the U.S. has taken as prisoners in Afghanistan.
All that nonsense is again used to press against Trump's wish for better relations with
Russia. Imagine - Trump was told about these nonsensical claims and he did nothing about
it!
But that the story was obviously bullshit did not prevent Democrats in Congress, including
'Russiagate' swindler Adam Schiff, to bluster about it and to call for immediate briefings and
new sanctions
on Russia .
Just a day after it was published the main accusation, that Trump was briefed on the
'intelligence' died. The Director of National Intelligence, the National Security Advisor and
the CIA publicly rejected the claim. Then the rest of the story started to crumble. On June 2,
just one week after it was launched, the story was
declared dead :
A memo produced in recent days by the office of the nation's top intelligence official
acknowledged that the C.I.A. and top counterterrorism officials have assessed that Russia
appears to have offered bounties to kill American and coalition troops in Afghanistan, but
emphasized uncertainties and gaps in evidence , according to three officials.
...
The memo said that the C.I.A. and the National Counterterrorism Center had assessed with
medium confidence -- meaning credibly sourced and plausible, but falling short of near
certainty -- that a unit of the Russian military intelligence service, known as the G.R.U.,
offered the bounties, according to two of the officials briefed on its contents.
But other parts of the intelligence community -- including the National Security Agency,
which favors electronic surveillance intelligence -- said they did not have information to
support that conclusion at the same level, therefore expressing lower confidence in the
conclusion, according to the two officials.
The NYT buried the above quoted dead corpse of the original story page A-19.
Last week we also learned that Adam Schiff, who had blamed Trump for not reacting to the
fake 'intelligence' and who used the story to call for more Russia sanctions,
had been briefed on the very same 'intelligence' months ago:
Top committee staff for Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), the chairman of the House Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence, were briefed in February on intelligence about Russia
offering the Taliban bounties in Afghanistan, but he took no action in response to the
briefing, multiple intelligence sources familiar with the briefing told The Federalist.
...
The revelation raises serious questions that Schiff is once again politicizing, and perhaps
even deliberately misrepresenting, key data for partisan gain.
Asked by a reporter Tuesday if he had any knowledge of the Russia story prior to the New
York Times report, Schiff said "I can't comment on specifics."
Schiff's recent complaints that Trump took no action against Russia in response to rumors
of Russian bounties are curious given that Schiff himself took no action after his top staff
were briefed by intelligence officials. As chairman of the intelligence committee, Schiff had
the authority to immediately brief the full committee and convene hearings on the matter.
Schiff, however, did nothing.
As Schiff and his committee staff knew about the claims they may well have been the ones who
pushed it to the reporters.
Consider that both papers, the NYT and the WaPo , attribute their knowledge to
'officials'. There is a code for anonymous sources in U.S. political reporting that is usual
adhered to. Sources are described as 'White House officials', 'administration officials',
'Pentagon officials' or 'intelligence officials' when they are working for the government.
Congressional sources are usually described as 'officials' without any additional
attribute.
The original sources also made the false claim that Trump had been briefed on the
'intelligence'. Source in the White House or the CIA would have likely known that this had not
been the case. Sources from Congress had no way of knowing that.
That makes it quite likely that Schiff and/or members of his staff were the original sources
of the fake story. Consider that it was Schiff who for two years had claimed
again and again that there was 'direct evidence" that the Trump campaign had colluded with
the Russian government. That has turned out to have been a lie. It is certainly not beyond
Schiff to sell a dubious 'intelligence' report, based on circumstantial evidence, as alarming
news that required immediate action.
The purpose of this shabby round of 'Russiagate' nonsense was to hinder
Trump's plans to withdraw all troops from Afghanistan before the election, to sabotage the
cooperation between Russia and the U.S. on the negotiations with the Taliban and to blame Trump
of another 'collusion' with the ever hated Russia.
But the short live of the false claims made certain that it failed to achieve this.
Posted by b on July 7, 2020 at 17:08 UTC |
Permalink
"The purpose of this shabby round of 'Russiagate' nonsense was to hinder Trump's plans to
withdraw all troops from Afghanistan before the election ..."
is the part I don't understand from the MSM: so, even if it was true that the Russkies and
the Iranians (our go-to baddies in the area) WERE paying bounties to kill American soldiers,
how the Hell is that an argument for staying longer? We're under attack so we must stay to
get killed??
It doesn't even make sense as an effort to tarnish the peace deal with the Taliban: how is
making peace with them after 20 years of war a worse idea knowing they may be getting paid to
kill our folks, as well as doing it for their own purposes? If anything, it makes it even
more imperative to make peace!
Once again the Democrats of being stupid will probably lose the election. I always thought
Russia could be great friend to the west and the USA , in the mean time China is more
dangerous than Russia, with the stupid MIC and the haters of Russia are pushing Russia
toward the east , it will be a war between the US , Europe against Russia , China and Iran
.
Guess who is going to win .
We're under attack so we must stay to get
killed??
Yes. If you're a military-industrial contractor, or for that matter, one that is helping
smuggle opium out of Afghanistan, you want the US to stay. Saying that Russians are paying
the Taliban bounties might cause the US to reinforce its force level in Afghanistan.
I mean, yeah, it makes no sense - but then staying in Afghanistan for almost twenty years
didn't make any sense anyway. So "any excuse will do" is the idea - and always has been.
There was never a rational reason to invade Afghanistan in the first place. It was all about
oil and heroin from the get-go.
"...even if it was true that the Russkies and the Iranians (our go-to baddies
in the area) WERE paying bounties to kill American soldiers, how the Hell is that an argument
for staying longer? We're under attack so we must stay to get killed??"
Don't neglect American mass psychology. Americans never retreat. Advance to the rear,
perhaps, but America's mighty military machine will never run away. If the narrative that
American troops are being hunted for bounties takes root in the American public's warped
imaginations, then the New York Langley Times and the
Washington Bezos Post can attack Trump as a coward who runs away while the
fight is still on. That's not an image Trump can tolerate so he would be forced to keep
troops there and even do some air strikes.
In other words, the fake news about bounties was just one part of the operation to keep US
troops in Afghanistan.
No doubt China is laughing its ass off at this latest attempt at RussiaGate 2.0. Both the
Dems and Trump continue to do Beijing's bidding, whether it's witting or not.
1.5 billion people in the span of several decades have transformed into ravenous,
rapacious, insatiable consumers on a finite planet's with already severely diminished
resources and a climate out of equilibrium.
All of that plus COVFEFE-19, plus a potential Swine Flu pandemic on top of it and the
Bubonic Plague, and the corporatist media is focusing on Russia paying the Taliban to kill
American soldiers when allegedly that's what the Taliban is doing any way?
America taking umbrage with the Russian bounties, even if true, tells me that perhaps the Taliban isn't truly the enemy
when you remove the veil, or certainly not anymore than al Qaeda is/was and Daesh. They're all American inventions and as such, America will tell them
when and where to kill American soldiers, not uppity Russia.
Politico reports Trump is opening an investigation into who sourced those articles.
-- SEARCHING FOR LEAKERS THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION has opened an internal investigation to
try to uncover who leaked intelligence about Russians paying the Taliban bounties to kill
American soldiers. The administration maintains the story is overcooked and the leaks
cherry-picked despite a steady stream of follow-ups from media outlets across the globe.
THE ADMINISTRATION has interviewed people with access to the intelligence, and believes
it has narrowed down the universe of suspects to fewer than 10 people.
THE ADMINISTRATION has said it would search for leakers in its ranks on many occasions.
Notably, they vowed to find out who wrote an anonymous op-ed in the NYT almost two years
ago. They said they'd find who leaked the president's calendars in February 2019. Most of
these probes fizzled out or faded away.
BUT, THE ADMINISTRATION seems a bit more worked up about these leaks, due to the highly
classified nature of the intelligence.
"How the Hell is than an argument for staying longer?" -- It is the result of 'staying in
Afghanistan' that matters to these folks, not the quality or the rationale of the argument.
With the MSM echo chamber and Trump's ability to put his tweet in his mouth I don't think
anyone can predict in advance what might stick. Throw enough shit at a wall, something will
stick. They can't control trump, they can't really bruise him more than they have, so they
just continually shotgun hopeful crisis at him. Pass the popcorn, I have a feeling this is
about to get really good.
The reasons for staying in Afghanistan are the true problem. Opioids (the CIA might go
bankrupt), Pipelines (US control of oil), and Military Power Projection (borders with Iran,
China, and the Russian dominated Stans). It is hard to say how much or if any of this
benefits the American people, but it certainly benefits those clinging to corporate profits
and retaining their piece fo the global economic pie.
America sure did retreat from Libya and the irony is, the instigator, Sarkozy, never got
what he strategized to get from it, which was reelection. America and NATO left it to the
other aspiring imperialist pretenders, Turkey and Russia, and look what a mess they're making
of it. It's as messy as if America was conducting the occupation and civil war itself. Maybe
the point of Libya is as a military playground for imperialist pretenders to strut their
stuff. A catwalk of sorts.
... the short live of the false claims made certain that it failed ...
I disagree. The committee voted to delay removing troops and the Russiagate nonsense was
refreshed in the public's mind. I'd bet that Schiff's previous knowledge of Russia offering
bounties doesn't get much USA media attention. The controversy didn't have to persist very
long for it to be successful. It was largely already over when the news about Schiff came
out.
To say it failed seems like projection and wishful thinking.
And consider this: Is it really possible that Trump didn't know - or couldn't have quickly
found out - that Schiff had been briefed? It seems likely that the 'Russian bounties' story
was arranged with the full knowledge of the Trump Administration. USA doesn't really want to
pull out.
The real story here is the dog that didn't bark at the dog that didn't
bark.
Speaking to the House Armed Services Committee, Gen. Frank McKenzie, commander of U.S.
Central Command, said the military is following through on its part of a landmark peace
agreement the Trump administration struck with the Taliban late last month to reduce the
number of American troops in the country, but he also told lawmakers he has "no confidence"
in the Taliban's willingness to pursue a peace process with the U.S.-backed Afghan
government in Kabul.
"We're going to go to 8,600 by the summer. Conditions on the ground will dictate if
we go below that,"
Meanwhile. not a word from the corporatist media about Maxwell and Epstein being blackmailers
for the intelligence services. Instead, they were just some rogue, random, wealthy,
highly-connected sex freaks. Maxwell and Epstein is the REAL election interference story.
RussiaGate is the distracting cover for it.
thanks b... interesting theory schiff is behind the ongoing russiagate news, or the latest
episode - bountygate... of course the dem party never miss a chance to shot themselves in the
foot... or is it that the major players want another 4 years of trumps excellent leadership
record? snark! tough call as to who is zooming who here, but if i want to be distracted, i
will know to read what wg refers to as the langley times, or the bezos post... bad enough i
read moa, lol...
Unfortunately, the trumped up story is NOT a dud; it did its job. Congress has made it
impossible to bring home troops from Afghanistan, ensuring that the murder machine/grift
combo can continue, with more money to be made by those on the inside getting paid to support
the efforts.
The CIA won't go broke when the flow of afghani opium dries up. That stuff is just a trickle
anyway, compared to the tidal waves of cocaine coming out of South America. And I don't even
believe that they really need any dope money to keep themselves afloat. It's simply important
that noone else gets to benefit from that mountain of easy cash.
However, if the USA leaves Afghanistan today, the first pipeline will be laid down
tomorrow, connecting Iranian oilfields to Chinese industry.
This says Russia paying bounties to the Taliban was exposed as a hoax. Yes, it was a partisan hoax. No, it is not really "exposed." It is believed as an article of faith now by a vast number
of people. It is now in the "birther" phase: nonsense people believe because they want to believe
it.
I doubt truth will ever catch up with this lie, because those who purport to be fact
checkers and truth tellers are the perpetrators and benefactors of this lie.
Any chance you could send a message to the "journalists" at the Guardian that the story is
nonsense.
They are going full "Russians bad, Trump stupid"
Don't worry about the facts.
There is a good chance that the origins of this story lie with MI6, The Guardian's current
proprietor. Like the Steele dossier, Skripal, the links between Manafort and Wikileaks, the
"hacking" of the DNC and much else in the attempt to revive the Cold War (when MI6 had lots
of fun and money was no object- the halcyon days of LeCarre and Ian Fleming) this bears the
fingerprints of British spooks.
The Guardian is on a voyage across the Atlantic, looking for economic security, and stories
like these, fabricated by Luke Harding on orders from above, are meant to endear the failing
rag to those for whom a trillion bucks a year for the Pentagon is easily delivered.
And what is even worse is if you told those believers that the US was doing that very
thing when it was the Russian military there they would be joyously applauding.
Luke Harding's friends and colleagues at the Integrity Initiative and the Institute for
Statecraft would like a honorable mention too, for all the hard work they put in, even if it
is well rewarded at the British tax payers's expense.
Other than that, given England's near century head start and resulting lead at imperial
decline vis-á-vis their former colony, I doubt that these operations are entirely
concocted by Her Majesty's diligent servants alone. I'd wager that the limeys are excellent
cutouts for domestic operations that hold potential to become a little too close to full-bore
treason for comfortable and plausible denial. Even when they are all in it together (apart
from you and me of course). It's all a matter of perception.
"They would"?? They DID! Have you forgotten all about Rambo in Afghanistan ? Even Starship Troopers, a totally over the top satire of that genre got those murkins
fist-pumpin 'n yeah-brawling at the theaters.
@Robert White how self-important, arrogant, and entitled these jerks are, they would
understand the volcanic rage directed at Trump. But there is more. Many of these people
really are utterly corrupt in the sense that they have made huge amounts of money through
illegal deals, influence-peddling, etc. They felt secure in the knowledge that Hillary
Clinton was surely not going to go after them, though she might have insisted on a piece of
the pie,, like the greasy, small-town lawyer she is. Now things are not nearly so sure and
they know it.
Trump is far from perfect, in any way you can imagine. Come November, after he has used Joe
Biden as a dishrag, Mr. White and friends will suffer a real case of the sadz.
Ray McGovern's latest piece in Consortium is a good summary of the Russia bounty story
with some details about Michael McFaul, former hack diplomat and Putin hater under Obama, now
working for Fred Hiatt at the WAPO. As usual, McGovern names names and tells a story that
makes sense while including his own perspective as a daily briefer to Reagan.
Bottom lines, Dems are getting weirder and scarier. https://consortiumnews.com/2020/07/03/ray-mcgovern-mutiny-on-the-bounties/
Russia since Putin does not offer much global profit; Xi Jinping on the other hand does,
for (manufacturing) stock market darlings like Apple, Amazon or Walmart etc. The five Eyes
need an enemy to keep budgets up, anyone will do, and Russia is Wall street's favorite bogey,
keeping China out of the limelight.
Western left keeps on supporting Xi, bedazzled by his orchestrated propaganda of being a
benign ruler. They barely care about Russia, the main activity is denigrating their own West:
"we" are bad = some European colonialists and fascists of two or more generations
ago .
Max Blumenthal breaks down the "Russian bounty" story's flaws and how it aims to prolong
the war in Afghanistan -- and uses Russiagate tactics to continue pushing the Democratic Party
to the right
Multiple US media outlets, citing anonymous intelligence officials, are claiming that Russia
offered bounties to kill US soldiers in Afghanistan, and that President Trump has taken no
action.
Others are contesting that claim. "Officials said there was disagreement among
intelligence officials about the strength of the evidence about the suspected Russian
plot," the New York Times reports. "Notably, the National Security Agency, which specializes in
hacking and electronic surveillance, has been more skeptical."
"The constant flow of Russiagate disinformation into the bloodstream of the Democratic Party
and its base is moving that party constantly to the right, while pushing the US deeper into
this Cold War," Blumenthal says.
Guest: Max Blumenthal, editor of The Grayzone and author of several books, including his
latest "The Management of Savagery."
TRANSCRIPT
AARON MATÉ: Welcome to Pushback, I'm Aaron Maté. There is a new
supposed Trump-Russia bombshell. The New York Times and other outlets reporting that
Russia has been paying bounties to Afghan militants to kill US soldiers in Afghanistan. Trump
and the White House were allegedly briefed on this information but have taken no action.
Now, the story has obvious holes, like many other Russiagate bombshells. It is sourced to
anonymous intelligence officials. The New York Times says that the claim comes from
Afghan detainees. And it also has some logical holes. The Taliban have been fighting the US
and Afghanistan for nearly two decades and never needed Russian payments before to kill the
Americans that they were fighting; [this] amongst other questions are raised about this
story. But that has not stopped the usual chorus from whipping up a frenzy.
RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC: Vladimir Putin is offering bounties for the scalps of
American soldiers in Afghanistan. Not only offering, offering money [to] the people who kill
Americans, but some of the bounties that Putin has offered have been collected, meaning the
Russians at least believe that their offering cash to kill Americans has actually worked to
get some Americans killed.
FORMER VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: Donald Trump has continued his embarrassing
campaign of deference and debasing himself before Vladimir Putin. He had has [sic] this
information according to The Times, and yet he offered to host Putin in the United
States and sought to invite Russia to rejoin the G7. He's in his entire presidency has been a
gift to Putin, but this is beyond the pale.
CHUCK TODD, NBC: Let me ask you this. Do you think that part of the that the
president is afraid to make Putin mad because maybe Putin did help him win the election and
he doesn't want to make him mad for 2020?
SENATE MINORITY LEADER CHUCK SCHUMER: I was not briefed on the Russian military
intelligence, but it shows that we need in this coming defense bill, which we're debating
this week, tough sanctions against Russia, which thus far Mitch McConnell has resisted.
Joining me now is Max Blumenthal, editor of The Grayzone, author of The Management of
Savagery . Max, welcome to Pushback. What is your reaction to this story?
MAX BLUMENTHAL: I mean, it just feels like so many other episodes that we've
witnessed over the past three or four years, where American intelligence officials basically
plant a story in one outlet, The New York Times , which functions as the media wing of
the Central Intelligence Agency. Then no reporting takes place whatsoever, but six reporters,
or three to six reporters are assigned to the piece to make it look like it was some
last-minute scramble to confirm this bombshell story. And then the story is confirmed again
by The Washington Post because their reporters, their three to six reporters in, you
know, capitals around the world with different beats spoke to the same intelligence
officials, or they were furnished different officials who fed them the same story. And, of
course, the story advances a narrative that the United States is under siege by Russia and
that we have to escalate against Russia just ahead of another peace summit or some kind of
international dialogue.
This has sort of been the general framework for these Russiagate bombshells, and of course
they can there's always an anti-Trump angle. And because, you know, liberal pundits and the,
you know, Democratic Party operatives see this as a means to undermine Trump as the election
heats up. They don't care if it's true or not. They don't care what the consequences are.
They're just gonna completely roll with it. And it's really changed, I think, not just US
foreign policy, but it's changed the Democratic Party in an almost irreversible way, to have
these constant "quote-unquote" bombshells that are really generated by the Central
Intelligence Agency and by other US intelligence operations in order to turn up the heat to
crank up the Cold War, to use these different media organs which no longer believe in
reporting, which see Operation Mockingbird as a kind of blueprint for how to do journalism,
to turn them into keys on the CIA's Mighty Wurlitzer. That's what happened here.
AARON MATÉ: What do you make of the logic of this story? This idea that the
Taliban would need Russian money to kill Americans when the Taliban's been fighting the US
for nearly two decades now. And the sourcing for the story, the same old playbook: anonymous
intelligence officials who are citing vague claims about apparently what was said by Afghan
detainees.
MAX BLUMENTHAL: This story has, as I said, it relies on zero reporting. The only
source is anonymous American intelligence officials. And I tweeted out a clip of a former CIA
operations officer who managed the CIA's operation in Angola, when the US was actually
fighting on the side of apartheid South Africa against a Marxist government that was backed
up by Cuban troops. His name was John Stockwell. And Stockwell talked about how one-third of
his covert operations staff were propagandists, and that they would feed imaginary stories
about Cuban barbarism that were completely false to reporters who were either CIA assets
directly or who were just unwitting dupes who would hang on a line waiting for American
intelligence officials to feed them stories. And one out of every five stories was completely
false, as Stockwell said. We could play some of that clip now; it's pretty remarkable to
watch it in light of this latest fake bombshell.
JOHN STOCKWELL: Another thing is to disseminate propaganda to influence people's
minds, and this is a major function of the CIA. And unfortunately, of course, it overlaps
into the gathering of information. You, you have contact with a journalist, you will give him
true stories, you'll get information from him, you'll also give him false stories.
OFF-CAMERA REPORTER: Can you do this with responsible reporters?
JOHN STOCKWELL: Yes, the Church Committee brought it out in 1975. And then Woodward
and Bernstein put an article in Rolling Stone a couple of years later. Four hundred
journalists cooperating with the CIA, including some of the biggest names in the
business.
MAX BLUMENTHAL: So, basically, I mean, you get the flavor of what someone who was
in the CIA at the height of the Cold War I mean, he did the same thing in Vietnam. And the
playbook is absolutely the same today. These this story was dumped on Friday in The New
York Times by "quote-unquote" American intelligence officials, as a breakthrough had been
made in Afghan peace talks and a conference was finally set for Doha, Qatar, that would
involve the Taliban, which had been seizing massive amounts of territory.
Now, it's my understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong, that the Taliban had been
fighting one of the most epic examples of an occupying army in modern history, just
absolutely chewing away at one of the most powerful militaries in human history in their
country for the last 19 years, without bounties from Vladimir Putin or
private-hotdog-salesman-and-Saint-Petersburg-troll-farm-owner Yevgeny Prigozhin , who always comes up
in these stories. It's always the hotdog guy who's doing everything bad from, like, you know,
fake Facebook ads to poisoning Sergei Skripal or whatever.
But I just don't see where the Taliban needs encouragement from Putin to do that. It's
their country. They want the US out and they have succeeded in seizing large amounts of
territory. Donald Trump has come into office with a pledge to remove US troops from
Afghanistan and ink this deal. And along comes this story as the peace process begins to
advance.
And what is the end-result? We haven't gotten into the domestic politics yet, but the
end-result is you have supposedly progressive senators like Chris Murphy of Connecticut
attacking Trump for not fighting Russia in Afghanistan. I mean, they want a straight-up proxy
war for not escalating. You have Richard Haass, the president of the Council on Foreign
Relations, someone who's aligned with the Democratic Party, who supported the war in Iraq
and, you know, supports just endless war, demanding that the US turn up the heat not just in
Afghanistan but in Syria. So, you know, the escalatory rhetoric is at a fever pitch right
now, and it's obviously going to impact that peace conference.
Let's remember that three days before Trump's summit with Putin was when Mueller chose to
release the indictment of the GRU agents for supposedly hacking the DNC servers. Let's
remember that a day before the UN the United Nations Geneva peace talks opened on Syria in
2014 was when US intelligence chose to feed these shady Caesar photos, supposedly showing
industrial slaughter of Syrian prisoners, to The New York Times in an investigation
that had been funded by Qatar. Like, so many shady intelligence dumps have taken place ahead
of peace summits to disrupt them, because the US doesn't feel like it has enough skin in the
game or it just simply doesn't want peace in these areas.
So, that's what happened here. That's really, I think, the essential backdrop for the
timing of this story. It really reveals how completely decayed mainstream media is as an
institution, that none of these reporters protested the story, didn't see fit to do any
independent investigation into it. At best they would print a Russian denial which counts for
nothing in the US, or a Taliban denial which counts for nothing in the US. And then and this
gets into the domestic political angle because so much of Russiagate, while it's been crafted
by former or current intelligence officials, depends on the Democratic Party and it
punditocracy, MSNBC and mainstream media as a projection megaphone, as its Mighty Wurlitzer.
That took place in this case because, according to this story, Donald Trump had been briefed
on Putin paying bounties to the Taliban and he chose to do nothing. Which, of course Trump
denies, but that counts for nothing as well. But, again, there's been no independent
confirmation of any of this. And now we get into the domestic part, which is that this new
Republican anti-Trump operation, The Lincoln Project, had a flashy ad ready to go almost
minutes after the story dropped.
THE LINCOLN PROJECT AD: Now we know Vladimir Putin pays a bounty for the murder of
American soldiers. Donald Trump knows, too, and does nothing. Putin pays the Taliban cash to
slaughter our men and women in uniform and Trump is silent, weak, controlled. Instead of
condemnation he insists Russia be treated as our equal.
MAX BLUMENTHAL: I mean, maybe they're just really good editors and brilliant
politicians who work overtime. They're just, like, on meth at Steve Schmidt's political
Batcave, just churning this material out. But I feel like they had an inkling, like this
story was coming. It just the coordination and timing was impeccable.
And The Lincoln Project is something that James Carville, the veteran Democratic
consultant, has said is doing more than any Democrat or any Democratic consultant to elect
Joe Biden. They're always out there doing the hard work. Who are they? Well, Steve Schmidt is
a former campaign manager for John McCain 2008. And you look at the various personnel
affiliated with it, they're all McCain former McCain aides or people who worked on the Jeb
and George W. Bush campaigns, going back to Texas and Florida. This is sort of the corporate
wing of the Republican Party, the white-glove-country-club-patrician Republicans who are very
pro-war, who hate Donald Trump.
And by doing this, by them really taking the lead on this attack, as you pointed out,
Aaron, number one, they are sucking the oxygen out of the more progressive anti-Trump
initiatives that are taking place, including in the streets of American cities. They're
taking the wind out of anti-Trump more progressive anti-Trump critiques. For example, I think
it's actually more powerful to attack Trump over the fact that he used, basically, chemical
weapons on American peaceful protesters to do a fascistic photo-op. I don't know why there
wasn't some call for congressional investigations on that. And they are getting skin in the
game on the Biden campaign. It really feels to me like this Lincoln campaign operation, this
moderate Republican operation which is also sort of a venue for neocons, will have more
influence after events like this than the Bernie Sanders campaign, which has an enormous
amount of delegates.
So, that's what I think the domestic repercussion is. It's just this constant it's the
constant flow of Russiagate disinformation into the bloodstream of the Democratic Party and
its base that's moving that party constantly to the right, while pushing the US deeper into
this Cold War that only serves, you know, people who are associated with the national
security state who need to justify their paycheck and the budget of the institutions that
employ them.
AARON MATÉ: Let's assume for a second that the allegation is true, although,
you know, you've laid out some of the reasons why it's not. Can you talk about the history
here, starting with Afghanistan, something you cover a lot in your book, The Management of
Savagery, where the US aim was to kill Russians, going right on through to Syria, where
just recently the US envoy for the coalition against ISIS, James Jeffery, who handles Syria,
said that his job now is to basically put the Russians in a quagmire in Syria.
JAMES JEFFREY: This isn't Afghanistan. This isn't Vietnam. This isn't a quagmire.
My job is to make it a quagmire for the Russians.
MAX BLUMENTHAL: Yeah, I mean, it feels like a giant act of psychological and
political projection to accuse Russia of using an Islamist militia in Afghanistan as a proxy
against the US to bleed the US into leaving, because that's been the US playbook in Central
Asia and the Middle East since at least 1979. I just tweeted a photo of Dan Rather in
Afghanistan, just crossing the Pakistani border and going to meet with some of the Mujahideen
in 1980. Dan Rather was panned in The New York in The Washington Post by Tom
Toles [Tom Shales], who was the media critic at the time, as "Gunga Dan," because he was so
gung-ho for the Afghan mujahideen. In his reports he would complain about how weak their
weaponry was, you know, how they needed more how they needed more funding. I mean, you could
call it bounties, but it was really just CIA funding.
DAN RATHER: These are the best weapons you have, huh? They only have about twenty
rounds for this?
TRANSLATOR: That's all. They have twenty rounds. Yes, and they know that these are
all old weapons and they really aren't up to doing anything to the Russian weaponry that's
around. But that's all they have, and this is why they want help. And he is saying that
America seems to be asleep. It doesn't seem to realize that if Afghanistan goes and the
Russians go over to the Gulf, that in a very short time it's going to be the turn of the
United States as well.
DAN RATHER: But I'm sure he knows that in Vietnam we got our fingers burned.
Indeed, we got our whole hands burned when we tried to help in this kind of situation.
TRANSLATOR [translating to the Afghan man and then his reply]: Your hands were
burned in Vietnam, but if you don't agree to help us, if you don't ally yourself with us,
then all of you, your whole body will be burnt eventually, because there is no one in the
world who can really fight and resist as well as the as much and as well as the Afghans
are.
DAN RATHER: But no American mother wants to send her son to Afghanistan.
TRANSLATOR [translating to the Afghan man and then his reply]: We don't need
anybody's soldiers here to help us, but we are being constantly accused that the Americans
are helping us with weapons. What we need, actually, are the American weapons. We don't need
or want American soldiers. We can do the fighting ourselves.
MAX BLUMENTHAL: And a year or several months before, the Carter Administration, at
the urging of national security chief Zbigniew Brzezinski, had enacted what would become
Operation Cyclone under Reagan, an arm-and-equip program to arm the Afghan mujahideen. The
Saudis put up a matching fund which helped bring the so-called Services Bureau into the field
where Osama bin Laden became a recruiter for international jihadists to join the battlefield.
And, you know, the goal was, in the words of Brzezinski, as he later admitted to a French
publication, was to force the Red Army, the Soviet Red Army, to intervene to protect the
pro-Soviet government in Kabul, which they proceeded to do. And then with the introduction of
the Stinger missile, the Afghan mujahideen, hailed as freedom fighters in Washington, were
able to destroy Russian supply lines, exact a heavy toll, and forced the Red Army to leave in
retreat. They helped create what's considered the Soviet Union's Vietnam.
So that was really but the blueprint for what Russian for what Russia is being accused of
now, and that same model was transferred over to Syria. It was also actually proposed for
Iraq in the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998. Then Senate Foreign Relations chair Jesse Helms
actually said that the Afghan mujahideen should be our model for supporting the Iraqi
resistance. So, this kind of proxy war was always on the table. Then the US did it in Syria,
when one out of every $13 in the CIA budget went to arm the so-called "moderate rebels" in
Syria, who we later found out were 31 flavors of jihadi, who were aligned with al-Qaeda's
local affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra and helped give rise to ISIS. Michael Morell, I tweeted some
video of him on Charlie Rose back in, I think, 2016. He's the former acting director for the
CIA, longtime deputy director. He said, you know, the reason that we're in Syria, what we
should be doing is causing Iran and Russia, the two allies of Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian
president, to pay a heavy price.
MICHAEL MORELL: We need to make the Iranians pay a price in Syria. We need to make
the Russians pay a price. The other thing
CHARLIE ROSE: We make them pay the price by killing killing Russians?
MICHAEL MORELL: Yes.
CHARLIE ROSE: And killing Iranians.
MICHAEL MORELL: Yes, covertly. You don't tell the world about it, right? You don't
stand up at the Pentagon and say we did this, right? But you make sure they know it in Moscow
and Tehran.
MAX BLUMENTHAL: What he means is by basically paying bounties, which the US was
literally doing along with its Gulf allies, to exact the toll on the allies of Assad, Russia.
So, let's just say it's true, according to your question, let's just say this is all true. It
would be a retaliation for what the United States has done to Russia in areas where it was
actually legally invited in by the governments in charge, either in Kabul or Damascus. And
that's, I think, the kind of ironic subtext that can hardly be understated when you see
someone like Dan Rather wag his finger at Putin for paying the Taliban as proxies. But, I
mean, it's such a ridiculous story that it's just hard to even fathom that it's real.
AARON MATÉ: Let me read Dan Rather's tweet, because it's so it speaks to
just how pervasive Russiagate culture is now. People have learned absolutely nothing from
it.
Rather says, "Reporters are trained to look for patterns that are suspicious, and time and
again one stands out with Donald Trump. Why is he so slavishly devoted to Putin? There is a
spectrum of possible answers ranging from craven to treasonous. One day I hope and suspect we
will find out."
It's like he forgot, perhaps, that Robert Mueller and his team spent three years
investigating this very issue and came up with absolutely nothing. But the narrative has
taken hold, and it's, as you talked about before, it's been the narrative we've been
presented as the vehicle for understanding and opposing Donald Trump, so it cannot be
questioned. And now it's like it's a matter of, what else is there to find out about Trump
and Russia after Robert Mueller and the US intelligence agencies looked for everything they
could and found nothing? They're still presented as if it's some kind of mystery that has to
be unraveled.
MAX BLUMENTHAL: And it was after, like, a week of just kind of neocon resistance
mind-explosion, where first John Bolton was hailed as this hero and truthteller about Trump.
Then Dick Cheney was welcomed into the resistance, you know, because he said, "Wear a mask."
I mean, you know, his mask was strangely not spattered with the blood of Iraqi children. But,
you know, it was just amazing like that. Of course, it was the Lincoln project who hijacked
the minds of the resistance, but basically people who used to work on Cheney's campaign said,
"Dick Cheney, welcome to the resistance." I mean, that was remarkable. And then you have this
and it, you know, today as you pointed out, Chuck Todd, "Chuck Toddler", welcomes on Meet
the Press John Bolton as this wise voice to comment on Donald Trump's slavish devotion to
Vladimir Putin and how we need to escalate.
CHUCK TODD, NBC: Let me ask you this. Do you think that part of the that the
president is afraid to make Putin mad because maybe Putin did help him win the election and
he doesn't want to make him mad for 2020?
MAX BLUMENTHAL: I mean, just a few years ago, maybe it was two years ago, before
Bolton was brought into the Trump NSC, he was considered just an absolute marginal crank who
was a contributor to Fox News. He'd been forgotten. He was widely hated by Democrats. Now
here he is as a sage voice to tell us how dangerous this moment is. And, you know, he's not
being even brought on just to promote his book; he's being brought on as just a sober-minded
foreign policy expert on Meet the Press . That's where we're at right now.
AARON MATÉ: Yeah, and when his critique of Trump is basically that Trump was
not hawkish enough. Bolton's most the biggest critique Bolton has of Trump is, as he writes
about in his book, is when Trump declined to bomb Iran after Iran shot down a drone over its
territory. And Bolton said that to him was the most irrational thing he's ever seen a
president do.
MAX BLUMENTHAL: Well, Bolton was mad that Trump confused body bags with missiles,
because he said Trump thought that there would be 150 dead Iranians, and I said, "No, Donald,
you're confused. It will be 150 missiles that we're firing into Iran." Like that's better!
Like, "Oh, okay, that makes everything all right," that we fire a hundred missiles for one
drone and maybe that wouldn't that kill possibly more than 150 people?
Well, in Bolton's world this was just another stupid move by Trump. If Bolton were, I
mean, just, just watch all the interviews with Bolton. Watch him on The View where the
only pushback he received was from Meghan McCain complaining that he ripped off a
Hamilton song for his book The Room Where It Happened , and she asked, "Don't
you have any apology to offer to Hamilton fans?" That was the pushback that Bolton
received. Just watch all of these interviews with Bolton and try to find the pushback. It's
not there. This is what Russiagate has done. It's taken one of the most Strangelovian,
psychotic, dangerous, bloodthirsty, sadistic monsters in US foreign policy circles and turned
him into a sober-minded, even heroic, truthteller.
AARON MATÉ: And inevitably the only long-term consequence that I can see
here is ultimately helping Trump, because, if history is a pattern, these Russiagate supposed
bombshells always either go nowhere or they get debunked. So, if this one gets forcefully
debunked, because I think it's quite possible, because Trump has said that he was never
briefed on this and they'll have to prove that he's lying, you know. It should be easy to do.
Someone could come out and say that. If they can't prove that he's lying, then this one, I
think, will blow up in their face. And all they will have done is, at a time when Trump is
vulnerable over the pandemic with over a hundred thousand people dead on his watch, all these
people did was ultimately try to bring the focus back to the same thing that failed for
basically the entirety of Trump's presidency, which is Russiagate and Trump's
supposed―and non-existent in reality―subservience to Vladimir Putin.
MAX BLUMENTHAL: But have you ever really confronted one of your liberal friends who
maybe doesn't follow these stories as closely as you do? You know, well-intentioned liberal
friend who just has this sense that Russia controls Trump, and asked them to really defend
that and provide the receipts and really explain where the Trump administration has just
handed the store to Russia? Because what we've seen is unprecedented since the height of the
Cold War, an unprecedented deterioration of US-Russia relations with new sanctions on Russia
every few months. You ask them to do that. They can't do it. It's just a sense they get, it's
a feeling they get. And that's because these bombshells drop, they get reported on the front
pages under banners of papers that declare that "democracy dies in darkness," whose brand is
something that everybody trusts, The New York Times , The Washington Post ,
Woodward and Bernstein, and everybody repeats the story again and again and again. And then,
if and when it gets debunked, discredited or just sort of disappears, a few days later
everybody forgets about it. And those people who are not just, like, 24/7 media consumers but
critical-minded media consumers, they're left with that sense that Russia actually controls
us and that we must do something to escalate with Russia. So, that's the point of these: by
the time the disinformation is discredited, the damage has already been done. And that same
tactic was employed against Jeremy Corbyn in the UK, to the point where so many people were
left with the sense that he must be an antisemite, although not one allegation was ever
proven.
AARON MATÉ: Yeah, and now to the point where, in the Labour Party―we
should touch on this for a second―where you had a Labour Party member retweet an
article recently that mentioned some criticism of Israel and for that she was expelled from
her position in the shadow cabinet.
MAX BLUMENTHAL: Yeah, well, you know, as a Jew I was really threatened by that
retweet [laughter]. I don't know about you.
I mean, this is Rebecca Long Bailey. She's one of the few Corbynites left in a high
position in Labour who hasn't been effectively burned at the stake for being a, you know, Jew
hater who wants to throw us all in gas chambers because she retweets an interview with some
celebrity I'd never heard of before, who didn't even say anything that extreme. But it really
shows how the Thought Police have taken control of the Labour Party through Sir Keir Starmer,
who is someone who has deep links to the national security state through the Crown
Prosecution Service, which he used to head, where he was involved in the prosecution of
Julian Assange. And he has worked with The Times of London, which is a, you know,
favorite paper of the national security state and the MI5 in the UK, for planting stories
against Jeremy Corbyn. He was intimately involved in that campaign, and now he's at the head
of the Labour Party for a very good reason. I really would recommend everyone watching this,
if you're interested more in who Keir Starmer really is, read "Five Questions for [New Labour
Leader] Sir Keir Starmer" by Matt Kennard at The Grayzone. It really lays it out and shows
you what's happening.
We're just in this kind of hyper-managed atmosphere, where everything feels so much more
controlled than it's ever been. And even though every sane rational person that I know seems
to understand what's happening, they feel like they're not allowed to say it, at least not in
any official capacity.
AARON MATÉ: From the US to Britain, everything is being co-opted. In the US
it's, you know, genuine resistance to Trump, in opposition to Trump, it gets co-opted by the
right. Same thing in Britain. People get manipulated into believing that Jeremy Corbyn, this
lifelong anti-racist is somehow an antisemite. It's all in the service of the same agenda,
and I have to say we're one of the few outlets that are pushing back on it. Everyone else is
getting swept up on it and it's a scary time.
We're gonna wrap. Max, your final comment.
MAX BLUMENTHAL: Well, yeah, we're pushing back. And I saw today Mint Press
[News], which is another outlet that has pushed back, their Twitter account was just
briefly removed for no reason, without explanation. Ollie Vargas, who's an independent
journalist who's doing some of the most important work in the English language from Bolivia,
reporting on the post-coup landscape and the repressive environment that's been created by
the junta installed with US help under Jeanine Áñez, his account has been taken
away on Twitter. The social media platforms are basically under the control of the national
security state. There's been a merger between the national security state and Silicon Valley,
and the space for these kinds of discussions is rapidly shrinking. So, I think, you know,
it's more important than ever to support alternative media and also to really have a clear
understanding of what's taking place. I'm really worried there just won't be any space for us
to have these conversations in the near future.
AARON MATÉ: Max Blumenthal, editor of The Grayzone, author of The
Management of Savagery , thanks a lot.
Aaron Maté is a journalist and producer. He hosts Pushback with Aaron
Maté on The Grayzone. He is also is contributor to The Nation magazine and former
host/producer for The Real News and Democracy Now!. Aaron has also presented and produced for
Vice, AJ+, and Al Jazeera.
Max Abrahms @MaxAbrahms - 16:07 UTC · Jul 3,
2020
RussiaGate stories follow a predictable pattern:
1. Explosive allegation
2. Media goes nuts
3. Evidence disproves or at best weakly supports allegation which is much less damning than
sold
4. Media moves on to next explosive allegation without apology
Wrongly accusing Russia started way before 'Russiagate':
> For five years, the sporting world has been gripped by Russian manipulation of the
anti-doping system. Now new evidence suggests the whistleblower who went into a witness
protection program during the scandal may not have been entirely truthful. <
"... the essential backdrop for the timing of this story. It really reveals how completely decayed mainstream media is as an institution, that none of these reporters protested the story, didn't see fit to do any independent investigation into it. At best they would print a Russian denial which counts for nothing in the US, or a Taliban denial which counts for nothing in the US. And then and this gets into the domestic political angle because so much of Russiagate, while it's been crafted by former or current intelligence officials, depends on the Democratic Party and it punditocracy, MSNBC and mainstream media as a projection megaphone, as its Mighty Wurlitzer. ..."
"... That took place in this case because, according to this story, Donald Trump had been briefed on Putin paying bounties to the Taliban and he chose to do nothing. Which, of course Trump denies, but that counts for nothing as well. But, again, there's been no independent confirmation of any of this. And now we get into the domestic part, which is that this new Republican anti-Trump operation, The Lincoln Project, had a flashy ad ready to go almost minutes after the story dropped. ..."
"... They're just, like, on meth at Steve Schmidt's political Batcave, just churning this material out. But I feel like they had an inkling, like this story was coming. It just the coordination and timing was impeccable. ..."
"... And The Lincoln Project is something that James Carville, the veteran Democratic consultant, has said is doing more than any Democrat or any Democratic consultant to elect Joe Biden. ..."
"... the Carter Administration, at the urging of national security chief Zbigniew Brzezinski, had enacted what would become Operation Cyclone under Reagan, an arm-and-equip program to arm the Afghan mujahideen. The Saudis put up a matching fund which helped bring the so-called Services Bureau into the field where Osama bin Laden became a recruiter for international jihadists to join the battlefield. And, you know, the goal was, in the words of Brzezinski, as he later admitted to a French publication, was to force the Red Army, the Soviet Red Army, to intervene to protect the pro-Soviet government in Kabul, which they proceeded to do. ..."
"... What he means is by basically paying bounties, which the US was literally doing along with its Gulf allies, to exact the toll on the allies of Assad, Russia. So, let's just say it's true, according to your question, let's just say this is all true. It would be a retaliation for what the United States has done to Russia in areas where it was actually legally invited in by the governments in charge, either in Kabul or Damascus. And that's, I think, the kind of ironic subtext that can hardly be understated when you see someone like Dan Rather wag his finger at Putin for paying the Taliban as proxies. But, I mean, it's such a ridiculous story that it's just hard to even fathom that it's real. ..."
"... just kind of neocon resistance mind-explosion, where first John Bolton was hailed as this hero and truthteller about Trump. ..."
"... And then you have this and it, you know, today as you pointed out, Chuck Todd, "Chuck Toddler", welcomes on Meet the Press John Bolton as this wise voice to comment on Donald Trump's slavish devotion to Vladimir Putin and how we need to escalate. ..."
"... This is what Russiagate has done. It's taken one of the most Strangelovian, psychotic, dangerous, bloodthirsty, sadistic monsters in US foreign policy circles and turned him into a sober-minded, even heroic, truthteller. ..."
Max Blumenthal breaks down the "Russian bounty" story's flaws and how it aims to prolong the
war in Afghanistan -- and uses Russiagate tactics to continue pushing the Democratic Party to
the right
Multiple US media outlets, citing anonymous intelligence officials, are claiming that Russia
offered bounties to kill US soldiers in Afghanistan, and that President Trump has taken no
action.
Others are contesting that claim. "Officials said there was disagreement among
intelligence officials about the strength of the evidence about the suspected Russian
plot," the New York Times reports. "Notably, the National Security Agency, which specializes in
hacking and electronic surveillance, has been more skeptical."
"The constant flow of Russiagate disinformation into the bloodstream of the Democratic Party
and its base is moving that party constantly to the right, while pushing the US deeper into
this Cold War," Blumenthal says.
Guest: Max Blumenthal, editor of The Grayzone and author of several books, including his
latest "The Management of Savagery."
TRANSCRIPT
AARON MATÉ: Welcome to Pushback, I'm Aaron Maté. There is a new supposed
Trump-Russia bombshell. The New York Times and other outlets reporting that Russia has
been paying bounties to Afghan militants to kill US soldiers in Afghanistan. Trump and the
White House were allegedly briefed on this information but have taken no action.
Now, the story has obvious holes, like many other Russiagate bombshells. It is sourced to
anonymous intelligence officials. The New York Times says that the claim comes from
Afghan detainees. And it also has some logical holes. The Taliban have been fighting the US and
Afghanistan for nearly two decades and never needed Russian payments before to kill the
Americans that they were fighting; [this] amongst other questions are raised about this story.
But that has not stopped the usual chorus from whipping up a frenzy.
RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC: Vladimir Putin is offering bounties for the scalps of American
soldiers in Afghanistan. Not only offering, offering money [to] the people who kill Americans,
but some of the bounties that Putin has offered have been collected, meaning the Russians at
least believe that their offering cash to kill Americans has actually worked to get some
Americans killed.
FORMER VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: Donald Trump has continued his embarrassing campaign
of deference and debasing himself before Vladimir Putin. He had has [sic] this information
according to The Times, and yet he offered to host Putin in the United States and sought
to invite Russia to rejoin the G7. He's in his entire presidency has been a gift to Putin, but
this is beyond the pale.
CHUCK TODD, NBC: Let me ask you this. Do you think that part of the that the
president is afraid to make Putin mad because maybe Putin did help him win the election and he
doesn't want to make him mad for 2020?
SENATE MINORITY LEADER CHUCK SCHUMER: I was not briefed on the Russian military
intelligence, but it shows that we need in this coming defense bill, which we're debating this
week, tough sanctions against Russia, which thus far Mitch McConnell has resisted.
Joining me now is Max Blumenthal, editor of The Grayzone, author of The Management of
Savagery . Max, welcome to Pushback. What is your reaction to this story?
MAX BLUMENTHAL: I mean, it just feels like so many other episodes that we've
witnessed over the past three or four years, where American intelligence officials basically
plant a story in one outlet, The New York Times , which functions as the media wing of
the Central Intelligence Agency. Then no reporting takes place whatsoever, but six reporters,
or three to six reporters are assigned to the piece to make it look like it was some
last-minute scramble to confirm this bombshell story. And then the story is confirmed again by
The Washington Post because their reporters, their three to six reporters in, you know,
capitals around the world with different beats spoke to the same intelligence officials, or
they were furnished different officials who fed them the same story. And, of course, the story
advances a narrative that the United States is under siege by Russia and that we have to
escalate against Russia just ahead of another peace summit or some kind of international
dialogue.
This has sort of been the general framework for these Russiagate bombshells, and of course
they can there's always an anti-Trump angle. And because, you know, liberal pundits and the,
you know, Democratic Party operatives see this as a means to undermine Trump as the election
heats up. They don't care if it's true or not. They don't care what the consequences are.
They're just gonna completely roll with it. And it's really changed, I think, not just US
foreign policy, but it's changed the Democratic Party in an almost irreversible way, to have
these constant "quote-unquote" bombshells that are really generated by the Central Intelligence
Agency and by other US intelligence operations in order to turn up the heat to crank up the
Cold War, to use these different media organs which no longer believe in reporting, which see
Operation Mockingbird as a kind of blueprint for how to do journalism, to turn them into keys
on the CIA's Mighty Wurlitzer. That's what happened here.
AARON MATÉ: What do you make of the logic of this story? This idea that the
Taliban would need Russian money to kill Americans when the Taliban's been fighting the US for
nearly two decades now. And the sourcing for the story, the same old playbook: anonymous
intelligence officials who are citing vague claims about apparently what was said by Afghan
detainees.
MAX BLUMENTHAL: This story has, as I said, it relies on zero reporting. The only
source is anonymous American intelligence officials. And I tweeted out a clip of a former CIA
operations officer who managed the CIA's operation in Angola, when the US was actually fighting
on the side of apartheid South Africa against a Marxist government that was backed up by Cuban
troops. His name was John Stockwell. And Stockwell talked about how one-third of his covert
operations staff were propagandists, and that they would feed imaginary stories about Cuban
barbarism that were completely false to reporters who were either CIA assets directly or who
were just unwitting dupes who would hang on a line waiting for American intelligence officials
to feed them stories. And one out of every five stories was completely false, as Stockwell
said. We could play some of that clip now; it's pretty remarkable to watch it in light of this
latest fake bombshell.
JOHN STOCKWELL: Another thing is to disseminate propaganda to influence people's
minds, and this is a major function of the CIA. And unfortunately, of course, it overlaps into
the gathering of information. You, you have contact with a journalist, you will give him true
stories, you'll get information from him, you'll also give him false stories.
OFF-CAMERA REPORTER: Can you do this with responsible reporters?
JOHN STOCKWELL: Yes, the Church Committee brought it out in 1975. And then Woodward
and Bernstein put an article in Rolling Stone a couple of years later. Four hundred
journalists cooperating with the CIA, including some of the biggest names in the business.
MAX BLUMENTHAL: So, basically, I mean, you get the flavor of what someone who was in
the CIA at the height of the Cold War I mean, he did the same thing in Vietnam. And the
playbook is absolutely the same today. These this story was dumped on Friday in The New York
Times by "quote-unquote" American intelligence officials, as a breakthrough had been made
in Afghan peace talks and a conference was finally set for Doha, Qatar, that would involve the
Taliban, which had been seizing massive amounts of territory.
Now, it's my understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong, that the Taliban had been fighting
one of the most epic examples of an occupying army in modern history, just absolutely chewing
away at one of the most powerful militaries in human history in their country for the last 19
years, without bounties from Vladimir Putin or
private-hotdog-salesman-and-Saint-Petersburg-troll-farm-owner Yevgeny Prigozhin , who always comes up
in these stories. It's always the hotdog guy who's doing everything bad from, like, you know,
fake Facebook ads to poisoning Sergei Skripal or whatever.
But I just don't see where the Taliban needs encouragement from Putin to do that. It's their
country. They want the US out and they have succeeded in seizing large amounts of territory.
Donald Trump has come into office with a pledge to remove US troops from Afghanistan and ink
this deal. And along comes this story as the peace process begins to advance.
And what is the end-result? We haven't gotten into the domestic politics yet, but the
end-result is you have supposedly progressive senators like Chris Murphy of Connecticut
attacking Trump for not fighting Russia in Afghanistan. I mean, they want a straight-up proxy
war for not escalating. You have Richard Haass, the president of the Council on Foreign
Relations, someone who's aligned with the Democratic Party, who supported the war in Iraq and,
you know, supports just endless war, demanding that the US turn up the heat not just in
Afghanistan but in Syria. So, you know, the escalatory rhetoric is at a fever pitch right now,
and it's obviously going to impact that peace conference.
Let's remember that three days before Trump's summit with Putin was when Mueller chose to
release the indictment of the GRU agents for supposedly hacking the DNC servers. Let's remember
that a day before the UN the United Nations Geneva peace talks opened on Syria in 2014 was when
US intelligence chose to feed these shady Caesar photos, supposedly showing industrial
slaughter of Syrian prisoners, to The New York Times in an investigation that had been
funded by Qatar. Like, so many shady intelligence dumps have taken place ahead of peace summits
to disrupt them, because the US doesn't feel like it has enough skin in the game or it just
simply doesn't want peace in these areas.
So, that's what happened here. That's really, I think, the essential backdrop for the timing
of this story. It really reveals how completely decayed mainstream media is as an institution,
that none of these reporters protested the story, didn't see fit to do any independent
investigation into it. At best they would print a Russian denial which counts for nothing in
the US, or a Taliban denial which counts for nothing in the US. And then and this gets into the
domestic political angle because so much of Russiagate, while it's been crafted by former or
current intelligence officials, depends on the Democratic Party and it punditocracy, MSNBC and
mainstream media as a projection megaphone, as its Mighty Wurlitzer.
That took place in this
case because, according to this story, Donald Trump had been briefed on Putin paying bounties
to the Taliban and he chose to do nothing. Which, of course Trump denies, but that counts for
nothing as well. But, again, there's been no independent confirmation of any of this. And now
we get into the domestic part, which is that this new Republican anti-Trump operation, The
Lincoln Project, had a flashy ad ready to go almost minutes after the story dropped.
THE LINCOLN PROJECT AD: Now we know Vladimir Putin pays a bounty for the murder of
American soldiers. Donald Trump knows, too, and does nothing. Putin pays the Taliban cash to
slaughter our men and women in uniform and Trump is silent, weak, controlled. Instead of
condemnation he insists Russia be treated as our equal.
MAX BLUMENTHAL: I mean, maybe they're just really good editors and brilliant
politicians who work overtime. They're just, like, on meth at Steve Schmidt's political Batcave, just churning this material out. But I feel like they had an inkling, like this story
was coming. It just the coordination and timing was impeccable.
And The Lincoln Project is something that James Carville, the veteran Democratic consultant,
has said is doing more than any Democrat or any Democratic consultant to elect Joe Biden.
They're always out there doing the hard work. Who are they? Well, Steve Schmidt is a former
campaign manager for John McCain 2008. And you look at the various personnel affiliated with
it, they're all McCain former McCain aides or people who worked on the Jeb and George W. Bush
campaigns, going back to Texas and Florida. This is sort of the corporate wing of the
Republican Party, the white-glove-country-club-patrician Republicans who are very pro-war, who
hate Donald Trump.
And by doing this, by them really taking the lead on this attack, as you pointed out, Aaron,
number one, they are sucking the oxygen out of the more progressive anti-Trump initiatives that
are taking place, including in the streets of American cities. They're taking the wind out of
anti-Trump more progressive anti-Trump critiques. For example, I think it's actually more
powerful to attack Trump over the fact that he used, basically, chemical weapons on American
peaceful protesters to do a fascistic photo-op. I don't know why there wasn't some call for
congressional investigations on that. And they are getting skin in the game on the Biden
campaign. It really feels to me like this Lincoln campaign operation, this moderate Republican
operation which is also sort of a venue for neocons, will have more influence after events like
this than the Bernie Sanders campaign, which has an enormous amount of delegates.
So, that's what I think the domestic repercussion is. It's just this constant it's the
constant flow of Russiagate disinformation into the bloodstream of the Democratic Party and its
base that's moving that party constantly to the right, while pushing the US deeper into this
Cold War that only serves, you know, people who are associated with the national security state
who need to justify their paycheck and the budget of the institutions that employ them.
AARON MATÉ: Let's assume for a second that the allegation is true, although, you
know, you've laid out some of the reasons why it's not. Can you talk about the history here,
starting with Afghanistan, something you cover a lot in your book, The Management of
Savagery, where the US aim was to kill Russians, going right on through to Syria, where
just recently the US envoy for the coalition against ISIS, James Jeffery, who handles Syria,
said that his job now is to basically put the Russians in a quagmire in Syria.
JAMES JEFFREY: This isn't Afghanistan. This isn't Vietnam. This isn't a quagmire. My
job is to make it a quagmire for the Russians.
MAX BLUMENTHAL: Yeah, I mean, it feels like a giant act of psychological and
political projection to accuse Russia of using an Islamist militia in Afghanistan as a proxy
against the US to bleed the US into leaving, because that's been the US playbook in Central
Asia and the Middle East since at least 1979. I just tweeted a photo of Dan Rather in
Afghanistan, just crossing the Pakistani border and going to meet with some of the Mujahideen
in 1980. Dan Rather was panned in The New York in The Washington Post by Tom
Toles [Tom Shales], who was the media critic at the time, as "Gunga Dan," because he was so
gung-ho for the Afghan mujahideen. In his reports he would complain about how weak their
weaponry was, you know, how they needed more how they needed more funding. I mean, you could
call it bounties, but it was really just CIA funding.
DAN RATHER: These are the best weapons you have, huh? They only have about twenty
rounds for this?
TRANSLATOR: That's all. They have twenty rounds. Yes, and they know that these are
all old weapons and they really aren't up to doing anything to the Russian weaponry that's
around. But that's all they have, and this is why they want help. And he is saying that America
seems to be asleep. It doesn't seem to realize that if Afghanistan goes and the Russians go
over to the Gulf, that in a very short time it's going to be the turn of the United States as
well.
DAN RATHER: But I'm sure he knows that in Vietnam we got our fingers burned. Indeed,
we got our whole hands burned when we tried to help in this kind of situation.
TRANSLATOR [translating to the Afghan man and then his reply]: Your hands were burned
in Vietnam, but if you don't agree to help us, if you don't ally yourself with us, then all of
you, your whole body will be burnt eventually, because there is no one in the world who can
really fight and resist as well as the as much and as well as the Afghans are.
DAN RATHER: But no American mother wants to send her son to Afghanistan.
TRANSLATOR [translating to the Afghan man and then his reply]: We don't need
anybody's soldiers here to help us, but we are being constantly accused that the Americans are
helping us with weapons. What we need, actually, are the American weapons. We don't need or
want American soldiers. We can do the fighting ourselves.
MAX BLUMENTHAL: And a year or several months before, the Carter Administration, at
the urging of national security chief Zbigniew Brzezinski, had enacted what would become
Operation Cyclone under Reagan, an arm-and-equip program to arm the Afghan mujahideen. The
Saudis put up a matching fund which helped bring the so-called Services Bureau into the field
where Osama bin Laden became a recruiter for international jihadists to join the battlefield.
And, you know, the goal was, in the words of Brzezinski, as he later admitted to a French
publication, was to force the Red Army, the Soviet Red Army, to intervene to protect the
pro-Soviet government in Kabul, which they proceeded to do.
And then with the introduction of
the Stinger missile, the Afghan mujahideen, hailed as freedom fighters in Washington, were able
to destroy Russian supply lines, exact a heavy toll, and forced the Red Army to leave in
retreat. They helped create what's considered the Soviet Union's Vietnam.
So that was really but the blueprint for what Russian for what Russia is being accused of
now, and that same model was transferred over to Syria. It was also actually proposed for Iraq
in the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998. Then Senate Foreign Relations chair Jesse Helms actually
said that the Afghan mujahideen should be our model for supporting the Iraqi resistance. So,
this kind of proxy war was always on the table. Then the US did it in Syria, when one out of
every $13 in the CIA budget went to arm the so-called "moderate rebels" in Syria, who we later
found out were 31 flavors of jihadi, who were aligned with al-Qaeda's local affiliate Jabhat
al-Nusra and helped give rise to ISIS. Michael Morell, I tweeted some video of him on Charlie
Rose back in, I think, 2016. He's the former acting director for the CIA, longtime deputy
director. He said, you know, the reason that we're in Syria, what we should be doing is causing
Iran and Russia, the two allies of Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian president, to pay a heavy
price.
MICHAEL MORELL: We need to make the Iranians pay a price in Syria. We need to make
the Russians pay a price. The other thing
CHARLIE ROSE: We make them pay the price by killing killing Russians?
MICHAEL MORELL: Yes.
CHARLIE ROSE: And killing Iranians.
MICHAEL MORELL: Yes, covertly. You don't tell the world about it, right? You don't
stand up at the Pentagon and say we did this, right? But you make sure they know it in Moscow
and Tehran.
MAX BLUMENTHAL:What he means is by basically paying bounties, which the US was
literally doing along with its Gulf allies, to exact the toll on the allies of Assad, Russia.
So, let's just say it's true, according to your question, let's just say this is all true. It
would be a retaliation for what the United States has done to Russia in areas where it was
actually legally invited in by the governments in charge, either in Kabul or Damascus. And
that's, I think, the kind of ironic subtext that can hardly be understated when you see someone
like Dan Rather wag his finger at Putin for paying the Taliban as proxies. But, I mean, it's
such a ridiculous story that it's just hard to even fathom that it's real.
AARON MATÉ: Let me read Dan Rather's tweet, because it's so it speaks to just
how pervasive Russiagate culture is now. People have learned absolutely nothing from it.
Rather says, "Reporters are trained to look for patterns that are suspicious, and time and
again one stands out with Donald Trump. Why is he so slavishly devoted to Putin? There is a
spectrum of possible answers ranging from craven to treasonous. One day I hope and suspect we
will find out."
It's like he forgot, perhaps, that Robert Mueller and his team spent three years
investigating this very issue and came up with absolutely nothing. But the narrative has taken
hold, and it's, as you talked about before, it's been the narrative we've been presented as the
vehicle for understanding and opposing Donald Trump, so it cannot be questioned. And now it's
like it's a matter of, what else is there to find out about Trump and Russia after Robert
Mueller and the US intelligence agencies looked for everything they could and found nothing?
They're still presented as if it's some kind of mystery that has to be unraveled.
MAX BLUMENTHAL: And it was after, like, a week of just kind of neocon resistance
mind-explosion, where first John Bolton was hailed as this hero and truthteller about Trump.
Then Dick Cheney was welcomed into the resistance, you know, because he said, "Wear a mask." I
mean, you know, his mask was strangely not spattered with the blood of Iraqi children. But, you
know, it was just amazing like that. Of course, it was the Lincoln project who hijacked the
minds of the resistance, but basically people who used to work on Cheney's campaign said, "Dick
Cheney, welcome to the resistance." I mean, that was remarkable. And then you have this and it,
you know, today as you pointed out, Chuck Todd, "Chuck Toddler", welcomes on Meet the
Press John Bolton as this wise voice to comment on Donald Trump's slavish devotion to
Vladimir Putin and how we need to escalate.
CHUCK TODD, NBC: Let me ask you this. Do you think that part of the that the
president is afraid to make Putin mad because maybe Putin did help him win the election and he
doesn't want to make him mad for 2020?
MAX BLUMENTHAL: I mean, just a few years ago, maybe it was two years ago, before
Bolton was brought into the Trump NSC, he was considered just an absolute marginal crank who
was a contributor to Fox News. He'd been forgotten. He was widely hated by Democrats. Now here
he is as a sage voice to tell us how dangerous this moment is. And, you know, he's not being
even brought on just to promote his book; he's being brought on as just a sober-minded foreign
policy expert on Meet the Press . That's where we're at right now.
AARON MATÉ: Yeah, and when his critique of Trump is basically that Trump was not
hawkish enough. Bolton's most the biggest critique Bolton has of Trump is, as he writes about
in his book, is when Trump declined to bomb Iran after Iran shot down a drone over its
territory. And Bolton said that to him was the most irrational thing he's ever seen a president
do.
MAX BLUMENTHAL: Well, Bolton was mad that Trump confused body bags with missiles,
because he said Trump thought that there would be 150 dead Iranians, and I said, "No, Donald,
you're confused. It will be 150 missiles that we're firing into Iran." Like that's better!
Like, "Oh, okay, that makes everything all right," that we fire a hundred missiles for one
drone and maybe that wouldn't that kill possibly more than 150 people?
Well, in Bolton's world this was just another stupid move by Trump. If Bolton were, I mean,
just, just watch all the interviews with Bolton. Watch him on The View where the only
pushback he received was from Meghan McCain complaining that he ripped off a Hamilton
song for his book The Room Where It Happened , and she asked, "Don't you have any
apology to offer to Hamilton fans?" That was the pushback that Bolton received. Just
watch all of these interviews with Bolton and try to find the pushback. It's not there. This is
what Russiagate has done. It's taken one of the most Strangelovian, psychotic, dangerous,
bloodthirsty, sadistic monsters in US foreign policy circles and turned him into a
sober-minded, even heroic, truthteller.
AARON MATÉ: And inevitably the only long-term consequence that I can see here is
ultimately helping Trump, because, if history is a pattern, these Russiagate supposed
bombshells always either go nowhere or they get debunked. So, if this one gets forcefully
debunked, because I think it's quite possible, because Trump has said that he was never briefed
on this and they'll have to prove that he's lying, you know. It should be easy to do. Someone
could come out and say that. If they can't prove that he's lying, then this one, I think, will
blow up in their face. And all they will have done is, at a time when Trump is vulnerable over
the pandemic with over a hundred thousand people dead on his watch, all these people did was
ultimately try to bring the focus back to the same thing that failed for basically the entirety
of Trump's presidency, which is Russiagate and Trump's supposed―and non-existent in
reality―subservience to Vladimir Putin.
MAX BLUMENTHAL: But have you ever really confronted one of your liberal friends who
maybe doesn't follow these stories as closely as you do? You know, well-intentioned liberal
friend who just has this sense that Russia controls Trump, and asked them to really defend that
and provide the receipts and really explain where the Trump administration has just handed the
store to Russia? Because what we've seen is unprecedented since the height of the Cold War, an
unprecedented deterioration of US-Russia relations with new sanctions on Russia every few
months. You ask them to do that. They can't do it. It's just a sense they get, it's a feeling
they get. And that's because these bombshells drop, they get reported on the front pages under
banners of papers that declare that "democracy dies in darkness," whose brand is something that
everybody trusts, The New York Times , The Washington Post , Woodward and
Bernstein, and everybody repeats the story again and again and again. And then, if and when it
gets debunked, discredited or just sort of disappears, a few days later everybody forgets about
it. And those people who are not just, like, 24/7 media consumers but critical-minded media
consumers, they're left with that sense that Russia actually controls us and that we must do
something to escalate with Russia. So, that's the point of these: by the time the
disinformation is discredited, the damage has already been done. And that same tactic was
employed against Jeremy Corbyn in the UK, to the point where so many people were left with the
sense that he must be an antisemite, although not one allegation was ever proven.
AARON MATÉ: Yeah, and now to the point where, in the Labour Party―we
should touch on this for a second―where you had a Labour Party member retweet an article
recently that mentioned some criticism of Israel and for that she was expelled from her
position in the shadow cabinet.
MAX BLUMENTHAL: Yeah, well, you know, as a Jew I was really threatened by that
retweet [laughter]. I don't know about you.
I mean, this is Rebecca Long Bailey. She's one of the few Corbynites left in a high position
in Labour who hasn't been effectively burned at the stake for being a, you know, Jew hater who
wants to throw us all in gas chambers because she retweets an interview with some celebrity I'd
never heard of before, who didn't even say anything that extreme. But it really shows how the
Thought Police have taken control of the Labour Party through Sir Keir Starmer, who is someone
who has deep links to the national security state through the Crown Prosecution Service, which
he used to head, where he was involved in the prosecution of Julian Assange. And he has worked
with The Times of London, which is a, you know, favorite paper of the national security
state and the MI5 in the UK, for planting stories against Jeremy Corbyn. He was intimately
involved in that campaign, and now he's at the head of the Labour Party for a very good reason.
I really would recommend everyone watching this, if you're interested more in who Keir Starmer
really is, read "Five Questions for [New Labour Leader] Sir Keir Starmer" by Matt Kennard at
The Grayzone. It really lays it out and shows you what's happening.
We're just in this kind of hyper-managed atmosphere, where everything feels so much more
controlled than it's ever been. And even though every sane rational person that I know seems to
understand what's happening, they feel like they're not allowed to say it, at least not in any
official capacity.
AARON MATÉ: From the US to Britain, everything is being co-opted. In the US
it's, you know, genuine resistance to Trump, in opposition to Trump, it gets co-opted by the
right. Same thing in Britain. People get manipulated into believing that Jeremy Corbyn, this
lifelong anti-racist is somehow an antisemite. It's all in the service of the same agenda, and
I have to say we're one of the few outlets that are pushing back on it. Everyone else is
getting swept up on it and it's a scary time.
We're gonna wrap. Max, your final comment.
MAX BLUMENTHAL: Well, yeah, we're pushing back. And I saw today Mint Press
[News], which is another outlet that has pushed back, their Twitter account was just
briefly removed for no reason, without explanation. Ollie Vargas, who's an independent
journalist who's doing some of the most important work in the English language from Bolivia,
reporting on the post-coup landscape and the repressive environment that's been created by the
junta installed with US help under Jeanine Áñez, his account has been taken away on
Twitter. The social media platforms are basically under the control of the national security
state. There's been a merger between the national security state and Silicon Valley, and the
space for these kinds of discussions is rapidly shrinking. So, I think, you know, it's more
important than ever to support alternative media and also to really have a clear understanding
of what's taking place. I'm really worried there just won't be any space for us to have these
conversations in the near future.
AARON MATÉ: Max Blumenthal, editor of The Grayzone, author of The Management
of Savagery , thanks a lot.
The Russian president's special envoy for Afghanistan affairs, Zamir Kabulov, on Saturday
accused US intelligence in Afghanistan of "drug trafficking," reported Tass, a Russian news
agency.
Following a New York Times story alleging that a Russian unit was offering bounties to
Taliban-linked militants to kill US-led coalition troops in Afghanistan, Kabulov responded to
the allegations, saying that US intelligence officers, who "accuse us of different things," are
involved in "drug trafficking."
"Those wonderful US intelligence officers, who accuse us of different things, are involved
in drug trafficking. Their planes from Kandahar, from Bagram [airfield near Kabul] are flying
wherever they want to - to Germany, to Romania - without any inspections," he said. "Every
citizen of Kabul will tell you that, everyone is ready to talk about that," said Tass quoting
Kabulov speaking to a state-run tv channel.
The New York Times report said that there were different theories on why Russia would
support Taliban attacks, "including a desire to keep the United States bogged down in war."
The Taliban operation was "led by a unit known as the GRU," said the Times article, "which
has been blamed in numerous international incidents including a 2018
chemical weapons attack in Britain that nearly killed Russian-born double agent Sergei
Skripal."
The New York Times quoted a Kremlin spokesman saying that Russia was unaware of the
accusations.
The Taliban also rejected the allegations.
Russia has more recently been accused by the United States of quietly providing weapons to
the Taliban.
The US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Wednesday last week, in remarks to the press on the
reports of Russian bounties for Taliban fighters who kill Americans, said: "The fact that the
Russians are engaged in Afghanistan in a way that's adverse to the United States is nothing
new."
"Some members of Congress who are out there today suggesting that they are shocked and
appalled by this, they saw the same intelligence that we saw. So it would be interesting to ask
them what they did when they saw whatever intelligence it is that they are referring to,"
Pompeo said.
Following Pompeo's remarks about Russia, a source on Thursday confirmed to TOLOnews that the
man who controls the transaction is named Rahmat Sia and he is the owner of a construction
company.
Rahmatullah Azizi is his given name, but he is known as Rahmat Sia. He lives in Russia.
According to the source, Rahmatullah's brother, his driver, his cousin and a Forex dealer
have been arrested by the Afghan security forces in PD4 of Kabul city.
Schiff demands the Trump administration brief all of Congress about the unverified
allegations, yet he himself did not ask for a briefing following the February briefing of his
own staff.
As chairman of the intelligence committee, Schiff had the authority to immediately
brief the full committee and convene hearings on the matter. Schiff, however, did nothing. He
did not brief his committee on the matter, nor did he brief the gang of 8, which consists of
top congressional leadership in both chambers .
####
It yet again goes to show how the Dems dirty tricks can compete with that of the Repubs.
Will the US media ignore this or just move on to another story?
Ben Norton
@BenjaminNorton
The CIA's shady "Russian bounties" leaks are having their intended impact: sabotaging efforts
to end the war in Afghanistan.
The bipartisan House Armed Services Committee just voted to block Trump from withdrawing
from Afghanistan.
Bipartisan imperialism
//////Next there will be more sanctions on Russia for a fake story.
Trump is not supported by his own party – both sides are loyal only to eg military
industrial complex
Doesn't matter in the least. Things have gone so far past the possibility of the USA and
Russia ever having friendly relations again in our lifetimes that when the USA is chuckling
to itself over how it is fucking things up for Russia, it is only fucking things up for
itself. Russia is moving ahead on the assumption that the west is a write-off, or at least
the North American part of it, and while it may continue to warily court Europe, the best
chance the USA ever had of taking down Russia is already years in the past. It took a long
time to learn the American pattern of smile-and-backstab, but Russia has learned it now and
the decision has been made. If the USA wants to stay in Afghanistan until the judgment trump,
brooding obsessively over its empire of mud huts and walnut trees, fine. It's not hurting
Russia. I do think, though, that the next time the USA tries to stir up a pocket religious
war by claiming the 'rise of ISIS' in some choice target country by injecting its pet
militants, it is going to meet with resistance to the narrative, and would be about as able
to form a coalition of the willing as it would a march of the dead.
What is the best way to debunk a conspiracy theory? Call it a conspiracy theory, a label
which in and of itself implies disbelief. The only problem with that is there have been many
actual conspiracies both historically and currently and many of them are not in the least
theoretical in nature. Conspiracies of several kinds brought about American participation in
both world wars. And however one feels about President Donald Trump, it must be conceded that
he has been the victim of a number of conspiracies, first to deny him the GOP nomination, then
to insure that he be defeated in the presidential election, and subsequently to completely
delegitimize his presidency.
Prior to Trump there have been numerous conspiracy "theories," many of which have been quite
plausible. The "suicide" of Defense Secretary James Forrestal comes to mind, followed by the
assassination of John F. Kennedy, which has been credibly credited to both Cuba and Israel. And
then there is 9/11, perhaps the greatest conspiracy theory of all. Israel clearly knew it was
coming, witness the Five Dancing Shlomos cavorting and filming themselves in New Jersey as the
twin towers went down. Also the Saudis might have played a role in funding and even directing
the alleged hijackers. And we have also had the conspiracy by the neocons to fabricate
information about Iraq's WMDs and the ongoing conspiracy by the same players to depict Iran as
a threat to the United States.
Given the multiple crises currently being experienced in the United States it is perhaps
inevitable that speculation about conspiracies is at its highest level ever. To the average
American it is incomprehensible how the country has become so screwed up because the political
and economic elite is fundamentally incompetent, so the search for a scapegoat must go on.
There are a number of conspiracy theories about the coronavirus currently making the rounds.
Those libertarians and contrarians who choose to believe that the virus is actually a flu being
exploited to strip them of their liberties are convinced that many in the government and media
have conspired to sell what is essentially a fraud. One such snake oil salesman persists in
using an analogy, that since more Americans are killed in automobile accidents than by the
coronavirus it would be more appropriate to ban cars than to require the wearing of face
masks.
Another theory making the rounds accuses Microsoft multi-billionaire Bill Gates of trying to
take over the world's healthcare system through the introduction of a vaccine to control the
coronavirus, which he presumably created in the first place. The fallacy in many of the virus
"conspiracies" that relate to a totalitarian regime or a crazy billionaire using a faux disease
to generate fear so as to gain control of the citizenry is that it gives far too much credit to
any government's or individual's ability to pull off a fraud of that magnitude. It would
require people a whole lot smarter than the tag team of Trump-Pompeo or even Gates to convince
the world and thousands of doctors and scientists that they should lock down entire countries
over something completely phony.
Other coronavirus theories include that the virus was developed in the U.S., was exported to
China by a traitorous American scientist, weaponized in Wuhan and then unleashed on the West as
part of a communist plot to destroy capitalism and democracy. That would mean that we are
already at war with China, or at least we should be. Then there is the largely accepted theory
that the virus was created in Wuhan and escaped from the lab. Since that time Beijing has been
engaging in a cover-up, which is the conspiracy. It is a theme favored by the White House,
which has not yet decided what to do about it beyond assigning funny "Yellow Peril" names to
the disease so everyone in MAGA hats will have something to chuckle about leading up to the
November election.
But all kidding aside, there are some conspiracy theories that are more worth considering
than others. One would be the role of George Soros and the so-called Open Society Foundations
that he controls and funds in the unrest that is sweeping across the United States. The
allegations against Soros are admittedly thin on evidence, but conspiracy mongers would point
out that that is the mark of a really well-planned conspiracy, similar to what the 89 year-old
Hungarian Jewish billionaire has been engaging in for a long time. The current round of claims
about Open Society and Soros have generated as many as 500,000 tweets a day as well as nearly
70,000 Facebook posts per month, mostly from political conservatives.
The allegations tend to fall into two broad
categories . First, that Soros hires protester/thugs and transports them to demonstrations
where they are supplied with bricks and incendiaries to turn the gatherings into riots. Second,
that Open Society is funding and otherwise enabling the destabilizing flow of illegal
immigrants into the United States.
Soros and his supporters, many of whom are Jewish because they think they see anti-Semitism
in the attacks on the Hungarian, claim to support democratization and free trade worldwide. He
is, in effect, one of the world's leading globalists. Soros claims to be a "force for good" as
the cliché goes, but is it completely credible that his $32 billion foundation does not
operate behind the scenes to influence developments in ways that are certainly not
democratic?
Indeed, Soros accumulated his vast fortune through vulture capitalism. He made over $1
billion in 1992 by selling short $10 billion in British pounds sterling, leading to the media
dubbing him "the man who broke the bank of England." He has been accused of similar currency
manipulation in both Europe and Asia. In 1999, New York Times economist Paul Krugman wrote of
him that "Nobody who has read a business magazine in the last few years can be unaware that
these days there really are investors who not only move money in anticipation of a currency
crisis, but actually do their best to trigger that crisis for fun and profit."
Far from a passive bystander giving helpful advice to democracy groups, Soros was heavily
involved with the restructuring of former communist regimes in eastern Europe and had a hand in
the so-called Rose Revolution in Georgia in 2003 and the Maidan Revolution in Ukraine in 2014,
both of which were supported by the U.S. government and were intended to threaten Russia's
regional security.
Soros particularly hates President Vladimir Putin and Russia. He revealed that he is far
from a benevolent figure fighting for justice in his March Financial Times op-ed (behind
a pay wall) entitled "Europe Must Stand With Turkey Over Putin's War Crimes in Syria."
The op-ed is full of errors of fact and is basically a call for aggression against a Russia
that he describes as engaged in bombing schools and hospitals. It starts with, "Since the
beginning of its intervention in Syria in September 2015, Russia has not only sought to keep in
place its most faithful Arab ally, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. It has also wanted to
regain the regional and global influence that it lost since the fall of the Soviet Union."
First of all, Russia did not "intervene" in Syria. It was invited there by the country's
legitimate government to provide assistance against various groups, some of which were linked
to al Qaeda and the Islamic State, that were seeking to overthrow President al-Assad.
And apart from Soros, few actual experts on Russia would claim that it is seeking to
recreate the "influence" of the Soviet Union. Moscow does not have the resources to do so and
has evinced no desire to pursue the sort of global agenda that was characteristic of the Soviet
state.
There then follows a complete flight into hyperbole with: "Vladimir Putin has sought to use
the turmoil in the Middle East to erase international norms and advances in international
humanitarian law made since the second world war. In fact, creating the humanitarian disaster
that has turned almost 6 million Syrians into refugees has not been a byproduct of the Russian
president's strategy in Syria. It has been one of his central goals." Note that none of Soros's
assertions are supported by fact.
The Soros op-ed also included a bit of reminiscence, describing how, "In 2014, I urged
Europe to wake up to the threat that Russia was posing to its strategic interests." The op-ed
reveals Soros as neither conciliatory nor "diplomatic," a clear sign that he picks his enemies
based on ideological considerations that also drive his choices on how to frame his ventures.
Given all of that, why is it unimaginable that George Soros is engaged in a conspiracy, that he
is clandestinely behind at least some of the mayhem of Antifa and Black Lives Matter as well as
the flood of illegal immigration that have together perhaps fatally destabilized the United
States?
Philip Giraldi, Ph.D. is Executive Director of the Council for the National
Interest.
One would be the role of George Soros and the so-called Open Society Foundations that he
controls and funds in the unrest that is sweeping across the United States.
Instead of fairly distributing the wealth created by globalisation, Soros argued,
capitalism's "winners" failed to "compensate the losers", which led to a drastic increase
in domestic inequality – and anger.
I know it is just a "conspiracy theory" that people like George Schwartz aka George
(((Soros))) are funding these riots, but if this "conspiracy theory" were indeed true, why
aren't Soros and his (((cohorts))) at least under investigation for treason and murder
charges.
I am not a populist. But the contention (s) you are referring to are no really the
argument -- not by content.
The argument is that the suppose winners were and continue unfairly leverage the economic
system with the help f government to avoid the consequences of their miscalculations,
sometimes innocent, often careless and sometimes deliberate machinations.
That is quite a different argument than the winners should share more --
And as much as a capitalist as I am am -- I admit that there are goings on which violate
the rules of capitalism as well as common decency.
I didn't know that Soros could be so explicit about what he thinks about Putin and Syria
and involve himself so concretely with such questions, about which he probably doesn't know
very much (in the last times there have been very interesting articles about Syria, for
instance, see links below).
Even though, I don't think that he has anything to do with BLM and the protests. Riots and
revolts have happened other times without the coordination of people from outside. It
happened in 1381 in England. A few years ago it happened in the UK and earlier it happened in
the US, (I think when there was a blackout). Now it happened spontaneously in Stuttgart in
Germany (apparently).
Why shouldn't people complain about the militarisation of the police which uses brutal
methods to arrest people, a police which acts as if they had occupaied a country and had to
contain a population of enemies?
The most recent conspiracy was the one to oust Corbyn (the text is relatively short):
The killing of Jeremy Corbyn
Peter Oborne and David Hearst
" Wall Street Journal reported Friday that following the drone strike on Soleimani last
week, Trump told unspecified associates "he was under pressure to deal with Gen. Soleimani
from GOP senators he views as important supporters in his coming impeachment trial in the
Senate." http://www.commindreams.org
From any angle ,this will look like a conspiracy . But talking about it to portray the
existential crisis of USA politics ,a science of checks and balances, media responsibility
and the mechanism in place to make this sort of events to happen will be labeled as
conspiracy theory .
What is this.?
1 Impeachable offense
2 who will raise the issue? Media, Congress, Government agencies and activist judges .
They don't why ?
3 Who will investigate ? Dept of Justice.
Why they don't ?
4 would it be a conspiracy theory had Trump not shared the quid pro quo? Absolutely .
5 who is keeping quiet on the initiation of war illegal war to gain personal favor by
Trump and who is asking war on Iran ? Same gaggle of smiley faces – Bolton to Kristol
to Cotton to Lindsey to Pelosi to Biden to Sherman Engle , Schumer , Cheney( the cow ) , sage
Bush jr, Hillary and same gallery of rogues like NYT BBC CNN FOX MSNBC .
6 is there a possibility of a war initiated by Trump to make last ditch effort to win
election? Yes.
Bolton recently and , Deniis Ross have suggested to Obama to get out of bad poll number
before ,
Economist Rubiono has suggested before as was shared by zerohedge sometimes back.
7 Why does conspiracy theory keep on returning ? Because the first appearance is never
pushed back exposed and vilified by any body .
8 How do one evaluate and understand the fate accompli ? They don't . They shrug and move on
as they did after Suleimnai killing and wait for next disavowal of any "conspiracy theory
before confidently shrugging off the fait accompli.
9 What do you call them? Zombie human slaving away their lives
to harakiri.
I've often wondered about Soros. Was he a wealthy man before he "broke the Bank of
England"?
I've also wondered how it is possible that someone like Soros would have been allowed to
break the Bank of England. Was it just a set-up to provide him with plausible funds in order
to make him look legit?
He gets written up as some ideological billionaire who acts in accordance with his
conscience, but to me he looks like he's working for the ruling elites and the CIA.
Truly benevolent people (which I'm sure Soros is not) don't go around causing the chaos he
does.
There are many videos about Soros' purported influence on world events but very few books.
An interesting one is "Soros rompiendo España" by an internationalist and academic of
the Universidad Complutense of Madrid.
It badly needs an editor to make it less boring, but it traces and documents Soros
financing and tactics in the case of Cataluña. Basically creating NGOs to mobilize
civil society to a pitch, while providing content and tactics. Creating grass roots pressure
to change policy and break up one of Europes oldest nation-states. Such a network has the
advantage of flexibility, it can ebb and flow as required.
What is different from Europe's 19th Century instability? Well, that one's to ponder. But
it seems to me it is:
1) independent of Perfidious Albion or any central government. Unless it's Bilderberg, of
course.
2) requires no high level assassinations (king and prime minister of Italy, King and Queen of
Serbia, multiple Habsburgs, etc). Orban and Salvini are alive and well. Trump will lose, but
continue playing golf.
3) not about the self-determination of oppressed peoples, that is, not about nationhood.
There seem to be non-stop programming exercises to achieve and direct mass activism across
the West: immigration into Europe and US, Cataluña protests, green St Greta protest,
feminist protests, Covid confinement, BLM. These last four, in the past TWO years. The
generational divide cemented during Covid is something to watch, I've seen videos in French
and Spanish about the "life lessons" of the pandemic that seed this idea.
Some say that Soros is a Rothschild agent, just as Wilbur Ross is claimed to be by others,
and the Bank of England is most likely the Nathan Rothschild agent, therefore, a question
arises: how can an operative of an outfit be the buster of that very outfit? It's like saying
a pizza parlor owned by the mafia was cleaned out of pies by one of its very own goons.
The safety of U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan does not appear to be the motive in
intelligence agency leaks to the media about the alleged Russian "bounties," says Joe
Lauria.
Special to Consortium News
T he Los Angeles Timesreported
Thursday night that a complete withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan, which Donald Trump
had demanded, has been put off until after the U.S. presidential election in November.
Maintaining imperial interests in Afghanistan seems to be one of the main reasons for the
so-far uncorroborated, possibly cooked-up "scandal" known now as Bountygate.
Other motives appear to be the same twofer that was at the core of Russiagate: first,
unnamed intelligence officials meddling in domestic U.S. politics, this time to undermine
Trump's re-election campaign; and, second, to even further demonize and pressure Russia.
The public has been subjected to daily morsels of supposedly factual stories meant to
further deepen the plot. The first item dropped online on June 26 with The New York
Times' initial
reporting on the say-so of "American intelligence officials."
It seemed yet another attempt to launder disinformation through big media, giving it more
credibility than if it had come directly from the security services. A discerning reader,
however, would want more than the word of a bunch of spooks who make a living practicing
deception.
The "evidence" for the story that Russia paid the Taliban to kill U.S. soldiers came from
interrogation of Afghan detainees. If the interrogations were "enhanced" the evidence is even
more unreliable.
For the record, Consortium News supports no candidate and has been a strong
critic of Trump. But we see intelligence agencies' insertion into domestic politics to be a
greater threat than even eight years of Trump. As spooks like to say, "Administrations come and
go. And we're still here."
Meddling Again in Politics
Trumped briefed in the Oval Office, Sept 2017. (Official White House Photo by Shealah
Craighead)
A main purpose of this planted Times story was made clear in the following paragraph,
and it's been the constant theme since, seized on by Trump critics from the Lincoln
Project to Democratic candidate Joe Biden:
" The intelligence finding was briefed to President Trump, and the White House's National
Security Council discussed the problem at an interagency meeting in late March, the
officials said. Officials developed a menu of potential options -- starting with making a
diplomatic complaint to Moscow and a demand that it stop, along with an escalating series of
sanctions and other possible responses, but the White House has yet to authorize any
step , the officials said." [Emphasis added.]
The inference is that Trump knew about it for months and didn't do anything,
obviously because he's a Kremlin agent.
Trump said he was unaware of the "intelligence." John Ratcliffe, the director of national
intelligence, put out a statement on June 27 saying Trump had not been briefed on it.
But the Times that day quoted an "American intelligence official" (another one or the
same?) saying:
" it was included in the President's Daily Brief, a written document which draws from
spywork to make analytic predictions about longstanding adversaries, unfolding plots and
emerging crises around the world. The briefing document is given to the president to read and
they serve as the basis for oral briefings to him several times a week."
The Times did not say that Trump was orally told about it. I suspect the CIA gave it
to him only in print, and knowing Trump doesn't entirely read his daily written briefings, did
not orally tell him, making him out to be a liar by leaking this information.
But this raised the immediate question: If this were such an urgent matter that Trump had
ignored for more than three months, why hadn't CIA Director Gina Haspel demanded, in all that
time, an immediate Oval Office meeting with Trump to urge him to act? After all, isn't the
CIA's job supposed to be to protect Americans?
" If this was even close to being confirmed, Haspel would have briefed directly given the
sensitivity of the subject," Scott Ritter, a former U.S. counterterrorism officer, told me by
email. Haspel, distancing herself from the controversy, put out a statement condemning the
leaks to the Times , saying they "compromise and disrupt the critical interagency work
to collect, assess, and ascribe culpability."
Clearly the purpose of this leaked story was not to protect the lives of American
soldiers.
Denials All Around
Trump speaks to members of the National Security Council during a meeting at the Pentagon in
2017. (DoD photo by Army Sgt. Amber I. Smith)
The story is being ginned-up with small leaks everyday despite denials from the Taliban,
Moscow and statements from the National Security Council, the
National Security Agency, the Pentagon and the director of national intelligence that
undermine its credibility. National Security Council officials said the information had not
been sufficiently corroborated to be brought to Trump's attention.
"Because the allegations in recent press articles have not been verified or substantiated by
the Intelligence Community, President Trump had not been briefed on the items," said Robert
O'Brien, the national security advisor.
"We are still investigating the alleged interference referenced in media reporting and we
will brief the President and Congressional leaders at the appropriate time," said John
Ratcliffe, director of national intelligence.
Pentagon spokesman Jonathan Hoffman said in a
statement: "The Department of Defense continues to evaluate intelligence that Russian GRU
operatives were engaged in malign activity against United States and coalition forces in
Afghanistan. To date, DOD has no corroborating evidence to validate the recent allegations
found in open-source reports."
Ray McGovern, the former CIA analyst, said: "I helped prepare The President's Daily
Brief for Presidents Nixon, Ford, and Reagan, and personally conducted the one-on-one
morning briefings in the Oval Office from 1981 to 1985. In those days we did our best to
corroborate reporting -- especially on highly sensitive issues -- and did not try to cover our
derrieres by alerting the president and his top aides to highly dubious reporting, however
sexy."
The Wall Street Journal
reported that the NSA "strongly dissented" from the assessment on the bounties, citing
"people familiar with the matter."
Even the anti-Putin Moscow Times doesn't buy the story.
The initial story has been followed up by new leaks nearly every day. First we
heard from the Times of an electronic transfer from a bank account controlled by the
GRU, Russian military intelligence, to the Taliban. We are not told what this money was for.
Was there a line item for "killing American soldiers?" The Times reports:
" Though the United States has accused Russia
of providing general support to the Taliban before, analysts concluded from other
intelligence that the transfers were most likely part of a bounty program that
detainees described during interrogations." [Emphasis added.]
" Other intelligence" that is not cited "most likely" meant it was part of the bounty
"program" is hardly convincing reporting.
Anyone who knows anything about intelligence operations knows that such payments would be
made by cash on the ground in Afghanistan and not by leaving a discoverable paper trail. The
cash would come from Russian officials in Afghanistan, not wired to a Taliban account. This is
the same portrayal of a bumbling, unprofessional Russian intelligence service that supposedly
left Cyrillic letters and the name of the first Soviet secret police chief in the metadata of
its alleged hacks of the DNC. At the same time we are meant to be deathly afraid of these
amateurs.
The alleged money sent by bank transfer was supposedly handed out in cash on the battlefield
by a "lowly drug dealer" who puzzled his neighbors because he was suddenly driving a fancy car.
Rahmatullah Azizi, the Times says, got the cash in Russia:
" U.S. intelligence reports named Mr. Azizi as a key middleman between the G.R.U. and
militants linked to the Taliban who carried out the attacks. He was among those who
collected the cash in Russia, which intelligence files described as multiple payments
of 'hundreds of thousands of dollars.'" [Emphasis added.]
This contradicts the Times ' earlier story that the money was transferred
electronically. Now the cash was collected in Russia. Azizi associates were arrested and a
half-million dollars was found in his house. The Times, however, does not say what they
were charged with.
" Just how the money was dispersed to militants carrying out attacks for the Taliban, and at
what level the coordination occurred, remains unclear," the Times reports. Indeed. In an
earlier era of journalism that would incite an editor to bark, "Don't put it in the story until
you find out."
Mission Accomplished
The three goals of the leaks are being accomplished:
Trump is being dogged by the story
with no let up. Debunked Russiagate stories about him being a Kremlin tool have been revived.
Russia is further demonized, not just as the destroyer of American democracy, but as the
destroyer of American lives. The troops are staying put in Afghanistan over Trump's objections.
The LA Times story said the decision to keep a little more than 4,000 troops there
was made "late last month," around the time The New York Times story broke.
" The plan, worked out at a meeting between Pentagon and White House officials late last
month, would represent an about-face for President Trump. He has pushed for a complete
withdrawal of the 8,600 troops now in Afghanistan by the election, seeing a pullout as a
much-needed foreign policy achievement as his reelection prospects have deteriorated. Trump
had only recently told advisors that a full and rapid pullout could blunt the controversy
over intelligence reports that Russia has paid militants to kill American service members,
one official said."
Joe Lauria is editor-in-chief of Consortium News and a former correspondent
forThe Wall Street Journal, Boston Globe,Sunday Timesof London and numerous other newspapers. He began his
professional career as a stringer for The New York Times. He can be reached at [email protected] and followed on Twitter
@unjoe .
vinnieoh , July 4, 2020 at 16:50
And, come Sunday morning all the beltway boobs (Shit The Press, Washington Bleat, Fuck the
Nation) will breathlessly try to engage the sheep in their latest xxxx-gate spectacle.
Anything but talk about themselves and how they're sucking the blood out of all of us.
Two things not mentioned yet: was there no-one aboard Trump's Ship of Fools that saw them
sailing into mined waters? (essential clarification: it was a "cloaked" mine, latent,
waiting.)
Second: for how many decades now 5, 6? the Congress slumbers while their dogs of war roam,
but immediately snap to wakefulness if those dogs are summoned to their cages. The Congress
now, dejectedly admitting (/s) that they have been beaten, can no longer authorize wars, only
block their ending. I've often believed that the reason this is so, is because they have
become sooo convinced that payback is gonna be a real bitch. Who wouldn't? And I fear for my
grandson and his generations. Sorry kid, I just didn't count – I wuz invizibel!
Mark Thomason , July 4, 2020 at 16:42
Missile Gap. This is not the first time that hawkish hysteria was used for purely domestic
politics.
The payback hoped for goes beyond the election, to promote hawkish policies that otherwise
would have far fewer supporters.
dean 1000 , July 4, 2020 at 16:16
The soft coup efforts continue as the dirty turkeys( not a Rock group) strike again
claiming that Taliban POWs said Russian military intelligence paid bounties to Taliban to
shoot US soldiers.
The dirty turkeys have been lying about Trump for 4 years, turned the NSC into a nest of
spies and we are supposed to believe this transparent, boneheaded hatchet job.
Thanks for the link to the LA Times. I didn't know Trump wanted be bring all the Troops
home from Afghanistan this year. Too bad the Generals insist that 4,000 troops stay.
Douglas Baker , July 4, 2020 at 15:55
So the Loony Tunes franchise has gone viral distributed by monopoly media as Orwellian
"1984" newspeak repeated as though instruction for a flock, of what has been called "A Nation
of Sheep", with an "Animal Farm" hand repeating instruction in every way imaginable for the
elite guides of American destiny to carry on, with Bugs Bunny demanding, "What's Up Doc?"
Roe Castelli Orr , July 4, 2020 at 13:58
Those with free thinking minds can discern the MSM/MIC propaganda narrative and still
despise Trump at the same time.
Trump is America Unmasked.
A Diseased, renditioned Portrait of a 21st Century Dorian Gray hanging in the halls of the
Capitol.
The Empire's bidding if for Gold, Oil, Drugs, Puppet Vassals for exploitation of mineral
rights drowning in oceans of blood from colonialism.
All for the Whores of K Street.
Unfortunately Biden will be the same.
Wash, Rinse, Repeat.
Rome isn't Burning it's vaporizing.
Roe Castelli Orr , July 4, 2020 at 13:27
Totally independent functioning brains can discern the propaganda perpetrated by the
MSM/MIC about this recent Russia-gate nonsense and still realize Trump is still an imbecile,
Narcissistic, self aggrandizing human waste.
Trump is the caricature of Dorian Gray hanging in the halls of the capital.
Trump is the true face of a dying, diseased Empire of Gold, Oil, Drugs, Puppet Vassals,and
Mineral theft beholden to It's K Street whores.
Rob , July 4, 2020 at 13:03
I learned from reading Caitlin Johnstone that the debating technique known as the "Gish
Gallop" consists of inundating one's opponent with numerous ancillary "arguments" that the
opponent is forced to refute individually. The individual arguments may all be fallacious,
but put together, they create the impression that the main or underlying argument must be
true. This is exactly what the corporate media did with Russiagate and are doing once again
with Bountygate. It's the steady drip drip of stories, all uncorroborated and sometimes
conflicting with one another, which, taken together, seem to support the Bountygate narrative
without actually doing so.
"My feeling, and I mean this wholeheartedly, is that I really don't care. What bothers me
is we didn't win the game." Brett Favre's reaction to the Saint's bountygate in the playoff
game.
Our poor troops have been stuck in that hellhole for 20 fu***ng years, and like a sports
warrior like Favre, all that they ever wanted I'm sure for all of their sacrifice, was for it
to not be in vain, and somehow feel that they won the war. Let's try to look at this from the
perspective of a serviceman fighting in the Afghan war. That Taliban fighters have been
trying to kill them everyday since 2001 is supposed to be news to them? They live that
reality every single day. The politicians of both parties have made no attempt to protect
them for years and years and years. To pretend that they care about those they deem
expendable now in July of 2020, after all these years is about the saddest thing one could
imagine for them on this 4th of July. I hope that they all can come home now, all of the
troops, not just some of them, all of them. Because the reality of our wars and troops in the
Middle East come from a prioritization of both political parties to serve 1) Israel first 2)
Israel second 3) Israel third
teresa smith , July 4, 2020 at 11:09
Ak I missing something? Doesn't the US have a history of paying anyone they feel will
advance their agenda, in any direction, to any nefarious group or individual? Crying foul by
the US is still more hypocritical blather, designed to distract. CN never disappoints! Thank
you all!!!
Linda Furr , July 4, 2020 at 13:20
Absolutely!! And dopey stuff like Russia paying Taliban bounties on American lives in
Afghanistan is exactly why most people are totally turned off by Washington DC and the
corporate MSM that promotes the DC system (ie a bought-and-paid-for Congress, a CIA that
creates misery all over the world, a Pentagon that eagerly displays its gonads every time it
can). Russia isn't causing our institutions to be questioned; our institutions are.
AnneR , July 4, 2020 at 10:55
Thank you Joe for this piece collating all of the claptrap we are being fed daily
(including by NPR – well, bien sur). And as with the whole farrago, charade of lies,
innuendos that was/is Russiagate, my view is closely allied to yours as stated here: "This is
the same portrayal of a bumbling, unprofessional Russian intelligence service that supposedly
left Cyrillic letters and the name of the first Soviet secret police chief in the metadata of
its alleged hacks of the DNC. At the same time we are meant to be deathly afraid of these
amateurs."
Quite. Absolutely. IF the GRU and its kindred agencies in Russia are this bloody
incompetent, this incapable of not leaving a trail that Hansel and Gretel could easily
follow, then why would we be so worried, so frightened of them? Totally, completely idiotic
– but apparently the US MICIMATT and corporate-capitalist-imperialist ruling elites
(including the Congress and most of the WH) really do believe that we, the hoi polloi, are so
f***ing stupid as to believe that the Russians are totally incompetent (and thus "we" can
"see" them) but simultaneously we should, must be knocking our knees with complete and utter
fear of them and their dastardly plots against us
What it all makes apparent is that our ruling elites at all levels, in and out of
government and its services truly believe we are as thick as two short planks. All of us.
Roe Castelli Orr , July 4, 2020 at 14:14
Unfortunately about 10 to 15% are as awoke as you and I.
The government actuarial studies realize that if this figure was over 40% the Earth's Axis
would reverse throwing these devils into the abyss.
Guy , July 4, 2020 at 10:49
This story is proof that the US media is now CIA written large.
Bob In Portland , July 4, 2020 at 10:47
It sounds like the lowly drug dealer may have been making inroads into the business. This
has been a standard tacts for our drug wars. That is, the US intelligence agencies use the
drug wars to eliminate competition to its own very lucrative drug trade wars. Like the
Japanese did to China, supplying a conquered population with drugs as a means of control.
In this case the lowly drug dealer was used as another propaganda tool aimed at Trump.
AnneR , July 4, 2020 at 14:19
A widening of the view, Bob in Portland – Before the Japanese came the Brits with
Opium, grown (in their knowledge) in Bengal (if I recall right), in the early 1800s (at
least, though possibly earlier, cos we poor working class Brits used to feed our very noisy,
obstreperous hungry babies Laudanum to keep 'em quiet. Laudanum is a derivative of Opium and
opium poppies do not thrive in GB (yer more regular poppies do).
So – we were (?) the first to introduce large quantities of Opium into China which
(inevitably, it would seem) led to war and the Brits gaining Hong Kong (what? did the Brits
say: we'll stop trafficking opium into your country if you hand over Hong Kong? Wouldn't
surprise me in the least).
Now the major supplier/grower/producer is Afghanistan – and it is difficult to
believe that the CIA has no hand in it. A deep hand. How easy then to create a fantabulous
story about the "Russians," "bounties to kill US military," and drug dealers as the
"go-betweens" with the $$$ . Deflection while pointing at those "others."
One could point out, rightly in my opinion, that were no US military in Afghanistan, none
would be killed no matter who, what, why, how .. Lie our way in; Lie our way to stay.
Rob Roy , July 4, 2020 at 10:27
Loathsome though Trump may be, he once said the most intelligent thing I've heard a
president say about Russia in my lifetime, "Why can't we just be friends." The duopoly lost
its collective minds. The horror!
jdd , July 4, 2020 at 06:57
Mr. Lauria hits the nail on the head. To his report, I would add in the vile role of the
impeachment Dems: Nancy ("all roads lead to Putin) Pelosi, Chuck ("Trump is too soft on
Putin) Schumer; and their Bushy allies, who continue to keep this latest hoax alive.
Hm, an electronic money transfer between "bank owned by Russian military intelligence" to
"an account linked to Taliban" changed, in front of our eyes, into (a duffel bag of?) notes
carried with much toil from Russia to Afghanistan. I have seen something like that years
ago.
At the end of a magic show, the performer threw up a handkerchief that changed into an
umbrella that changed into a bunch of carnations while few white doves appeared too. That led
Senator Schumer to conclude that we need new, tough sanctions on Russia.
"The cash would come from Russian officials in Afghanistan, not wired to a Taliban
account. This is the same portrayal of a bumbling, unprofessional Russian intelligence
service that supposedly left Cyrillic letters and the name of the first Soviet secret police
chief in the metadata of its alleged hacks of the DNC."
Superb summary.
I think the principle at work is an old one from advertising and propaganda.
Throw enough crap at the wall, and some it will stick.
My, what glorious work done at the highest levels of American government.
I really do think when top politicians and officials show this level of corruption and
contempt for truth, it can't too long before things really start falling apart.
Already deadly serious economic problems. Already a world competitiveness problem. Already
terrible extremes of inequality. Already serious unhappiness on the streets with brutal cops
and sugar-frosted history.Now the loss of any moral authority. and on all sides of the
government, not just Trump.
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold"
Torontonian , July 4, 2020 at 12:10
Exactly!
And look around –things are already falling apart – here in Canada -locally ,
nationally and of course on the world stage. Wait until the real economic mess hits and
governments cant pay the hush money to people any more, ie to prop up the last semblances of
a "good (sic: structure".
Here in Toronto, no Canada Day celebrations ? but instead an " emergency" dictate for
construction projects to continue from 6am to 10 pm at night 7 days a week– so we all
celebrated to noise we didn't want and public work we don't care about– really new
sidewalks again? more Bell Canada fibre network (paid by taxpayers)
Totally topsy turvy world -priorty for business with total disdain for the public.
Collapse is here–not centre structure yet .
I also can't imagine the G.R.U. dropping all that money on some middleman (Azizi) and
expecting him to carry out a distribution. More likely he would just abscond with it
(remember Iraq and all those pallets of cash money [billions] just evaporating, heck-of-a
job, Paul Bremer). And really, a guy who shows up with bling, so to speak. Nothing like
attracting attention.
Seer , July 4, 2020 at 04:58
Look up John Stockwell. It's an essential component of the CIA to spread disinformation,
and doing so via the media (figure that many ex-spooks are on CNN's payroll). Trump is
totally correct when he calls out "fake news/media" (he's just inconsistent in applying
it).
People struggle to understand the difference between siding with a Trump position vs
siding up with Trump himself. TDS has helped cloud this.
Seer , July 4, 2020 at 04:51
Fair.org completely shreds the media's handling of this:
hXXps://fair.org/home/in-russian-bounty-story-evidence-free-claims-from-nameless-spies-became-fact-overnight/
Annie , July 4, 2020 at 03:51
I simply ignore such obvious propaganda, as I did Russia-gate. Through his entire
presidency trumped up allegations have become the norm. The press is in complicity with it
all, and after a while I feel more alienated from those who hate him, degrade him, make up
lies about him and those that go so far as to undermine the constitution in order to get rid
of him.
ML , July 4, 2020 at 16:14
It's one thing to ignore and abhor the propaganda; so many of us regular CN readers do,
but it's quite another to feel any sympathy or simpatico, with a person as vile and as unfit
as Donald John. No dichotomous thinking is required, yet that's the egregious error too many
Americans make.
Drew Hunkins , July 4, 2020 at 02:21
I don't know about you, but I'm getting real sick and tired of the term
"intelligence."
AnneR , July 4, 2020 at 10:59
Yes, DH. But I think their grotesque presumption is that WE the vox populi have no
intelligence, (and they would seem to believe that of the Russians and the Chinese and the
Iranians gor blimey); therefore they can feed us, repeatedly, any old tripe they cook up (and
serve with chips and vinegar – Brit chips).
"we see intelligence agencies' insertion into domestic politics to be a greater threat
than even eight years of Trump"
To have stylistic harmony with anti-Russian claims, I would say that the leakers from law
enforcement and intelligence have equal loathing to all politicians, and they want them to be
weak, fearful and know better than to say no to whatever they may request.
A "leak" with a series of "corrections" gives a transient trouble to Trump and sticky
trouble to those who made a big noise on false premises that "anyone with half a brain would
recognize, sadly my opponent lacks even that much." By the way, assassins in Afghanistan seem
to command fees that soccer stars could envy. "At least one American soldier" and "multiple
payments of hundreds thousand dollars". Collected by a drug dealer. Alleged. GRU contacts
were neither seen nor described (or perhaps some infamous person was described allowing to
link with "Boris and Natasha" unit of GRU to whom Western analysis ascribes a long list of
failed schemes like secession of Catalonia, coup in Montenegro, extermination of ducks,
children, pizza lovers and beer drinkers in Wiltshire.)
The more details we know, the less probable the story is. More precisely, the easier it is
to point alternative and more plausible scenarios. Like, a drug dealer being paid for drugs
-- that flowed in large quantities out of Afghanistan. It happens all the time that a drug
dealer gets money for drugs. Since dealing in drugs carries death penalty in many countries
there (I am not sure about Afghanistan), any story told to interrogators is better than the
true story.
Still, it is quite puzzling how a leak about money transported by couriers got garbled
into an electronic transfer, "contact" into a "bank", dealer in Afghanistan into "an account
linked to Taliban". Was the lucidity of the receivers of the leak clouded by something like
ethanol?
dfnslblty , July 3, 2020 at 17:42
Leaks:
Death by a thousand cuts – potus ain't in charge, even intel. ain't in charge.
Must be the fascist/armament component of bigGov.
Rumors became a material force when neoliberal Dems want to use them against Trump
Presstitutes who published it have track record of pushing Iraq WDM lies before.
Looks like heroin trade money are pushed by NYT presstitutes as Russian money. Nice...
Notable quotes:
"... The sole foundation of the reports in the Times , since reinforced by similar articles in the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal and the Associated Press, and accounts on cable and network television, are the unsupported, uncorroborated statements of unnamed intelligence officials. These officials give no proof of their claims about the operation of the supposed network of GRU agents -- how the money came from Russia to Afghanistan, how the money was distributed to Taliban fighters, what actions the Taliban fighters carried out, what impact these actions had on any American military personnel. ..."
"... Yet six days into this press campaign, there has been no acknowledgement in the "mainstream" corporate media that there is anything dubious or unsubstantiated about this narrative. Instead, the main focus has been to demand that the Trump administration explain when the president learned of the alleged Russian attack and what he proposes to do about it. ..."
"... The Times reporters spearheading this campaign are not journalists in any real sense of the term. They are conduits, passing on material supplied to them by high-level operatives in the CIA and other intelligence agencies, repackaging it for public consumption and using their status as "reporters" to provide more credibility than would be given to a press release from Langley, Virginia. In other words, the CIA has provided the plot line, and the newspaper creates the narrative framework to sell it to the American people. ..."
"... The newspaper played a leading role in helping the Bush administration fabricate its case for war against Iraq in 2002-2003. It was not just the notorious Judith Miller, with her tall tales of aluminum tubes being used to build centrifuges as a step to an Iraqi atomic bomb. ..."
"... The New York Times acts as a political mouthpiece of the Democratic Party, which is determined to block any mass radicalization of workers and youth. In the event that Biden is elected in November and takes office in January 2021, an incoming Democratic administration will carry out policies no less reactionary than those of Trump ..."
"... The campaign against Trump's alleged "dereliction of duty" -- a phrase used by Biden three times during his Tuesday press conference -- is nothing more than a continuation of the campaign by the Democrats to attack Trump from the right, as too "soft" on Russia and too unwilling to intervene in the Middle East. ..."
Not since William Randolph Hearst cabled his correspondent in Havana in 1898 with the message, "You furnish the pictures and I'll
furnish the war," has a newspaper been so thoroughly identified with an effort to provoke an American war as the Not since William
Randolph Hearst cabled his correspondent in Havana in 1898 with the message, "You furnish the pictures and I'll furnish the war,"
has a newspaper been so thoroughly identified with an effort to provoke an American war as the New York Times this week.
The difference -- and there is a colossal one -- is that Hearst was fanning the flames for the Spanish-American War, a
comparatively minor conflict, the first venture by American imperialism to seize territory overseas, in Cuba, Puerto Rico and the
Philippines. The Times today is seeking to whip up a war fever directed against Russia, one that threatens to ignite a third
world war fought with nuclear weapons.
There is not the slightest factual
basis for the series of article and commentaries published by the Times , beginning last Saturday, claiming that the Russian
military intelligence service, the GRU, paid bounties to Taliban guerrillas to induce them to attack and kill American soldiers in
Afghanistan. Not a single soldier out of the 31 Americans who have died in Afghanistan in 2019-2020 has been identified as a victim
of the alleged scheme. No witnesses have been brought forward, no evidence produced.
The sole foundation of the reports in the Times , since reinforced by similar articles
in the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal and the Associated Press, and accounts on cable and network television,
are the unsupported, uncorroborated statements of unnamed intelligence officials. These officials give no proof of their claims about
the operation of the supposed network of GRU agents -- how the money came from Russia to Afghanistan, how the money was distributed
to Taliban fighters, what actions the Taliban fighters carried out, what impact these actions had on any American military personnel.
Yet six days into this press campaign, there has been no acknowledgement in the "mainstream" corporate media that there is
anything dubious or unsubstantiated about this narrative. Instead, the main focus has been to demand that the Trump
administration explain when the president learned of the alleged Russian attack and what he proposes to do about it.
The Times reporters spearheading this campaign are not journalists in any real sense of the term.
They are conduits, passing on material supplied to them by high-level operatives in the CIA and other intelligence agencies, repackaging
it for public consumption and using their status as "reporters" to provide more credibility than would be given to a press release
from Langley, Virginia. In other words, the CIA has provided the plot line, and the newspaper creates the narrative framework to
sell it to the American people.
The Times and individual reporters like David Sanger and Eric Schmitt have a track record. The newspaper played a leading
role in helping the Bush administration fabricate its case for war against Iraq in 2002-2003. It was not just the notorious Judith
Miller, with her tall tales of aluminum tubes being used to build centrifuges as a step to an Iraqi atomic bomb.
There was an entire
chorus of falsification, in which Schmitt (January 21, 2001, "Iraq Rebuilt Bombed Arms Plants, Officials Say") and Sanger (November
13, 2002, "U.S. Scoffs at Iraq Claim of No Weapons of Mass Destruction," and December 6, 2002, "US Tells Iraq It Must Reveal Weapons
Sites") among many articles, played major roles.
In this week's "Russian bounties" campaign, Schmitt and Sanger are at it again. A front-page article published Thursday under
their joint byline carries the headline, "Trump's New Russia Problem: Unread Intelligence and Missing Strategy." This article is
aimed at advancing the claim that Trump was negligent in responding to allegations against Russia, either being too lazy to read
the President's Daily Brief -- a summary of world events and spy reports produced by the CIA -- or choosing to ignore the report
because of his supposed subservience to Russian President Vladimir Putin.
The political line of the article is set early on, when the authors claim that "it doesn't require a high-level clearance for
the government's most classified information to see that the list of Russian aggressions in recent weeks rivals some of the worst
days of the Cold War." The list is ridiculously thin, including "cyberattacks on Americans working from home" (no evidence presented)
and "continued concern about new playbooks for Russian actors seeking to influence the November election" (this is a description
of the state of mind at the CIA, not of any actual steps taken by Russia). The purpose is to place the current allegations about
Russian bounties in the context of the long-running effort to portray Russian President Vladimir Putin as the evil genius and puppet
master of world politics.
Schmitt, in an article co-authored with Michael Crowley, refers to "intelligence reports that Russia paid bounties to Taliban-affiliated
fighters to kill American soldiers in Afghanistan," as though this was an established fact. The article cites various unnamed "former
officials" of the Trump and Obama administrations claiming that such an allegation would certainly have been brought to Trump's attention,
and that his failure to take action in response must be seen as negligence.
The article suggests that there is "supporting evidence" for the CIA claims of a Russian bounty plot, citing, among other things,
"detainee interrogations, the recovery of about $500,000 from a Taliban-related target and intercepts of electronic communications
showing financial transfers between the Russian military intelligence unit and Afghan intermediaries." In point of fact, every item
on this list represents an assertion by unnamed intelligence sources, not evidence: no actual detainees, cash hoards or electronic
intercepts have been produced.
Another article by Schmitt, along with three Afghan-based reporters, focuses on the alleged role of an Afghan businessman, Rahmatullah
Azizi, a former drug smuggler and US government contractor, in whose home investigators found a cash hoard of half a million in US
dollars. Again, "US intelligence reports" are cited, claiming Azizi was "a key middleman between the G.R.U. and militants linked
to the Taliban." Again, there is no actual evidence cited, and Azizi himself cannot be found. As for the alleged cash hoard, this
suggests more the proceeds of narcotics trafficking than anything else, an enterprise in which Azizi was supposedly engaged.
The article asserts that the Russian government organized the bounty scheme as "payback" for decades of humiliation in Afghanistan
at the expense of the United States, although how killing a handful of US soldiers would accomplish such a goal is a mystery. Moreover,
the Times also admits, citing a congressman who participated in a White House briefing on the allegations, that the intelligence
briefing did not "detail any connection to specific U.S. or coalition deaths in Afghanistan" and that "gaps remained in the intelligence
community's understanding of the overall program, including its precise motive "
In other words, the Russian "bounties" program has no identifiable victims and no credible motive. This makes the unanimity of
the media chorus that much more damning a self-indictment. Why is there not a single article or commentary in the corporate media
challenging the claims being peddled by the CIA? It is not that these claims are particularly convincing in and of themselves. Far
from it. It is the source of the claims that is decisive: if the US intelligence apparatus says it is so, the American media
obediently salutes.
The real question to be answered about the latest anti-Russian provocation is this: what political considerations are the driving
force of this episode of media fabrication?
It is no coincidence that the Afghanistan "bounties" story has surfaced just at the point where the Trump administration is visibly
reeling in the face of the twin crises of the coronavirus pandemic and the popular upsurge against police violence. The American
ruling class has been deeply shaken by the outraged protests by large interracial crowds, particularly of young people, that have
swept virtually every American city and town. And the financial aristocracy is well aware of the deep-seated popular opposition to
its drive to force workers back to work under conditions where every large factory, warehouse and office is a potential epicenter
for the ongoing resurgence of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The response to this crisis by the political and media representatives of the ruling elite is twofold: seeking to split the working
class along racial lines and seeking to divert domestic social tensions into a campaign against foreign antagonists, particularly
China and Russia.
The New York Times acts as a political mouthpiece of the Democratic Party, which is determined to block any mass radicalization
of workers and youth. In the event that Biden is elected in November and takes office in January 2021, an incoming Democratic administration
will carry out policies no less reactionary than those of Trump.
The campaign against Trump's alleged "dereliction of duty" -- a phrase used by Biden three times during his Tuesday press
conference -- is nothing more than a continuation of the campaign by the Democrats to attack Trump from the right, as too "soft"
on Russia and too unwilling to intervene in the Middle East. This began with the anti-Russia campaign that triggered the two-year-long
Mueller investigation, continued with the Ukraine phone call that led to impeachment and now emerges in the form of increasingly
vehement demands that the US government "retaliate" for an entirely fabricated Russian effort to kill American soldiers.
Larry argument: Russian military intelligence is one of the top intelligence services in the world. They can't be that sloppy.
Notable quotes:
"... If it is true that Russia's military intelligence unit is putting out hits on U.S. military personnel, then they are terrible at their job. The violence they are allegedly inflicting on our soldiers is so inconsequential that the U.S. media rarely does any detailed reporting when a soldier falls in action in sand pits of Taliban-land. And then there are the actual peace talks with the Taliban that, despite dire warnings that this was a fools errand, appears to have paid off. U.S. forces are not being besieged nor savaged at their outposts in Afghanistan. ..."
"... You are a 19 year old black man and want to see your 20th birthday, join the military and ask to be deployed to Afghanistan. You will be safer. ..."
"... The movement of money through Russian banks to Afghan accounts tied to the Taliban should not shock anyone. It is called proceeds from heroin. After more than 20 years of spilling the blood of U.S. warriors in Afghanistan, we have made no dent in the production, distribution and sale of heroin, which is funding warlords and corrupt politicians alike in Afghanistan. This is not Russian bounty money. This is U.S. funded mayhem. Every America who buys heroin or some version of the drug on the streets is helping put money in the pockets of fanatics like the Taliban. ..."
"... The so-called intelligence officers, the faux journalists and the craven politicians are putting our nation at risk by spreading a lie and smearing Donald Trump. This cannot stand. ..."
"... Is it possible that the "Russian bounty" story was ginned up to prevent the withdrawal from Afghanistan and Germany? ..."
"... Looks like Liz Cheney and the Democrats are working together to put a kibbosh on withdrawal. ..."
"... When peace occurs, promotions stop. Without a battlefield officers must find other ways to move up the ladder. I think the colonel covers this quite accurately in his Artists and Bureaucrats paper. ..."
"... Given that electronic transfers of USD are traceable, how likely is it that GRU would do this vs physically carrying a payment into Afghanistan? To carry $1M you just need a single stack of $100 bills 43 inches long. By land you have Iran and Uzbekistan a former Soviet Republic. If they used a passenger jet they could fly in from almost anywhere. ..."
"... For some historical perspective from someone who really knew a lot about pre-2003 Afghanistan, see Michael Scheuer's third "Pillar of Truth" about Afghanistan: "Afghans Cannot Be Bought" from his 2004 "Imperial Hubris": ..."
"... It's another leak to sabotage Trump, except now the saboteurs are getting less creative and more lazy. ..."
Anyone who embraces the stupid and absurd claim that Russia's military intelligence outfit, the
GRU, is paying (has been paying) the Taliban to kill U.S. military personnel in Afghanistan, is
either guilty of ignorance or congenitally retarded. It is that simple. There is not gray area
here. The claim is a lie.
Let us start with this fact--the Taliban do not need a financial incentive to kill U.S.
military personnel. They have willingly taken up that cause for more than 20 years.
Then there is this fact--the number of U.S. military personnel who died in the last six
months in Afghanistan are dwarfed by the number of young black men killed in Chicago over the
Memorial Day Holiday. If the Russians goal is to kill Americans they would be better off
spending their money on the drug gangs that infest the American cities governed by Democrats.
They would get more bang for their bucks. Only eight U.S. military personnel have died in
Afghanistan in 2020 and only four of those were killed in "hostile" engagements. The other four
succumbed to accidents. Twenty six U.S. military personnel died in Afghanistan in 2019. Twenty
of those were from hostile actions. ( Icasualties.org provides the
details).
If it is true that Russia's military intelligence unit is putting out hits on U.S. military
personnel, then they are terrible at their job. The violence they are allegedly inflicting on
our soldiers is so inconsequential that the U.S. media rarely does any detailed reporting when
a soldier falls in action in sand pits of Taliban-land. And then there are the actual peace
talks with the Taliban that, despite dire warnings that this was a fools errand, appears to
have paid off. U.S. forces are not being besieged nor savaged at their outposts in
Afghanistan.
The Democrats supposed concern for the lives of U.S. military personnel fighting in foreign
shit-holes stands in stark contrast to their silence about the mass slaughter of young black
men in the major U.S. cities that have been ruled by Democrat politicians for more than a
generation. Compare the murder body count in these cities (comprised largely of young, black
males) with the U.S. soldiers allegedly killed in Afghanistan because of a Russian bounty--2124
U.S. citizens murdered in the United States in 2019 vice 20 U.S. soldiers killed in combat in
Afghanistan:
You are a 19 year old black man and want to see your 20th birthday, join the military and
ask to be deployed to Afghanistan. You will be safer.
The movement of money through Russian banks to Afghan accounts tied to the Taliban should
not shock anyone. It is called proceeds from heroin. After more than 20 years of spilling the
blood of U.S. warriors in Afghanistan, we have made no dent in the production, distribution and
sale of heroin, which is funding warlords and corrupt politicians alike in Afghanistan. This is
not Russian bounty money. This is U.S. funded mayhem. Every America who buys heroin or some
version of the drug on the streets is helping put money in the pockets of fanatics like the
Taliban.
Fortunately, the money is so good that the Taliban are pulling their punches in going after
U.S. troops. The Taliban make more from selling dope to the world than the Russian could ever
offer. As long as the U.S. leaves the poppy fields alone, there is little incentive to attack
us.
The behavior of the Democrats and some Republicans in accepting the damnable lie that the
U.S. has solid, reliable intelligence about a Russian scheme to fund the Taliban to kill
Americans is dangerous. The incessant cry about the non-existent Russian wolf is fraught with
peril. At a minimum, it puts the Russians in the position of believing that these so-called
political leaders are serious about picking a fight with Moscow and killing Russians. Russia is
not going to sit back and be a punching bag for fools obsessed with ridding Washington, DC of
Donald Trump.
The so-called intelligence officers, the faux journalists and the craven politicians are
putting our nation at risk by spreading a lie and smearing Donald Trump. This cannot stand.
"The so-called intelligence officers, the faux journalists and the craven politicians are
putting our nation at risk by spreading a lie and smearing Donald Trump."
When peace occurs, promotions stop. Without a battlefield officers must find other ways to
move up the ladder. I think the colonel covers this quite accurately in his Artists and
Bureaucrats paper.
A question to my betters (no sarcasm intended). The NYT is trying to shore up its story by
stating
"Russia's complicity in the bounty plot came into sharper focus on Tuesday as the The New
York Times reported that American officials intercepted electronic data showing large
financial transfers from a bank account controlled by Russia's military intelligence agency
to a Taliban-linked account."
Given that electronic transfers of USD are traceable, how likely is it that GRU would do
this vs physically carrying a payment into Afghanistan? To carry $1M you just need a single
stack of $100 bills 43 inches long. By land you have Iran and Uzbekistan a former Soviet
Republic. If they used a passenger jet they could fly in from almost anywhere.
To do a wire transfer GRU would have to be (falsely) confident that their source account
was very well disguised, something like a successful bakery in Pakistan. I can't believe they
would use an account from a bank in Russia, that would be too obvious.
I don't believe the story, just asking about the plausibility of using a wire
transfer.
For some historical perspective from someone who really knew a lot about pre-2003
Afghanistan, see Michael Scheuer's third "Pillar of Truth" about Afghanistan: "Afghans Cannot
Be Bought" from his 2004 "Imperial Hubris":
I note that nobody in the comments section of the NYT article ever asks the obvious
question, the one that Larry Johnson zeroed in on very quickly.
This one: if Afghanistan is now awash with cash as a result of "Russian bounties" on dead
GIs then where and when were those GIs killed?
After all, of necessity one is the other side of the coin to the other.
The more money there is in Afghanistan then, logically, the more successful the Taliban
must have been in collecting those bounties. Even though they haven't been very successful at
all.
That actually vividly shows that so called Democrats are completly in the pocket of MIC
Notable quotes:
"... The Crow amendment would block funding if the U.S. draws down below 8,000 troops and again below 4,000 troops "unless the administration certifies that doing so would not compromise the U.S. counterterrorism mission in Afghanistan, not increase risk for U.S. personnel there, be done in consultation with allies, and is in the best interest of the United States," reports The Hill. "It would also require an analysis on the effects of a drawdown on the threat from the Taliban, the status of human and civil rights, an inclusive Afghan peace process, the capacity of Afghan forces and the effect of malign actors on Afghan sovereignty." ..."
"... Rep. Jason Crow's (D-Colo.) NDAA amendment will require several certifications, including an assessment of whether any "state actors have provided any incentives to the Taliban, their affiliates, or other foreign terrorist organizations for attacks against United States, coalition, or Afghan security forces or civilians in Afghanistan in the last two years, including the details of any attacks believed to have been connected with such incentives." ..."
"... Crow's amendment adds several layers of policy goals to the U.S. mission in Afghanistan, which has already stretched on for 19 years and cost over a trillion dollars. As made clear in th e Afghanistan Papers, most of these policy goals were never the original intention of the mission in Afghanistan , and were haphazardly added after the defeat of al Qaeda. With no clear vision for what achieving these fuzzy goals would look like, the mission stretches on indefinitely, an unarticulated victory unachievable. ..."
"... "the U.S. counterterrorism mission in Afghanistan"...The US just wants to permanently occupy Afghanistan. ..."
The House Armed Services Committee voted Wednesday night to put roadblocks on President
Donald Trump's vow to withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan, apparently in response to
bombshell report
published by The New York Times Friday that alleges Russia paid dollar bounties to the
Taliban in Afghanistan to kill U.S troops.
The Crow amendment would block funding if the U.S. draws down below 8,000 troops and again
below 4,000 troops "unless the administration certifies that doing so would not compromise the
U.S. counterterrorism mission in Afghanistan, not increase risk for U.S. personnel there, be
done in consultation with allies, and is in the best interest of the United States," reports
The Hill. "It would also require an analysis on the effects of a drawdown on the threat from
the Taliban, the status of human and civil rights, an inclusive Afghan peace process, the
capacity of Afghan forces and the effect of malign actors on Afghan sovereignty."
Rep. Jason Crow's (D-Colo.) NDAA amendment will require several certifications, including an
assessment of whether any "state actors have provided any incentives to the Taliban, their
affiliates, or other foreign terrorist organizations for attacks against United States,
coalition, or Afghan security forces or civilians in Afghanistan in the last two years,
including the details of any attacks believed to have been connected with such incentives."
The amendment "lays out, in a very responsible level of specificity, what is going to be
required if we are going to in fact make decisions about troop levels based on conditions on
the ground and based on what's required for our own security, not based on political
timelines," said Rep. Liz Cheney (Wyo.-R.), the daughter of former Vice President Dick
Cheney.
"And that is crucially important, and I think it is our number one priority," added Cheney,
who is now the number three Republican in the House.
The U.S. troop presence in Afghanistan is down to 8,600 troops. Trump is said to be eager to
deliver on his campaign promise and further draw down the U.S. presence after the 19-year war
in Afghanistan.
"A great nation does not force the next generation to fight their wars, and that's what
we've done in Afghanistan," said Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fl.) "I think the best day to have not had
the war in Afghanistan was when we started it, and the next best day is tomorrow. I don't think
there's ever a bad day to end the war in Afghanistan. Our generation is weary of this and tired
of this."
Crow's amendment adds several layers of policy goals to the U.S. mission in Afghanistan,
which has already stretched on for 19 years and cost over a trillion dollars. As made clear in
th
e Afghanistan Papers, most of these policy goals were never the original intention of the
mission in Afghanistan , and were haphazardly added after the defeat of al Qaeda. With no
clear vision for what achieving these fuzzy goals would look like, the mission stretches on
indefinitely, an unarticulated victory unachievable.
"the U.S. counterterrorism mission in Afghanistan"...The US just wants to permanently
occupy Afghanistan. End of story. For now, for instance, the Uyghurs are a nice foil to
undermine China. But in a possible future, in which lets' say China gets destabilized and CCP
falls and revert to war lordism, I can see the US invading Xinjiang to rein in the Islamic
terrorism and then to try to create a separate state. But Xinjiang is not Kosovo, Han and
their allies represent a plurality of the population, just under 50%...
Amazing how anonymous sources prevail over people willing to speak in public when they say
what you want to believe and that is the power of the deep state.
Apologies for abusing the blog board. But I cannot think that there is a bigger game at
play, in which staying in Afghanistan is just a small piece of the Go game being played.
In respect with Russia, after the fall of the soviet communism, there wasn't a fundamental
ideological reason left to confront Russia. But now, because Russia managed to evade
submission into the rapacious hands of the US Oligarchy, everything is being used as a reason
to tie Russia down, like Gulliver was tied down by Lilliputians.
The problem the US has now, is that it cannot create a common front against Russia and in
fact, it has started punishing its so called "allies" (no more than subjects in reality). And
because of this, Germany has said a clear and crisp "Nein" against the US interference with
NS2, and against the US request at UN to maintain the arms embargo against Iran.
It is funny and interesting to see how the Israel plan of annexing of part of West Bank
will unfold. To be consistent, the EU will either have to stop sanctioning Russia for Crimea,
or start sanctioning Israel... The EU cannot have it both ways (the US can though).
House Using Shaky Russian Bounty Story To Keep U.S. Troops in Afghanistan
Jason Crow, Liz Cheney and any other member of congress that support continuing the US
governments wholly avoidable and tragic folly in Afghanistan - which has cost the lives of
2,353 US service men/women killed in action and 20,149 wounded in action (also innumerable
Afghan deaths/wounded) - need to be tested for the presence of psychotropic drugs in their
systems.
"And that is crucially important, and I think it is our number one priority," added
Cheney, who is now the number three Republican in the House.
Liz Cheney's statement is the height of delusion.
Our nation is bankrupt, unemployment is rampant, 1st/2nd qtr 2020 GDP is down 17% due to a
specious medical quarantine with no medical basis in fact enacted via bureaucratic fiat and
masses of unhinged protestors/rioters running amok in the streets seeking to erase this
nations history (warts and all) by tearing down monuments/statues and redefining/eliminating
words/phrases from our national lexicon.
If continued US warmongering in Afghanistan is such a great idea Jason Crow should put his
soldier suit back on and take Liz Cheney, her draft dodging daddy and any member of congress
supporting this insanity over to visit so they can put their worthless words into action
instead of sacrificing the life of one more US service member to further their megalomaniacal
aspirations.
There is not one US national security interest at stake in Afghanistan.
There are however plumb sinecures and defense contracts to be had.
Trump could do a "Surge" again and they wouldn't say a word about it, except maybe
complain it wasn't big enough, even if it cost another couple thousand lives and a trillion
dollars. That would be just fine and dandy. It's like that old game "Red light, Green Light
go". He's always got a green light to go to war and always a red light to end one.
"... Some of that context is that Mike Pompeo said , "I was the CIA director – We lied, we cheated, we stole. We had entire training courses." So we know for certain that U.S. intelligence agencies lie to you and me. We saw it with WMD, and we might be seeing it again now. ..."
"... We could talk about the fact that the U.S. has been funding the Taliban for years! Yes, we fund them, sometimes arm them, and then fight them. This is barely a secret . So for all intents and purposes, the U.S. does the same thing our corporate media is now accusing Russia of doing (with no proof). ..."
"... Now, I'm not implying Trump is some kind of hippy peacenik. (He would look atrocious with no bra and flowers in his hair.) No, the military under Trump has dropped more bombs than under Obama , and that's impressive since Obama dropped more bombs than ever before. ..."
"... However, in certain areas of the world, Trump has threatened to create peace. Sure, he's doing it for his own ego and because he thinks his base wants it, but whatever the reason, he has put forward plans or policies that go against the military industrial complex and the establishment war-hawks (which is 95 percent of the establishment). ..."
"... And each time this has happened, he is quickly thwarted, usually with hilarious propaganda. (Well, hilarious to you and me. Apparently believable to people at The New York Times and former CIA intern Anderson Cooper.) ..."
This is not a column defending Donald Trump. Across my career, I have said more positive words about the scolex family of intestinal
tapeworms than I have said about Donald Trump. (Scolex have been shown to read more.)
No, this is a column about context. When The New York Times reports anonymous sources from
the intelligence community say Russia paid Taliban fighters to kill American soldiers, context
is very important.
Some of that context is that Mike Pompeo said , "I was the CIA director
– We lied, we cheated, we stole. We had entire training courses." So we know for certain
that U.S. intelligence agencies lie to you and me. We saw it with WMD, and we might be seeing
it again now.
But that's not the context I'm referring to.
We could talk about the context of the fact that the Taliban does not need to be paid to
kill American soldiers because their entire goal for the past twenty years has been to kill
American soldiers. Paying them a bounty would be like offering the guy sleeping with your wife
twenty bucks to sleep with your wife.
But that's not the context I'm referring to.
We could talk about the fact that the U.S. has been funding the Taliban for
years! Yes, we fund them, sometimes arm them, and then fight them. This is
barely a secret . So for all intents and purposes, the U.S. does the same thing our
corporate media is now accusing Russia of doing (with no proof).
But that's not the context I'm referring to.
No, the context I'm referring to is how our military industrial complex (with the help of
our ruling elite and our corporate media) have stopped Trump from pushing us toward the brink
of peace. Yes, the brink of peace.
Now, I'm not implying Trump is some kind of hippy peacenik. (He would look atrocious with no
bra and flowers in his hair.) No, the military under Trump has dropped
more bombs than under Obama , and that's impressive since Obama dropped more bombs than
ever before.
However, in certain areas of the world, Trump has threatened to create peace. Sure, he's
doing it for his own ego and because he thinks his base wants it, but whatever the reason, he
has put forward plans or policies that go against the military industrial complex and the
establishment war-hawks (which is 95 percent of the establishment).
And each time this has happened, he is quickly thwarted, usually with hilarious propaganda.
(Well, hilarious to you and me. Apparently believable to people at The New York Times and
former CIA intern Anderson Cooper.)
I know four things for sure in life. Paper beats rock. Rock beats scissors. Scissors beat
paper. And propaganda beats peace. All one has to do is look at a calendar.
Trump has essentially threatened to create peace or pull U.S. troops out of a war zone in
three countries – North Korea, Afghanistan, and Syria. Let's start with Syria.
April 4,
2018 : President Trump orders the Pentagon to plan to withdraw U.S. troops from Syria.
This cannot be allowed because it goes against the U.S. imperial plan. So what happens
within days of Trump's order?
April 7, 2018 : Reports surface of a major chemical weapons attack in Douma, Syria.
What are the odds that within days of Trump telling the Pentagon to withdraw, Bashar
al-Assad decides to use the one weapon that will guarantee American forces continue attacking
him? Assad may not be a chess player, but I also don't think he ate that many paint chips as a
kid. And sure enough, over the past two years we've now heard from four
whistleblowers at the Organization for The Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) saying
the so-called chemical attack didn't happen. (Notice that the number "four" is even bigger than
the numbers "one," "two," and "three.")
But establishment propaganda beats peace any day and twice on Sunday. The false story
succeeded in keeping America entrenched in Syria.
The DPRK
Let's move on to North Korea. As you surely know, Donald Trump "threatened" to create peace
with the hermetic country. Simply saying he would attempt such a thing sent weapons contractor
stocks tumbling -- one of the many reasons peace had to be stopped.
Feb
27, 2019 : Donald Trump and North Korea's Kim Jong Un meet in Vietnam.
The summit fails, and reports begin emerging that Mike Pompeo and John Bolton succeeded in
napalming any progress.
March 15, 2019 : Pompeo and Bolton deny derailing North Korea nuclear talks.
From The Nation ,
"There were reports from South Korea that the presence at the talks of John Bolton, Trump's
aggressively hawkish national-security adviser, helped torpedo the talks."
But just destroying the peace talks wasn't enough. The American people needed some good,
solid propaganda to reassert the idea that Kim Jung Un was a dastardly bloodthirsty
dictator.
March 30,
2019: The New York Times reports North Korea executed and purged their top nuclear
negotiators.
Yes, apparently Kim Jung Un must've fed his top diplomats to his top alligators. Then, two
months later we learn
June 4, 2019: The fate of the North Korean negotiator "executed" after the failed summit
"grows murkier" with new reports that he's still alive.
One would have to say that his being alive does indeed make the report that he's dead
"murkier." Within the next day or two it becomes
quite clear the diplomat is very much in the land of the living. But the propaganda put
forward by The New York Times and many other outlets has already done its job.
Far more people saw the reports that the man had been murdered than saw the later
retraction. And to this day, the Times has not removed the initial
article saying he was executed. Exactly how wrong does propaganda have to be, to warrant an
online deletion? Dead versus alive is a pretty binary designation.
And now we get to the outrage du jour, and it's a bombshell!
Bounties!
May 26,
2020: Pentagon commanders begin drawing up options for an early Afghanistan troop
withdrawal, following Trump's request.
June 16, 2020 : "President Donald Trump confirmed in public for the first time his
administration's plans to cut the U.S. military troop presence in Germany from its current
level of roughly 35,000 to a reduced force of 25,000." – ForeignPolicy.com
June 26,
2020: The New York Times reports Russia paid the Taliban to attack U.S. troops. (According
to anonymous sources from an intelligence community that proudly admits they lie to us all the
time, sometimes just to amuse themselves.)
So when this story first came out, I thought, "You know, Trump has been stopped from
withdrawing troops in the past by ridiculous propaganda that seems to land like a giant turd
right after he announces his intentions. Maybe I'll check what happened in the days preceding
this jaw-dropping story."
So just days after Trump goes against the military industrial complex and against the ruling
establishment by announcing he'll be withdrawing about a third of our troops from Germany, and
just weeks after announcing an early withdrawal from Afghanistan, a seemingly mind-blowing
story drops about Russia paying the Taliban to kill American troops.
This serves to remind everyone what a threat Russia is (so we better put more troops in
Germany!) and serves to keep us in Afghanistan (because screw those Russian-funded
Taliban!).
Look, I'm not saying Trump is a hero or a great guy or even a man who wants peace. I'm not
even saying he's a man. He very well may be a giant blood-sucking leech in a human skin suit.
(A poorly tailored human skin suit.)
All I'm saying is the timing doesn't add up. Either these landmark stories that destroy
every chance of peace are false (in fact we've already proven two out of three of them are
false), or peace has exceedingly, ridiculously, laughably bad timing.
Feature photo | Abdullah Abdullah, right, President Ashraf Ghani's fellow leader under a
recently signed power-sharing agreement, holds a meeting with U.S. peace envoy Zalmay Khalilzad
aimed at resuscitating a U.S.-Taliban peace deal signed in February, at the presidential
palace, in Kabul, Afghanistan, May 20, 2020. Credit | Sapidar Palace via AP
Lee Camp is an American stand-up comedian, writer, actor and activist. Camp is the host
of the weekly comedy news TV show "Redacted Tonight With Lee Camp" on RT America. He is a
former comedy writer for the Onion and the Huffington Post and has been a touring stand-up
comic for 20 years.
This article was published with special permission from the author. It originally
appeared at Consortium News .
Stories published in our Daily Digests section are chosen based on the interest of our
readers. They are republished from a number of sources, and are not produced by MintPress News.
The views expressed in these articles are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect
MintPress News editorial policy.
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect
MintPress News editorial policy.
It is not just senility. Looks like Ukrainegate is not enough for her and she wants to throw kitchen sink at Trump. Charging for "alleged"
action is directly from Stalin's NKVD practice
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Thursday called for US sanctions against Russia's intelligence
service over bounties that it reportedly offered Taliban militants to kill American soldiers in
Afghanistan.
B ased on anonymous intelligence sources, The New York
Times ,
Washington Post , and
Wall Street Journal released bombshell reports alleging that Russia is paying the
Taliban bounties for every U.S. soldier they can kill. The story caused an uproar in the United
States, dominating the news cycle and leading presumptive Democratic presidential candidate Joe
Biden to
accuse Trump of "dereliction of duty" and "continuing his embarrassing campaign of
deference and debasing himself before Vladimir Putin." "This is beyond the pale," the former
vice-president concluded .
However, there are a number of reasons to be suspicious of the new reports. Firstly, they
appear all to be based entirely on the same intelligence officials who insisted on anonymity.
The official could not provide any concrete evidence, nor establish that any Americans had
actually died as a result, offering only vague assertions and admitting that the information
came from "interrogated" (i.e. tortured) Afghan militants. All three reports stressed the
uncertainty of the claims, with the only sources who went on record -- the White House, the
Kremlin, and the Taliban -- all vociferously denying it all.
The national security state also has a history of using anonymous officials to plant stories
that lead to war. In 2003, the country was awash with stories that Saddam Hussein possessed
weapons of mass destruction, in 2011 anonymous officials warned of an impending genocide in
Libya, while in 2018 officials accused Bashar al-Assad of attacking Douma with chemical
weapons, setting the stage for a bombing campaign. All turned out to be untrue.
"After all we've been through, we're supposed to give anonymous 'intelligence officials' in
The New York Times the benefit of the doubt on something like this? I don't think so,"
Scott Horton, Editorial Director of Antiwar.com and author of " Fool's Errand: Time to End the War in Afghanistan ," told
MintPressNews . "All three stories were written in language conceding they did
not know if the story was true," he said, "They are reporting the 'fact' that there was a
rumor."
Horton continued: "There were claims in 2017 that Russia was arming and paying the Taliban,
but then the generals admitted to Congress they had no evidence of either. In a humiliating
debacle, also in 2017, CNN claimed a big scoop about Putin's support for the Taliban
when furnished with some photos of Taliban fighters with old Russian weapons. The military
veteran journalists at Task and Purpose
quickly debunked every claim in their piece."
Others were equally skeptical of the new scandal. "The bottom line for me is that after
countless (Russiagate related) anonymous intelligence leaks, many of which were later proven
false or never substantiated with real evidence, I can't take this story seriously. The
intelligence 'community' itself can't agree on the credibility of this information, which is
similar to the situation with a foundational Russiagate document, the January, 2017
intelligence 'assessment,'" said Joanne Leon , host of the Around the Empire Podcast , a show which covers U.S. military
actions abroad.
The timing of the leak also raised eyebrows. Peace negotiations between the U.S. and the
Taliban are ongoing, with President Trump committing to pulling all American troops out of the
country. A number of key anti-weapons of mass destruction treaties between the U.S. and Russia
are
currently expiring , and a scandal such as this one would scupper any chance at peace,
escalating a potential arms race that would endanger the world but enrich weapons
manufacturers. Special Presidential Envoy in the Department of the Treasury, Marshall
Billingslea, recently
announced that the United States is willing to spend Russia and China "into oblivion" in a
new arms race, mimicking the strategy it used in the 1980s against the Soviet Union. As a
result, even during the pandemic, business is
booming for American weapons contractors.
"The national security state has done everything they can to keep the U.S. involved in that
war," remarked Horton, "If Trump had listened to his former Secretary of Defense James Mattis
and National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster, we'd be on year three of an escalation with plans
to begin talks with the Taliban next year. Instead Trump talked to them for the last
year-and-a-half and has already signed a deal to have us out by the end of next May."
"The same factions and profiteers who always oppose withdrawal of troops are enthusiastic
about the 'Bountygate' story at a time when President Trump is trying to advance negotiations
with the Taliban and when he desperately needs to deliver on 2016 campaign promises and improve
his sinking electoral prospects," said Leon.
If Russia is paying the Taliban to kill Americans they are not doing a very good job of it.
From a high of 496 in 2010, U.S. losses in Afghanistan have slowed
to a trickle, with only 22 total fatalities in 2019, casting further doubt on the scale of
their supposed plan.
Ironically, the United States is accusing the Kremlin of precisely its own policy towards
Russia in Syria. In 2016, former Acting Director of the C.I.A. Michael Morell appeared on the
Charlie Rose show and
said his job was to "make the Russians pay a price" for its involvement in the Middle East.
When asked if he meant killing Russians by that, he replied, "Yes. Covertly. You don't tell the
world about it. You don't stand up at the Pentagon and say, 'We did this.' But you make sure
they know it in Moscow."
Like
RussiaGate , the new scandal has had the effect of pushing liberal opinion on foreign
policy to become far more hawkish, with Biden now campaigning on being "tougher" on China and
Russia than Trump would be. Considering that the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists recently set
their famous Doomsday Clock -- an estimation of
how close they believe the world is to nuclear armageddon -- to just 100 seconds to midnight,
the latest it has ever been, the Democrats could be playing with fire. The organization
specifically singled out U.S.-Russia conflict as threatening the continued existence of the
planet. While time will tell if Russia did indeed offer bounties to kill American troops, the
efficacy of the media leak is not in question.
Feature photo | U.S. forces and Afghan commandos are seen in the town of Asad Khil near the
site of a U.S. bombing east of Kabul, Afghanistan. Rahmat Gul | AP
Pentagon says 'no corroborating evidence' to support NYT's report
The Wall Street Journal
reported on Tuesday that the National Security Agency "strongly dissented from other
intelligence agencies' assessment that Russia paid bounties for the killing of US soldiers in
Afghanistan."
The Journal cites "people familiar with the matter" and does not give much detail,
but the story is noteworthy, as the NSA has dissented from other agencies in the past over
allegations against Russia. A January 2017 intelligence
assessment that concluded Russia interfered in the 2016 election on President Trump's
behalf was given "high confidence" by the CIA and FBI while the NSA gave "moderate
confidence."
Another account of the NSA not giving much weight to this intelligence was given to CBS
News reporter Catherine Herridge on Monday. An unnamed intelligence official
told Herridge that the NSA deemed a report on the Russian bounties "uncorroborated." The
official said the report "does not match well-established and verifiable Taliban and Haqqani
practices" and lacks "sufficient reporting to corroborate any links."
The CIA is used as an example in the Journal's report of an agency the NSA
allegedly disagreed with over the intelligence. So far, the CIA has declined to comment on
the issue besides a
vague statement from CIA Director Gina Haspel. "When developing intelligence assessments,
initial tactical reports often require additional collection and validation Leaks compromise
and disrupt the critical interagency work to collect, assess, and ascribe culpability,"
Haspel said.
The Journal's disclosure reinforces the Trump administration's claim that the
intelligence was not strong enough, and there was no consensus among intelligence officials
on the information.
The Pentagon said on Monday it has not seen "corroborating evidence" to support The
New York Times report that alleged Russian GRU agents offered bounties to Taliban-linked
militants to kill US troops.
Secretary of Defense Mark Esper reiterated the Pentagon's
claims in a statement on Tuesday. "Although the Department of Defense has no
corroborating evidence at this time to validate recent allegations regarding malign activity
by Russian personnel against US forces in Afghanistan, I want to assure all of our service
members that the Department takes very seriously any and all potential threats against US
military personnel," Esper said.
Even though the intelligence remains unconfirmed, members of Congress from both sides of
the aisle are brainstorming
ways to punish Moscow over the allegations . Suggestions include imposing new sanctions
on Russia and even designating Moscow as a state sponsor of terrorism. Senator Ben Sasse
(R-NE) said he wants to see a plan that will put "Taliban and GRU agents in body bags."
The political establishment in the US dare not explicitly mention drug use as a pathology
of black communities specifically - as a group it is taboo to criticize them -- they are
persecuted victims, full stop. Saying otherwise is to kiss their votes away not to mention
bring down their wrath.
David Habakkuk
Some of the intricacies you mention go a bit over my head, but the delay in release of
your ISC report corresponds with the notion of this latest story of GRU bribery of Afghan
militants being essentially if nothing other than an election year campaign tactic. Seems if
released it will come on the heels of this provocative fantasy of the NYT and WAPO. Fancy
that.
CNN outdid itself by interviewing Clapper this morning. Host re-capped story and said 'if
true' about a dozen times.
Trump followed his 'I was not briefed tweet' with a stronger, 'the intel guys told him
this was not credible'. Trump can be a buffoon but in his version of events ...
1. Intel comm is flooded with stuff to verify, 'Russian hit contracts', 'Putin kidnapped
Lindbergh baby', 'Loch Ness monster a GRU agent', .... that doesn't immediately get to his
desk.
2. Anon source leaks one of these early claims for their own purpose (seeing Clapper reminds
us that this does happen),
3. It takes him a day to sort it out.
True or not, this looks plausible but sets off alarm bells to the CNN Clown Car.
Clapper says brilliant things like Trump could be finessing the truth by getting a written
but not a verbal brief. Host shakes head at wise observation and follows up with more 'if
true' questions for the proven liar ...
CNN defends the most reactionary elements of our security state and snarls at anyone who
challenges them. With watchdogs like these what can go wrong?
'The Russian intelligence unit behind the attempted murder in Salisbury of the former
double agent Sergei Skripal secretly offered to pay Taliban-linked fighters to kill British
and American soldiers in Afghanistan, according to US reports.
'The revelation piles pressure on the UK to take robust action against the Kremlin amid
continuing anger over the government's delay in publishing a key report on Russian attempts
to destabilise the UK.'
The 'Sky' piece actually makes clear that these are claims originating in the United
States, one of whose key purposes is to put pressure on the British government:
'It is understood the intelligence was only shared with British officials recently but
Boris Johnson has now been briefed. Downing Street will be under pressure to respond to the
news and take action against Moscow.'
Another relevant development, although how this fits into the picture is at the moment
very far from clear to me, is that the announcement yesterday that the former MI6 person Sir
Mark Sedwill, who has been 'National Security Adviser' since 2017 and Cabinet Secretary since
2018, is to stand down in September.
The 'intelligence unit' supposedly to have been responsible alike for attempting to
assassinate Sergei and Yulia Skripal and placing a 'bounty' on the head of American, and
British, servicemen belongs to the GRU – their supposed target's former employer
– which comes under General Valery Gerasimov, Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the
Russian Federation.
If you believe that unit of this organisation sent two hitmen, equipped with a hypertoxic
nerve agent, to kill one of his organisation's former employees, and bungled it so badly that
he, together with his daughter, survived, I have a very attractive bridge on the Thames, not
far from where I live, which I am very happy to sell you.
If you believe that any employees of this organisation would be involved in 'freelance'
assassinations, either of its former employees or of British and American servicemen, without
Gerasimov's authorisation, I will include the MI6 HQ at Millbank, to make a 'package
deal.'
Interested, TTG?
Rather clearly, the link between the new BS, and the patent BS about Salisbury –
in the cover-up over which Sedwill has played a crucial role – very strongly suggests
that we are dealing with yet another of the collusive 'information operations' practised by
incompetent and corrupt elements in the 'deep state' in the U.S., U.K. and Western
Europe.
This clearly linked to a 'bulldogs under the carpet' struggle which goes to the top of the
Conservative Party, and also beyond it. The 'Sky' version starts with Tobias Ellwood, the
Tory MP who chairs the Commons Defence Select Committee, using the new claims to agitate for
publication of what the 'Guardian' termed 'a key report on Russian attempts to destabilise
the UK.'
This report, by the Intelligence and Security Committee, is clearly being deployed to put
pressure on Johnson, as repeated references to it in both the 'Guardian' and 'Sky' versions
indicate.
So, having started with it, the latter concludes:
'News of this Russian plan, and the direct targeting of British troops, will again raise
the question of when the long overdue report into Russian interference by parliament's
Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) will be published.
'The report, which examined claims of Russian interference in Britain, was sent to Downing
Street on 17 October last year for sign-off.
'That process usually takes no more than 10 days, but the report is still yet to be
published and the ISC hasn't been reconvened after December's general election.'
As the 'Guardian' report indicates, however, a crucial element in all this is clearly
Christopher Steele:
'In his confidential submission to the committee, the former spy Christopher Steele has
reportedly suggested that the Kremlin has a "likely hold" over Trump, a claim that has been
fiercely disputed but which would sour the government's relations with the White House once
published. "These worrying reports should be the catalyst for the prime minister to finally
release the ISC report No. 10 have been stalling for more than six months," said shadow
foreign secretary Lisa Nandy. "Under this government, Britain is retreating from the world
stage and the fear among our allies is that Boris Johnson is afraid to stand up to Vladimir
Putin's Russia."
'Lib Dem spokesman Alistair Carmichael echoed the call for the ISC report to be
published:
'"These reports throw up serious questions about Trump's soft-touch when it comes to
Russia. The Foreign Secretary must also make clear whether the UK had any knowledge of these
reports and what conversations he has had with his US counterpart about sanctions towards
Russia given these shocking revelations."'
The crux of the matter, however, may well have to do with the cases brought against Steele
and his company Orbis by the 'Alfa Group' oligarchs – Petr Aven, Mikhail Fridman, and
German Khan – and the Cyprus-based internet entrepreneur Aleksej Gubarev.
The very broad construction of 'fair report privilege' which means that in your country,
so long the rubbish you print has been given some kind of endorsement by corrupt government
officials, there is no redress for those lied about, is not available in the U.K.
On the other hand, maintaining a kind of 'omerta' is much easier over here than on your
side.
On 29 April, a 'chink' opened in this, when Chuck Ross, of the 'Daily Caller', posted on
'Scribd' the transcript of the cross-examination of Steele by Hugh Tomlinson, QC, on behalf
of the Alfa oligarchs, on 17-18 March.
Unfortunately, Ross seems to have fallen, hook, line and sinker, for a classic 'limited
hangout' ploy. He was happy to use Tomlinson's exploitation of the IG Report to discredit
Steele, which was in parts extremely telling, without noticing that that some of Steele's
responses were not simply to be dismissed.
If you read the transcript carefully, it seems clear that the successive changes in
Steele's account, in the four witness statements he submitted between 17 February and 16
March, were designed both to suggest that Horowitz and the FBI were colluding to make him the
'patsy', to reveal some of what they were trying to conceal, and to threaten to let out
more.
As it happens, we are still waiting for the judgement by Mr Justice Warby in that case.
However, it was reported on 25 June that the Gubarev case is to open on 20 July, and this
will be public.
At the moment, for what it is worth, my SWAG is that we are seeing a collusive
'stitch-up', one of whose functions is to find ways of avoiding finding in favour of Steele
– very difficult, given the preposterous nature of the dossier – while letting
him off sufficiently lightly to ensure that he colludes in keeping crucial skeletons within
cupboards. It may also be important that the verdicts do not appear to vindicate Trump too
comprehensively.
The 'NYT' report is, I think, likely to be involved with this process.
Also involved here is the hope clearly visible among so many that Biden will be elected,
and any danger either of the 'skeletons' accumulated during three decades of fatuous and
corrupt policymaking, or of more sensible policies, will be over.
My suspicion is that if Trump's people had more 'killer instinct', they would be looking
to get hold of all the material which has been produced in the London cases asap, and see
what use can be made of it to 'unmask' a subversive conspiracy which there is every reason to
believe goes right to the top of the Democratic establishment.
At the moment, however, both they, and their co-conspirators and 'useful idiots' of whom
we appear to have some here on SST, appear to be really quite likely to get away it: partly
because of their own utter lack of any sense of integrity or honour, but also because of the
lack of 'killer instinct' on the part of their opponents.
RE: the spectre of drug trading in US foreign engagements. The inability to even mention
the role of drugs in failed US black communities, as well in all the recent high profile
"police shooting" deaths of blacks is curious.
Why the silent treatment on this critically pivotal issue? How much "black rage" comes
from the ravages of drugs in these very same communities -- but no one dares talk about it
.Let alone do anything about it.
Stopping covid pales to the challenge of stopping the real killer; abusive drugs
destroying US lives and communities -black and white. Brown, yellow, olive.
Absolutely agreed, top to bottom. The only scenario where this makes sense, is if the
Russians were engaging in some sort of emotional revenge scheme - which is ludicrous.
To buy this story ignoring Russian character, it's not how they think, and it's not how
they see us. And you have to overlook the sober competence that marks their foreign
policy.
Look at how they made up with Turkey, after Erdogan ordered the shoot down of the SU.
Russia did make the Turks pay, but they weren't fools, they didn't sacrifice the
relationship. They understood there were things to be be gained by leveraging Turkey away
from NATO. And in what world do the Afghans need an incentive to attack US forces. Warfare is
the national sport.
U.S. diplomat Chas Freeman: "China is fully integrated into the global economy Trying to
contain China, we're more likely to end up containing ourselves. We need to realize that
the monopolies on wealth and power that we once had are no longer there."
This comment is not about Russia but about the mindset in our political, economic and
foreign policy establishment that has enabled the strengthening of our adversaries.
One thing we can be certain - the neocon and neoliberal policy mavens have weakened the US
and it's national interest over the past 50 years. The question is how have enemies of US
national interest captured all levers of power and sustained it for decades? The exploration
of this question would be about real reflection and introspection about our body politic.
Actually, the alliance of a certain traditional 'Anglo' kind of 'Russophobe', like Tobias
Ellwood, whom I mentioned in my previous comment, and the 'insulted and injured' from the
former Russian and Soviet empires, does now involve a very substantial number of influential
Jews, on both sides of the Atlantic.
Given the obvious continuities between what is happening now and the way that Neville
Chamberlain and Colonel Beck between them successfully pushed pushed Hitler and Stalin
together – see on this in particular the work of the Israeli historian Gabriel
Gorodetsky – there are ironies.
It is, of course, given the long history of Russian anti-Semitism, understandable in its
way.
However, as our host, channelling Captain Jack Aubrey, notes on another thread, politics
is very often a matter of choosing 'the lesser of two weevils.'
It is also commonly a matter of avoiding situations where one's choice has unexpected, and
unwanted, effects on the preferences of others: as when Stalin in August 1939 decided that
making terms with Hitler was the 'lesser weevil.'
(For a recent concise restatement and defence by Gorodetsky of his view of the period, see
an 'H-Diplo' discussion of Stephen Kotkin's 'Stalin. Waiting for Hitler, 1929-41' at
As to the views of figures like Victoria Nuland, David Kramer, and Jonathan Winer on the
'choice of weevils' at the moment, there are aspects which, I must admit, I find
puzzling.
An entry, headlined 'Putin and Religion', from a site called 'ReligionFacts', provides
some accurate information about the Putin 'sistema':
'Buddhism, Eastern Orthodox Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are defined by law as
Russia's traditional religions and a part of Russia's historical heritage. These religions
have enjoyed limited state support in the Putin era.'
Also in that entry, you will find a quotation from Putin, in 2014 – that is, in the
wake of the crisis created by events on the 'Maidan' the previous year – writing of
how: 'It was in Crimea, in the ancient city of Chersonesus or Korsun, as ancient Russian
chroniclers called it, that Grand Prince Vladimir was baptised before bringing Christianity
to Rus.'
That was in 988, at any absolutely central point in the formation of Russian 'national
identity.'
At no point in the subsequent thousand years had any ruler of 'Rus' described Judaism as
one of Russia's 'traditional religions' and 'a part of Russia's historical heritage.'
As I actually think a good few Jews who came to Israel from the Soviet Union realise, it
would have been inconceivable when they were young.
However, the likes of Nuland, Kramer and Winer have preferred to intrigue with
'Banderistas' – the heirs of the architects of the Lvov pogrom, if you've heard of that
– in an attempt to wrest the whole of Ukraine, including Crimea, and Sevastopol, away
from Russia.
And they have preferred to attempt to topple Putin in cahoots with Berezovsky and
Khodorkovsky, who, as well as being Jewish and part-Jewish, were among the more disreputable
representatives of the 'semibankirshchina' which looted Russia under Yeltsin, and who in
general Russian 'deplorables', who were thrown into poverty at the time, do not much
like.
(Indeed, I rather suspect a good few of their fellow-countrymen came to think figures like
Berezovsky and Khodorkovsky would have looked to advantage dangling from lamp-posts.)
Ironically perhaps, some of the best Western commentators on this history – among
other things, on neo-Nazis in Ukraine – are Jewish: obvious names include Stephen F.
Cohen, Vladimir Golstein, Eric Kraus, and Yasha Levine.
But I do sometimes wonder whether there is a kind of 'Cassandra's curse' – that, in
a way that was certainly not true in the past, Jewish refugees from the former Russian Empire
in the U.S. U.K., and Western Europe, and their descendants, cease to be heard when they are
challenging silly conventional wisdoms, but have a 'fast track' to the top, if they
habitually talk rubbish.
One of the most incisive, and amusing, 'Cassandras', ironically, is Eric Kraus, who was
for many years a fund manager based in Moscow, but now seems to be sailing the seas, (a
combination of 'Wandering Jew' and 'Flying Dutchman', perhaps?) as the result of what appears
to have been a spectacularly acrimonious divorce from his Russian wife.
His principal unheeded prophecy is that the kind of policies which Western élites
have followed since 1989 would inevitably have the effect of making Putin and other Russians
see China as, by far, 'the lesser weevil': which, given the dramatic increase in that
country's economic strength, was hardly going to be in the best interests of either Europeans
or Americans.
One of Eric's 'party pieces' is an email exchange he once had with Michael McFaul. As he
recalled in a market commentary in 2012, after the beginning of that figure's –
disastrous – stint as Ambassador in Moscow:
'Very amusingly, T&B still has an e-mail sent ten years ago by Mr. McFaul, then a
Stanford professor, that "Russia was so afraid of China that they would be compelled to seek
a military alliance with America under whatever terms the US chose to impose". Failure has
obviously gone to his head, and he has moved on to great things – as a singularly
incompetent and provocative ambassador, he is now contributing to the growing rift between
Moscow and Washington. Beijing should be grateful .'
As a few quick Google searches will inform you, in addition to being in charge of the GRU,
General Gerasimov is an absolutely pivotal figure in the steadily increasing military
co-operation – not alliance, as yet at least – between Russia and China.
The reports we have been discussing restate two old charges, which are related to another
piece of BS – the notion of a 'Gerasimov Doctrine.'
So, in addition to supposedly have intervened in favour of Trump by hacking the emails of
the DNC, it is suggested that his people have pioneered chemical terrorism with their
supposed attack on the Skripals. In addition to this, it is now suggested that he places a
'bounty' on the head of American, and British, servicemen.
Frankly, if when he sits down with General Li Zuocheng, the chief of the Joint Staff
Department of the Central Military Commission of the People's Republic of China, Gerasimov
feels a sense of relief, and perhaps indeed being among friends, it would hardly be
surprising.
And if Western military planners begin to think that, actually, there may be problems if
the kind of discussions now under way greatly increase the ability of both Russian and more
particularly Chinese naval forces to inflict devastating damage on American, or British,
forces, they may, in the dim and distant future, begin to realise that disseminating this
kind of BS has costs.
An irony of course is that the problem for Chamberlain really was that the choice of
'weevils' was unappetising, to put it rather mildly. There were many, and hardly surprising
or discreditable, reasons why willingness to allow the Red Army to implement its war plans by
advancing into Europe became a 'sticking point.'
What they were too obtuse to realise was that the effect of this was to offer Stalin a
'weevil' which he concluded, quite rightly, involved an unacceptably large risk that the
Soviet Union would have to face the full might of the most powerful military machine in human
history, effectively, on its own.
And this was happening at what – thanks of course in substantial measure to his own
actions – was a point of 'maximum vulnerability.'
Moreover, hardly surprisingly, Chamberlain and his colleagues greatly exacerbated Soviet
fears that this was what 'Perfidious Albion' had been trying to achieve all along. As is
evident if you read Putin's recent article, republished in 'The National Interest', these
perceptions are still very much alive today.
As an old-style 'Perfidious Albionian', while I think that Chamberlain and his associates
very emphatically failed to choose the 'lesser weevil', I actually do not find it so
difficult to have some sympathy for the reasons they made the choices they did.
And I also think that the use of denunciations of 'appeasement', by people who show no
sign whatsoever of attempting to grasp what the arguments of the 'Thirties were about, have
become both stupid and unhelpful: a sure way of avoiding thought.
The greatest irony, however, is that we see American, and British, foreign policy being
run by people who habitually denounce 'appeasement', but whose mentality and assumptions
actually directly parallel those of Chamberlain and his associates.
It is, moreover, in substantial measure as a result of this that such figures have become
involved in a conspiracy to subvert the Constitution of the American Republic – with
'Anglos' like Ellwood, Steele, Dearlove, and indeed Fiona Hill collaborating with the figures
like Nuland, Kramer and Winer.
And, quite clearly, they do not have the excuses Chamberlain had.
The notion that Putin is some kind of reincarnation of Stalin is the product of lies,
originally told by Berezovsky and his like, and accepted without question by their 'useful
idiots' in London and Washington.
Who are also, of course, 'useful idiots' of Beijing.
Many here seem to think Russia is a nation totally separate from the now-defunct Soviet
Union, that Russia is incapable or unwilling to engage in the seamier aspects of
realpolitik like all other nations. Funny, Putin does not ascribe to this view. A short
time ago, someone posted a link to a lecture by the KGB defector, Yuri Bezmenov
Bezmenov was trying to please the new owners. Russia does not have resources to
engage like USA in Full Spectrum Dominance games. Like Obama correctly said, Russia now is a
regional power.
Also, why bother to do petty dirty tricks in Afghanistan, if an internal fight between two
factions of the neoliberal elite, is a really bitter and dirty fight. You cannot do better
than neoliberal Dems in weakening and dividing the country. Why spend money, if you can just
wait.
The enormity of problems within Russia itself also excludes any possibilities of trying to
emulate the imperial behavior of the USA and CIA dirty tricks. Russia does not have the
printing press for the world reserve currency, which the USA still has.
And Putin is the first who understands this precarious situation, mentioning this
limitation several times in his speeches. As well as the danger of being pushed into
senseless arms race with the USA again by the alliance of the USA neocons and Russian MIC,
which probably would lead to similar to the USSR results -- the further dissolution of Russia
into smaller statelets. Which is a dream of both the USA and the EU, for which they do not
spare money.
Russia is a very fragile country -- yet another neoliberal country with a huge level of
inequality and a set of very severe problems related to the economy and "identity politics"
(or more correctly "identity wedge"), which both EU and the USA is actively trying to play.
Sometimes very successfully.
Ukraine coup d'etat was almost a knockdown for Putin, at least a powerful kick in
the chin; it happened so quick and was essentially prepared by Yanukovich himself with his
pro-EU and pro-nationalist stance. Being a sleazy crook, he dug the grave for his government
mostly by himself.
Now the same game can be repeated in Belorussia as Lukachenko by-and-large outlived his
usefulness, and like most autocratic figures created vacuum around himself -- he has neither
viable successor, not the orderly, well defined process of succession; but economic problems
mounts and mounts. This gives EU+USA a chance to repeat Ukrainian scenario, as like in
Ukraine, years of independence greatly strengthened far-right nationalist forces (which BTW
were present during WWII ; probably in less severe form than in Ukraine and Baltic countries
but still were as difficult to suppress after the war). Who, like all xUUSR nationalists are
adamantly, pathologically anti-Russian. That's where Russia need to spend any spare money,
not Afghanistan.
Currently, the personality of Putin is kind of most effective guarantee of political
stability in Russia, but like any cult of personality, this cannot last forever, and it might
deprive Russia of finding qualified successor.
But even Putin was already burned twice with his overtures to Colonel Qaddafi(who after
Medvedev's blunder in the UN was completely unable to defend himself against unleashed by the
West color revolution), and Yanukovich, who in addition to stupidly pandering to nationalists
and trying to be the best friend of Biden proved to be a despicable coward, making a color
revolution a nobrainer.
After those lessons, Putin probably will not swallow a bait in a form of invitation to be
a "decider" in Afghanistan.
So your insinuations that Russian would do such stupid, dirty and risky tricks are not
only naive, they are completely detached from the reality.
The proper way to look at it is as a kind of PR or even false flag operation which was
suggested by David Habakkuk:
...we are dealing with yet another of the collusive 'information operations' practised by
incompetent and corrupt elements in the 'deep state' in the U.S., U.K. and Western Europe.
likbez: Well I suggested it may have been a false flag, but I'm more inclined to think it
may have been Pakistan's ISI.
And what is your evidence for claiming that the EU and USA want to break up Russia into
'smaller statelets'? That smells a bit fishy. It would make the world a more dangerous place.
I don't see or hear of sane people here or in Europe wishing for that. Maybe a few whackos?
Let's hope they never get their hands on the levers of power.
We hear more about unconfirmed reports from the mainstream media than we do about the
facts of the attempted coup against President Trump. A coup which run by the Obama White
House with full participation of the mainstream media. In fact since Trump took office this
coup has been continued with full force by these same anonymous unconfirmed leaks which get
reported as fact but weeks later are confirmed lies. I personally can't believe anything from
the mainstream media and the resist faction, in fact they all need to go to jail for what
they have done. I bring this up in the context of this thread because everything that's
reported or leaked must be first thought of as apart of this coup, this has been the pattern
for the last 3 and half years. If it doesn't fit this pattern of the on going coup then we
can start to consider if it's true or not.
TTG has actually provided the nugget of information that can be used to dismiss this
allegation without, apparently, realising it.
It is here, when he quoted from the NYT article:
"The crucial information that led the spies and commandos to focus on the bounties included
the recovery of a large amount of American cash from a raid on a Taliban outpost that
prompted suspicions."
So that vast swathe of cash represents the bounties that have been paid for the killing of
American and British soldiers by the Taliban.
Okay.
Think about it.
Think about it.
Think about it.
If the payment has already been made then the deed has already been done because,
obviously, that's how a "bounty" works.
So all we need ask is a simple question: has there been a dramatic uptick in fatalities
amongst American and British troops?
Yes? Or no?
Because *both* of these statements can not be true:
1) Fatality rates amongst the troops have not increased.
2) The massive amounts of cash now being found in Afghanistan are the result of a bounty paid
by the Russians for dead GIs.
You can have one, or you can have the other.
But you can't have both.
I hardly think paying a performance bonus for successful attacks on Coalition targets in
Afghanistan is going to break the GRU's budget. There are better arguments against this
story's veracity.
Regarding a possible Minsk Euromaidan and repeat of the Orange Revolution in Belarus, I
would like to hear the opinion of Andrei Martyanov on this. I strongly suspect he would laugh
his socks off at the prospect of any such action being permitted by Moscow.
Furthermore, any such attempt would likely be massively counterproductive, as it would
give Russia the perfect excuse for an Anschluss operation which would make Crimea's
annexation look like chicken feed. In the wake of 2014 the details for such a contingency
must surely have been worked out in great detail. Hey presto - an unannounced Zapad 2020
exercise and you'd have the sum of all NATO fears; Russian forces deployed right up to the
Suwałki gap.
TTG, you are obviously unable to share with us any info you may have on the USG's
assessment of the hypothetical possibility described above, but do you have a view on the
chances of a successful color revolution being achievable in Belarus?
Isn't that what I said about Webb and his allegations?
"But if Gary Webb is that guy claiming the CIA is responsible for flooding Los Angeles
with crack cocaine, I agree with you. That's total bullshit."
Hersh laid out Noriega's narco-trafficking and money laundering in 1986. North's White
House emails subsequent to Hersh's work showed his and Poindexter's use of Noriega to support
the Contras in spite of Noirga's illicit activities. This was an "active policy of laissez
faire towards allies engaged in drug trafficking" as I also said earlier. Your insistence of
characterizing the relationship as being either "the USG as a major player in drug
trafficking" or a state of perfect grace is simplistically binary and flat wrong. We were an
enabler and made the choice of "the lesser of two weevils" as Colonel Lang used the
phrase.
You're getting wrapped around the axle over the term "bounty." The Russians are merely
providing financial support to an indigenous force with the expectation that they will
continue lethal attacks against US and coalition forces. This is not an unusual foreign
policy, covert intelligence or military tactic. There were 22 US troops killed in 2019, the
highest number since 2014. Nine have died this year. Most of those have been from Taliban
attacks.
The use of the term "bounty" by the NYT was likely used to inflame and increase the
outrage.
TTG "The Russians are merely providing financial support to an indigenous force with the
expectation that they will continue lethal attacks against US and coalition forces."
I'm sorry, that argument leaves me cold. Very, very cold.
If the Russian policy is to see lethal attacks against US forces then they would be
supplying *arms* to the Taliban, not *money*.
After all, if you give the Taliban a wad of cash then they can do whatever they want with
it. But if you give them a gun, well, let's be honest: a gun is rather limited in its
application.
On the other hand if the Taliban is being given "financial support" then it is merely your
supposition that this is intended to buy a lot of dead bodies.
Why, exactly, is that the only (or even likely) reason for the Russians to supply
financial support to the Taliban?
There are many reasons the Russians may want to do that, first and foremost to buy
influence amongst a group that in all probably will become the next government of
Afghanistan.
Both you and the NYT appear intent upon reaching a very shaky conclusion constructed atop
a mountain of unwarranted assumptions. And all of it - all of it - pivoting upon an single
very subjective word: "expectation"
"The source tells CNN that intelligence of this nature with risk to US troops should be
assumed to be true until you know otherwise."
He/she is saying that truth is based on the severity of the accusation. This sounds more
like something a politician would say rather than a professional Intel officer.
Not just NYT and WaPo - Associated Press is also happy to sacrifice its credibility to
promote the Russia/Taliban story:
"In early 2020, members of the elite Naval Special Warfare Development Group, known to the
public as SEAL Team Six, raided a Taliban outpost and recovered roughly $500,000. The
recovered funds further solidified the suspicions of the American intelligence community that
the Russians had offered money to Taliban militants and linked associations."
So ... eh ... the Taliban doesn't use money, except when it gets bounties in dollars from
Russia to kill Americans??? AP doesn't explain how that recovered cash "solidified the
suspicions". https://apnews.com/02975c59e71e65327e2f582cd1a91f43
"... Bolton is of course not right in his pathetic spin job on the use of lies to promote military agendas, which just looks like a feeble attempt to justify the psychopathic measures he himself took to deceive the world into consenting to the unforgivably evil invasion of Iraq. What he is right about is that conflicts between nations take place in an "anarchic environment internationally where different rules apply." ..."
"... We haven't been shown any hard evidence for Russians paying bounties in Afghanistan, and we almost certainly never will be. This doesn't matter as far as the imperial propagandists are concerned; they know they don't need actual facts to get this story believed, they just need narrative control. All the propagandists need to do is say over and over again that Russia paid bounties to kill the troops in Afghanistan in an increasingly assertive and authoritative tone, and after a while people will start assuming it's true, just because the propagandists have been doing this. ..."
"... This is all because "international law" only exists in practical terms to the extent that governments around the world agree to pretend it exists. As long as the U.S.-centralized empire is able to control the prevailing narrative about what Russia is doing, that empire will be able to continue to use the pretext of "international law" as a bludgeon against its enemies. That's all we're really seeing here. ..."
On
a December 2010 episode of Fox News'
Freedom
Watch
, John Bolton and the show's host Andrew Napolitano were
debating
about recent
WikiLeaks
publications
,
and naturally the subject of government secrecy came up.
"Now I want to make the case for secrecy in government when it comes to the conduct of national security affairs, and
possibly for deception where that's appropriate," said
Bolton,
the former Trump national security adviser
.
"You know Winston Churchill said during World War Two that in wartime
truth is so important it should be surrounded by a bodyguard of lies."
"Do you really believe that?" asked an incredulous Napolitano.
"Absolutely," Bolton replied.
"You would lie in order to preserve the truth?" asked Napolitano.
"If I had to say something I knew was false to protect American national security, I would do it," Bolton answered.
"Why do people in the government think that the laws of society or the rules don't apply to them?" Napolitano asked.
"Because they are not dealing in the civil society we live in under the Constitution," Bolton replied. "They are
dealing in the anarchic environment internationally where different rules apply."
"But you took an oath to uphold the Constitution, and the Constitution mandates certain openness and certain
fairness," Napolitano protested. "You're willing to do away with that in order to attain a temporary military goal?"
"I think as Justice Jackson said in a famous decision, the Constitution is not a suicide pact," Bolton said. "And I
think defending the United States from foreign threats does require actions that in a normal business environment in
the United States we would find unprofessional. I don't make any apology for it."
I am going to type a sequence of words that I have never typed before, and don't expect to ever type again:
John Bolton is right.
Bolton is of course
not
right
in his pathetic spin job on the use of lies to promote military agendas, which just looks like a feeble attempt to
justify
the
psychopathic measures he himself took
to deceive the world into consenting to the unforgivably evil invasion of
Iraq. What he is right about is that conflicts between nations take place in an "anarchic environment internationally
where different rules apply."
Individual nations have governments with laws that are enforced by those governments. Since we do not have a single
unified government for our planet (at least not yet), the interactions between those governments is largely anarchic,
and not in a good way.
"International law," in reality, only meaningfully exists to the extent that the international community is
collectively willing to enforce it. In practice what this means is that only nations that have no influence over the
dominant narratives in the international community are subject to "international law."
This is why you will see
leaders
in African nations sentenced to prison
by the International Criminal Court (ICC) for war crimes, but the USA can
get away with
actually
sanctioning ICC personnel
if they so much as talk about investigating American war crimes and suffer no
consequences for it whatsoever. It is also why
Noam
Chomsky famously said
that if the Nuremberg laws had continued to be applied with fairness and consistency, then
every post-war U.S. president would have been hanged.
And this is also why so much effort gets poured into controlling the dominant international narrative about nations
like Russia which have resisted being absorbed into the U.S. power alliance. If you have the influence and leverage
to control what narratives the international community accepts as true about the behavior of a given targeted nation,
then you can do things like manufacture international collaboration with aggressive economic sanctions of the sort
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is
currently
calling for
in response to the
completely
unsubstantiated narrative
that Russia paid Taliban fighters bounties to kill occupying forces in Afghanistan.
In its ongoing
slow-motion
third world war
against nations which refuse to be absorbed into the blob of the U.S. power alliance, this tight
empire-like cluster of allies stands everything to gain by doing whatever it takes to undermine and sabotage Russia
in an attempt to shove it off the world stage and eliminate
the
role it plays
in opposing that war. Advancing as many narratives as possible about Russia doing nefarious things
on the world stage manufactures consent for international collaboration toward that end in the form of economic
warfare, proxy conflicts, NATO expansionism and other measures, as well as facilitating a new arms race by
killing
the last of the U.S.-Russia nuclear treaties
and
ensuring
a continued imperial military presence
in Afghanistan.
We haven't been shown any hard evidence for Russians paying bounties in Afghanistan, and we almost certainly never
will be. This doesn't matter as far as the imperial propagandists are concerned; they know they don't need actual
facts to get this story believed, they just need narrative control. All the propagandists need to do is say over and
over again that Russia paid bounties to kill the troops in Afghanistan in an increasingly assertive and authoritative
tone, and after a while people will start assuming it's true, just because the propagandists have been doing this.
They'll add new pieces of data to the narrative, none of which will constitute hard proof of their claims, but after
enough "bombshell" stories reported in an assertive and ominous tone of voice, people will start assuming it's a
proven fact that Russia paid those bounties. Narrative managers will be able to simply wave their hands at a
disparate, unverified cloud of information and proclaim that it is a mountain of evidence and that anyone doubting
all this proof must be a kook. (This by the way is a textbook
Gish
gallop fallacy
, where a bunch of individually weak arguments are presented to give the illusion of a single
strong case.)
This is all because "international law" only exists in practical terms to the extent that governments around the
world agree to pretend it exists. As long as the U.S.-centralized empire is able to control the prevailing narrative
about what Russia is doing, that empire will be able to continue to use the pretext of "international law" as a
bludgeon against its enemies. That's all we're really seeing here.
A ll Western mass media outlets are now shrieking about the story The New York Timesfirst reported , citing zero evidence and
naming zero sources, claiming intelligence says Russia paid out bounties to Taliban-linked
fighters in Afghanistan for attacking the occupying forces of the U.S. and its allies in
Afghanistan. As of this writing, and probably forevermore, there have still been zero
intelligence sources named and zero evidence provided for this claim.
As we
discussed yesterday , the only correct response to unsubstantiated claims by anonymous
spooks in a post-Iraq invasion world is to assume that they are lying until you've been
provided with a mountain of hard, independently verifiable evidence to the contrary. The fact
that The New York Times instead chose to uncritically parrot these evidence-free claims
made by operatives within intelligence agencies with a known track record of lying about
exactly these things is nothing short of journalistic malpractice. The fact that western media
outlets are now unanimously regurgitating these still 100–percent baseless assertions is
nothing short of state propaganda.
The consensus-manufacturing, Overton window-shrinking Western propaganda apparatus has been
in full swing with mass media outlets claiming on literally no basis whatsoever that
they have confirmed one another's "great reporting" on this completely unsubstantiated
story.
The Wall Street Journal article
co-authored by Gordon Lubold cites only anonymous "people," who we have no reason to believe
are different people from the NYT's sources, repeating the same unsubstantiated assertions
about an intelligence report. The article cites no evidence that Lubold's "stunning
development" actually occurred beyond " people familiar with the report said
" and " a person
familiar with it said ."
The fact that both Hudson and Lubold were lying about having confirmed TheNew
York Times' reporting means that Savage was also lying when he said they did. When they say
the report has been "confirmed," what they really mean is that it has been agreed upon. All the
three of them actually did was use their profoundly influential outlets to uncritically parrot
something nameless spooks want the public to believe, which is the same as just publishing a
CIA press release free of charge. It is unprincipled stenography for opaque and unaccountable
intelligence agencies, and it is disgusting.
None of this should be happening. The New York Timeshas admitted
itself that it was wrong for uncritically parroting the unsubstantiated spook claims which
led to the Iraq invasion, as has
The Washington Post . There is no reason to believe Taliban fighters would require
any bounty to attack an illegitimate occupying force. The Russian government has denied these
allegations . The Taliban
has denied these allegations . The Trump administration has denied that the
president or the vice president had any knowledge of the spook report in question, denouncing
the central allegation that liberals who are promoting this story have been fixated on.
Yet this story is being magically transmuted into an established fact, despite its being
based on literally zero factual evidence.
Western propagandists are turning this completely empty story into the mainstream consensus,
not with facts, not with evidence, and certainly not with journalism, but with sheer brute
force of narrative control. And now you've got former Vice President Joe Biden, the Democrats'
presumptive presidential nominee,
once again attacking Trump for being insufficiently warlike,
this time because "he failed to sanction or impose any kind of consequences on Russia for
this egregious violation of international law."
You've also got President George W. Bush's former lackey Richard Haas promoting "a
proportionate response" to these baseless allegations.
"Russia is carrying out covert wars vs US troops in Afghanistan and our democracy here at
home," Haas tweeted with a link to The
New York Times story. "A proportionate response would increase the costs to Russia of its
military presence in Ukraine and Syria and, using sanctions and cyber, to challenge Putin at
home."
Haas is the president of the Council on Foreign Relations, a wildly influential think
tank with its fingers in most major U.S. news outlets.
"This story is published just in time to sabotage US-Russia arms control talks,"
Antiwar 's Dave DeCamp noted on Twitter . "As the
US is preparing for a new arms race -- and possibly even live nuclear tests -- The New York
Times provides a great excuse to let the New START lapse, making the world a much more
dangerous place. Russiagate has provided the cover for Trump to pull out of arms control
agreements. First the INF, then the Open Skies, and now possibly the New START. Any talks or
negotiations with Russia are discouraged in this atmosphere, and this Times story will
make things even worse."
"US 'intelligence' agencies (ie, organized crime networks run by the state) want to sabotage
the (admittedly very inadequate) peace talks in Afghanistan," tweeted journalist Ben
Norton. "So they get best of both worlds: blame the Russian bogeyman, fueling the new cold war,
while prolonging the military occupation. It's not a coincidence these dubious Western
intelligence agency claims about Russia came just days after a breakthrough in
peace talks . Afghanistan's geostrategic location (and trillions worth of minerals) is too
important to them."
All parties involved in spreading this malignant psyop are absolutely vile, but a special
disdain should be reserved for the media class who have been entrusted by the public with the
essential task of creating an informed populace and holding power to account. How much of an
unprincipled whore do you have to be to call yourself a journalist and uncritically parrot the
completely unsubstantiated assertions of spooks while protecting their anonymity? How much work
did these empire fluffers put into killing off every last shred of their dignity? It boggles
the mind.
It really is funny how the most influential news outlets in the western world will
uncritically parrot whatever they're told to say by the most powerful and depraved intelligence
agencies on the planet, and then turn around and tell you without a hint of self-awareness that
Russia and China are bad because they have state media.
"Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction." "Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass
destruction." "Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction."
How many Iraqi civilians have been starved and slaughtered since 2001?
Duckandcover , June 30, 2020 at 09:19
Another false rumor Adam Schiff can run with. He's good at that. It will keep him occupied
for the next four years.
Francis Lee , June 30, 2020 at 05:18
I'm just wondering. Is the US deep state and its media accomplices preparing its
population for a kinetic war against Russia, or is the whole thing just a bluff to get Russia
to surrender without a fight. The Russians, however, will not back down in face of this
increasing intimidation. So what next for the Americans? The problem with the big bluff play
is that the Americans may well have talked their way into war and won't have an exit
strategy. Congratulations must go in particular to the MSM for pushing the world toward the
edge of extinction and possibly over.
Atul Thakker , June 30, 2020 at 00:39
Even if it was all true, were we this outraged after watching Charlie Wilson's War?
David S Hall , June 29, 2020 at 21:29
Obviously a CIA campaign to get a more willing stooge into the Whitelivesmatter House. My
American memory is famously short, can't quite recall who it was created and funded the
Taliban and supplied them with advanced weapons and training to attack the Soviet Army of
Occupation. I imagine the current Taliban would much prefer Verbas to Rubles.
Jean , June 29, 2020 at 19:58
I am totally a Bernie Girl but am being inundated with pitiful pleas to vote for the
Bumpkin, the senile old Neoliberal Bumpkin, because ..Trump. I was almost persuaded until
reading this. The Cheeto is a horror and a whore and has a lot of blood on his hands. But
Byebyedon is worse. He'll lay this country at the feet of the war profiteers and say thank
you for letting me be your whore. I'm not voting for him. Nor for any other neoliberal
warmongering Hillary loving ass wipe the DNC can vomit up. I'm writing in Buddha. Seems to me
a good dead guy could do a better job than all these ass wipes put together. You go
Caitlyn!!!
vinnieoh , June 29, 2020 at 18:51
In passing Caitlin mentions narrative control, the subject she so expertly dissects. It's
important at the premier of this farcically phony addition to the narrative, to remember
that:
It doesn't have to be true;
It doesn't even need a very long half-life;
It doesn't even need to be investigated before it is dropped in the "hold" basket.
All that is need is to be entered into the "official narrative"; because it was reported,
became a media topic, it thus has become "real" and can be later concatenated in a litany of
other "offenses" committed by our shibboleths against us.
It's easy, they do it almost in their sleep now, and the serious faces of our vigilant
media never blink an eye, and no perspiration is seen on their upper lips. One big obedient,
happy family. It doesn't matter how many out in teevee land or social media land believe it,
only that none of the voices of the official narrative break ranks.
Sam F , June 29, 2020 at 18:43
Those who agreed upon and spread this "malignant psyop" of "evidence-free claims" have
engaged in journalistic malpractice and state propaganda, and have long betrayed the public
trust to provide truth and hold power to account.
Mass media and all branches of federal and state government must be regulated for balance
of viewpoints with checks and balances in all areas, and monitored for corrupt influence.
Without such controls we cannot restore democracy.
Realist , June 29, 2020 at 16:56
Basically, the CIA is meddling in the presidential election yet again. They want the
public not only to believe that this absurd fantasy is true but that Trump and his awful
minions looked the other way and gave the evil emperor Putin carte blanche to kill Americans.
What baseless charge could possibly be more inflammatory? Betraying your own armed forces
would be the apex of high treason. This is yet another doubling down on the failed
"Russiagate" conspiracy theory. Not only totally preposterous and completely unsupported but
quite unnecessary if the objective is to extract Trump from the White House. Trump has
already cooked his own goose in the political arena with his handling of the Covid crisis,
the BLM "demonstrations" and the Congressional giveaway of newly-created Fed funny money to
the most financially privileged individuals on the planet. The intel agencies obviously have
no clue that they conspicuously give away their game by being so over-the-top bombastic in
their unending attempts to frame Putin, Russia, and, most importantly, Trump. And the MSM
seem just as clueless about the role they play as witless tools of these behind-the-scenes
string pullers.
Skip Scott , June 30, 2020 at 08:41
I am not yet sure that Trump has "cooked his own goose". Biden is such a horrible
candidate it seems that the DNC wants to lose, and Trump's base never sees anything done by
him as "wrong," or his fault. Whenever I start thinking that the public couldn't get any
dumber or more manipulated, events prove me wrong. One thing is certain, more "theater of the
absurd" lies ahead. Buckle up!
BTW, good to hear from your Realist.
AnneR , June 30, 2020 at 11:15
Ah, but, Realist, can't have too many depleted uranium cased weapons to hand, just in
case, just in case the Strumpet should win against all the odds, at least as advertised by
the pollsters (as was the case in 2016).
And what better for these "liars, cheats, robbers" (as Pompeo averted – with mucho
pride – were the trademarks of the CIA et al) than to once again, despite all common
sense, nominate the Russians as our "real" enemies. The f***ing Blue faces cannot let their
Cold Warrior Russophobic deep seated perceptions of the world go.
And – as one expects – there is no mention in the MSM (as represented in this
household by the faithful Blue Face upholder, NPR) of the CIA (with Brzezinski's full
support) in Afghanistan deliberately helping to create, support, train the mujahadeen
(including what would become the Taliban) to fight, kill and keep the USSR in Afghanistan
until it had its "Vietnam" and shrank economically, thus influentially. No thought that,
well, even if (big if) this NYT tale proves even remotely based in some fact: we are reaping
what we sowed; serves us right. Please – we'd never look at anything done to *us* in
that way. We seem incapable.
Drew Hunkins , June 29, 2020 at 16:19
Anyone who believes the Russian bounty Taliban story is beyond hope and one must not waste
two seconds of their energies trying to reach them. There's now a segment of our (U.S)
population that is TOTALLY immune to any rational and reasonable explanations and facts
pertaining to Russia, a Russia that's a peace and justice champion around the globe promoting
cooperative relations throughout the world community.
AnneR , June 30, 2020 at 11:17
So very true, Drew. So very true – assuming that they consider it at all, that
is.
John Drake , June 29, 2020 at 16:13
Looks like a get Trump disinformation operation. First concoct this pile of nastiness, and
don't tell Potus . Then release it through subservient mass media(best yet with high
stature). Potus says, "huh", didn't know and looks foolish, as well as being positioned into
the Russian stooge trope- mission accomplished.
Next act assorted Congress critters get to pontificate, posture and look patriotic.
Americans are so gullible. Like the Taliban needs a bounty to kill Americans; that's their
job, their goal is to get rid of US presence no need for extra incentive. And of course ,
Russia could care less and would not be so stupid. If you look at a lot of this stuff the
deep state comes up with there is no motive, it doesn't pass the smell test.
"... One can read this most recent flurry of Russia, Russia, Russia paid the Taliban to kill GIs as an attempt to pre-empt the findings into Russiagate's origins. ..."
"... But Moscow recognized from the start that Washington was embarked on a fool's errand in Vietnam. There would be no percentage in getting directly involved. And so, the Soviets sat back and watched smugly as the Vietnamese Communists drove U.S. forces out on their "own resources." As was the case with the Viet Cong, the Taliban needs no bounty inducements from abroad. ..."
"... Former CIA Director William Casey said: "We'll know when our disinformation program is complete, when everything the American public believes is false." ..."
"... If Durham finds it fraudulent (not a difficult task), the heads of senior intelligence and law enforcement officials may roll. That would also mean a still deeper dent in the credibility of Establishment media that are only too eager to drink the Kool Aid and to leave plenty to drink for the rest of us. ..."
"... I am not a regular Maddow-watcher, but to me she seemed unhinged -- actually, well over the top. ..."
One can read this most recent flurry of Russia, Russia, Russia paid the Taliban to kill GIs
as an attempt to pre-empt the findings into Russiagate's origins.
O n Friday The New York Times featured a report based on anonymous intelligence
officials that the Russians were paying bounties to have U.S. troops killed in Afghanistan with
President Donald Trump refusing to do anything about it. The flurry of Establishment media
reporting that ensued provides further proof, if such were needed, that the erstwhile "paper of
record" has earned a new moniker -- Gray Lady of easy virtue.
Over the weekend, the Times ' dubious allegations grabbed headlines across all media
that are likely to remain indelible in the minds of credulous Americans -- which seems to have
been the main objective. To keep the pot boiling this morning, The New York Times' David
Leonhardt's daily web piece
, "The Morning" calls prominent attention to a banal
article by a Heather Cox Richardson, described as a historian at Boston College, adding
specific charges to the general indictment of Trump by showing "how the Trump administration
has continued to treat Russia favorably." The following is from Richardson's newsletter on
Friday:
"On April 1 a Russian plane brought ventilators and other medical supplies to the
United States a propaganda coup for Russia;
"On April 25 Trump raised eyebrows by issuing a joint statement with Russian President
Vladimir Putin commemorating the 75th anniversary of the historic meeting between American
and Soviet troops on the bridge of the Elbe River in Germany that signaled the final defeat
of the Nazis;
"On May 3, Trump called Putin and talked for an hour and a half, a discussion Trump
called 'very positive';
"On May 21, the U.S. sent a humanitarian aid package worth $5.6 million to Moscow to
help fight coronavirus there. The shipment included 50 ventilators, with another 150 promised
for the next week;
"On June 15, news broke that Trump has ordered the removal of 9,500 troops from
Germany, where they support NATO against Russian aggression. "
Historian Richardson added:
"All of these friendly overtures to Russia were alarming enough when all we knew was that
Russia attacked the 2016 U.S. election and is doing so again in 2020. But it is far worse
that those overtures took place when the administration knew that Russia had actively
targeted American soldiers. this bad news apparently prompted worried intelligence officials
to give up their hope that the administration would respond to the crisis, and instead to
leak the story to two major newspapers."
Hear the siren? Children, get under your desks!
The Tall Tale About Russia Paying for Dead U.S. Troops
Times print edition readers had to wait until this morning to learn of Trump's
statement last night that he was not briefed on the cockamamie tale about bounties for killing,
since it was, well, cockamamie.
Late last night the president tweeted: "Intel just reported to me that they did not find
this info credible, and therefore did not report it to me or the VP. "
For those of us distrustful of the Times -- with good reason -- on such neuralgic
issues, the bounty story had already fallen of its own weight. As Scott Ritter pointed out
yesterday:
"Perhaps the biggest clue concerning the fragility of the New York Times ' report
is contained in the one sentence it provides about sourcing -- "The intelligence
assessment is said to be based at least in part on interrogations of captured Afghan
militants and criminals." That sentence contains almost everything one needs to know
about the intelligence in question, including the fact that the source of the information is
most likely the Afghan government as reported through CIA channels. "
And who can forget how "successful" interrogators can be in getting desired answers.
Russia & Taliban React
The Kremlin called the Times reporting "nonsense an unsophisticated plant," and from
Russia's perspective the allegations make little sense; Moscow will see them for what they are
-- attempts to show that Trump is too "accommodating" to Russia.
A Taliban spokesman called the story "baseless," adding with apparent pride that "we" have
done "target killings" for years "on our own resources."
Russia is no friend of the Taliban. At the same time, it has been clear for several years
that the U.S. would have to pull its troops out of Afghanistan. Think back five decades and
recall how circumspect the Soviets were in Vietnam. Giving rhetorical support to a fraternal
Communist nation was de rigueur and some surface-to-air missiles gave some substance to
that support.
But Moscow recognized from the start that Washington was embarked on a fool's errand in
Vietnam. There would be no percentage in getting directly involved. And so, the Soviets sat
back and watched smugly as the Vietnamese Communists drove U.S. forces out on their "own
resources." As was the case with the Viet Cong, the Taliban needs no bounty inducements from
abroad.
Besides, the Russians knew painfully well -- from their own bitter experience in
Afghanistan, what the outcome of the most recent fool's errand would be for the U.S. What point
would they see in doing what The New York Times and other Establishment media are
breathlessly accusing them of?
CIA Disinformation; Casey at Bat
Former CIA Director William Casey said: "We'll know when our disinformation program is
complete, when everything the American public believes is false."
Casey made that remark at the first cabinet meeting in the White House under President
Ronald Reagan in early 1981, according to Barbara Honegger, who was assistant to the chief
domestic policy adviser. Honegger was there, took notes, and told then Senior White House
correspondent Sarah McClendon, who in turn made it public.
If Casey's spirit is somehow observing the success of the disinformation program called
Russiagate, one can imagine how proud he must be. But sustained propaganda success can be a
serious challenge. The Russiagate canard has lasted three and a half years. This last gasp
effort, spearheaded by the Times , to breathe more life into it is likely to last little
more than a weekend -- the redoubled efforts of Casey-dictum followers notwithstanding.
Russiagate itself has been unraveling, although one would hardly know it from the
Establishment media. No collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. Even the sacrosanct
tenet that the Russians hacked the DNC emails published by WikiLeaks has been disproven
, with the head of the DNC-hired cyber security firm CrowdStrike
admitting that there is
no evidence that the DNC emails were hacked -- by Russia or
anyone else .
U.S. Attorney John Durham. (Wikipedia)
How long will it take the Times to catch up with the CrowdStrike story, available
since May 7?
The media is left with one sacred cow: the misnomered "Intelligence Community" Assessment of
Jan. 6, 2017, claiming that President Putin himself ordered the hacking of the DNC. That
"assessment" done by "hand-picked analysts" from only CIA, FBI and NSA (not all 17 intelligence
agencies of the "intelligence community") reportedly is being given close scrutiny by U. S.
Attorney John Durham, appointed by the attorney general to investigate Russiagate's
origins.
If Durham finds it fraudulent (not a difficult task), the heads of senior intelligence and
law enforcement officials may roll. That would also mean a still deeper dent in the credibility
of Establishment media that are only too eager to drink the Kool Aid and to leave plenty to
drink for the rest of us.
Do not expect the media to cease and desist, simply because Trump had a good squelch for
them last night -- namely, the "intelligence" on the "bounties" was not deemed good enough to
present to the president.
(As a preparer and briefer of The President's Daily Brief to Presidents Reagan and HW
Bush, I can attest to the fact that -- based on what has been revealed so far -- the Russian
bounty story falls far short of the PDB threshold.)
Rejecting Intelligence Assessments
Nevertheless, the corporate media is likely to play up the Trump administration's rejection
of what the media is calling the "intelligence assessment" about Russia offering -- as Rachel
Maddow indecorously put it on Friday -- "bounty for the scalps of American soldiers in
Afghanistan."
I am not a regular Maddow-watcher, but to me she seemed
unhinged -- actually, well over the top.
The media asks, "Why does Trump continue to disrespect the assessments of the intelligence
community?" There he goes again -- not believing our "intelligence community; siding, rather,
with Putin."
In other words, we can expect no let up from the media and the national security miscreant
leakers who have served as their life's blood. As for the anchors and pundits, their level of
sophistication was reflected yesterday in the sage surmise of Face the Nation's Chuck Todd, who
Aaron Mate reminds us, is a "grown adult and professional media person." Todd asked guest John
Bolton: "Do you think that the president is afraid to make Putin mad because maybe Putin did
help him win the election, and he doesn't want to make him mad for 2020?"
"This is as bad as it gets," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi yesterday, adding the aphorism
she memorized several months ago: "All roads lead to Putin." The unconscionably deceitful
performance of Establishment media is as bad as it gets, though that, of course, was not
what Pelosi meant. She apparently lifted a line right out of the Times about how Trump
is too "accommodating" toward Russia.
One can read this most recent flurry of Russia, Russia, Russia as a reflection of the need
to pre-empt the findings likely to issue from Durham and Attorney General William Barr in the
coming months -- on the theory that the best defense is a pre-emptive offense. Meanwhile, we
can expect the corporate media to continue to disgrace itself.
Vile
Caitlin Johnstone, typically,
pulls no punches regarding the Russian bounty travesty:
"All parties involved in spreading this malignant psyop are absolutely vile, but a special
disdain should be reserved for the media class who have been entrusted by the public with the
essential task of creating an informed populace and holding power to account. How much of an
unprincipled whore do you have to be to call yourself a journalist and uncritically parrot
the completely unsubstantiated assertions of spooks while protecting their anonymity? How
much work did these empire fluffers put into killing off every last shred of their dignity?
It boggles the mind.
It really is funny how the most influential news outlets in the Western world will
uncritically parrot whatever they're told to say by the most powerful and depraved
intelligence agencies on the planet, and then turn around and tell you without a hint of
self-awareness that Russia and China are bad because they have state media.
Sometimes all you can do is laugh."
Ray McGovern works for Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the
Saviour in inner-city Washington. During his 27-years as a CIA analyst he led the Soviet
Foreign Policy Branch and prepared The President's Daily Brief for Presidents Nixon,
Ford, and Reagan. In retirement, he co-created Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
(VIPS).
The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of
Consortium News.
Aaron , June 30, 2020 at 12:33
If anything, all roads lead to Israel. You have to consider the sources, the writers,
journalists, editors, owners, and rich people from which these stories come. This latest
ridiculous story will certainly help Trump, so the sources of these Russia stories are
actually fans of Trump, they love his tax cuts, he helps their revenue streams, and he's the
greatest friend and Zionist to Israel so far and also Wall Street. I think most Americans can
understand that Putin doesn't possess all of the supernatural all-encompassing powers and
mind-controlling omnipotence that Pelosi and her ilk attribute to him. That's why at his
rallies, when Trump points to where the journalists are and sneers at them calling them
bloodsuckers and parasites and all that, the people love it, because of stuff like this. It's
like saying "look at those assholes, those liberal journalists over at CNN say that you voted
for me because of Vladimir Putin?!" It just pisses off people to keep hearing that mantra
over and over. So it's a gift to Trump, it helps him so much. And seeing that super expensive
helicopter flying around the barren rocky slopes of the middle east, seems like it's out of
some Rambo movie. And like Rambo, the tens of thousands of American servicemen that were
sacrificed over there, and still commit suicides at a horrific rate, have always been treated
by the architects of these wars that only helped the state of Israel, as the expendables.
Whether it's a black life, a soldier fighting in Iraq, a foreclosed on homeowner by Mnuchin's
work, or a brainwashed New York Times subscriber, we don't seem to matter, we seem to feel
the truth that to these people were are indeed expendable. The question to answer I think is,
not who is a Russian asset, but who is an Israeli asset?
Andrew Thomas , June 30, 2020 at 12:04
Great reporting as usual, Ray. But special kudos for the NYT moniker 'Gray lady of easy
virtue.' I almost laughed out loud. A rare occurrence these days.
Michael P Goldenberg , June 30, 2020 at 10:45
Thanks for another cogent assessment of our mainstream media's utter depravity and
reckless irresponsibility. They truly have become nothing more than presstitutes and enemies
of the people.
Bob Van Noy , June 30, 2020 at 10:42
"It's all over but the shouting" goes the idiom and I think that is true of Russiagate,
especially, thank all goodness, here at Robert Parry's Journalistic site!
I have a theory that propaganda has a lifetime but when it reaches a truly absurd level,
it's all over. Clearly, we've reached that level Thanks to all at CN
evelync , June 30, 2020 at 10:33
You call Rachel Madcow "unhinged", Ray ..well, yes, I'm shocked at myself that there was a
time that I tuned in to her show .
Sorry Ms Madcow you've turned yourself into a character from Dr Strangelove
The key threats – climate change, pandemics, nuclear war – and why we continue
to fail to address these real things while filling the airwaves instead with the tiresome
russia,russia,russia mantra – per Accam's razer suggests that it serves very short term
interests of money and power whoever whatever the MICIMATT answers to.
"Former CIA Director William Casey said: "We'll know when our disinformation program is
complete, when everything the American public believes is false." "
Who exactly was the "we" Casey was answering to each day?
I know it wasn't me or the planet or humanity or anyone I know.
Bill Rice , June 30, 2020 at 10:20
If only articles like this were read by the masses. Maybe people would get a clue. Blind
patriotism is not patriotic at all. Skepticism is healthy.
torture this , June 30, 2020 at 09:54
It's a shame that VIPS reporting is top secret. It's the only information coming from
people familiar with the ins and outs of spy agencies that can be trusted.
GeorgeG , June 30, 2020 at 09:45
Ray,
You missed the juicy stuff. See: tass.com/russia/1172369 Russia Foreign Ministry: NYT article
on Russia in Afghanistan fake from US intelligence. Here is the kicker:
The Russian Foreign Ministry pointed to US intelligence agencies' involvement in Afghan
drug trafficking.
"Should we speak about facts – moreover, well-known [facts], it has not long been a
secret in Afghanistan that members of the US intelligence community are involved in drug
trafficking, cash payments to militants for letting transport convoys pass through, kickbacks
from contracts implementing various projects paid by American taxpayers. The list of their
actions can be continued if you want," the ministry said.
The Russian Foreign Ministry suggested that those actions might stem from the fact that
the US intelligence agencies "do not like that our and their diplomats have teamed up to
facilitate the start of peace talks between Kabul and the Taliban (outlawed in Russia –
TASS)."
"We can understand their feelings as they do not want to be deprived of the above
mentioned sources of the off-the-books income," the ministry stressed.
Thomas Fortin , June 30, 2020 at 12:08
Affirmative Ray, two of my old comrades who were SF both did security on CIA drug flights
back in the day, and later on both while under VA care decided to die off God I miss them,
great guys and honest souls.
DH Fabian , June 30, 2020 at 09:41
One point remains a mystery. Why would anyone think that when the US invades a country,
someone would need to pay the people of that country a bounty to fight back?
Mark Clarke , June 30, 2020 at 09:27
If Biden wins the presidency and the Democrats take back the Senate, Russiagate will
strengthen and live on for many years.
Al , June 30, 2020 at 12:11
All to deflect from Clinton's private server while SOS, 30,000 deleted emails, and the
sale of US interests via the Clinton Foundation.
Zedster , June 30, 2020 at 12:56
That, or we learn Chinese.
Skip Scott , June 30, 2020 at 09:08
Another interesting aside is that Tulsi Gabbard's "Stop funding Terrorists" bill went
nowhere in Congress. So it's Ok for us and our Arab allies to fund them, but not the
Russians? Maybe we should go back to calling them the Mujahideen?
Thomas Scherrer , June 30, 2020 at 12:10
Preach, my child.
And aloha to the last decent woman in those halls.
Do you not think that the timing of all this (months after the report was allegedly
presented to Trump) is an attempt to stop Trump from signing an agreement with the Taliban
that will allow him to withdraw American troops from that country?
Skip Scott , June 30, 2020 at 08:58
Great article Ray, but I have to question whether Durham will fulfill his role and get to
the bottom of the origins of RussiaGate. If he actually does name names and prosecute, how
will the MSM cover it? What will Ms. Madcow have to say? Ever since the fizzling failure of
the Epstein investigation, I have had my doubts about Barr and his minion Durham. I hope I'm
wrong. Time will tell.
Thomas Fortin , June 30, 2020 at 12:24
I think on here I can talk about this issue you brought up Scott, on other places when I
tried to have a rational discussion on the matter, I got shouted down, well they tried
anyway.
I highly suggest to any readers of this here on Consortium to get Gore Vidal's old book,
Imperial America, and also watch his old documentary, THE UNITED STATES OF AMNESIA.
Here is the point of it,
"Officially we have two parties which are in fact wings of a common party of property with
two right wings. Corporate wealth finances each. Since the property party controls every
aspect of media they have had decades to create a false reality for a citizenry largely
uneducated by public schools that teach conformity with an occasional advanced degree in
consumerism."
-GORE VIDAL, The United States of Amnesia
Also,
"There is only one party in the United States, the Property Party and it has two right wings:
Republican and Democrat. Republicans are a bit stupider, more rigid, more doctrinaire in
their laissez-faire capitalism than the Democrats, who are cuter, prettier, a bit more
corrupt -- until recently and more willing than the Republicans to make small adjustments
when the poor, the black, the anti-imperialists get out of hand. But, essentially, there is
no difference between the two parties."
? Gore Vidal
Others have pointed out the same like this,
"Nobody should have any illusions. The United States has essentially a one-party system and
the ruling party is the business party."
? Noam Chomsky
"In the United States [ ] the two main business-dominated parties, with the support of the
corporate community, have refused to reform laws that make it virtually impossible to create
new political parties (that might appeal to non-business interests) and let them be
effective. Although there is marked and frequently observed dissatisfaction with the
Republicans and Democrats, electoral politics is one area where notions of competitions and
free choice have little meaning. In some respects the caliber of debate and choice in
neoliberal elections tends to be closer to that of the one-party communist state than that of
a genuine democracy."
? Robert W. McChesney, Profit Over People: Neoliberalism and Global Order
"The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies is a foolish
idea. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can
throw the rascals out at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in
policy. Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other
party which will be none of these things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately
the same basic policies."
? Carroll Quigley [1910 – 1977 was an American historian and theorist of the evolution
of civilizations. He is remembered for his teaching work as a professor at Georgetown
University, for his academic publications.]
Teddy Roosevelt, whose statue is under attack in NYC, had this to say,
"The bosses of the Democratic party and the bosses of the Republican party alike have a
closer grip than ever before on the party machines in the States and in the Nation. This
crooked control of both the old parties by the beneficiaries of political and business
privilege renders it hopeless to expect any far-reaching and fundamental service from
either."
-THEODORE ROOSEVELT, The Outlook, July 27, 1912
I suggest also that you look up on line this article, Heads They Win, Tails We Lose: Our Fake
Two-Party System
by Prof. Stephen H. Unger at Columbia, here is his concluding thought,
"The drift toward loss of liberty, unending wars, environmental degradation, growing economic
inequality can't be stopped easily, but it will never be halted as long as we allow corporate
interests to rule our country by means of a pseudo-democracy based on the two-party
swindle."
With this all in mind, and if your my age, you might recall about how over the past more then
50 years, no matter which party gets in power, nothing of any significance changes, the wars
continue, the transfer of wealth to the few, and the erosion of basic civil liberties
continues pretty well unabated.
Trump is surrounded by neo-cons and I expect nothing will happen to change anything. I would
get into how most called liberals are hardly that, but in reality neo-cons, but I've said
enough for now, when you consider the statements I shared, then the Matrix begins to come
unraveled.
Grady , June 30, 2020 at 08:01
Not to mention the potential peace initiative with Afghanistan and Taliban that is
looming. Peace is not profitable, so who has the dual interests in maintaining protracted war
in a strategic location while ensuring the poppy crop stays the most productive in the world?
It seems said poppy production under the pre war Taliban government was minimal as they
eliminated most of it. Attacking the Taliban and thwarting its rule allowed for greater
production, to the extent it is the global leader in helping to fulfill the opiate demand.
Gary Webb established long ago that the intelligence community, specifically the CIA, has
somewhat of a tradition in such covert operations and logic would dictate they're vested
interest lies in maintaining a high yield crop while feeding the profit center that is the
MIC war machine. While certainly a bit digressive, the dots are there to connect.
Paul , June 30, 2020 at 07:54
My friend, I love your columns. Thank you, you have been one of the few sane voices on
Russiagate from the beginning.
Sadly most Americans and most people in the world will not receive these simple truths you
are telling. (not their fault)
We will continue our fight against the system.
Peace, Paul from South Africa
Voice from Europe , June 30, 2020 at 07:38
Don't think this will be the last Russiagate gasp whoever becomes the next president.
The 'liberal democrats' believe their own delusions and as long as they control the MSM, they
won't stop. Lol.
Thomas Fortin , June 30, 2020 at 12:29
You should read my reply to Scott, most of these Democrats are not liberals, but neo-cons
who just liberal virtue signal while in reality supporting the neo-con agenda. I hate it how
the so called alternative or independent media abuse terms and words, which obscures
realities. Anyway, take a look at my reply and the quotes I shared.
"Definition of liberal, one who is open-minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox,
traditional, or established forms or ways, progressive, broad-minded, . willing to respect or
accept behavior or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas, denoting a political
and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free
enterprise."
? Derived from Webster's and the Oxford Dictionaries
"Liberal' comes from the Latin liberalis, which means pertaining to a free man. In
politics, to be liberal is to want to extend democracy through change and reform. One can see
why that word had to be erased from our political lexicon."
? Gore Vidal, "The Great Unmentionable: Monotheism and its Discontents," The Lowell Lecture,
Harvard University, April 20, 1992.
Once again I would like to compliment Mr McGovern on his magnificently Biblical
appearance. That full set would do credit to any Old Testament prophet.
I see him as the USA's own Jeremiah.
Tom Welsh , June 30, 2020 at 06:12
Seeing that picture of Johnson's sad, wicked bloodhound features really, really makes me
wish I had had a chance to be outside his tent pissing in. I'd have been careful to drink as
many gallons of beer as possible beforehand.
Although it would have been better, from a humanitarian pont of view, just to set fire to
the tent.
Tom Welsh , June 30, 2020 at 06:10
"Historian Richardson "
Clearly a serious exaggeration.
Tom Welsh , June 30, 2020 at 06:09
Ah, the Chinook! The 60-year-old helicopter that epitomises everything Afghan patriots
love about the USA. It's big, fat, slow, clumsy, unmanoeuvrable, and may carry enough US
troops to make shooting it down a damaging political blow against Washington.
Vivek , June 30, 2020 at 05:43
Ray,
What do you make of Barbara Honeggar's second career as a alternative story peddler?
see hXXps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jB21BVFOIjw
CNfan , June 30, 2020 at 03:43
A brilliant piece, with a deft touch depicting the timeless human follies running our
foreign policy circus. Real-world experience, perspective, and courage like Ray's were the
dream of the drafters of our 1st Amendment. And ending with Caitlin's hammer was effective.
As to who benefits? I suspect the neocons – our resident war-addicts and Israeli
assets. Paraphrasing Nancy, "All roads lead to Netanyahu."
So,Russia what will do in next Upcoming Years during these covid-19.
Realist , June 30, 2020 at 02:54
Ray, Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden has embraced these allegations against
Russia as the gospel truth and has threatened to seek revenge against Putin once he occupies
the White House.
He said Americans who serve in the military put their life on the line. "But they should
never, never, never ever face a threat like this with their commander in chief turning a
blind eye to a foreign power putting a bounty on their heads."
"I'm quite frankly outraged by the report," Biden said. He promised that if he is elected,
"Putin will be confronted and we'll impose serious costs on Russia."
This is the kind of warmongering talk that derailed the expected landslide victory for the
Queen of Warmongers in 2016. This time round though, Trump has seemingly already swung and
badly missed three times in his responses to the Covid outbreak, the public antics attributed
to BLM, and the Fed's creation of six trillion dollars in funny money as a gift to the most
privileged tycoons on the planet. In baseball, which will not have a season in spite of the
farcical theatrics between ownership and players, that's called a "whiff" and gets you sent
back to the bench.
According to all the pollsters, Donnie's base of white working class "deplorables" are
already abandoning his campaign–bigly, prompting the none-too-keen Biden to assume that
over-the-top Russia bashing is back in season, especially since trash-talking Nobel Laureate
Obama is now delivering most of the mute sock puppet Biden's lines. It was almost comical to
watch Joe do nothing but grin in the framed picture to the left of his old boss during their
most recent joint interview with the press. This dangerous re-set of the Cold War is NOT what
the people want, nor is it good for them or any living things.
DH Fabian , June 30, 2020 at 10:18
Biden already lost 2020 -- in spite of the widely-disliked Trump. This is why Democrats
began working to breath life back into Russia-gate by late last year, setting the stage to
blame Russia for their 2020 defeat. We spent the past 25 years detailing the demise of the
Democratic Party (replaced by the "New Democrat Party"), and it turned out that the party
loyalists didn't hear a word of it.
John A , June 30, 2020 at 02:15
As a viewer from afar, in Europe, I find it mindboggling how the American public seem to
believe all this nonsense about Russia. Have the people there really been that dumbed down by
chewing gum for the eyes television and disgusting chemical and growth h0rmone laced food?
Sad, sad, sad.
Tom Welsh , June 30, 2020 at 06:17
John, I think there is something to what you say about dumbing down. I recall Albert Jay
Nock lamenting, in about 1910, how dreadfully US education had already been dumbed down
– and things have been going steadily downhill ever since.
But I don't think we can quite release the citizenry from responsibility on account of
their ignorance. (Isn't it a legal maxim that ignorance is not an excuse?)
There is surely deep down in most people a sly lust for dominance, a desire to control and
forbid and compel; and also a quiet satisfaction at hearing of inferior foreigners being
harmed or killed by one's own "world class" armed forces.
TS , June 30, 2020 at 11:14
> As a viewer from afar, in Europe, I find it mindboggling how the American public seem
to believe all this nonsense about Russia.
May I remind you that most of the mass media in Europe parrot all this nonsense, and a
large segment of the public swallows it?
Charles Familant , June 30, 2020 at 00:50
Mr. McGovern has not made his case. To his question as to why Taliban militants need any
additional incentive to target U.S. troops in Afghanistan, it is not far-fetched to believe
these militants would welcome additional funds to continue their belligerency. Waging war is
not cheap and is especially onerous for relatively small organizations as compared to major
powers. What reason would Putin have to pay such bounty? The increase in U.S. troop
casualties would provide Trump an additional rationale to bring the troops home, as he had
promised during his campaign speeches in 2015 and 2016. This action would be a boon to his
re-election prospects. Putin is well aware that if Biden wins in November, there is little
likelihood of the hostility in Afghanistan or anywhere else being brought to an end. But,
more to the point, the likelihood of U.S. sanctions against Russia being curtailed under a
Biden presidency is remote. To what he deemed rhetorical, Mr. McGovern asks how successful
were U.S. interrogators of such captured Taliban in the past, I remind him that there were
opposing views regarding which techniques were most effective. Might not these interrogators
have, in the present case, employed more effective means? Finally, it should not even be a
question as to why any news agency does not reveal its sources. But in this case, the New
York Times specifically mentions that the National Security Council discussed the
intelligence finding in late March. Further, if it is true that Trump, Pence et al ignored
the said briefs of which the administration was well aware, this should be no surprise to any
of us. Case in point: how long did it take Trump to respond to the present pandemic? One
telling observation: Mr. McGovern says that Heather Cox Richardson is "described as a
historian at Boston College.' She is not just "described as a historian" Mr. McGovern, she IS
a historian at Boston College; in fact, she is a professor at that college and has authored
six scholarly works that have been published as books, the most recent of which in March of
this year by the Oxford University Press. Mr. McGovern states that the points Richardson made
her most most recent newsletter as "banal." I see nothing banal in that newsletter, but
rather a list of relevant factual occurrences. Finally (this time it really is final), Mr.
McGovern employs the use of sarcasm to discount what Richardson and others have contended
regarding this most recent expose. And seems to give more credibility to the comments made by
Trump and his cohorts, as though this administration is remarkable for its integrity.
Sam F , June 30, 2020 at 11:05
Plausible interest does not make unsupported accusations a reality. What bounties did the
US offer?
Have you forgotten that the US set up Al Qaeda in Afghanistan with weapons to attack the USSR
there?
Zhu , June 30, 2020 at 00:34
Come December this year, which losing party will blame which scapegoat? Russia? China? The
Man in the Moon? It must be a hard decision!
Zhu , June 30, 2020 at 00:31
Unfortunately, bad ideas and conspiracy fictions rarely disappear completely. But that
Afghans need to be paid to kill invaders is the dumbest conspiracy fiction yet.
Thomas Fortin , June 29, 2020 at 21:31
Excellent report Ray, as usual.
Interesting note here, I watched The Hill's Rising program, and listened to young
conservative Saagar say, although he does not believe that Russia-gate is credible, he made
the statement that Russia is supplying the Taliban weapons and wants us to get out of
Afghanistan, and that is considered a fact by all journalists!
Saagar is a bit conflicted, he does not, but does believe the gods of intelligence, like so
many did with the Gulf of Tonkin so long ago, I remember that all too well.
As I look out upon the ignorant masses and useful idiots who strain at those Confederate and
other monuments, while continuing to elect the same old people back into office who continue
the status quo, its a bit discouraging. We were told so long ago about our current situation,
that,
"It is only when the people become ignorant and corrupt, when they degenerate into a
populace, that they are incapable of exercising the sovereignty. Usurpation is then an easy
attainment, and an usurper soon found. The people themselves become the willing instruments
of their own debasement and ruin." [James Monroe, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1817]
As a historian of some sort and educational film maker, I do my best to educate people,
though its a bit overwhelming at times how ignorant and fascist brain-washed most are.
Monroe, like the other founders knew the secret of maintaining a free and prosperous
republic, from the same piece, "Let us, then, look to the great cause, and endeavor to
preserve it in full force. Let us by all wise and constitutional measures promote
intelligence among the people as the best means of preserving our liberties."
George Carlin got it right about why education "sucks", it was by design, so our work is cut
out for us.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what
never was and never will be."
~Thomas Jefferson
GMCasey , June 29, 2020 at 21:25
Why would Putin even bother? America and its endless wars is doing itself in. Afghanistan
is said to be," the graveyard of empires." It was for Alexander the Great -- –it was
for Russia and I suppose that it will be for America too -- -
DW Bartoo , June 29, 2020 at 20:50
Ray, I certainly hope that Durham and Barr will not wait too long a time to make public
the truth about Russiagate.
Indeed, certain heads should, figuratively, roll, and as well, the whole story about who
was behind the setting up of Flynn needs to, somehow, make it through the media flack.
Judge Sullivan's antics having been rather thoroughly shot down, though the media is
desperately trying to either spin or ignore the reality that it was not merely Flynn that
Sullivan was hoping to harm, but also the power of the executive branch relative to the
judicial branch.
The role of Obama and of Biden who, apparently, suggested the use of the Logan Act as the
means to go after Flynn, who we now know was intentionally entrapped by the intrepid FBI,
need to be made clear as well.
Just as with the initial claims that torture was the work of "a few bad apples", when
anyone with any insight into such "policy" actions had to have known that it WAS official
policy (crafted by Addington, Bybee, and Yoo, as it turned out, directed to do so by the Bush
White House), so too, must it be realized that it was not some rogue agents and loose
cannons, but actual instructions "from above", explicit or implicit, that "encouraged" the
behavior of those who spoke of "Insurance" policies designed to hamper, hinder, and harm the
incoming administration.
Clearly, I am no fan of Trump, and while I honestly regard the Rule of Law as essentially
a fairytale for the gullible (as the behavior of the "justice" system from the " qualified
immunity" of the police, to the "absolute immunity" of prosecutors, judges, and the political
class must make clear,to even the most giddy of childish believers in U$ purity, innocence,
and exceptionalism, that the "law" serves to protect wealth and power and NOT the public), I
should really like to consider that even in a pretend democracy, some things are simply not
to be tolerated.
Things, like torture, like fully politicized law enforcement or "intelligence" agencies,
like secret court proceedings, where judges may be lied to with total impunity and actual
evidence is not required. As well as things like a media thoroughly willing to requrgitate
blatant propaganda as "fact" (while having, again, no apparent need of genuine evidenc), or
other things like total surveillance, and the destruction of habeas corpus.
One should like to imagine that such things might concern the majority.
Yet, a society that buys into forever wars, lesser-evil voting, and created Hitler like
boogeymen, that countenances being lied into wars and consistently lied to about virtually
everything, is hardly likely to discern the truth of things until the "Dream" collapses into
personal pain, despair, and Depression.
Unless there is an awakening quite beyond that already tearing down statues, but yet still
, apparently, unwilling to grasp the totality of the corruption throughout the entire edifice
of "authority", of the total failure of a system that has no real legitimacy, except that
given it by voters choosing between two sides of the same tyranny, it may be readily
imagined, should Biden be "victorious", that Russiagate, Chinagate, Irangate, Venezuelagate,
and countless other "Gates" will become Official History.
In which case, this is not a last gasp, of Russiagate, but a new and full head of steam
for more of the same.
How easy it has been for the lies to prevail, to become "truth" and to simply disappear
the voices of those who ask for evidence, who dare question, who doubt.
How easy to co-opt and destroy efforts to educate or bring about critically necessary
change.
There are but a few months for real evidence to be revealed.
If Durham and Barr decide not to "criminalize policy differences", as Obama, the
"constitutional scholar", did regarding torture, then what might we imagine will be the
future of those who have an understanding of even those lies long being used, and with recent
additions, for example, to torture Julian Assange?
All of the deceit has common purpose, it is to maintain absolute control.
If Russiagate is not completely exposed, for all that it is and was intended to be, then
quaint little discussions about elite misbehavior will be banished from general awareness,
and those who persist in questioning will be rather severely dealt with.
Antonia , June 30, 2020 at 11:43
ABSOLUTELY. Well said. NOW where to make the changes absolutely necessary?
Zalamander , June 29, 2020 at 18:47
Thanks Ray. There are multiple reasons for the continued existance of Russiagate as the
Democratic party has no real answers for the economic depression affecting millions of
Americans. Neoliberal Joe Biden is also an exceptionally weak presidential candidate, who
does not even support universal healthcare for all Americans like every other advanced
industrialized country has. That said, the Dems are indeed desperate to deflect attention
away from the Durham investigation, as it is bound to expose the total fraud of Crossfire
Hurricane.
Sam F , June 29, 2020 at 18:16
Thanks, Ray, a very good summary, with reminders often needed by many in dealing with
complex issues.
Mark Ames twit: "Dubious spy-sourced #BountyGate story getting WAY more
traction than WaPo's bombshell Afghanistan Papers last December, exposing DC conspiracy of lies
to keep their disastrous war going. That deeply-reported story vanished w/out consequences."
"... And Trump said further in a Saturday night tweet : "Intel just reported to me that they did not find this info credible, and therefore did not report it to me or VP." ..."
"... it was likely deemed "chatter" or unsubstantiated rumor picked up either by US or British intelligence -- and subsequently leaked to the press to revive the pretty much dead Russiagate narrative of some level of "Trump-Putin collusion". ..."
"... And of course newly minted "resistance hero" John Bolton, busy with a media blitz promoting his book, made statements to NBC's Meet the Press on Sunday stating his belief that the president was likely briefed on the matter . The former national security adviser called the Trump denial "remarkable" -- enough to grab headlines . ..."
"... Meanwhile, speaking of America's longest war, does anyone at all of Capitol Hill remember this actual confirmed and exhaustively documented story? ..."
A group of Congressional Democrats
will be briefed at the White House Tuesday in response to ongoing accusations that Trump
was made aware of but ignored what The New York Times described last Friday as a Russian
military intelligence operation that sought to kill American troops in Afghanistan by issuing
bounties to Taliban fighters.
This following a Monday briefing of at least seven Republican lawmakers, also as both
Republican and Democratic leaders demand answers and full briefings from the CIA and Pentagon.
Crucially it remains, however, that the White House and the Office of the Director of National
Intelligence have firmly rejected that the president was ever briefed.
On Saturday Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe said in a statement that he had
"confirmed that neither the President nor the Vice President were ever briefed on any
intelligence alleged by the New York Times in its reporting."
And Trump said further in a Saturday night tweet : "Intel just
reported to me that they did not find this info credible, and therefore did not report it to me
or VP."
A carefully worded and to be expected somewhat vague Monday evening statement from CIA
Director Gina Haspel appeared to vindicate the White House's assertion of lack of credible
intelligence behind it. Essentially the CIA director seemed to reference the danger of
"cherry-picking" from lower level unvetted raw information.
"When developing intelligence assessments, initial tactical reports often require additional
collection and validation," Haspel
said .
"Leaks compromise and disrupt the critical interagency work to collect, assess, and ascribe
culpability," she added, strongly suggesting that indeed there was not enough to go on
concerning the Russian bounty allegations for it to rise to the level of the
commander-in-chief.
A number of pundits took this as a clear denial that there was anything significant or
worthy of briefing the president on regarding alleged "Russian bounties" -- meaning it was
likely deemed "chatter" or unsubstantiated rumor picked up either by US or British intelligence
-- and subsequently leaked to the press to revive the pretty much dead Russiagate narrative of
some level of "Trump-Putin collusion".
Still, Congress wants answers in what's already indeed looking like
a revived Russiagate scenario conveniently timed for the outrage machine to kick into full
gear just ahead of the November election.
House Armed Services Committee Chairman Adam Smith (D-Wash.) said: "If the reports are true,
that the administration knew about this Russian operation and did nothing, they have broken the
trust of those who serve and the commitment to their families to ensure their loved one's
safety," according to The Hill. "It is imperative that the House Armed Services Committee
receive detailed answers from the Department of Defense."
And of course newly minted "resistance hero" John Bolton, busy with a media blitz promoting
his book, made statements to NBC's Meet the Press on Sunday stating his belief that the
president was likely briefed on the matter . The former national security adviser called the
Trump denial "remarkable" -- enough to grab headlines .
But considering his careful, ambiguous remarks, it's clear that belief is the operative
word here :
"He can disown everything if no-one ever told him about it," Bolton said... "It looks like
just another day in the office at the Trump White House."
Bolton said he didn't know the quality of the intelligence on the Russian bounty plan, or
the extent of it. And not all information that flows through the many U.S. intelligence
agencies is passed on to the commander in chief, Bolton noted.
"There needs to be a filter of intelligence for any president, especially for this
president," he said.
"Active Russian aggression like that against American servicemen is a very, very serious
matter," Bolton added.
So at this point we are still merely at the level of "impossible to verify or confirm
anything", despite the major outlets behind the original story, namely the NY Times and
Washington Post, claiming to have "confirmed" each other's reporting.
* * *
Meanwhile, speaking of America's longest war, does anyone at all of Capitol Hill remember
this actual confirmed and exhaustively documented story?
This is an attempt to move Trump in the direction of more harsher politics toward Russia. So not Bolton's but Obama ears are
protruding above this dirty provocation.
Notable quotes:
"... According to the anonymous sources that spoke with the paper's reporters, the White House and President Trump were briefed on a range of potential responses to Moscow's provocations, including sanctions, but the White House had authorized no further action. ..."
"... Bolton is one of the only sources named in the New York Times article. Currently on a book tour, Bolton has said that he witnessed foreign policy malfeasance by Trump that dwarfs the Ukraine scandal that was the subject of the House impeachment hearings. But Bolton's credibility has been called into question since he declined to appear before the House committee. ..."
"... "Who can forget how 'successful' interrogators can be in getting desired answers?" writes Ray McGovern, who served as a CIA analyst for 27 years. Under the CIA's "enhanced interrogation techniques," Khalid Sheik Mohammed famously made at least 31 confessions, many of which were completely false. ..."
"... This story is "WMD [all over] again," said McGovern, who in the 1980s chaired National Intelligence Estimates and prepared the President's Daily Brief. He believes the stories seek to preempt DOJ findings on the origins of the Russiagate probe. ..."
"... The bungled media response and resulting negative press could also lead Trump to contemplate harsher steps towards Russia in order to prove that he is "tough," which may have motivated the leakers. It's certainly a policy goal with which Bolton, one of the only named sources in the New York Times piece, wholeheartedly approves. ..."
"... Not only did CIA et al.'s leak get even with Trump for years of insults and ignoring their reports (Trump is politically wounded by this story), but it also achieved their primary objective of keeping Putin out of the G7 and muzzling Trump's threats to withdraw from NATO because Russia is our friend (well his, anyway). ..."
"... Point 4: the whole point of the Talibans is to fight to the death whichever country tries to control and invade Afghanistan. They didn't need the Russians to tell them to fight the US Army, did they? ..."
"... Point 5: Russia tried to organise a mediation process between the Afghan government and the Talibans already in 2018 - so why would they be at the same time trying to fuel the conflict? A stable Afghanistan is more convenient to them, given the geographical position of the country. ..."
"... As much as I love to see everyone pile on trump, this is another example of a really awful policy having bad outcomes. If Bush, Obama, trump, or anyone at the pentagon gave a crap about the troops, they wouldn't have kept them in Afghanistan and lied about the fact they were losing the whole time. ..."
"... the idea is stupid. Russia doesn't need to do anything to motivate Afghans to want to boot the invaders out of their country, and would want to attract negative attention in doing so. ..."
"... Contrast with the CIA motivations for this absurd narrative. Chuck Schumer famously commented that the intelligence agencies had ways of getting back at you, and it looks like you took the bait, hook, line and sinker. ..."
"... And a fourth CIA goal: it undermines Trump's relationship with the military. ..."
"... Having failed in its Russia "collusion" and "Russia stole the election" campaigns to oust Trump, this is just the latest effort by the Deep State and mass media to use unhinged Russophobia to try to boost Biden and damage Trump. ..."
"... The contemporary left hate Russia , because Russia is carving out it own sphere of influence and keeping the Americans out, because it saved Assad from the western backed sunni head choppers (that the left cheered on, as they killed native Orthodox, and Catholic Christians). The Contempary left hate Russia because it cracks down on LGBT propaganda, banned porn hub, and return property to the Church , which the leftist Bolsheviks stole, the Contempaty left hate Russia because it cracked down on it western backed oligarchs who plundered Russia in the 90's. ..."
Bombshell report
published by The New York Times Friday alleges that Russia paid dollar bounties to the Taliban in Afghanistan to kill U.S
troops. Obscured by an extremely bungled White House press response, there are at least three serious flaws with the reporting.
The article alleges that GRU, a top-secret unit of Russian military intelligence, offered the bounty in payment for every U.S.
soldier killed in Afghanistan, and that at least one member of the U.S. military was alleged to have been killed in exchange for
the bounties. According to the paper, U.S. intelligence concluded months ago that the Russian unit involved in the bounties was also
linked to poisonings, assassination attempts and other covert operations in Europe. The Times reports that United States intelligence
officers and Special Operations forces in Afghanistan came to this conclusion about Russian bounties some time in 2019.
According to the anonymous sources that spoke with the paper's reporters, the White House and President Trump were briefed
on a range of potential responses to Moscow's provocations, including sanctions, but the White House had authorized no further action.
Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe said in a statement Saturday night that neither Trump nor Vice President Pence
"were ever briefed on any intelligence alleged by the New York Times in its reporting yesterday."
On Sunday night, Trump tweeted that not only was he not told about the alleged intelligence, but that it was not credible."Intel
just reported to me that they did not find this info credible, and therefore did not report it to me or @VP" Pence, Trump wrote Sunday
night on Twitter.
Ousted National Security Advisor John Bolton said on NBC's "Meet the Press" Sunday that Trump was probably claiming ignorance
in order to justify his administration's lack of response.
"He can disown everything if nobody ever told him about it," said Bolton.
Bolton is one of the only sources named in the New York Times article. Currently on a book tour, Bolton has said that
he witnessed foreign policy malfeasance by Trump that dwarfs the Ukraine scandal that was the subject of the House impeachment hearings.
But Bolton's credibility has been called into question since he declined to appear before the House committee.
The explanations for what exactly happened, and who was briefed, continued to shift Monday.
White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany followed Trump's blanket denial with a statement that the intelligence concerning
Russian bounty information was "unconfirmed." She didn't say the intelligence wasn't credible, like Trump had said the day before,
only that there was "no consensus" and that the "veracity of the underlying allegations continue to be evaluated," which happens
to almost completely match the Sunday night statement from the White House's National Security Council.
Instead of saying that the sources for the Russian bounty story were not credible and the story was false, or likely false, McEnany
then said that Trump had "not been briefed on the matter."
"He was not personally briefed on the matter," she said. "That is all I can share with you today."
It's difficult to see how the White House thought McEnany's statement would help, and a bungled press response like this is communications
malpractice, according to sources who spoke to The American Conservative.
Let's take a deeper dive into some of the problems with the reporting here:
1. Anonymous U.S. and Taliban sources?
The Times article repeatedly cites unnamed "American intelligence officials." The Washington Post and The
Wall Street Journal articles "confirming" the original Times story merely restate the allegations of the anonymous
officials, along with caveats like "if true" or "if confirmed."
Furthermore, the unnamed intelligence sources who spoke with the Times say that their assessment is based "on interrogations
of captured Afghan militants and criminals."
That's a red flag, said John Kiriakou, a former analyst and case officer for the CIA who led the team that captured senior
al-Qaeda member Abu Zubaydah in Pakistan in 2002. "When you capture a prisoner, and you're interrogating him, the prisoner is going to tell you what he thinks you want to hear,"
he said in an interview with The American Conservative . "There's no evidence here, there's no proof."
Kiriakou believes that the sources behind the report hold important clues on how the government viewed its credibility.
"We don't know who the source is for this. We don't know if they've been vetted, polygraphed; were they a walk-in; were they
a captured prisoner?"
If the sources were suspect, as they appear to be here, then Trump would not have been briefed on this at all.
With this story, it's important to start at the "intelligence collection," said Kiriakou. "This information appeared in the
[CIA World Intelligence Review] Wire, which goes to hundreds of people inside the government, mostly at the State Department and
the Pentagon. The most sensitive information isn't put in the Wire; it goes only in the PDB."
"If this was from a single source intelligence, it wouldn't have been briefed to Trump. It's not vetted, and it's not important
enough. If you caught a Russian who said this, for example, that would make it important enough. But some Taliban detainees saying
it to an interrogator, that does not rise to the threshold."
2. What purpose would bounties serve?
Everyone and their mother knows Trump wants to pull the troops out of Afghanistan, said Kiriakou.
"He ran on it and he has said it hundreds of times," he said. "So why would the Russians bother putting a bounty on U.S. troops
if we're about to leave Afghanistan shortly anyway?"
That's leaving aside Russia's own experience with the futility of Afghanistan campaigns, learned during its grueling 9-year
war there in the 1980s.
The Taliban denies it accepted bounties from Russian intelligence.
"These kinds of deals with the Russian intelligence agency are baseless -- our target killings and assassinations were ongoing
in years before, and we did it on our own resources," Zabihullah Mujahid, a spokesman for the Taliban, told The New York Times
. "That changed after our deal with the Americans, and their lives are secure and we don't attack them."
The Russian Embassy in the United States called the reporting
"fake news."
While the Russians are ruthless, "it's hard to fathom what their motivations could be" here, said Paul Pillar, an academic
and 28-year veteran of the Central Intelligence Agency, in an interview with The American Conservative. "What would they
be retaliating for? Some use of force in Syria recently? I don't know. I can't string together a particular sequence that makes
sense at this time. I'm not saying that to cast doubt on reports the Russians were doing this sort of thing."
3. Why is this story being leaked now?
According to U.S. officials quoted by the AP,
top officials in the White House "were aware of classified intelligence indicating Russia was secretly offering bounties to the Taliban
for the deaths of Americans" in early 2019. So why is this story just coming out now?
This story is "WMD [all over] again," said McGovern, who in the 1980s chaired National Intelligence Estimates and prepared the
President's Daily Brief. He believes the stories seek to preempt DOJ findings on the origins of the Russiagate probe.
The NYT story serves to bolster the narrative that Trump sides with Russia, and against our intelligence community estimates and
our own soldiers lives.
The stories "are likely to remain indelible in the minds of credulous Americans -- which seems to have been the main objective,"
writes McGovern. "There [Trump] goes again -- not believing our 'intelligence community; siding, rather, with Putin.'"
"I don't believe this story and I think it was leaked to embarrass the President," said Kiriakou. "Trump is on the ropes in the
polls; Biden is ahead in all the battleground states."
If these anonymous sources had spoken up during the impeachment hearings, their statements could have changed history.
But the timing here, "kicking a man when he is down, is extremely like the Washington establishment. A leaked story like this
now, embarrasses and weakens Trump," he said. "It was obvious that Trump would blow the media response, which he did."
The bungled media response and resulting negative press could also lead Trump to contemplate harsher steps towards Russia
in order to prove that he is "tough," which may have motivated the leakers. It's certainly a policy goal with which Bolton, one of
the only named sources in the New York Times piece, wholeheartedly approves.
Barbara Boland is TAC's foreign policy and national security reporter. Previously, she worked as an editor for the Washington
Examiner and for CNS News. She is the author of Patton Uncovered , a book about General George Patton in World War II, and her work
has appeared on Fox News, The Hill , UK Spectator , and elsewhere. Boland is a graduate from Immaculata University in Pennsylvania.
Follow her on Twitter @BBatDC .
Caitlin Johnstone was the first journalist to question this NYT expose' several days ago in her blog. After looking into
it, I had to agree with her that the story was junk reporting by a news source eager to stick it to Trump for his daily insults.
NYT must love the irony of a "fake news" story catching fire and burning Trump politically. After all, paying people to kill
their own enemies? That is a "tip," not a bounty. It is more of an intel footnote than the game-changer in international relations
as asserted by Speaker Pelosi on TV as she grabbed her pearls beneath her stylish COVID mask.
I was surprised that Ms. Boland could not think of any motivation for leaking the story right now given recent grousing
on the Hill about Trump's inviting Putin to G7 over the objections of Merkel and several other NATO heads of state. I even
posted a congratulatory message in Defense One yesterday to the US Intel community for mission accomplished.
Not only did CIA
et al.'s leak get even with Trump for years of insults and ignoring their reports (Trump is politically wounded by this story),
but it also achieved their primary objective of keeping Putin out of the G7 and muzzling Trump's threats to withdraw
from NATO because Russia is our friend (well his, anyway).
That "bounty" story never passed the smell test, even to my admittedly untrained nose. My real problem is that it's a story
in the first place, given that Trump campaigned on a platform that included bringing the boys home from sand hills like Afghanistan;
yet here we are, four years later, and we're still there.
Point 4: the whole point of the Talibans is to fight to the death whichever country tries to control and invade Afghanistan.
They didn't need the Russians to tell them to fight the US Army, did they?
Point 5: Russia tried to organise a mediation process between the Afghan government and the Talibans already in 2018 - so
why would they be at the same time trying to fuel the conflict? A stable Afghanistan is more convenient to them, given the
geographical position of the country.
This whole story is completely ridiculous. Totally bogus.
As much as I love to see everyone pile on trump, this is another example of a really awful policy having bad outcomes. If
Bush, Obama, trump, or anyone at the pentagon gave a crap about the troops, they wouldn't have kept them in Afghanistan and
lied about the fact they were losing the whole time.
Of course people are trying to kill US military in Afghanistan. If I lived in Afghanistan, I'd probably hate them too. And
let's not forget that just a few weeks ago the 82nd airborne was ready to kill American civilians in DC. The military is our
enemy too!
Moreover, the idea is stupid. Russia doesn't need to do anything to motivate Afghans to want to boot the invaders out of
their country, and would want to attract negative attention in doing so.
The purported bounty program doesn't help Russia, but the anonymous narrative does conveniently serve several CIA purposes:
1. It makes it harder to leave Afghanistan.
2. It keeps the cold war with Russia going along.
3. It damages Trump (whose relationship with the CIA is testy at best).
Then there's the question of how this supposed intelligence was gathered. The CIA tortures people, and there's no reason
to believe that this was any different.
1. Russia wants a stable Afghanistan. Not a base for jihadis.
2. The idea that Russia has to encourage Afghans to kill Invaders is a hoot. They don't ever do that on their own.
3. Not only do Afghans traditionally need no motivation to kill infidel foreign Invaders, but Russia would have to be incredibly
stupid to bring more American enmity on itself.
Contrast with the CIA motivations for this absurd narrative. Chuck Schumer famously commented that the intelligence agencies
had ways of getting back at you, and it looks like you took the bait, hook, line and sinker.
Either that, or you're just cynical. You'll espouse anything, however absurd and full of lies, as long as it damages Trump.
I don't have a clue if this bounty story is correct, but I can imagine plenty of reasons why the Russians would do it. It's
easy enough to believe it or believe it was cooked up by CIA as you suggest.
There will be one of these BS blockbusters every few weeks until the election. There are legions of buried-in democrat political
appointees that will continue to feed the DNC press. It will be non-stop. The DNC press is shredding the 1st amendment.
Not shredding the First Amendment, just shining light on the pitfalls of a right to freedom of speech. There are others
ramifications to free speech we consider social goods.
These aren't buried-in democrats. These people could care less which political party the President is a member of. They
only care that the President does what they say. Political parties are just to bamboozle the rubes. They are the real power.
The best defence that the WSJ and Fox News could muster was that the story wasn't confirmed as the NSA didn't have the same
confidence in the assessment as the CIA. "Is there anything else to which you would wish to draw my attention?" "To the curious
incident of the denial from the White House", "There was no denial from the White House". "That was the curious incident".
I note that Fox News had buried the story "below the scroll" on their home page - if they had though the story was fake,
the headlines would be screaming at MSM.
Pravda was a far more honest and objective news source than The New York Times is. I say that as someone who
read both for long periods of time. The Times is on par with the National Enquirer for credibility, with the
latter at least being less propagandistic and agenda-driven.
Having failed in its Russia "collusion" and "Russia stole the election" campaigns to oust Trump, this is just the latest
effort by the Deep State and mass media to use unhinged Russophobia to try to boost Biden and damage Trump.
The extent to which the contemporary Left is driven by a level of Russophobia unseen even by the most stalwart anti-Communists
on the Right during the Cold War is truly something to behold. I think at bottom it comes down to not liking Putin or Russia
because they refuse to get on board with the Left's social agenda.
The contemporary left hate Russia , because Russia is carving out it own sphere of influence and keeping the Americans out,
because it saved Assad from the western backed sunni head choppers (that the left cheered on, as they killed native Orthodox,
and Catholic Christians). The Contempary left hate Russia because it cracks down on LGBT propaganda, banned porn hub, and return
property to the Church , which the leftist Bolsheviks stole, the Contempaty left hate Russia because it cracked down on it
western backed oligarchs who plundered Russia in the 90's.
The Contempary left wants Russia to be Woke, Broke, Godless, and Gay.
The democrats are now the cheerleaders of the warfare -welfare state,, the marriage between the neolibs-neocons under the
Democrat party to ensure that President Trump is defeated by the invade the world, invite the world crowd.
"The Trumpies are right in that this was obviously a leak by the intel community designed to hurt Trump. But what do you
expect...he has spent 4 years insulting and belittling them. They are going to get their pound of flesh."
Intel community was behind an attempted coup of Trump. He has good reason not to trust them and insulting is only natural.
Hopefully John Durham will indict several of them
Interesting take. I certainly take anything anyone publishes based on anonymous sources with a big grain of salt,
especially when it comes from the NYT...
Regarding the latest NYT drivel, always replace the target's name (in this case Russia)
with the US. I'm sure everyone here knows that Washington DC blames others for the sins
they've committed themselves.
vk | Jun 28 2020 15:46 utc | 17:
Playing the contrarian here. No politician, especially Putin, would admit it as it would
make themselves look incompetent. Russia got enough crap flung their way.
Having read the NY Times article, I'm struck by how thin it is in objective terms,
journalistically speaking. Even if one accepted the legitimacy of running self-serving,
secret-state sourced pieces like this, there should at least be a story. In this article, if
one were to cut away the parts where the writers admit (commendably) the things they don't
know, and all the background of Perfidious Muscovy's alleged war on the good (which, even if
one buys into it, isn't news broken by this article), there would be barely anything left:
just a naked assertion without details or narrative. And yet the mainstream media echo
chamber kicks into gear completely untroubled.
I guess I'm advocating for the propagandists to at least show some pride in their
work.
As for the substance of the article, meager as it is: aside from the fact that there's no
reason to believe it on the basis of this (ahem) reporting, I haven't seen anybody point out
that it's difficult to see what policy Russia would be advancing by doing it.
If Moscow wanted to aid the Taliban in ongoing military operations, this would be an
extremely inefficient use of Russian resources.
On the other hand, one could see such payments as encouraging fighters to break discipline
and attack U.S. forces despite the extant U.S.-Taliban ceasefire, thus attacking both sides
and thereby prolonging the war. I wouldn't put such unsavory tactics beyond Russia (or any
other state), but I find it hard to believe they'd risk poisoning relations with the future
rulers of Afganistan just to give the U.S. a tiny additional impetus to do what it already
specializes in without their encouragement: waging endless, no-win wars.
Still, I could be made to believe that last possibility if there were any actual reporting
to support it, or even more skillful propaganda to fool me.
From the TASS piece quoted by b on Afghanistan "The Russian Foreign Ministry suggested
that those actions might stem from the fact that the US intelligence agencies "do not like
that our and their diplomats have teamed up to facilitate the start of peace talks between
Kabul and the Taliban"
The US is divided between nationalists and an anglo globalist deep state. I have started
reading the Mathew Ehret articles at Strategic Culture https://www.strategic-culture.org/contributors/matthew-ehret/
Putin has said the domestic problems in the US are signs or symptoms of a much deeper
problem. The last four or so articles by Ehret are about the anglo deep state that is driving
the globalist agenda.
one could see such payments as encouraging fighters to break discipline and attack U.S.
forces despite the extant U.S.-Taliban ceasefire,...
David G | Jun 28 2020 17:22 utc
David made clear that this is a hypothetical that he discusses only as a point to argue
something else.
Still, the article was sufficiently well written that it made clear that no American
soldiers were killed after the ceasefire with Taliban in February. There article is actually
clear that the evidence is thinner than the air at the highest peaks in Afghanistan (which
are pretty high), so anyone with some mental faculties (meaning, pitifully small minority of
the readers, although THAT estimate is based on the comments and recommends that were
probably manipulated) can figure it out.
On the other hand, for people who treat our media with some trust, Russians are incredible
bunglers. The unit that supervised the bounties (or most probably among the Russian
intelligence units) is also attributed with failed assassination of Skripals, three (!!??)
failed poisoning attempts on a Bulgarian weapon manufacturers and a failed coup in
Montenegro, and now, additionally it is credited with a scheme to kill American soldiers that
did not result in any killing, but in a wad of American currency found in a Taliban outpost.
I guess that the full name of the unit is Boris & Natasha Ltd.
Russian (alleged) scheme to split Catalonia from Spain and another, to have Bernie Sanders
win primaries, failed too. One could write an article summarizing that record to conclude
that because of indefatigable efforts of our intelligence agencies and their apt allies (yes,
Australia, you can bask in glory as well), we can sleep in peace.
Yeah, for the mental exercise if nothing else, I try to imagine a scenario in which the
Russians might have done this. As you say, if the "bounties" have been on offer during the
ceasefire, they have had no effect. The Times article is vague enough that it leaves open it
might be referring to a pre-ceasefire time frame, but then we're back to it being a stupid
way to try to support the Taliban militarily.
Back in the real world, Scott Ritter, noting the real Russia wants the U.S. out of
Afghanistan, suggests the report originated from the Afghan security agency (NDS), was picked
up by the CIA, and turned into a junk intelligence product good enough for the NY Times, the
motive being an attempt to sabotage the (putative) U.S. withdrawal and generally mess with
Trump. https://www.rt.com/op-ed/493174-nyt-report-russia-afghanistan/
The 'deep state' spits this stuff out anonymously because they know that our sheep in the
NYT, WaPo, and WSJ will publish it without criticism and the sheep reporting it on news shows
will accept it without fact.
Critical thinking: comparing motives
The deep state hates Trump's plan to withdraw troops from Germany, Afghanistan, re-admit
Russia to the G7 (making it the G8), and wants to stir up conflict with Russia.
Russia: Motives
- Piss off their EU customers so that they will pay a premium to buy US / Qatar LNG instead
of Russian NG?
- Derail Trump's plan to withdraw from Afghanistan, Germany, get back into the G7/8, and my
favorite from CNN's 'Russia Expert' Putin is a tactician not a strategist (ie. Putin is
really dumb).
- Russia wants to provoke a U.S. retaliation for us to kill their troops.
Since there is no rational motive for Russia to do this but their are motives for the
'unnamed sources' to like or exaggerate their claims our MSM should question this tall
tale.
I love the outrage by commentators, 'If Trump was not informed then someone should be
fired'. Note, our idiotic MSM accepts the premise as a fact.
BTW I don't know what to make of Veterans Today, it's on the very end of the spectrum of
what I am willing to read before I consider a website too far out there but it does have a
good article every once in a while, and yeah, it's kind of a guilty pleasure even when it
doesn't.
I still think the balance of evidence favors this being U.S. deep state
misinformation.
Americans pay their government to lie to them through major news media! Although it's been
ongoing for decades, some are just now getting the message! But then, that's only some. And
polling data shows demonstratively that a majority of the American public still find the
national government and major media credible--but just barely. Many are incensed at this
recent data and continue to rebel; but against what specifically, they have no unified
answer.
If honest reporting from major media actually became the norm, would we believe
it?
karlof1 @76, I take your post about about 'duh everyone knows American News Media lies
(synopsis)' as sarcasm directed at me. I wish it was true that a slim majority of
Americans still believe the MSM but the vast majority is greatly influenced by them.
Examples, if you poll Americans at which countries are a big threat to the U.S., Iran,
Russia, N.Korea and China fluctuate wildly based on who our corrupt foreign policy
establishment is attacking at the moment. So while the U.S. public distrusts the MSM in the
abstract, they still absorb their poisonous fruit. Let me mourn I am not pretending to have a brand new revelation but as an Engineer I
see this as a system that is incapable of correcting itself so it bothers me. If something is
bad but I see a possibility that it can get better it does not bother me as much but this
feedback is perfectly broken.
1. Deep state lies to MSM. 2. MSM accepts lies uncritically, 3. public never punishes
liars in group 1 or 2 because hey, they are attacking Iranians, Russians, Chinese ... who
cares about them.
The only way this changes is for us to lose a war ... fan-damn-tastic.
America, the pariah state is getting walled off from the rest of the world.
With reference to my comment at #18, younger people are quickly getting infected, I should
add that the large gatherings in the form of protests across the nation are also a key
vector.
Looks like the same people who used to push records up the pop charts are now manipulating
the Amazon best sellers charts, though I wouldn't put this past Amazon themselves.
No one buys this garbage other than uni libraries.
scott157 , 2 minutes ago
Matt Taibbi hits ANOTHER grand slam!!!!! regarding robin diangelo, she should cease
scissoring and try a penis........it would spread sunshine all over her
place.......................
Michael Norton , 4 minutes ago
Someone should write a book called White Strength.
novictim , 4 minutes ago
And let us never forget the crackpot theory that only Blacks cannot be racist 'cuz P + P +
R -> (Prejudice + Power) = Racism.
This social theory defines blacks as being definitionally incapable of possessing power
over whites. Ya, that's not racist at all!
johnnyg , 5 minutes ago
Teaming up with Ruth Frankenberg to help attack "fellow whites"? Oy vey!
I wonder if it's "fragility" to need every university, multinational corp, media monopoly,
and celebrity constantly patting you on the *** and silencing any criticism of your constant
terrible behavior?
The "foreign intelligence official" who supposedly leaked this deso to NYT may have come from a country that wishes to increase
US-Russian hostility, in particular, I would be unsurprised if the country in question was
one characterized by some pretty intense fluctuations regarding its territorial size courtesy
of comparable fluctuations in Russian controlled territory over the centuries.
First, Russia is, generally speaking, not in the habit of paying people, in
particular people they arent very fond of, for things they were going to do anyway. If
you think the Talebs require Russian financial incentives to kill Americans where they
reasonably can I have a bridge over the Pacific to sell you.
Secondly, while there is plently of things the Russian would want to extract payback
for, using the Talebs of all people adds to much risk for too little gain. Even using
the same "scheme" of offering boutnies, well. Offering bounties to
Syrian/Iraqi/Lebanese organisations for pretty much the same thing would be less risky
(these organisations are farther from the Russian homeland and have less of a hostile
history with Russia, in addition, Iran rather then Russia would likely get blamed for
it) and about as rewarding.
Third: I fully expect that Trump was not briefed on this "information". It is
actually quite simple, a lot of "intelligence" goes into the US. Then you have people
called analysts, who, among other frequently more interesting things, make judgement
calls in what to pass on or not and if yes with what caveats. This process is repeated
several times, until at some point something ends up with the US National Security
council and/or the president himself.
If the analysts make the, in my opinion wholly justified decisions, that the information
is somewhere between speculation and outright lies, they will not pass it further up the
foodchain.
What I do not know is what types of record keeping are used in the US for the analysts,
who probably have to document their decision on whether to pass certain information or not
in writing probably including their reasoning, it is quite possible that one of the
reasons for not sending it up the food chains was that the "foreign intelligence official"
may have come from a country that wishes to increase US-Russian hostility, in particular, I
would be unsurprised if the country in question was one characterized by some pretty
intense fluctuations regarding its territorial size courtesy of comparable fluctuations in
Russian controlled territory over the centuries.
Notable also that this ludicrous story, whose promotion by the MI6 Guardian confirms the
obvious suspicions about it, also includes the wild claim that the Russian unit responsible
for the bounties was also behind the "Novichok" "attack" on the Skripals.
It is another loyalty oath operation designed to force intelligent people into professing to
believe incredible nonsense.
The bottom line of the bounty claim is that very few Americans have in fact been killed. If
there were an actual bounty the country is full of GIs ripe for plucking. And the money
compares well with poppy growing.
"... The Taliban doesn't need a Russian bounty to kill American soldiers. It would be a waste of money to pay for something the Taliban do anyway. Does the NYT believe the Taliban are motivated only by money? ..."
"... Any deal they make will necessitate that the the Taliban not spread their message north of the Afghan border into the former Soviet-stans that Moscow considers as within its sphere of influence. ..."
"... the bounties could be a false flag as someone else here mentioned. Pakistani ISI? Al-Qaeda? The Pakistani branch of the Taliban? ..."
"... Given the timing of the story, its more plausible that someone in the Intel community took a weak source, perhaps a single POW making an unverifiable claim and leaked it to make it harder for Trump to do any of the following ... ..."
"... Who was the "source" of the leak? It seems that as Ric Grenell noted. There was some raw intel that on investigation didn't meet the smell test. Someone who had access to that and is a buddy to a favorite Times reporter gave them something to spin to further the narrative that Trump is beholden to Putin. ..."
"... The problem with thinking of people like TTG is that for Russia, the USA presence in Afghanistan is actually useful. As in "never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake". Afghanistan occupation is a part of "Full Spectrum Dominance" play and, as such is a blunder. The USA simply does not has the resources for world control, despite the dominance of neocons who are ready to fight for it to the last dollar. ..."
"... I read this story as nothing more than a garden variety election year dirty trick using democratic party contacts in the print media and intel services. ..."
"... It can retroactively appear to wipe egg off their faces for their embarrassingly inept if not outright illegal Russiagate hoax which hobbled the entire country and world for three whole years, because it will be unassailable other than through denial and bolster the farago of Russia collusion suspicions simply by repetition. ..."
"... All sorts of nonsensical "corroborating" tall tales can and almost certainly will be spun. Without such an evil Russia story at hand they, the dems, would leave themselves open to being lambasted by Trump for subjecting him to three years of humiliation based on an inane, middle school level "dossier" (don't you love that? how sneaky cute to enoble it with such a word for the poor rubes) written by a reputed to be former member of "British Intelligence" (think Kim Philby if you need a clue) turned character assassin for hire. ..."
"... I tend to agree. If it is dead GIs the Russians want then all they need to do is to run guns to the Taliban. It's not as if the Taliban will then take those guns, say "gee, thanks", and then go out duck-hunting. They'd be after bigger game. But this? A bounty, which would require a payment on proof of a kill? As Larry Johnson so sarcastically said: "Yeah, that makes total sense. Russians are stupid, don't cha know." I don't believe it. ..."
"... It makes about as much sense as Russia's equally-sarcastic insinuation that an uptick in dead GIs may be the result of a CIA protecting its illegal drug business like a Mafia Don. At least the Russians have some reason to take offense. The USA, eh, perhaps less so. ..."
TTG, Your claims about US drug trafficking via the Contras is a leftwing myth. Fascinated that you'd fall for the crap.
I actually have a lot of first hand knowledge about that, having worked the Central American Task Force at CIA, having been
the senior Regional Analyst for Central America, and my business relationship with the former head of DEA's International Ops
and the Agent in charge of the undercover money laundering ops in NYC.
Eden Pastora's involvement in drug trafficking was taking place outside the control of the CIA. Gary Webb's delusional claims
were without foundation. You, for some reason, seem to accept them at face value. Why?
The Taliban doesn't need a Russian bounty to kill American soldiers. It would be a waste of money to pay for something the
Taliban do anyway. Does the NYT believe the Taliban are motivated only by money?
Revenge is not the only possible motive. Disruption of the US/Taliban/AfghanGov peace negotiations allows the Russian peace negotiations
for Afghanistan to go forward. Those negotiations have been going on and off for three years.
As Leith mentioned above Russian support to the Taliban started about three years ago. Coincidence? By the way Rex Tillerson
when he was SecState also claimed the Russians were arming the Taliban. Anyway if the US peace negotiations fail and the Russians
succeed it is a win-win for Moscow's world rep. Of course they want to mess up any US deal with the Taliban to give their own
deal a chance of success.
Any deal they make will necessitate that the the Taliban not spread their message north of the Afghan border into the former
Soviet-stans that Moscow considers as within its sphere of influence.
That may work for the current crop of Taliban but it may turn out shortsighted as there are some small Uzbeki-Afghan and Tajik-Afghan
Taliban factions that may never want to stop spreading Sharia.
Or the bounties could be a false flag as someone else here mentioned. Pakistani ISI? Al-Qaeda? The Pakistani branch of
the Taliban?
China allegedly has unofficial relations with the Taliban but with their problem in Xinjiang you would think they would never
actively support Islamic fundamentalists. Qatar? They were accused of supporting Taliban terrorism in Afghanistan, but their accuser
was Saudi Arabia so is probably BS IMHO.
"The Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, CNN and Sky News back up the NYT reporting through their sources."
Does this mean that each one contacted different source in the govt to verify the story or that they verified that the NYT contact
was actually a govt employee and not the Easter Bunny?
Given the timing of the story, its more plausible that someone in the Intel community took a weak source, perhaps a single
POW making an unverifiable claim and leaked it to make it harder for Trump to do any of the following ...
Withdraw troops from Germany,
Make the G7 into the G8 by letting Russia back in,
Reinforce the Russians are despicable narrative (always a win).
Everyone in the MSM accepts this as an indisputable fact. It must be intoxicating to be able to leak a story and have everyone
accept it without challenge.
And I'll add ... the NATO countries in Europe would be more willing to pay a premium for U.S. and Qatar LNG vs Russian NG if
they find out that Russia is using their money to kill their soldiers.
The ONLY rational reason I heard why Russia would do this came from what I consider a marginal website, Veterans today. Gordon
Duff said that the Russians did this to deter madman Trump from killing more Russians in Syria. I don't buy the theory but at
least it proposes a rational motive while the MSM didn't even need a rational motive.
Intel just reported to me that they did not find this info credible, and therefore did not report it to me or @VP. Possibly
another fabricated Russia Hoax, maybe by the Fake News @nytimesbooks, wanting to make Republicans look bad!!!
Who was the "source" of the leak? It seems that as Ric Grenell noted. There was some raw intel that on investigation didn't
meet the smell test. Someone who had access to that and is a buddy to a favorite Times reporter gave them something to spin to
further the narrative that Trump is beholden to Putin.
Now you want to portray NYT as the paragon of truth-telling!! .
...But then isn't your ancestry from Lithuania. Your hatred
is strong. I get that - I see that all time with people from the ex-Soviet republics formerly ruled by Russia. Hope others
see that too.
You hit the nail. TTG sometimes sounds really like a Ukrainian nationalist on those issues. That means that TTG simply can't think
strategically in this case due to his bias.
If Russia wanted to hurt the USA in Afghanistan then Strela launchers would be in hands of Taliban long ago with plausible
deniability that they obtained them from Libya.
The problem with thinking of people like TTG is that for Russia, the USA presence in Afghanistan is actually useful. As
in "never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake". Afghanistan occupation is a part of "Full Spectrum Dominance" play
and, as such is a blunder. The USA simply does not has the resources for world control, despite the dominance of neocons who are
ready to fight for it to the last dollar.
The especially prominent attitude in the State Department and NSC (Bolton is a nice example of those MIC bottom-feeders)
It drains the USA resources, and it turns the people of Asian xUSSR republics (so called Stans) against the USA and as such,
makes neocolonialist policies in xUSSR republics more difficult.
I read this story as nothing more than a garden variety election year dirty trick using democratic party contacts in the
print media and intel services.
They were rehearsing their checklist litany of egregious faults of Donald Trump as president - corona, resulting recession/depression,
etcetera - insert your picks, and decided they needed another one -- did nothing about Rooskies bribing Taliban to kill American
soldiers.
It can retroactively appear to wipe egg off their faces for their embarrassingly inept if not outright illegal Russiagate
hoax which hobbled the entire country and world for three whole years, because it will be unassailable other than through denial
and bolster the farago of Russia collusion suspicions simply by repetition.
All sorts of nonsensical "corroborating" tall tales can and almost certainly will be spun. Without such an evil Russia
story at hand they, the dems, would leave themselves open to being lambasted by Trump for subjecting him to three years of humiliation
based on an inane, middle school level "dossier" (don't you love that? how sneaky cute to enoble it with such a word for the poor
rubes) written by a reputed to be former member of "British Intelligence" (think Kim Philby if you need a clue) turned character
assassin for hire.
President Trump tweeted on Sunday night that U.S. intelligence "just reported to me that they did not find this info credible,
and therefore did not report it to me or [Vice President Mike Pence]". The Taliban have also ridiculed the report.
I tend to agree. If it is dead GIs the Russians want then all they need to do is to run guns to the Taliban. It's not as
if the Taliban will then take those guns, say "gee, thanks", and then go out duck-hunting. They'd be after bigger game. But this?
A bounty, which would require a payment on proof of a kill? As Larry Johnson so sarcastically said: "Yeah, that makes total sense.
Russians are stupid, don't cha know." I don't believe it.
It makes about as much sense as Russia's equally-sarcastic insinuation that an uptick in dead GIs may be the result of
a CIA protecting its illegal drug business like a Mafia Don. At least the Russians have some reason to take offense. The USA,
eh, perhaps less so.
I can't wait to see a story on what the Chinese have been up to in doing precisely that with billions in investment funds to
children of prominent politicians, bribes to academics, NGO cultural centers, operatives sent to the using 'student' as cover,
or work via H1B visa holders.
"... Assuming this is based on true events for the moment, is there a significant chance this could've been a false flag cover for an op by someone else? Thinking along the lines of the Israeli's "We're CIA" assassination ops of nuclear engineers in Iran here. Would the Paki intell services or even Iran attempt this in Afghanistan, perhaps? ..."
"... I had thought the Russians fear radical Islam as much or more than we do, so I can imagine them paying bounties to Talibs for ISIL scalps much easier than US ones, were they interested enough to play in that sandbox at all. ..."
"... And it's disgusting how you continue to politicize intelligence. You clearly don't understand how raw intel gets verified. Leaks of partial information to reporters from anonymous sources is dangerous because people like you manipulate it for political gain. ..."
"... Let The NY Times show what it got! We'll be waiting with bated breath. Propaganda all the time. 24x7. There can be no rational discourse in the USA. ..."
"... This story seems like more of a non-story, instigated by those who are still trying to maintain the Russian Hoax: the MSM/Resistance, neocon warmongers/NeverTrumpers, et al. As the election grows nigh, Leftists and their allies on the Right are getting more and more shrill and unhinged, demanding conformity of thought and grasping for ways to maintain the perpetual outrage of their ranks over Any. Little. Thing. Sorest of losers, all. I have a feeling they'll still be filled with anger even if Biden wins -- I noticed a growing number of perpetually aggrieved even while Obama was still POTUS. Is it something in the water? ..."
"... This story is obvious crap and it is purveyed by obvious Democrat shills - the NYT, quoting obvious anti Trump sources that have a well earned reputation for lying - the Five eyes intelligence community. ..."
"... This whole "story" stinks to high heaven. Judy Miller redux - regime-change info ops, coordinated across multiple media organizations. I happen to dislike Trump, Pompeo et al as much as the next person but here we have, yet again, another "scoop" with zero actual evidence, only the say-so of some nameless "intel officials," whose jobs might be described more accurately as state propaganda managers. ..."
Now you want to portray NYT as the paragon of truth-telling!! .
...But then isn't your ancestry from Lithuania. Your hatred is strong. I get that - I see that all time with people from the
ex-Soviet republics formerly ruled by Russia. Hope others see that too.
You hit the nail. TTG sometimes sounds really like a Ukrainian nationalist on those issues.
TTG simply can't think strategically in this case due to his bias.
If Russia wanted to hurt the USA in Afghanistan then Strela launchers would be in hands of Taliban long ago with plausible
deniability that they obtained them from Libya.
The problem with thinking of people like TTG is that for Russia, the USA presence in Afghanistan is actually useful.
As in "never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake".
Afghanistan occupation is a part of "Full Spectrum Dominance" play and, as such is a blunder. The USA simply does not has the
resources for world control, despite the dominance of neocons who are ready to fight for it to the last dollar. The especially
prominent attitude in the State Department and NSC (Bolton is a nice example of those MIC bottom-feeders)
It drains the USA resources, and it turns the people of Asian xUSSR republics (so called Stans) against the USA and as such,
makes neocolonial policies in xUSSR republics more difficult.
The DOJ only dropped charges against two of Prigozhin's companies. The case against the IRA and 13 trolls still stands. Prigozhin
was able to use Concord's business status and his lawyers' "client, not client" status to dig out evidence on the case without
exposing himself to the court. His strategy was both brilliant and cynical.
The K-pop and Tik-Tok trolling of Parscale and the Trump rally was brilliant and cost not a dime. It didn't limit the attendance
of the rally since sign up was not limited. It did screw up Parscale's data collection and tricked him into believing there was
more enthusiasm for Trump that there actually was. It embarrassed him and Trump. And yes, this methodology is closely related
to what the Russians did in 2016 except the Tik-Tok trolling was masterminded by a 51 year old Iowan grandmother rather than a
former Russian KGB officer.
Boy, I never thought I'd see TTG be so gullible. The NY Times story is being rolled out in conjunction with British reporting,
which oddly claims the same thing. The provenance of this so-called intelligence is so thin and questionable that it is natural
to ask who has the agenda and what is their goal? Creating and maintaining the Russian boogey man as the ultimate threat does
not serve US National Security interests. The Russians have been pretty consistent over the last 20 years about eliminating radical
Islamists. They, unlike many in the United States, understand the threat.
So, here is their "brilliant" super secret plan--ally themselves with the guys they spent ten years fighting in Afghanistan, pay
them to kill Americans and Brits and other US allies with the understanding that their super secret plan will be discovered and
will be used as justification for attacking Russia. Yeah, that makes total sense. Russians are stupid, don't cha know.
@srw
The USA needs its boogieman under the bed.
When it is under a child's bed the answer is warm milk cookies and a mommies hug.
When it is under a IC person's bed the answer is heroin, hookers and cold cash.
When we leave Afghanistan and its poppy fields to the Taliban they may just do what they had done 20 years ago close down the
trade.
That would mean that the only readily available supply of nod juice would be Chinese Fentanyl or Mexican Brown.
Long live anti semitism, where right and left are in concert. By the way, we Jews also control the US military industrial complex
and most intelligence agencies. The moderator approved your comment, I doubt he will let mine get through.
This Skynews report makes it sound like this is a British story based on British leaks of one of their own parliamentary documents.
If that is so, then the story may have been rejected by the US IC and never briefed to the WH.
https://news.sky.com/.../russia-paid-taliban-fighters-to...
Three years ago General John Nicholson, Commander of US and NATO forces in Afghanistan, testified before the Senate about Russian
support to the Talibs.
Two years ago in an interview with BBC he repeated the charge that the Russians were supporting and arming the Taliban. He
quoted stories written in Taliban media sources about support from the Russians. He also cited captured Russian-made night vision
goggles, medium and heavy machine guns as well as small arms. He says that although the Russians and Talibs are not natural allies,
they use the narrative of ISIS fighters in Afghanistan as justification for legitimizing support.
Assuming this is based on true events for the moment, is there a significant chance this could've been a false flag cover
for an op by someone else? Thinking along the lines of the Israeli's "We're CIA" assassination ops of nuclear engineers in Iran
here. Would the Paki intell services or even Iran attempt this in Afghanistan, perhaps?
A Russian motive is difficult to imagine in this for me. Mindless revenge for what happened forty years ago strikes me as just
barely plausible. I had thought the Russians fear radical Islam as much or more than we do, so I can imagine them paying bounties
to Talibs for ISIL scalps much easier than US ones, were they interested enough to play in that sandbox at all.
I never heard this. And it's disgusting how you continue to politicize intelligence. You clearly don't understand how raw
intel gets verified. Leaks of partial information to reporters from anonymous sources is dangerous because people like you
manipulate it for political gain.
"The K-pop and Tik-Tok trolling of Parscale and the Trump rally was brilliant and cost not a dime. It didn't limit the attendance
of the rally since sign up was not limited."
Are you sure? AOC for one applauded this is as well but remember, Congress shall not abridge the right of the people to peacefully
assemble.
"Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) credited "teens on TikTok" for the lower than expected turnout at President Trump's
rally on Saturday night in Tulsa, Okla., his first since the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic." The Hill
Trump's been trying to get us out of Afghanistan for a long time. Yet there are those who are making a BFD over the report,
as though we're supposed to impeach the POTUS or start WWIII because of the allegation. Who are all of the dead soldiers killed
by Russian-paid bounty hunters anyway, and what proof is there that they were killed at Putin's directive?
This story seems like more of a non-story, instigated by those who are still trying to maintain the Russian Hoax: the MSM/Resistance,
neocon warmongers/NeverTrumpers, et al. As the election grows nigh, Leftists and their allies on the Right are getting more and
more shrill and unhinged, demanding conformity of thought and grasping for ways to maintain the perpetual outrage of their ranks
over Any. Little. Thing. Sorest of losers, all. I have a feeling they'll still be filled with anger even if Biden wins -- I noticed
a growing number of perpetually aggrieved even while Obama was still POTUS. Is it something in the water?
The Sky News story says a British security official is confirming the reports are true. It doesn't sound like this defense
official originated the story. Some are now speculating whether Boris Johnson was briefed or if he was kept in the dark. The Brits
will demand an in-person answer from their government on Monday. A CNN report refers to a British security official. Might be
the same source. NYT and WaPo refer to US officials for their sources.
You are usually good at reading between the lines. Usually. It does not sound that way to me. The implication in the article
is that this "story" exists in the report cited and that this is what has been planted in the US media. We will see.
This story is obvious crap and it is purveyed by obvious Democrat shills - the NYT, quoting obvious anti Trump sources
that have a well earned reputation for lying - the Five eyes intelligence community.
Why would anyone give this story a grain of credibility?
Even without that, I can think of a heap of perfectly acceptable Russian engagements with the Taliban - exactly like our own.
Is the taliban going to be the next government in Afghanistan? Probably.
Do the US, Britain and Russia talk to the Taliban? definitely.
Does everyone supply the Taliban with weapons? Yes - at times we all have, although the place is swimming in weapons anyway.
Do we or the Russians pay the Taliban and others for intelligence? Of course we do.
Would we or the Russians pay for salvaged equipment of technical interest? Of course.
Would the Russians pay for documents and details of American or NATO casualties? I would think not, because it would encourage
killing for money and their own special forces become targets because the Afghans are entrepreneurial, as evidenced by the
"trade" in live bodies for the torture program.
You are repeating the same error in logic that Habakkuk criticized you for. You say there are many "stories" and then you treat
these stories as proven facts. Are you the sole author of this line?
This whole "story" stinks to high heaven. Judy Miller redux - regime-change info ops, coordinated across multiple media
organizations. I happen to dislike Trump, Pompeo et al as much as the next person but here we have, yet again, another "scoop"
with zero actual evidence, only the say-so of some nameless "intel officials," whose jobs might be described more accurately as
state propaganda managers.
How many more times are people gonna fall for this same routine? Even the Wapo, WSJ "confirmations" are a bait-and-switch.
The only thing they confirm is that intel officials are indeed pushing this story, not its veracity. It's a circular claim --
like Cheney citing NYT "confirmation" of the unproven allegations his own office had passed on to Judy Miller.
You can only speculate as to why this, why now. Just six months ago it was Iranians -- per Pompeo and his own cadre of "intel
officials" -- who were offering bounties and sponsoring their own spoiler wing of the Taliban. So maybe it's a pre-fab "story"
already in the propaganda repertory. The motive? Obviously it's to revive the Russiagate zombie one more time and make it go the
distance -- the full four years of the Trump admin. And it creates media bubble pressure to extend the Afghan occupation. The
kind of pressure that seems to have worked like a charm in case of Syria -- where Trump's order somehow got modified from withdrawal
to open-ended occupation and oil-thievery.
The relationship between flagship media and their contacts in the "intelligence community" isn't journalism. It's the relationship
an advertising agency has to a client. They market the client's product and get paid in "scoops" and, with it, increased traffic.
Italicized/bold text was excerpted from Russia Secretly Offered Afghan Militants Bounties to Kill U.S. Troops, Intelligence
Says found at the Grey Lady Down:
The disclosure comes at a time when Mr. Trump has said he would invite Mr. Putin to an expanded meeting of the Group
of 7 nations, but tensions between American and Russian militaries are running high.
What a startling coincidence.
What would the Russians hope to gain? Revenge?
If it was revenge the Russians sought they could have simply sat back and let the Taliban continue on with business as usual
without having to break a sweat or get their hands dirty - while sitting back and snickering at the futility of US efforts in
Afghanistan.
Has there been any evidence presented to support the anonymous European intelligence officials extraordinary claims?
The Gray Lady Down report only offers other Russia bad stories which are light on evidence and heavy on innuendo.
It sounds like more of the same old sabotage Trump has been dealing with since assuming office. Why else would this leak and
why else would Trump be left out of the loop? This reminds me of what Harry Reid once said on CNN during the 2016 election: intelligence
officials should lie to Trump in briefings.
Trump and these officials need to set aside the pettiness and do what's right. That means pulling out of Afghanistan in a timely
and appropriate manner without putting lives at risk.
Petty scoundrels from NYT are not that inventive. They just want to whitewash Russiagate fiasco. This whole "story" stinks to high heaven. Judy Miller redux
- regime-change info ops, coordinated across multiple media organizations.
Notable quotes:
"... After Iraq WMD and Russia Collusion, we should ask for real evidence instead of the "top intelligence sources". And we should not buy we can't provide any evidence because of sources & methods. ..."
"... On a practical note, how was a Taliban soldier militant meant to verify his claim to a bounty? I assume that scalping was not a feasible option, but if you are going to offer a bounty then you are going to want proof that the person claiming that bounty did, indeed, do the job. ..."
After Iraq WMD and Russia Collusion, we should ask for real evidence instead of the "top
intelligence sources". And we should not buy we can't provide any evidence because of
sources & methods.
Be skeptical of anything published by Pravda on the Hudson and Pravda on the Potomac
when it comes to intelligence matters. Especially months before a general election.
On to Moscow! Where's Bomb'n Bolton when we need him?
"a European intelligence official told CNN."..... "The official did not specify as to the
date of the casualties, their number or nationality, or whether these were fatalities or
injuries."
So, unknown official, unknown date, unknown if there were any actual casualties.
"The US concluded that the GRU was behind the interference in the 2016 US election and
cyberattacks against the Democratic National Committee and top Democratic officials."
Quick, someone tell the House Impeachment Inquiry Committee! Oh, wait, that was Ukraine.
What did Mueller collude, I mean conclude, about that Russian interference?
Let me quote the former acting DNI:
"You clearly don't understand how raw intel gets verified. Leaks of partial information to
reporters from anonymous sources is dangerous because people like you manipulate it for
political gain."
I believe he was tweeting that to the press, but then they are doing this for political
reasons. Lockdowns and socialist revolutionary riots must not be working in the left's
favor. I wonder why?
On a practical note, how was a Taliban soldier militant meant to verify his claim to a
bounty? I assume that scalping was not a feasible option, but if you are going to offer a bounty
then you are going to want proof that the person claiming that bounty did, indeed, do the
job.
So if a coalition soldier died on *this* day how was a Talibani supposed to confirm to
the GRU that "Yep, I did that. Where's my money?"
TTG, I think you are being led away from the truth by your significant bias against Russia.
Those with a blinkered vision see only what they want to see. No mystery there.
Now you want to portray NYT as the paragon of truth telling!! Haven't we seen enough
examples of the lying by Jewish owned neocon media, especially the Times? Now that the
Russia-gate fire is nearly put out, these guys are pumping this story. You really need to understand the depth of hatred the Jews have for Russia and Russians
that makes them like this. That's the only country /civilisation that got away from their
grasp just when they thought have got it. Not once, but twice in the last century.
But then isn't your ancestry from Lithuania. Your hatred is strong. I get that - I see
that all time with people from the ex-Soviet republics formerly ruled by Russia. Hope
others see that too.
Regardless of its veracity, this story will definitely hit Trump where it hurts -
chapeau to the individual(s) who conceived this work of fiction, if indeed it is so.
Again, whether or not performance bonuses* were actually offered by the GRU, has anyone
considered that this may still be a Russian Intelligence op?
Perhaps we should first ask whether the Kremlin wants to deal with a US under
another 4 years of Trump. From their FP POV, the huge uncertainty and instability they see
in the US now will surely be ramped up to a whole new level, in the event that he is
re-elected. And of course all hope that Trump may be able to improve the relationship with
Russia was dashed long ago, by Russiagate and the ongoing Russophobia among the Borg.
Jeffrey's mission in Syria is a case in point. At least the US Deep State is the devil they
know.
If the answer to the above question is "no" it must surely be a trivial matter for the
GRU to feed such a damaging story to Trump's enemies in the USIC.
* "bounties" is an emotive word, useful to Trump's enemies, evoking individual pay for an
individual death - real personal stuff. As others have pointed out the practicality of such
a scheme seems improbable. Surely it is more likely that any such incentive pay would be
for the group, upon coalition casualties confirmed in the aftermath of an attack. The
distinction may not seem important, but the Resistance media can be relied upon to use
language designed to inflict the most harm.
'Intel' without evidence is "bunk". Have we learned nothing from Chrissy Steele and the
Russiagate fiasco - I know a guy who knows a guy who said... the Russians are bad and
Donald Trump is an a......e. Bob Mueller and 18 pissed off democrats have concluded that
the Russians are systemically bad and Donald Trump is an a......e. 4 months before a
Presidential election intel sources have revealed to the NYT that the Russians are very
very bad and Donald Trump is an a......e. Ah yes, the New York Ridiculously Self Degraded
Times has broken another important story. I wonder why? Enough already...and yes, we have
made a systemic laughing stock of ourselves.
Oh, and remind me again of why we've been staying around Kabul - something about improving
the lot of women, or gays, or someone?
I'm personally not ready to "duck and cover" after reading this.
I have accepted the fact that Russia is no longer the Soviet Union. I am watching
television news at night but no longer see the clock ticking as I turn it off and go to
sleep. So far, no one I know has taken to building a fallout shelter in his back yard.
I want an answer to this question: Whatever happened to the pillow and blanket I had to
bring to school and store in the school's basement in case we all had to retreat there and
be locked down in it during the bombing? Who do I go to to get reparations for the cost of
those items? (I was never given the opportunity to retrieve them when I graduated.) Did
Khrushchev have to take his shoe to a cobbler after using it to pound on the table while
threatening to bury us?
There's a rich history of stories about USI involvement in the drug trade. CIA was
involved in the heroin trade during the Viet Nam War. The Iran-Contra mess involved selling
Columbian cocaine to help finance Nicaraguan anti-Communist rebels. US involvement in the
Afghanistan drug trade has been talked about for years. As I said, there are no glitter
fartin' unicorns here.
The Iranian statistics do not lie. Transhipment of drugs across Iran from Afghanistan
has been increasing since the American invasion and occupation of Afghanistan.
The US Office of Foreign Asset Control, the US DIA, the CIA etc. are powerless to do
anything about that but are, evidently, all powerfull against USD transactions of the
Iranian government.
"... On Saturday, the Russian Foreign Ministry dismissed the NYT story as "fake information." ..."
"... This unsophisticated plant clearly illustrates the low intellectual abilities of the propagandists from US intelligence, who, instead of inventing something more plausible, resort to conjuring up such nonsense. ..."
"... "Then again, what else can one expect from intelligence services that have bungled the 20-year war in Afghanistan," the ministry said. ..."
"... Moscow has suggested that this misinformation was "planted" because the US may be against Russia "assisting" in peace talks between the Taliban and the internationally-recognised government in Kabul. ..."
The Russian Foreign Ministry has rejected a US media report
claiming Moscow offered to pay jihadi militants to attack US soldiers in Afghanistan. It said such 'fake news' merely betrays the
low skill levels of US spy agencies. Citing US intelligence officials – unnamed, of course – the New York Times reported that, last
year, Moscow had "covertly offered rewards" to Taliban-linked militants to attack American troops and their NATO allies
in Afghanistan.
On Saturday, the Russian Foreign Ministry dismissed the NYT story as "fake information."
This unsophisticated plant clearly illustrates the low intellectual abilities of the propagandists from US intelligence,
who, instead of inventing something more plausible, resort to conjuring up such nonsense.
"Then again, what else can one expect from intelligence services that have bungled the 20-year war in Afghanistan," the
ministry said.
Moscow has suggested that this misinformation was "planted" because the US may be against Russia "assisting"
in peace talks between the Taliban and the internationally-recognised government in Kabul.
US-led NATO troops have been fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan since 2001. The campaign, launched in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist
attacks, has cost Washington billions of dollars and resulted in the loss of thousands of American soldiers' lives. Despite maintaining
a military presence for almost two decades, the US has failed to defeat the Taliban, which is still in control of vast swaths of
the country.
Moreover, the office of the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction has compiled several reports detailing how
tens of millions of US taxpayers' funds have been spent on dubious regeneration projects.
This whole "story" stinks to high heaven. Judy Miller redux - regime-change info ops, coordinated across multiple media
organizations.
Notable quotes:
"... To be clear, this is journalistic malpractice. Mainstream media outlets which publish anonymous intelligence claims with no proof are just publishing CIA press releases disguised as news. They're just telling you to believe what sociopathic intelligence agencies want you to believe under the false guise of impartial and responsible reporting. This practice has become ubiquitous throughout mainstream news publications, but that doesn't make it any less immoral. ..."
"... "Same old story: alleged intelligence ops IMPOSSIBLE to verify, leaked to the press which reports them quoting ANONYMOUS officials," tweeted journalist Stefania Maurizi. ..."
"... "So we are to simply believe the same intelligence orgs that paid bounties to bring innocent prisoners to Guantanamo, lied about torture in Afghanistan, and lied about premises for war from WMD in Iraq to the Gulf of Tonkin 'attack'? All this and no proof?" ..."
"... "It's totally outrageous for Russia to support the Taliban against Americans in Afghanistan. Of course, it's totally fine for the US to support jihadi rebels against Russians in Syria, jihadi rebels who openly said the Taliban is their hero," ..."
"... On the flip side, all the McResistance pundits have been speaking of this baseless allegation as a horrific event that is known to have happened, with Rachel Maddow going so far as to describe it as Putin offering bounties for the "scalps" of American soldiers in Afghanistan. This is an interesting choice of words, considering that offering bounties for scalps is, in fact, one of the many horrific things the US government did in furthering its colonialist ambitions , which, unlike the New York Times allegation, is known to have actually happened. ..."
By Caitlin Johnstone , an independent journalist based
in Melbourne, Australia. Her website is here and you can follow her on
Twitter @caitoz
Whenever one sees a news headline ending in
"US Intelligence Says", one should always mentally replace everything that comes before it with "Blah blah blah we're probably lying."
"Russia Secretly Offered Afghan Militants Bounties to Kill Troops, US Intelligence Says", blares the
latest viral headline from the New York Times . NYT's unnamed sources
allege that the GRU "secretly offered bounties to Taliban-linked militants for killing coalition forces in Afghanistan -- including
targeting American troops", and that the Trump administration has known this for months.
To be clear, this is journalistic malpractice. Mainstream media outlets which publish anonymous intelligence claims with no proof
are just publishing CIA press releases disguised as news. They're just telling you to believe what sociopathic intelligence agencies
want you to believe under the false guise of impartial and responsible reporting. This practice has become ubiquitous throughout
mainstream news publications, but that doesn't make it any less immoral.
In a post-Iraq-invasion world, the only correct response to unproven anonymous claims about a rival government by intelligence
agencies from the US or its allies is to assume that they are lying until you are provided with a mountain of independently verifiable
evidence to the contrary. The US has far too extensive a record of lying
about these things for any other response to ever be justified as rational, and its intelligence agencies consistently play a foundational
role in those lies.
Voices outside the mainstream-narrative control matrix have been calling these accusations what they are: baseless, lacking in
credibility, and not reflective of anything other than fair play, even if true.
"Same old story: alleged intelligence ops IMPOSSIBLE to verify, leaked to the press which reports them quoting ANONYMOUS officials,"
tweeted journalist Stefania Maurizi.
"So we are to simply believe the same intelligence orgs that paid bounties to bring innocent prisoners to Guantanamo, lied
about torture in Afghanistan, and lied about premises for war from WMD in Iraq to the Gulf of Tonkin 'attack'? All this and no proof?"
tweeted author and analyst Jeffrey Kaye.
"It's totally outrageous for Russia to support the Taliban against Americans in Afghanistan. Of course, it's totally fine
for the US to support jihadi rebels against Russians in Syria, jihadi rebels who openly said the Taliban is their hero," tweeted author and analyst Max Abrams.
On the flip side, all the McResistance pundits have been
speaking of this baseless allegation as a horrific event that is known to have happened, with Rachel Maddow
going so far as to describe it as Putin offering
bounties for the "scalps" of American soldiers in Afghanistan. This is an interesting choice of words, considering that
offering bounties for scalps is, in fact, one of the many horrific things
the US government did in furthering its colonialist ambitions , which, unlike the New York Times allegation, is known to have
actually happened.
It is true, as many have been pointing out, that it would be fair play for Russia to fund violent opposition the the US in Afghanistan,
seeing as that's exactly what the US and its allies have been doing to Russia and its allies in Syria, and did to the Soviets in
Afghanistan via Operation Cyclone . It is also true
that the US military has no business in Afghanistan anyway, and any violence inflicted on US troops abroad is the fault of the military
expansionists who put them there. The US military has no place outside its own easily defended borders, and the assumption that it
is normal for a government to circle the planet with military bases is a faulty premise.
But before even getting into such arguments, the other side of the debate must meet its burden of proof that this has even happened.
That burden is far from met. It is literally the US intelligence community's job to lie to you. The New York Times has an extensive
history of pushing for new wars at every opportunity,
including the unforgivable
Iraq invasion , which killed a million people, based on lies. A mountain of proof is required before such claims should be seriously
considered, and we are very, very far from that.
I will repeat myself: it is the US intelligence community's job to lie to you. I will repeat myself again: it is the US intelligence
community's job to lie to you. Don't treat these CIA press releases with anything but contempt.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those
of RT.
"... I concluded that the circumstantial evidence pointing toward a regime-change operation has reached critical mass. Based on that evidence, for me the Kennedy assassination is not a conspiracy theory but rather the fact of a national-security state regime-change operation, no different in principle than other regime-change operations, including through assassination, carried out by the U.S. national-security establishment, especially through the CIA. ..."
"... I start out with a basic thesis: Lee Harvey Oswald was an intelligence agent for the U.S. deep state. Now, that thesis undoubtedly shocks people who have always believed in the lone-nut theory of the assassination. They just cannot imagine that Oswald could have really been working for the U.S. government at the time of the assassination. ..."
"... Indeed, if you want a modern-day version of how the U.S. national-security state treats suspected traitors and betrayers of its secrets, reflect on Julian Assange, Edward Snowden, and Chelsea Manning. That's how we expect national-security state officials to behave toward those they consider traitors and betrayers of U.S. secrets. ..."
"... Not so with Oswald. With him, we have what amounts to two separate parallel universes. One universe involves all the Cold War hoopla against communists. Another one is the one in which Oswald is sauntering across the world stage as one of America's biggest self-proclaimed communists -- a U.S. Marine communist -- who isn't touched by some congressional investigative committee, some federal grand jury, or some FBI agent. How is that possible? ..."
"... Later, when Oswald ended up in Dallas, his friends were right-wingers, not left-wingers. He even got job at a photographic facility that developed top-secret photographs for the U.S. government. How is that possible? Later, when he ended up in New Orleans, he got hired by a private company that was owned by a fierce anti-communist right-winger. Why would he hire a supposed communist who supposedly had betrayed America by supposedly joining up with America's avowed communist enemy, the Soviet Union, and to whom he had supposedly given U.S. national-security state secrets, just like Julian and Ethel Rosenberg had? ..."
One of the fascinating phenomena in the JFK assassination is the fear of some Americans to
consider the possibility that the assassination was actually a regime-change operation carried
out by the U.S. national-security establishment rather than simply a murder carried out by a
supposed lone-nut assassin.
The mountain of evidence that has surfaced, especially since the 1990s, when the JFK Records
Act mandated the release of top-secret assassination-related records within the
national-security establishment, has been in the nature of circumstantial evidence, as compared
to direct evidence. Thus, I can understand that someone who places little faith in the power of
circumstantial evidence might study and review that evidence and decide to embrace the
"lone-nut theory" of the case.
But many of the people who have embraced the lone-nut theory have never spent any time
studying the evidence in the case and yet have embraced the lone-nut theory. Why? My hunch is
that the reason is that they have a deep fear of being labeled a "conspiracy theorist," which
is the term the CIA many years ago advised its assets in the mainstream press to employ to
discredit those who were questioning the official narrative in the case.
Like many others, I have studied the evidence in the case. After doing that, I concluded
that the circumstantial evidence pointing toward a regime-change operation has reached critical
mass. Based on that evidence, for me the Kennedy assassination is not a conspiracy theory but
rather the fact of a national-security state regime-change operation, no different in principle
than other regime-change operations, including through assassination, carried out by the U.S.
national-security establishment, especially through the CIA.
Interestingly, there are those who have shown no reluctance to study the facts and
circumstances surrounding foreign regime-change operations carried out by the CIA and the
Pentagon. But when it comes to the Kennedy assassination, they run for the hills, exclaiming
that they don't want to be pulled down the "rabbit hole," meaning that they don't want to take
any chances of being labeled a "conspiracy theorist."
For those who have never delved into the Kennedy assassination but have interest in the
matter, let me set forth just a few of the reasons that the circumstantial evidence points to a
U.S. national-security state regime-change operation. Then, at the end of this article, I'll
point out some books and videos for those who wish to explore the matter more deeply.
I start out with a basic thesis: Lee Harvey Oswald was an intelligence agent for the U.S.
deep state. Now, that thesis undoubtedly shocks people who have always believed in the lone-nut
theory of the assassination. They just cannot imagine that Oswald could have really been
working for the U.S. government at the time of the assassination.
Yet, when one examines the evidence in the case objectively, the lone-theory doesn't make
any sense. The only thesis that is consistent with the evidence and, well, common sense, is
that Oswald was an intelligence agent.
Ask yourself: How many communist Marines have you ever encountered or even heard of? My
hunch is none. Not one single communist Marine. Why would a communist join the Marines?
Communists hate the U.S. Marine Corps. In fact, the U.S. Marine Corps hates communists. It
kills communists. It tortures them. It invades communist countries. It bombs them. It destroys
them.
What are the chances that the Marine Corps would permit an openly avowed communist to serve
in its ranks? None! There is no such chance. And yet, here was Oswald, whose Marine friends
were calling "Oswaldovitch," being assigned to the Atsugi naval base in Japan, where the U.S.
Air Force was basing its top-secret U-2 spy plane, one that it was using to secretly fly over
the Soviet Union. Why would the Navy and the Air Force permit a self-avowed communist even near
the U-2? Does that make any sense?
While Oswald was serving in the Marine Corps, he became fluent in the Russian language. How
is that possible? How many people have you known who have become fluent in a foreign langue all
on their own, especially when they have a full-time job? Even if they are able to study a
foreign language from books, they have to practice conversing with people in that language to
become proficient in speaking it. How did Oswald do that? There is but one reasonable
possibility: Language lessons provided by U.S. military-suppled tutors.
After leaving the Marine Corps, Oswald traveled to the Soviet Union, walked into the U.S.
embassy, renounced his citizenship, and stated that he intended to give any secrets he learned
while serving in the military to the Soviet Union. Later, when he stated his desire to return
to the United States, with a wife with family connections to Soviet intelligence, Oswald was
given the red-carpet treatment on his return. No grand jury summons. No grand-jury indictment.
No FBI interrogation. No congressional summons to testify.
Remember: This was at the height of the Cold War, when the U.S. national-security
establishment was telling Americans that there was a worldwide communist conspiracy based in
Moscow that was hell-bent on taking over the United States and the rest of the world. The U.S.
had gone to war in Korea because of the supposed communist threat. They would do the same in
Vietnam. They would target Cuba and Fidel Castro with invasion and assassination. They would
pull off regime-change operations on both sides of the Kennedy assassination: Iran (1953),
Guatemala (1954), Cuba (1960s), Congo (1963), and Chile (1973).
During the 1950s, they were targeting any American who had had any connections to communism.
They were subpoenaing people to testify before Congress as to whether they had ever been
members of the Communist Party. They were destroying people's reputations and costing them
their jobs. Remember the case of Dalton Trumbo and other Hollywood writers who were criminally
prosecuted and incarcerated. Recall the Hollywood blacklist. Recall the Rosenbergs, who they
executed for giving national-security state secrets to the Soviets. Think about Jane Fonda.
Indeed, if you want a modern-day version of how the U.S. national-security state treats
suspected traitors and betrayers of its secrets, reflect on Julian Assange, Edward Snowden, and
Chelsea Manning. That's how we expect national-security state officials to behave toward those
they consider traitors and betrayers of U.S. secrets.
Not so with Oswald. With him, we have what amounts to two separate parallel universes. One
universe involves all the Cold War hoopla against communists. Another one is the one in which
Oswald is sauntering across the world stage as one of America's biggest self-proclaimed
communists -- a U.S. Marine communist -- who isn't touched by some congressional investigative
committee, some federal grand jury, or some FBI agent. How is that possible?
Later, when Oswald ended up in Dallas, his friends were right-wingers, not left-wingers. He
even got job at a photographic facility that developed top-secret photographs for the U.S.
government. How is that possible? Later, when he ended up in New Orleans, he got hired by a
private company that was owned by a fierce anti-communist right-winger. Why would he hire a
supposed communist who supposedly had betrayed America by supposedly joining up with America's
avowed communist enemy, the Soviet Union, and to whom he had supposedly given U.S.
national-security state secrets, just like Julian and Ethel Rosenberg had?
And those corporations and CIA financed entity asks readers for donations?
Notable quotes:
"... Amamou briefly served as secretary of state for sport and youth in Tunisia's transitional government, before later resigning. He noted that Maher traveled to the country several times since the Arab Spring protests broke out in 2011, and he found it strange that her affiliations kept changing. ..."
"... Katherine Maher is probably a CIA agent. She's been in Tunisia multiple times since 2011 under multiple affiliations ..."
"... Maher spoke about the libertarian philosophy behind Wikipedia, echoing the Ayn Randian ideology of founder Jimmy Wales. ..."
"... The Grayzone has clearly demonstrated how Wikipedia editors overwhelmingly side with Western governments in these editorial conflicts, echoing the perspectives of interventionists and censoring critical voices. ..."
"... The moderator of the discussion, Mattias Fyrenius, the CEO of the Nobel Prize's media arm, asked Maher: "There is some kind of information war going on – and maybe you can say that there is a war going on between the lies, and the propaganda, and the facts, and maybe truth – do you agree?" ..."
"... "Yes," Maher responded in agreement. She added her own question: "What are the institutions, what is the obligation of institutions to actually think about what the future looks like, if we actually want to pass through this period with our integrity intact?" ..."
"... Like Maher's former employer the National Democratic Institute, the OPT advances US imperial interests in the guise of promoting "internet freedom" and new technologies. It also provides large grants to opposition groups in foreign nations targeted by Washington for regime change. ..."
"... While she serves today as the executive director of the Wikimedia Foundation, Katherine Maher remains a fellow at the Truman National Security Project, a Washington, DC think tank that grooms former military and intelligence professionals for careers in Democratic Party politics. ..."
"... As The Grayzone's Max Blumenthal reported, the most prominent fellow of the Truman Project is Pete Buttigieg, the US Naval intelligence veteran who emerged as a presidential frontrunner in the Democratic primary earlier this year. ..."
"... The extensive participation by the head of the Wikimedia Foundation in US government regime-change networks raises serious questions about the organization's commitment to neutrality. ..."
"... Perhaps the unchecked problem of political bias and coordinated smear campaigns by a small coterie of Wikipedia editors is not a bug, but a deliberately conceived feature of the website. ..."
Wikipedia has become a bulletin board for corporate and imperial interests under the watch
of its Randian founder, Jimmy Wales, and the veteran US regime-change operative who heads the
Wikimedia Foundation, Katherine Maher.
Born from seemingly humble beginnings, the Wikimedia Foundation is today swimming in cash
and invested in many of the powerful interests that benefit from its lax editorial policy.
The foundation's largest donors include corporate
tech giants Google, Microsoft, Apple, and Craigslist. With more than $145 million
in assets in 2018, nearly $105 million in annual revenue, and a massive headquarters in San
Francisco, Wikimedia has carved out a space for itself next to these Big Tech oligarchs in the
Silicon Valley bubble.
It is also impossible to separate Wikipedia as a project from the
ideology of its creator. When he co-founded the platform in 2001, Jimmy "Jimbo" Wales was a
conservative
libertarian and devoted disciple of right-wing fanatic
Ayn Rand .
A former futures and options trader, Wales openly preached the gospel of " Objectivism ," Rand's
ultra-capitalist ideology that sees government and society itself as the root of all evil,
heralding individual capitalists as gods.
Wales described his philosophy behind Wikipedia in specifically Randian terms. In a video
clip from a 2008 interview, published by the Atlas Society, an organization dedicated to
evangelizing on behalf of Objectivism, Wales explained that he was influenced by Howard Roark,
the protagonist of Rand's novel The Fountainhead.
Wikipedia's structure was expressly meant to reflect the ideology of its libertarian tech
entrepreneur founder, and Wales openly said as much.
At the same time, however, Wikipedia editors have upheld the diehard Objectivist Jimmy
Wales, as the New York Times put it in 2008, as a "benevolent dictator, constitutional monarch,
digital evangelist and spiritual leader."
Wales has always balanced his libertarian inclinations with old-fashioned American
patriotism. He was summoned before the US Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government
Operations in 2007 to further explain how Wikipedia and its related technologies could be of
service to Uncle Sam.
Wales began his remarks stating, "I am grateful to be here today to testify about the
potential for the Wikipedia model of collaboration and information sharing which may be helpful
to government operations and homeland security."
"At a time when the United States has been increasingly criticized around the world, I
believe that Wikipedia is an incredible carrier of traditional American values of generosity,
hard work, and freedom of speech," Wales continued, implicitly referencing the George Bush
administration's military occupation of Iraq.
The Wikipedia founder added, "The US government has always been premised on responsiveness
to citizens, and I think we all believe good government comes from broad, open public dialogue.
I therefore also recommend that US agencies consider the use of wikis for public facing
projects to gather information from citizens and to seek new ways of effectively collaborating
with the public to generate solutions to the problem that citizens face."
Wikipedia Jimmy Wales Senate Homeland Security committee Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales
testifying before the US Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Operations in
2007 In 2012, Wales married Kate Garvey, the former diary secretary of ex-British Prime
Minister Tony Blair. Their wedding, according to the conservative UK Telegraph, was "witnessed
by guests from the world of politics and celebrity."
Wales' status-quo-friendly politics have only grown more pronounced over the years. In 2018,
for instance, he publicly cheered on Israel's bombing of the besieged Gaza strip and portrayed
Britain's leftist former Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn as an anti-Semite.
The Wikimedia Foundation's Katherine Maher: US regime-change operative with deep corporate
links Jimmy Wales and the Wikimedia Foundation claim to have little power over the encyclopedia
itself, but it is widely known that this is just PR. Wikimedia blew the lid off this myth in
2015 when it removed a community-elected member of its board of trustees, without
explanation.
At the time of this scandal, the Wikimedia Foundation's board of trustees included a former
corporate executive at Google, Arnnon Geshuri, who was heavily scrutinized for shady hiring
practices. Geshuri, who also worked at billionaire Elon Musk's company Tesla, was eventually
pressured to step down from the board.
But just a year later, Wikimedia appointed another corporate executive to its board of
trustees, Gizmodo Media Group CEO Raju Narisetti.
The figure that deserves the most scrutiny at the Wikimedia Foundation, however, is its
executive director Katherine Maher, who is closely linked to the US regime-change network.
Katherine Maher NDI Atlantic Council Wikimedia Foundation CEO Katherine Maher (right) at a
"Disinformation Forum" sponsored by the US government regime-change entity NDI and the NATO-
and Gulf monarchy-backed Atlantic Council Maher boasts an eyebrow-raising résumé
that would impress the most ardent of cold warriors in Washington.
With a degree in Middle Eastern and Islamic Studies from New York University, Maher studied
Arabic in Egypt and Syria, just a few years before the so-called Arab Spring uprising and
subsequent Western proxy war to overthrow the Syrian government.
Maher then interned at the bank Goldman Sachs, as well as the Council on Foreign Relations
and Eurasia Group, both elite foreign-policy institutions that are deeply embedded in the
Western regime-change machine.
At the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), Maher says on her public LinkedIn profile that
she worked in the "US/Middle East Program," oversaw the "CFR Corporate Program," and
"Identified appropriate potential clients, conducted outreach."
At the Eurasia Group, Maher focused on Syria and Lebanon. According to her bio, she
"Developed stability forecasting and scenario modeling, and market and political stability
reports."
Katherine Maher LinkedIn Council on Foreign Relations Eurasia Group
Maher moved on to a job at London's HSBC bank – which would go on to pay a whopping
$1.9 billion fine after it was caught red-handed laundering money for drug traffickers and
Saudi financiers of international jihadism. Her work at HSBC brought her to the UK, Germany,
and Canada.
Next, Maher co-founded a little-known election monitoring project focused on Lebanon's 2008
elections called Sharek961. To create this platform, Maher and her associates partnered with an
influential technology non-profit organization, Meedan, which has received millions of dollars
of funding from Western foundations, large corporations like IBM, and the permanent monarchy of
Qatar.
Meedan also finances the regime-change lobbying website, Bellingcat, which is considering a
reliable source on Wikipedia, while journalism outlets like The Grayzone are formally
blacklisted.
Sharek961 was funded by the Technology for Transparency Network, a platform for
regime-change operations bankrolled by billionaire Pierre Omidyar's Omidyar Network and
billionaire George Soros' Open Society Foundations.
Maher subsequently moved over to a position as an "innovation and communication officer" at
the United Nations Children's Fund, UNICEF. There, she oversaw projects funded by the US Agency
for International Development (USAID), an arm of the US State Department which finances
regime-change operations and covert activities around the globe under the auspices of
humanitarian goodwill.
Soon enough, Maher cut out the middleman and went to work as a program officer in
information and communications technology at the National Democratic Institute (NDI), which was
created and financed directly by the US government. The NDI is a central gear in the
regime-change machine; it bankrolls coup and destabilization efforts across the planet in the
guise of "democracy promotion."
At the NDI, Maher served as a program officer for "internet freedom projects," advancing
Washington's imperial soft power behind the front of boosting global internet access –
pursuing a strategy not unlike the one used to destabilize Cuba.
The Wikimedia Foundation CEO says on her LinkedIn profile that her work at the NDI included
"democracy and human rights support" as well as designing technology programs for "citizen
engagement, open government, independent media, and civil society for transitional, conflict,
and authoritarian countries, including internet freedom programming."
After a year at the NDI, she moved over to the World Bank, another notorious vehicle for
Washington's power projection.
Katherine Maher LinkedIn World Bank NDI
At the World Bank, Maher oversaw the creation of the Open Development Technology Alliance
(ODTA), an initiative that uses new technologies to impose more aggressive neoliberal economic
policies on developing countries.
Maher's LinkedIn page notes that her work entailed designing and implementing "open
government and open data in developing and transitioning nations," especially in the Middle
East and North Africa.
At the time of her employment at the World Bank, the Arab Spring protests were erupting.
In October 2012, in the early stages of the proxy war in Syria, Maher tweeted that she was
planning a trip to Gaziantep, a Turkish city near the Syrian border that became the main hub
for the Western-backed opposition. Gaziantep was at the time crawling with Syrian insurgents
and foreign intelligence operatives plotting to topple the government of President Bashar
al-Assad.
Katherine Maher ✔ @krmaher
Planning to go to Gaziantep in a few days. A timely NYT
report from the Turkish-Syrian border:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/13/world/middleeast/on-edge-in-turkey-as-syria-war-inches-closer.html?pagewanted=2&smid=tw-share
1 12:25 PM - Oct 13, 2012 Twitter Ads info and privacy
See Katherine Maher's other Tweets
Just two months later, in December, she tweeted that was was on a flight to Libya. Just over a
year before, a NATO regime-change war had destroyed the Libyan government, and foreign-backed
insurgents had killed leader Muammar Qadhafi, unleashing a wave of violence – and
open-air slave markets.
Today, Libya has no unified central government and is still plagued by a grueling civil war.
What Maher was doing in the war-torn country in 2012 is not clear.
Katherine Maher ✔ @krmaher
I'm on the plane to Libya. Holy wow, batman.
View image on Twitter 2 3:21 AM - Dec 9, 2012 Twitter Ads info and privacy
Maher's repeated trips to the Middle East and North Africa right around
the time of these uprisings and Western intervention campaigns raised eyebrows among local
activists.
In 2016, when Maher was named executive director of the Wikimedia Foundation, a prominent
Tunisian activist named Slim Amamou spoke out, alleging that "Katherine Maher is probably a CIA
agent."
Amamou briefly served as secretary of state for sport and youth in Tunisia's transitional
government, before later resigning. He noted that Maher traveled to the country several times
since the Arab Spring protests broke out in 2011, and he found it strange that her affiliations
kept changing.
... ... ...
Slim Amamou ✔ @slim404 · Mar 13, 2016
Katherine Maher is probably a CIA agent.
She's been in Tunisia multiple times since 2011 under multiple affiliations
https://twitter.com/Wikimedia/status/708438130626408449
Wikimedia ✔ @Wikimedia
Chief communications officer Katherine Maher (@krmaher) named
interim executive director of Wikimedia Foundation.
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/03/11/katherine-maher-interim-executive-director/
Slim Amamou ✔ @slim404
Wikmedia foundation is changing.. and not in a good way. It's
sad, because rare are organisations that have this reach in developing world
2 11:18 AM - Mar 13, 2016 Twitter Ads info and privacy See Slim Amamou's other Tweets
In
April 2017, in her new capacity as head of the Wikimedia Foundation, Katherine Maher
participated in an event for the US State Department. The talk was a "Washington Foreign Press Center Briefing," entitled "Wikipedia in a
Post-fact World." It was published at the official State Department website.
Maher spoke about the libertarian philosophy behind Wikipedia, echoing the Ayn Randian
ideology of founder Jimmy Wales.
When journalists asked how Wikipedia deals "with highly charged topics," where "some
entities – sometimes countries, sometimes various other entities – are often
engaged in conflict with each other," Maher repeatedly provided a non-answer, recycling vague
platitudes about the Wikipedia community working together.
The Grayzone has clearly demonstrated how Wikipedia editors overwhelmingly side with Western
governments in these editorial conflicts, echoing the perspectives of interventionists and
censoring critical voices.
A few months later, in January 2018, Maher appeared on a panel with Michael Hayden, the
former director of both the CIA and NSA, and a notorious hater of journalists, as well with a
top Indian government official, K. VijayRaghavan.
The talk, entitled "Lies Propaganda and Truth," was held by the organization behind the
Nobel Prize.
The moderator of the discussion, Mattias Fyrenius, the CEO of the Nobel Prize's media arm,
asked Maher: "There is some kind of information war going on – and maybe you can say that
there is a war going on between the lies, and the propaganda, and the facts, and maybe truth
– do you agree?"
"Yes," Maher responded in agreement. She added her own question: "What are the institutions,
what is the obligation of institutions to actually think about what the future looks like, if
we actually want to pass through this period with our integrity intact?"
... ... ...
Wikimedia Foundation CEO Katherine Maher in a
panel discussion with CIA director Michael Hayden Hayden, the former US spy agency chief, then
blamed "the Russians" for waging that information war. He referred to Moscow as "the
adversary," and claimed the "Russian information bubble, information dominance machine, created
so much confusion." Maher laughed in approval, disputing nothing that Hayden said. In the same discussion, Maher
also threw WikiLeaks (which is blacklisted on Wikipedia) under the bus, affirming, "Not
WikiLeaks, I want to be clear, we're not the same organization." The former CIA director next
to her chuckled.
Wikipedia Katherine Maher Open Technology Fund US government Wikimedia Foundation executive
director Katherine Maher is a member of the advisory board of the US government's technology
regime-change arm the Open Technology Fund (OPT)
Today, Maher is a member of the advisory board
of the US government's technology regime-change arm the Open Technology Fund (OPT) – a
fact she proudly boasts on her LinkedIn profile. The OPT was created in 2012 as a project of Radio Free Asia, an information warfare vehicle
that the New York Times once described as a "worldwide propaganda network built by the
CIA." Since disaffiliating from this CIA cutout in 2019, the OPT is now bankrolled by the US
Agency for Global Media, the government's propaganda arm, formerly known as the Broadcasting
Board of Governors.
Like Maher's former employer the National Democratic Institute, the OPT advances US imperial
interests in the guise of promoting "internet freedom" and new technologies. It also provides
large grants to opposition groups in foreign nations targeted by Washington for regime
change.
Katherine Maher Truman National Security Project
While she serves today as the executive director of the Wikimedia Foundation, Katherine
Maher remains a fellow at the Truman National Security Project, a Washington, DC think tank
that grooms former military and intelligence professionals for careers in Democratic Party
politics.
The Truman Project website identifies Maher's expertise as "international development."
As The Grayzone's Max Blumenthal reported, the most prominent fellow of the Truman Project
is Pete Buttigieg, the US Naval intelligence veteran who emerged as a presidential frontrunner
in the Democratic primary earlier this year.
The extensive participation by the head of the Wikimedia Foundation in US government
regime-change networks raises serious questions about the organization's commitment to
neutrality.
Perhaps the unchecked problem of political bias and coordinated smear campaigns by a small
coterie of Wikipedia editors is not a bug, but a deliberately conceived feature of the
website.
Ben Norton Ben Norton is a journalist, writer, and filmmaker. He is the assistant editor
of The Grayzone, and the producer of the Moderate Rebels podcast, which he co-hosts with editor
Max Blumenthal. His website is BenNorton.com and he tweets at @BenjaminNorton.
"... Firstly your definition of 'deep state' is too limited, it includes the bureaucracy, much of the judiciary, banks and other financial institutions, and the major political parties. It is not restricted only to the intelligence agencies. It is not a US-specific issue, but a global one. For the deep state exists everywhere, and is often more powerful in commonwealth countries, such as here in apathetic Australia. ..."
"... When the CIA kills Kennedy you know you've got problems... And whilst agents in the CIA probably did not pull the trigger - their "assets" did... If you don't believe me spare me your tiresome ignorant replies and go and do some research... ..."
"... " We were warned about the Military Industrial Complex, Sadly the Government Media Complex, has done way more damage, and will be much harder to overcome" ~ Dr. Mike Savage 2008 ..."
Sky News Australia In this Special Investigation Sky News speaks to former spies, politicians and investigative journalists to
uncover whether US President Donald Trump is really at war with "unelected Deep State operatives who defy the voters".
George Soros, The clintons, The royal family, The Rothschild's, the Federal reserve as a whole, The modern Democrat, cia, fbi,
nsa, Facebook, Google, not to mention all the faceless unelected bureaucrats who create and push policies that impact our every
day lives. This, my lads, is the deep state. They run our world and get away with whatever they want until someone in their circle
loses their use (Epstein)
The Cabal owns the US intelligence agencies, the media, and Hollywood. That's how all these big name corrupted figure heads
aren't in prison for their crimes. The Clinton email scandal is a prime example. This is much bigger than the USA... it's effects
are world wide.
The Four Stages of Ideological Subversion: 1 - Demoralization 2 - Destabilization 3 - Crisis 4 - Normalization Are you not
entertained? The above is "their" roadmap. Learn what it means and spread this far & wide, as that will be the means by which
to end this.
President JFK on April 17, 1961: "Today no war has been declared--and however fierce the struggle may be, it may never be declared
in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack. Yet no war has been declared, no borders have been crossed by marching
troops, no missiles have been fired. 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." thoughts: by saying,
'conducts the Cold War' did he directly call out the CIA???
Most troubling now it is known about the deep state: is Trump a double agent just another puppet just giving the appearance
of working against the deep state?
Thank you Australians for having rhe courage to speak out for us Patriots!!! We know the Deep State Cabal retaliated with the
fires. We love you guys from 💖💗
Well done Skynews. THE DEEP STATE IS REAL. I woke up 10+ years ago. Turn off the TV for 1-2 years to study and awaken. Make
a start on learning with David ickes Videos and books. WWG1 WGA
Before I go and pass this on to as many as I can get to follow it I just wanted to commend those that produced this and I hope
that it gets fuller dissemination because it is such a rare truth in such a time of utter deceit by most all of the MSM (Main
Stream Media) that this country I reside in uses to supposedly inform the American people ...what a crock! Thank You, Australia
for making this available (but beware, the Five Eyes are always very active in related matters to this) ... This has been welcome
confirmation of what many of us have known and attempted to tell others for about 5 years now. Sadly, I doubt that has or will
help very much, The System is so corrupted from top to bottom ... IMnsHO and E.
Firstly your definition of 'deep state' is too limited, it includes the bureaucracy, much of the judiciary, banks and other
financial institutions, and the major political parties. It is not restricted only to the intelligence agencies. It is not a US-specific
issue, but a global one. For the deep state exists everywhere, and is often more powerful in commonwealth countries, such as here
in apathetic Australia.
When the CIA kills Kennedy you know you've got problems... And whilst agents in the CIA probably did not pull the trigger -
their "assets" did... If you don't believe me spare me your tiresome ignorant replies and go and do some research...
" We were warned about the Military Industrial Complex, Sadly the Government Media Complex, has done way more damage, and will
be much harder to overcome" ~ Dr. Mike Savage 2008
14:20 I met a guy from Canada in the early
2000s, a telephone technician, told me about when he worked at the time for the government telephone company in the early 80s.
He was given a really strange job one day, to go do some work in the USA. Some kind of repair work that required someone with
experience and know-how, but apparently someone from out-of-country, he guesses, because there certainly must have been many people
in the USA who could have done it, he figured. He flew down to oregon, then was driven for hours out into the middle of nowhere
in navada, he said. They came to a small building that was surrounded by fencing etc. Nothing interesting. Nothing else around,
he said, as far as he could see. They went in, and pretty much all that was there was an elevator. They went in, and he said,
he didn't know how many floors down it went, or how fast it was moving, but seemed to take quite sometime, he figured about 8
stories down, was his guess, but he didn't know. He was astounded to see that there was telephone recording stuff in there about
the size of two football-fields. He said they were recording everything. He said, even at that time, it was all digital, but they
didn't have the capacity to record everything, so it was set up to monitor phone calls, and if any key words were spoken, it would
start recording, and of course it would record all phone calls at certain numbers. "So, who knows what they've got in there today,
he said" back in the early 2000s. So, imagine what they've got there today, in the 2020s. I didn't know whether or not to believe
this story, until I saw a doc about all of the telephone recording tapes they have in storage, rotting away, which were used to
record everyone's phone calls onto magnetic tape. Literally tonnes and tonnes of tapes, just sitting there in storage now, from
the 1970s, the pre-digital days. They've always been doing it. They're just much better at it today than ever. Now they can tell
who you are by your voice, your cadence, your intonation, etc. and record not just a call here and there, but everything.
"The greatest trick the devil ever pulled is convincing the world he didnt exist" Credit the --- Usual Suspects ---- That's
the playbook of the "Deep State"
The last guy (denying the deep state's existence) was lying. When someone shakes their head when talking in the affirmative
you can be 100% sure it is a lie (micro expressions 101).
Bitcoin Blockchain
1 day ago
1950–1953: Korean War United States (as part of the United Nations) and South Korea vs. North Korea and Communist China
1960–1975: Vietnam War United States and South Vietnam vs. North Vietnam
1961: Bay of Pigs Invasion United States vs. Cuba
1983: Grenada United States intervention
1989: U.S.Invasion of Panama United States vs. Panama
1990–1991: Persian Gulf War United States and Coalition Forces vs. Iraq
1995–1996: Intervention in Bosnia and Herzegovina United States as part of NATO acted as peacekeepers in former Yugoslavia
2001–present: Invasion of Afghanistan United States and Coalition Forces vs. the Taliban regime in Afghanistan to fight terrorism
2003–2011: Invasion of Iraq The United States and Coalition Forces vs. Iraq
2004–present: War in Northwest Pakistan United States vs. Pakistan, mainly drone attacks
2007–present: Somalia and Northeastern Kenya United States and Coalition forces vs. al-Shabaab militants
2009–2016: Operation Ocean Shield (Indian Ocean) NATO allies vs. Somali pirates
2011: Intervention in Libya U.S. and NATO allies vs. Libya
2011–2017: Lord's Resistance Army U.S. and allies against the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda
2014–2017: U.S.-led Intervention in Iraq U.S. and coalition forces against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria
2014–present: U.S.-led intervention in Syria U.S. and coalition forces against al-Qaeda, ISIS, and Syria
2015–present: Yemeni Civil War Saudi-led coalition and the U.S., France, and Kingdom against the Houthi rebels, Supreme Political Council in Yemen, and allies
2015–present: U.S. intervention in Libya
Deep State is the "Wealthy Oligarchy", an "International Mafia" who controls the Central Bank (a privacy owned banking system
which controls the worlds currencies). The Wealthy Oligarchy "aka Deep State" controls most all Democratic countries, and controls
the International Media. In the United States, both the Republican and Democrat parties are controlled by the Wealthy Oligarchy
aka Deep State.
A beautifully crafted and delivered discourse, impressive! As a Londoner I have become increasingly interested in Sky News
Australia, you are a breath of fresh air and common sense in this world of ever growing liberal media hysteria!
I have to laugh at the people, including our supposedly unbiased and intelligent media, who said the Russia thing was the truth
when it was nothing but a conspiracy theory. Everything else was a conspiacy theory according to the dems ans the mainstream media..
Wall Street and the banksters control the CIA. One can imagine the ramifications of control of the world via the moneyed interests
backed by James Bond and the Green Berets, the latter, under control of the CIA.
Deep State Powers have been messing with your USA long before your War of Independence . Your Founding Fathers knew , why do
you think they wrote your Constitution that way. Now everyone is always crying about something but fail to realize you gave your
freedoms away over time . The Deep State never left it just disguised itself and continued to regain control under a new face
or ideaology. Follow the money . "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."― Edmund Burke
After the John F. Kennedy assassination the took full power,those who are in power now are the descendants of the criminals
who did it,some of their sons just have a different last name but they are the same family,like George Bush and John Kerry are
cousins but different last name and the list goes and goes.
Council on Foreign Relation is more Deep State than CIA and FBI . The two worked for CFR. CFR tel president whom to appoint
to what positions. Nixon got a list of 22 deep state candidates for top US position and all were hired. Obama appointed 11 from
the list. Kissinger is behind the scenes strings puller also.
Thanks Sky and Peter for bringing this to the mainstream attention, it really is time! Wished you had aired John Kiriakou,s
other claims off child sex trafficking to the elites which has been corroborated by so many other sources now and is the grossest
deformity of this deep state which you can see footage of trump talking about. I am amazed and greatful to see Trump has done
more about this than all other presidents in the last 20 years. Lets end this group. All we need to do is shine the light on them
The CIA are only an intelligence and operations functioning part of the deep state its much more complex and larger than just
the CIA. The British empire controls the deep state they always have it is just a modern version of the old East India Company
controlled by the same families with the same ideology.
https://theduran.com/the-origins-of-the-deep-state-in-north-america/
It's funny how for decades "the people" were crying on their knees about how bad every president was n how corrupt n controlled
they were. Now you've got a president with no special interest groups publicly calling out the deep state n ur still bitching.
U know you've got someone representing the people when the cia n fbi r out to get him. In 50 years trump will be looked back at
with the likes of Washington, Lincoln n jfk. Once the msm smear campaign is out of everyone's brain.
When they start spying on people within the United States and when they used in National Defense authorization act that gave
them a lot of power since after 911 to give them more power now they have Homeland Security which is the next biggest threat to
the United States it can be abused and some of these people have a higher security clearance than the president.... they're not
under control the NSA is one of them you don't mention in here either one is about the more that you don't even know about that
they don't have names are acronyms that we knew about that's why the American people have been blindsided by this overtime they've
been giving all this money to do things... allocation of money they gathered to do this and now Congress itself doesn't know temperature
of Schumer when you caught him saying to see I can get back at you three ways to Sunday I mean he's got some words in this saying
to the president of usa donald trump... basically threatening the President right there.. you can see it's alive and well when
Congress is immune from prosecution from anything or anyone....
"I think in light of all of the things going on, and you know what I mean by that: the fake news, the Comeys of the world,
all of the bad things that went on, it's called the swamp you know what I did," he asked. "A big favor. I caught the swamp. I
caught them all. Let's see what happens. Nobody else could have done that but me. I caught all of this corruption that was going
on and nobody else could have done it."
there is no big secret that CIA is deeply involved in drug smuggling operations...i remember interview with ex marine colonel
who said that he was indirectly involved in such operations in panama...
Attempting to infiltrate News rooms😆😅😂 all those faces you see in the MSM are all working for Cia. In 1967 one of the 3
letter agencys bragged about having a reporter working in 1 of the 3 letter news channel!
Wow this was really good. It's funny you showed a clip from abc of kouriakow and it reminded me how much the news in america
has been propagandized and just fake. I'm 38 and it's sad that these days the news is unpatriotic. Well most . Ty sky news Australia
Why no mention of what facilitates the surveilance? Telecom infrastructure is a nations nerve system and the powergrid its
bloodsystem. Who controls them? That is where you find the head of the deep state!
What people aren't aware of is that Facebook YouTube Twitter Instagram Google maps and Google search are all NSA CIA and DIA
creations and CEO's are only highly paid operatives who are not the creators but the face of a product and what better way to
collect all of your information is by you giving it to them
More please? A subject for another installment regarding the Deep State could be Banking, Federal Reserves and Fiat currencies.
Later, another video could be Russia's success at expelling the Deep State in 2000 after it took them over (for a 2nd time) in
1991. Be cognizant, the Deep State initially had for a short time from 1917 via 'it's' 'Bolshivics,' orchestrated the creation
of the Soviet Union through the Bolshivic take over of Russia from it's independence minded and Soveriegn Czarist led Eastern
Orthodox State. Now, President Trump is preventing a similar Deep State take-over by Intelligence agencies, Corporations and elected
political thugs as bad as Leon Trotsky and V I Lennin were to the Russian Czar. The Soviets soon after their (1917) take-over
went Rogue on the Deep State and therefore the Soviet Union was independent until The Deep State orchestrated it's downfall and
anexation of it's substantial wealth and some territory (1991). More, more, more please Sky News, this video was great!
Amazing, Sky News is the ONLY TV News Service in Australia Trying to deliver true news. Australia's ABC news are CIA Deep State
Shills and propagandists - Sarah Ferguson Especially - see her totally CIA scripted Four Corners Report on the Russia Hoax. John
Gantz IS a Deep State Operative Liar.
Isnt it time to see TERM LIMITS in Co gress and to realign our school education to teach the real history of these unites states?
End the control of Congress and watch the agencies fall in step with OUR Conatitution. No one should ever be allowed in Congress
or any other elected position of trust if they are not a devout Constitutionalist. Anyone who takes the oath to see w the people
and fails to so so should be charged with TREASON and removed immediately. Is there a DEEP STATE? Damn right there is and has
been for many decades. Where is our sovereignty? Where is the wealth of a capitalist nation? Why so much poverty and welfare and
why do communists and socialist get away with damaging our country, state or communities. Yes, there has been a deep state filled
with criminals who all need to be charged, tried and executed for TREASON.
The CIA and Australias Federal police have One main Job/activity to feed their Populations with Propaganda & Lies to give them
their Thoughts & Opinions on Everything using their psyOps through MSM News & Programming...you prolly beLIEve this informative
News Story as well. : (
These people denying a deep state with such straight faces are psychopaths. Unwittingly, or maybe not, Schumer made liars of
them with his comment to Maddow
President Trump is correct. He knows exactly what's going on. The 3 letter agencies are up to no good and work against the
fabric of our nation's founding fathers. It's despicable behavior. Just one example is John Brennan (CIA Director) and Barack
Hussein Obama's Terror Tuesdays. Read all about it on the internet now before it's permanently removed. Thank you for creating
this video.
When was the last time we ever witnessed an American President openly abused continually attacked over manufactured news treated
with absolutely no respect for him or the office his family unfairly attacked and misrepresented etc, etc, that's right never,
which proves he threatens the existence of the deep state as discussed. He should declare Martial Law Hang the consequences and
remove every single deep state player everywhere. Foreign influence? read Israel.
People are so fixated on trumps outspoken Sometimes outrageous demeanor which in my opinion it's just being really honest and
yes he can Be rude at times but when you look at the facts He's the only one that has gone against the deep state! those are the
real devils dressed up in sheep's clothing! Wake up!
You are missing the point. It goes further then intelligence agency working against the people. It's the ultra rich literally
trillionaires like the rothchilds that control the cia etc. That is who trump is fighting. The globalists line gates soros etc.
Some definitions are required here. From the Cambridge online English dictionary we
have:
Misinformation: [noun] wrong information, or the fact that people are misinformed.
Disinformation: [noun] false information spread in order to deceive people.
Fake News: [noun] false stories that appear to be news, spread on the internet or using
other media, usually created to influence political views or as a joke.
Conspiracy: [noun'] the activity of secretly planning with other people to do something
bad or illegal.
Theory: [noun] a formal statement of the rules on which a subject of study is based or of
ideas that are suggested to explain a fact or event.
Conspiracy Theory: [noun] a belief that an event or situation is the result of a secret
plan made by powerful people
It is notable that Cambridge University Press have introduced the concept of "secret" into
their definition. By describing something as secret you are suggesting that it is impossible to
know what it is. This added notion of secrecy is not commonly found in other dictionaries.
Nor is it present in the legal definition of conspiracy. Blacks Law Dictionary defines conspiracy as:
Conspiracy: In criminal law. A combination or confederacy between two or more persons
formed for the purpose of committing, by their joint efforts, some unlawful or criminal
act.
Obviously conspirators would like to keep their plans hidden. But that doesn't mean they
always remain so. If all conspiracies were "secrets" nobody would ever discover any of
them.
Known conspiracies, such as Operation Gladio ,
Iran Contra, the Lavon Affair, the 2001 anthrax letter hoax and so on, would not have been
exposed had people not highlighted the evidence which proved their existence.
The notion of the "secret conspiracy" is not one most people called conspiracy theorist s
would recognise. Often the whole point of our argument is that the conspiracies can be quite
plainly evidenced. Most of that evidence is in the public domain and freely available.
More often conspiracy theorists are concerned with the denial or obfuscation of the
evidence. It is not that the evidence doesn't exist, rather that it either isn't reported at
all or is hidden by labelling those who do report it conspiracy theorists .
We can define "conspiracy theory" simply to mean: the reporting of evidence indicating a
plan between two or more people to commit an illegal or nefarious act.
We can add that a conspiracy theory is an opinion or an argument. The merit of which is
solely defined by the strength or weakness of the evidence.
However, if you read Wikipedia a v ery different
definition is suggested. Suddenly conspiracy theory means an attempt to ignore other more
plausible explanations. It is a theory based upon prejudice or insufficient evidence, it
resists falsification and suffers from circular reasoning. It has left the realms of logical
deduction and become a matter of faith.
This rationale is some distance away from the dictionary and legal definitions. It relies
heavily upon opinion and is highly subjective. It is a pejorative definition which claims to be
based in science, though the scientific evidence is feeble to non
existent .
This depiction of the delusional conspiracy theorist, as described by Wikipedia, is the
popularly accepted meaning. Perhaps we can agree, the narrative we are given about alleged
conspiracy theorists broadly runs like this:
Conspiracy theorists forward arguments that are unfounded. These are based upon limited
knowledge and lack substantiating evidence. Most conspiracy theorists are simply wrong and
unwittingly spread misinformation. However, prominent conspiracy theorists spread
disinformation and have used their large followings on the Internet to create a dangerous
phenomenon called 'fake news.'
Many of those with the largest followings are agents for foreign powers. They use a global
network of trolls and bots to advance their dangerous political agenda. This is designed to
undermine our democratic way of life and valued political institutions. Therefore all
conspiracy theory is anti-democratic and must be stopped.
It is difficult to understand how democracies, which supposedly value freedom of thought,
speech and expression, can be threatened by diversity of opinion. Yet it appears many people
are willing to ignore this contradiction and support government attempts to censor information
and silence the voices of those it labels conspiracy theorist . Which is genuinely
anti-democratic.
Consequently it has become relatively straightforward for politicians and the media to
refute evidence and undermine arguments. As long as they can get the label of conspiracy theory
or theorist to stick, most people will discount their arguments without ever looking at the
evidence.
The label of conspiracy theorist is an umbrella term for a huge array of ideas and beliefs.
Some are more plausible than others. However, by calling everyone who challenges accepted norms
a "conspiracy theorist" it is possible to avoid addressing the evidence some offer by
exploiting guilt by association.
For example, many people labelled as conspiracy theorists, myself included, believe even the
most senior elected politicians are relatively low down the pecking order when it comes to
decision making. We suggest powerful global corporations, globalist think tanks and
international financial institutions often have far more control over policy development than
politicians. We can cite
academic research to back up this identification of "Biased Pluralism."
We do not believe the Earth is flat or the Queen is a lizard. However, because we believe
the former, politicians, mainstream academia and the media insist that we must also believe the
latter.
Psychology is often cited as evidence to prove conspiracy theorists are deranged, or at
least emotionally disturbed in some way. Having looked at some of this claimed science I found
it to be rather silly and
anti-scientific . But that is just my opinion.
However, unlike many of the psychologists who earn a living by writing junk science, I do
not think they should be censored nor stopped from expressing their unscientific opinions.
However, governments across the world are seemingly desperate to exploit the psychologist's
'work' to justify the silencing of the conspiracy theorists.
This desire to silence people who ask the wrong questions, by labelling all as conspiracy
theorists, has been a common theme from our elected political leaders during the first two
decades of the 21st century. But where did this idea come from?
https://www.bitchute.com/embed/8xGbF3AoZbM/
THE HISTORY OF THE CONSPIRACY THEORIST
LABEL
Conspiracy theory is nothing new. Nearly every single significant world event had at least
one contemporary conspiracy theory attached to it. These alternative interpretations of events,
which lie outside the accepted or official narratives, are found throughout history.
In 117 CE, the Roman Emperor Trajan died only two days after adopting his successor Hadrian.
All his symptoms indicated a stroke brought on by cardio vascular disease.
Yet by the 4th century, in the questionable historical text Historia Augusta , a number of conspiracy
theories surrounding Trajan's death had emerged. These included claims that Trajan had been
poisoned by Hadrian, the praetorian prefect Attianus and Trajan's wife, Plotina.
While we would call this a conspiracy theory today, the term was not commonly used until the
late 1960's. The earliest written reference to something approaching the modern concept of
conspiracy theory appeared in the 1870's in the
Journal of Mental Science vol 16 .
"The theory of Dr Sankey as to the manner in which these injuries to the chest occurred in
asylums deserved our careful attention. It was at least more plausible that the conspiracy
theory of Mr Charles Beade"
This is the first time we see an association made between "conspiracy theory" and
implausibility. Throughout most of the 19th and 20th century, if used at all, it usually
denoted little more than a rationale to expose a criminal plot or malevolent act by a
group.
After the Second World War colloquial use of "conspiracy theory" was rare. However,
academics were beginning to lay the foundations for the interpretation which has produced the
label we are familiar with today.
The burgeoning idea was that the large numbers of people who questioned official accounts of
events, or orthodox historical interpretations, were all delusional to some degree. Questioning
authority, and certainly alleging that authority was responsible for criminal acts, was deemed
to be an aberration of the mind.
Karl Popper
In 1945 The philosopher Karl Popper alluded to this in his political work The Open Society
and Its Enemies . Popper was essentially criticising historicism . He stated that historical events
were vulnerable to misinterpretation by those who were predisposed to see a conspiracy behind
them.
He argued this was because historians suffered from cognitive dissonance (the uncomfortable
psychological sensation of holding two opposing views simultaneously.) They could not accept
that tumultuous events could just happen through the combination of error and unrelated
circumstances.
In Popper's view, these historians were too quick to reject the possibility of random,
chaotic events influencing history, preferring unsubstantiated conspiratorial explanations.
Usually because they made better stories, thereby garnering more attention for their work.
Popper identified what he called the conspiracy theory of society .
This reflected Popper's belief that social sciences should concern themselves with the study of
the unintended consequences of intentional human behaviour. Speaking of the conspiracy theory
perspective, he wrote:
It is the view that an explanation of a social phenomenon consists in the discovery of the
men or groups who are interested in the occurrence of this phenomenon (sometimes it is a
hidden interest which has first to be revealed), and who have planned and conspired to bring
it about."
Popper also believed that increasing secularism had led people to ascribe power to secretive
groups rather than the gods:
The gods are abandoned. But their place is filled by powerful men or groups –
sinister pressure groups whose wickedness is responsible for all the evils we suffer from
– such as the Learned Elders of Zion, or the monopolists, or the capitalists, or the
imperialists."
Popper's theory illustrates the fundamental difference between those labelled conspiracy
theorists and those who, on the whole, defend the official narrative and the establishment. For
conspiracy theorists the evidence shows that powerful forces have frequently conspired to shape
events, control the flow of information and manipulate society. The deliberate engineering of
society, suggested by the conspiracy theorists, is rejected by their opponents and critics.
For them the conspiratorial view has some minor, limited merit, but the suggested scale and
prevalence of these plots is grossly exaggerated. They see nearly all world events as the
result of the unintentional collision between disparate forces and the random influence of
fate.
In general, they consider the powerful incapable of malice. Where disastrous national and
global events have clearly been caused by the decisions of governments, influential groups and
immensely wealthy individuals, these are invariably seen as mistakes.
Any suggestion that the power hierarchy's destructive decisions may have achieved their
intended objectives receives blanket rejection. Even asking the question is considered
"unthinkable."
For their opponents, like Popper, to reject this possibility outright, demonstrates their
cognitive dissonance. They seem unable even to contemplate the possibility that the political
and economic power structures they believe in could ever deliberately harm anyone. They have
faith in authority and it is not shared by people they label conspiracy theorists.
Following the assassination of President Kennedy in 1963 alternative explanations
proliferated, not least of all due to the apparent implausibility of the official account. Many
U.S. citizens were concerned that elements within their own government had effectively staged a
coup. Others, such as the prominent American historian Richard Hoftsadter, were more concerned
that people doubted their government.
Richard Hofstadter
Building on the work of Popper, partly as a critique of McCarthyism but also in response to
the Republican nomination loss of Nelson A. Rockefeller, American historian Richard Hofstadter
suggested that people's inability to believe what they are told by government was not based
upon their grasp of the evidence. Rather it was rooted in psychological need.
He claimed much of this stemmed from their lack of education (knowledge), political
disenfranchisement and an unjustified sense of self importance. He also suggested these
dangerous opinions threatened to pollute the body politic.
Like Popper, Hofstadter did not identify conspiracy theorists directly. But he did
formulate the
narrative underpinning the modern, widely accepted, definition. He wrote:
I call it the paranoid style simply because no other word adequately evokes the sense of
heated exaggeration, suspiciousness, and conspiratorial fantasy that I have in mind It is the
use of paranoid modes of expression by more or less normal people that makes the phenomenon
significant
[ ]
Of course, there are highbrow, lowbrow, and middlebrow paranoids, as there are likely to
be in any political tendency. But respectable paranoid literature not only starts from
certain moral commitments that can indeed be justified but also carefully and all but
obsessively accumulates "evidence." .he can accumulate evidence in order to protect his
cherished convictions.
Going to great lengths to focus on the "paranoid's" tendency to highlight the evidence, as
if that were a failing, like most critics of so-called conspiracy theorists, Hofstadter chose
neither to address nor even mention what that evidence was. He merely asserted that it was
unbelievable. The reader just had to take his word for it.
The Warren Commission Report
into the JFK assassination drew considerable criticism. The finding that Oswald acted alone
contradicted numerous eye witness accounts, film, autopsy and ballistic evidence.
Four of the seven commissioners harshly criticised the report issued in their name. Widely
seen as quite ridiculous, in the absence of any sensible official account of the assassination,
numerous explanatory theories inevitably sprang up.
Revealed by a New York Times Freedom of Information Request in 1976, the dispatch is the
first written record we have of the combination of Popper's "conspiracy theory of society" with
Hofstadter's "paranoid style" militant. It defined the modern concept of the conspiracy
theorist.
The document states:
Conspiracy theories have frequently thrown suspicion on our organization, for example by
falsely alleging that Lee Harvey Oswald worked for us. The aim of this dispatch is to provide
material countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists."
It can be considered as the origin of the weaponised term "conspiracy theory." It recommends
a set of techniques to be used to discredit all critics of the Warren Commission Report. Once
you are familiar with them, it is obvious that these strategies are commonly deployed today to
dismiss all who question official statements as "conspiracy theorists." We can paraphrase these
as follows:
Deny any new evidence offered and cite only official reports stating 'no new evidence has
emerged.'
Dismiss contradictory eyewitness statements and focus upon the existing, primary,
official evidence such as ballistics, autopsy, and photographic evidence.
Do not initiate any discussion of the evidence and suggest that large scale conspiracies
are impossible to cover up in an open and free democracy.
Accuse the conspiracy theorists of having an intellectual superiority complex.
Suggest that theorists refuse to acknowledge their own errors.
Refute any suggestion of witness assassinations by pointing out they were all deaths by
natural causes.
Question the quality of conspiracy research and point out that official sources are
better.
The report recommended making good use of "friendly elite contacts (especially politicians
and editors)" and to "employ propaganda assets to [negate] and refute the attacks of the
critics."
The CIA advocated using mainstream media feature articles to discredit people labelled
conspiracy theorists.
While the use of these methods has been refined over the years, the essential process of
labelling someone a conspiracy theorist, while studiously avoiding any discussion of the
evidence they highlight, is extremely common in the mainstream media today. We only need look
at the reports about
academics who questioned the government's narrative about COVID19 to see the techniques in
operation.
The drive to convince the public to use only "official sources" for information has seen
the rise of the fact
checker .
These organisations, invariably with the support of government and corporate funding, are
offered as the reliable sources which provide real facts. The facts they provide are frequently
wrong and the fact checking industry has settled legal claims from those who challenged their
disinformation.
People have been directed by
the mainstream media to abandon all critical thinking. They just need to go to their
government-approved fact-checker in order be told the truth.
Providing the public believe the people labelled conspiracy theorists are crazy, ill
informed or agents for a foreign powers, the mainstream media, politicians and other
commentators can undermine any and all evidence they present. In keeping with the CIA's initial
recommendations, it is extremely unlikely that the evidence will ever be openly discussed but,
if it is, it can be written off as "conspiracy theory."
However, it isn't just the mainstream media who use the conspiracy theorist label to avoid
discussing evidence. Politicians, speaking on the worlds biggest political stage, have seized
the opportunity to deploy the CIA's strategy.
THREE SPEECHES ONE AGENDA
Even for Prime Ministers and Presidents, addressing the General Assembly of the United
Nations is a big deal. These tend to be big thematic speeches as the leader impresses their
vision upon the gathered dignitaries and global media.
Yet, despite the fact that conspiracy theorists are supposed to be idiots who don't know the
time of day, global "leaders" have repeatedly used this auspicious occasion to single them out
as one of the greatest threats to global security.
In November 2001 George W. Bush addressed the United Nations General Assembly with the
following words:
We must speak the truth about terror. Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories
concerning the attacks of September the 11th; malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame
away from the terrorists, themselves, away from the guilty. To inflame ethnic hatred is to
advance the cause of terror."
Even if you accept the official account of 9/11, and there are numerous reasons why you
wouldn't, how does questioning it suggest that you support terrorism or mark you out as a
racist?
The suggestion appears absurd but it does illustrate that the U.S. president wanted both to
silence all criticism of the government account and link those questioning it to extremism and
even terrorism.
This theme was reiterated by the UK Prime Minister David Cameron in his 2014 address. He
said:
To defeat ISIL – and organisations like it we must defeat this ideology in all its
forms ..it is clear that many of them were initially influenced by preachers who claim not to
encourage violence, but whose world view can be used as a justification for it. We know this
world view. The peddling of lies: that 9/11 was a Jewish plot or that the 7/7 London attacks
were staged [ ] We must be clear: to defeat the ideology of extremism we need to deal with all
forms of extremism – not just violent extremism. We must work together to take down
illegal online material [ ] we must stop the so called non-violent extremists from inciting
hatred and intolerance.
This season we will mostly be wearing anti-fear glasses
Like Bush before him, Cameron was at pains to identify what he called non violent extremists
(commonly called conspiracy theorists). According to him, all who question government accounts
of major geopolitical events are, once again,
tantamount to terrorists .
Calling for online censorship to stop any questions ever being asked, it is this
authoritarian need to avoid addressing evidence that led his successor, Prime Minister Theresa
May, to propose wide-sweeping censorship of the Internet .
At the time of writing, the UK is among the many nations still in so called "lockdown"
following the outbreak of COVID19 . When UK Prime
Minister Boris Johnson addressed the U.N General Assembly in September 2019 he delivered a
speech which seemed
weirdly out of context . With Brexit and possible conflict with Iran high on the agenda his
address, which barely touched on those issues, was received with considerable bewilderment.
Six months later his predictive powers appear to be remarkable. It transpires that Johnson's
comments were
extremely relevant . Just six months too early.
There are today people today who are actually still anti-science [ ] A whole movement
called the anti-Vaxxers, who refuse to acknowledge the evidence that vaccinations have
eradicated smallpox [ ] And who by their prejudices are actually endangering the very
children they want to protect [ ] I am profoundly optimistic about the ability of new
technology to serve as a liberator and remake the world wondrously and benignly [ ] Together,
we can vanquish killer diseases."
Despite the wealth of scientific evidence which justifies scepticism about some vaccines ,
anti-vaxxer (a variant of conspiracy theorist ), is another label used to convince people not
to consider evidence. The assertion is that those who question vaccines all fundamentally
reject the concept of artificially inducing an immune response against a disease.
This isn't true but how would you know? The anti-vaxxer label alone is sufficient to
convince most to turn away.
Johnson's speech rambled across so many seemingly irrelevant subjects there is little reason
to suspect any COVID 19 foreknowledge. But given the global pandemic that would occur just a
few months later, it was certainly prescient. Johnson was sufficiently concerned about the
supposedly baseless questions of so called conspiracy theorists (or anti-vaxxers) to allege
they killed children. A ludicrous suggestion the mainstream media
strongly promoted .
It doesn't matter that
academic research has proven that the official account of 9/11 cannot possibly be true; it
makes no difference that Mossad agents admitted that
they had gone to New York on the morning of 9/11 to "document the event;" studies showing that
approximately 90% of the
total 20th Century disease reduction in the U.S. occurred prior to the widespread use of
vaccines are irrelevant.
None of these facts need to be known by anyone and governments are going to censor all who
try to tell others about them. All questions that reference them are crazy conspiracy theories.
They are both stupid questions and a huge threat to both national security and the safety of
the little children.
One of the recurring themes the people labelled conspiracy theorists discuss is that policy
is made behind the closed doors of corporate boardrooms and policy think tanks. It doesn't
matter who you elect or what party you choose to rule over you, they are only capable of
tinkering at the edges of the policy platform.
The policy agenda is set at a globalist level. So the fact that, over two decades, one U.S
president and two British Prime Minsters were delivering essentially the same message doesn't
surprise the conspiracy theorists.
As we move toward a world where certain ideas are forbidden and only officially approved
questions can be asked, where governments and corporations have a monopoly on the truth and
everything else is a conspiracy theory, only one thing really matters. The evidence.
Hofstadter's believed that his paranoid style militants constant citation of evidence was
merely an attempt to "protect his cherished convictions." This could be true, but the only way
to find out is to look at that evidence. The label of the conspiracy theorist has been
deliberately created in order to convince you not to look at it.
Regardless of whether or not you think someone's opinion is a conspiracy theory, you owe it
to yourself and your children to consider the evidence they cite. Perhaps you will reject it.
There's nothing wrong with that.
But to reject it, without knowing what it is, really is crazy. Your only other option is to
unquestioningly accept whatever you are told by the government, globalist think tanks,
multinational corporations and their mainstream media partners.
If you choose to believe that everyone who claims to have identified the malfeasance of
officials, the crimes of government or the corruption of powerful global institutions, are all
conspiracy theorists, then you have accepted that the establishment is beyond reproach.
If you also agree the same established hierarchy can not only determine what you can or
cannot know, but can also set all the policies and legislation which dictates your behaviour
and defines the limits of your freedom, you have elected to be a slave and don't value
democracy in the slightest.
There is a strong tendency of neoliberal MSM to call questioning any false flag operation
conducted by intelligence agencies "a conspiracy theory."
This is in its essence an attempt to call a plausible hypothesis, supported by some facts
to a be a wild rumor -- an improvised news.
The originator of the term is CIA, which invented it to discredit those who questioned
Warren commission report. This group of people were the original "conspiracy theorists".
In highly polarized society the events that one group of people calls a false flag
operation (for example, Guccifer 2.0) the other calls "conspiracy theory", no matter what
facts are preserved.
<blockquote>
the kind of plot laid out in David Talbot's The Devil's Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA,
and the Rise of America's Secret Government is at least plausible. It's reasonable to think a
secret team of intelligence officials might have carried it out
</blockquote>
Again, JFK assassination is an original and classic example of use of the term of
"conspiracy theory" to discredit opponents of the "deep state" and whitewash CIA
activities.
This was by design the main use of the term -- the discreditation of those who holds a
particular point of view harmful for the "deep state" interests.
Noni Mausa , May 28, 2020 4:44 pm
We can see another level of "conspiracy," also.
There's true conspiracy. So, Guy Fawkes and the gunpowder plot.
There's Coordination, where agents work towards a shared goal without necessarily
communicating.
And then I would include a third category- a Happy Accident Not Impeded (HANI)
How much property shifted to buyers flush with offshore cash, when hurricane Katrina
hit New Orleans? When climate researchers had been voicing warnings for years, even
decades?
The feds and the state (probably) didn't calculate that if they took no action in
seagrass, mangroves, and strategic barriers, a hurricane would shake loose many property
owners and leave them desperate to sell, or even unable to afford their property taxes
and thus forfeiting ownership. But gee, how convenient when a hurricane just happened to
sweep in and do just what had been predicted.
Each choice at local, state, and federal levels could be quite innocently justified.
And yet strangely they all leant toward one outcome.
Noni
Kwark , May 28, 2020 5:30 pm
Noni, seems like that's a feature of capitalism these days – disaster capitalism.
There's no shortage of idle rich with extra capital sitting in their hands waiting for this
sort of "opportunity".
Those are far from failures, those were successful disinformation/propaganda operations conducted with a certain goal --
remove Trump -- which demonstrate the level of intelligence agencies control of the MSM. In other words those are
parts of a bigger intelligence operation -- the color revolution against Trump led most probably by Obama and Brennan.
Now we know that Obama played an important role in Russiagate media hysteria and, most porbably, in planning and executing the
operation to entrap Flynn.
Notable quotes:
"... They are listed in reverse order, as measured by the magnitude of the embarrassment, the hysteria they generated on social media and cable news, the level of journalistic recklessness that produced them, and the amount of damage and danger they caused ..."
"... Note that all of these "errors" go only in one direction: namely, exaggerating the grave threat posed by Moscow and the Trump circle's connection to it. It's inevitable that media outlets will make mistakes on complex stories. If that's being done in good faith, one would expect the errors would be roughly 50/50 in terms of the agenda served by the false stories. That is most definitely not the case here. Just as was true in 2002 and 2003, when the media clearly wanted to exaggerate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein and thus all of its "errors" went in that direction, virtually all of its major "errors" in this story are devoted to the same agenda and script: ..."
"... Crowdstrike, the firm hired by the DNC, claimed they had evidence that Russia hacked Ukrainian artillery apps; they then retracted it . ..."
"... The U.S. media and Democrats spent six months claiming that all "17 intelligence agencies" agreed Russia was behind the hacks; the NYT finally retracted that in June, 2017: "The assessment was made by four intelligence agencies -- the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency. The assessment was not approved by all 17 organizations in the American intelligence community." ..."
"... Widespread government and media claims that accused Russian agent Maria Butina offered "sex for favors" were totally false (and scurrilous). ..."
BuzzFeed was once notorious for
traffic-generating "listicles," but has since become an impressive outlet for deep
investigative journalism under editor-in-chief Ben Smith. That outlet was prominently in the
news this week thanks to its "bombshell" story about President Trump and Michael Cohen: a story
that, like so many others of its kind,
blew up in its face , this time when the typically mute Robert Mueller's office took the
extremely rare step to
label its key claims "inaccurate."
But in homage to BuzzFeed's past viral glory, following are the top ten worst media failures
in two-plus-years of Trump/Russia reporting. They are listed in reverse order, as measured by
the magnitude of the embarrassment, the hysteria they generated on social media and cable news,
the level of journalistic recklessness that produced them, and the amount of damage and danger
they caused. This list was extremely difficult to compile in part because news outlets
(particularly CNN and MSNBC) often delete from the internet the video segments of their most
embarrassing moments. Even more challenging was the fact that the number of worthy nominees is
so large that highly meritorious entrees had to be excluded, but are acknowledged at the end
with (dis)honorable mention status.
Note that all of these "errors" go only in one direction: namely, exaggerating the grave
threat posed by Moscow and the Trump circle's connection to it. It's inevitable that media
outlets will make mistakes on complex stories. If that's being done in good faith, one would
expect the errors would be roughly 50/50 in terms of the agenda served by the false stories.
That is most definitely not the case here. Just as was true in 2002 and 2003, when the media
clearly wanted to exaggerate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein and thus all of its "errors"
went in that direction, virtually all of its major "errors" in this story are devoted to the
same agenda and script:
10. RT Hacked Into and Took Over C-SPAN (Fortune)
On June 12, 2017, Fortune claimed that RT had hacked into and taken over C-SPAN and that
C-SPAN "confirmed" it had been hacked. The whole story was false:
Holy shit. Russia state propaganda (RT) "hacked" into C-SPAN feed and took over for a good
40 seconds today? In middle of live broadcast. https://t.co/pwWYFoDGDU
9. Russian Hackers Invaded the U.S. Electricity Grid to Deny Vermonters Heat
During the Winter (WashPost)
On December 30, 2016, the Washington Post reported that "Russian hackers penetrated the U.S.
electricity grid through a utility in Vermont," causing predictable outrage and panic, along
with threats from U.S. political leaders. But then they kept diluting the story with editor's
notes – to admit that the malware was found on a laptop not connected to the U.S.
electric grid at all – until finally acknowledging, days later, that the whole story was
false, since the malware had nothing to do with Russia or with the U.S. electric grid:
Breaking: Russian hackers penetrated U.S. electricity grid through a utility in Vermont
https://t.co/LED11lL7ej
8. A New, Deranged, Anonymous Group Declares Mainstream Political Sites on the
Left and Right to be Russian Propaganda Outlets and WashPost Touts its Report to Claim Massive
Kremlin Infiltration of the Internet (WashPost)
On November 24, 2016, the Washington Post
published one of the most inflammatory, sensationalistic stories to date about Russian
infiltration into U.S. politics using social media, accusing "more than 200 websites" of being
"routine peddlers of Russian propaganda during the election season, with combined audiences of
at least 15 million Americans." It added: "stories planted or promoted by the disinformation
campaign [on Facebook] were viewed more than 213 million times."
Unfortunately for the paper, those statistics were provided by a new, anonymous group that
reached these conclusions by classifying long-time, well-known sites – from the Drudge
Report to Clinton-critical left-wing websites such as Truthout, Black Agenda Report, Truthdig,
and Naked Capitalism, as well as libertarian venues such as Antiwar.com and the Ron Paul
Institute. – as "Russian propaganda outlets," producing one of the longest Editor's Note
in memory appended to the top of the article (but
not until two weeks later , long after the story was mindlessly spread all throughout the
media ecosystem):
Russian propaganda effort helped spread fake news during election, say independent
researchers https://t.co/3ETVXWw16Q
Just want to note I hadn't heard of Propornot before the WP piece and never gave
permission to them to call Bellingcat "allies" https://t.co/jQKnWzjrBR
7. Trump Aide Anthony Scaramucci is Involved in a Russian Hedge Fund Under
Senate Investigation (CNN)
On June 22, 2017, CNN reported that Trump aide Anthony Scaramucci was involved with the
Russian Direct Investment Fund, under Senate investigation. He was not. CNN retracted the story
and forced the three reporters who published it to leave the network. 6. Russia Attacked
U.S. "Diplomats" (i.e. Spies) at the Cuban Embassy Using a Super-Sophisticated Sonic Microwave
Weapon (NBC/MSNBC/CIA)
On September 11, 2017, NBC News and MSNBC
spread all over its airwaves a claim from its notorious CIA puppet Ken Dilanian that Russia
was behind a series of dastardly attacks on U.S. personnel at the Embassy in Cuba using a sonic
or microwave weapon so sophisticated and cunning that Pentagon and CIA scientists had no idea
what to make of it.
But then teams of neurologists began calling into doubt that these personnel had suffered
any brain injuries at all – that instead they appear to have experienced collective
psychosomatic symptoms – and then biologists published findings that the "strange sounds"
the U.S. "diplomats" reported hearing were identical to those emitted by a common Caribbean
male cricket during mating season.
An @NBCNews
exclusive: After more than a year of mystery, Russia is the main suspect in the sonic attacks
that sickened 26 U.S. diplomats and intelligence officials in Cuba. @MitchellReports has the
latest. pic.twitter.com/NEI9PJ9CpD
4. Paul Manafort Visited Julian Assange Three Times in the Ecuadorian Embassy
and Nobody Noticed (Guardian/Luke Harding)
On November 27, 2018, the Guardian
published a major "bombshell" that Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort had somehow managed
to sneak inside one of the world's most surveilled buildings, the Ecuadorian Embassy in London,
and visit Julian Assange on three different occasions. Cable and online commentators
exploded.
Seven weeks later,
no other media outlet has confirmed this ; no video or photographic evidence has emerged;
the Guardian refuses to answer any questions; its leading editors have virtually gone into
hiding; other media outlets have expressed serious doubts about its veracity; and an Ecuadorian
official who worked at the embassy has called the story a complete fake:
Paul Manafort held secret talks with Julian Assange inside the Ecuadorian embassy in
London, and visited around the time he joined Trump's campaign, the Guardian has been told.
https://t.co/Fc2BVmXipk
The Guardian reports that Paul Manafort visited Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks,
the same month that Manafort joined Donald Trump's presidential campaign in 2016, a meeting
that could carry vast implications for the Russia investigation https://t.co/pYawnv4MHH
3. CNN Explicitly Lied About Lanny Davis Being Its Source – For a Story
Whose Substance Was Also False: Cohen Would Testify that Trump Knew in Advance About the Trump
Tower Meeting (CNN)
On July 27, 2018, CNN
published a blockbuster story : that Michael Cohen was prepared to tell Robert Mueller that
President Trump knew in advanced about the Trump Tower meeting. There were, however, two
problems with this story: first, CNN got caught blatantly lying when its reporters claimed that
"contacted by CNN, one of Cohen's attorneys, Lanny Davis, declined to comment" (in fact, Davis
was one of CNN's key sources, if not its only source, for this story), and second, numerous
other outlets retracted the story after the source, Davis, admitted it was a lie. CNN, however,
to this date has refused to do either: 2. Robert Mueller Possesses Internal Emails and Witness Interviews Proving Trump
Directed Cohen to Lie to Congress (BuzzFeed)
BREAKING: President Trump personally directed his longtime attorney Michael Cohen to lie
to Congress about negotiations to build a Trump Tower in Moscow in order to obscure his
involvement. https://t.co/BEoMKiDypn
The allegation that the President of the United States may have suborned perjury before
our committee in an effort to curtail the investigation and cover up his business dealings
with Russia is among the most serious to date. We will do what's necessary to find out if
it's true. https://t.co/GljBAFqOjh
Listen, if Mueller does have multiple sources confirming Trump directed Cohen to lie to
Congress, then we need to know this ASAP. Mueller shouldn't end his inquiry, but it's about
time for him to show Congress his cards before it's too late for us to act. https://t.co/ekG5VSBS8G
To those trying to parse the Mueller statement: it's a straight-up denial. Maybe Buzzfeed
can prove they are right, maybe Mueller can prove them wrong. But it's an emphatic denial
https://t.co/EI1J7XLCJe
. @Isikoff :
"There were red flags about the BuzzFeed story from the get-go." Notes it was inconsistent
with Cohen's guilty plea when he said he made false statements about Trump Tower to Congress
to be "consistent" with Trump, not at his direction. pic.twitter.com/tgDg6SNPpG
We at The Post also had riffs on the story our reporters hadn't confirmed. One noted Fox
downplayed it; another said it "if true, looks to be the most damning to date for Trump." The
industry needs to think deeply on how to cover others' reporting we can't confirm
independently. https://t.co/afzG5B8LAP
Washington Post says Mueller's denial of BuzzFeed News article is aimed at the full story:
"Mueller's denial, according to people familiar with the matter, aims to make clear that none
of those statements in the story are accurate." https://t.co/ene0yqe1mK
If you're one of the people tempted to believe the self-evidently laughable claim that
there's something "vague" or unclear about Mueller's statement, or that it just seeks to
quibble with a few semantic trivialities, read this @WashPost story about this https://t.co/0io99LyATS
pic.twitter.com/ca1TwPR3Og
You can spend hours parsing the Carr statement, but given how unusual it is for any DOJ
office to issue this sort of on the record denial, let alone this office, suspect it means
the story's core contention that they have evidence Trump told Cohen to lie is fundamentally
wrong.
New York Times throws a bit of cold water on BuzzFeed's explosive -- and now seriously
challenged -- report that Trump instructed Michael Cohen to lie to Congress: https://t.co/9N7MiHs7et
pic.twitter.com/7FJFT9D8fW
I can't speak to Buzzfeed's sourcing, but, for what it's worth, I declined to run with
parts of the narrative they conveyed based on a source central to the story repeatedly
disputing the idea that Trump directly issued orders of that kind.
1. Donald Trump Jr. Was Offered Advanced Access to the WikiLeaks Email Archive
(CNN/MSNBC)
The morning of December 9, 2017, launched
one of the most humiliating spectacles in the history of the U.S. media. With a tone so
grave and bombastic that it is impossible to overstate, CNN went on the air and announced a
major exclusive: Donald Trump, Jr. was offered by email advanced access to the trove of DNC and
Podesta emails published by WikiLeaks – meaning before those emails were made public.
Within an hour, MSNBC's Ken Dilanian, using a tone somehow even more unhinged, purported to
have "independently confirmed" this mammoth, blockbuster scoop, which, they said, would have
been the smoking gun showing collusion between the Trump campaign and WikiLeaks over the hacked
emails (while the YouTube clips have been removed, you can still watch one of the amazing MSNBC
videos
here ).
There was, alas, just one small problem with this massive, blockbuster story: it was totally
and completely false. The email which Trump, Jr. received that directed him to the WikiLeaks
archive was sent after WikiLeaks published it online for the whole world to see, not before.
Rather than some super secretive operative giving Trump, Jr. advanced access, as both CNN and
MSNBC told the public for hours they had confirmed, it was instead just some totally pedestrian
message from a random member of the public suggesting Trump, Jr. review documents the whole
world was already talking about. All of the anonymous sources CNN and MSNBC cited somehow all
got the date of the email wrong.
To date, when asked how they both could have gotten such a massive story so completely wrong
in the same way, both CNN and MSNBC have adopted the posture of the CIA by maintaining complete
silence and refusing to explain how it could possibly be that all of their "multiple,
independent sources" got the date wrong on the email in the same way, to be as incriminating
– and false – as possible. Nor, needless to say, will they identify their sources
who, in concert, fed them such inflammatory and utterly false information.
Sadly, CNN and MSNBC have deleted most traces of the most humiliating videos from the
internet, including demanding that YouTube remove copies. But enough survives to document just
what a monumental, horrifying, and utterly inexcusable debacle this was. Particularly amazing
is the clip of the CNN reporter (see below) having to admit the error for the first time, as he
awkwardly struggles to pretend that it's not the massive, horrific debacle that it so obviously
is:
Knowingly soliciting or receiving anything of value from a foreign national for campaign
purposes violates the Federal Election Campaign Act. If it's worth over $2,000 then penalties
include fines & IMPRISONMENT. @DonaldJTrumpJr may be in bigly
trouble. #FridayFeeling
https://t.co/dRz6Ph17Er
CNN is leading the way in bashing BuzzFeed but it's worth remembering CNN had a
humiliation at least as big & bad: when they yelled that Trump Jr. had advanced access to
the WL archive (!): all based on a wrong date. They removed all the segments from YouTube,
but this remains: pic.twitter.com/0jiA50aIku
ABC News' Brian Ross is fired for
reporting Trump told Flynn to make contact with Russians when he was still a candidate;
in fact, Trump did that after he won.
The New York Times claimed Manafort provided
polling data to Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska, a person "close to the Kremlin"; in fact, he
provided them to Ukrainians, not Russians.
Crowdstrike, the firm hired by the DNC, claimed they had evidence that Russia hacked
Ukrainian artillery apps;
they then retracted it .
Bloomberg and the WSJ reported Mueller subpoenaed Deustche Bank for Trump's financial
records; the NYT said
that never happened .
Rachel Maddow devoted 20 minutes at the start of her show to very melodramatically
claiming a highly sophisticated party tried to trick her by sending her a fake Top Secret
document modeled after the one published by the Intercept, and said it could only have come
from the U.S. Government (or the Intercept) since the person obtained the document before it
was published by us and thus must have had special access to it; in fact,
Maddow and NBC completely misread the metadata on the document ; the fake sent to Maddow
was created after we published the document, and was sent to her by a random member of the
public who took the document from the Intercept's site and doctored it to see if she'd fall
for an obvious scam. Maddow's entire timeline, on which her whole melodramatic conspiracy
theory rested, was fictitious.
The U.S. media and Democrats spent six months claiming that all "17 intelligence
agencies" agreed Russia was behind the hacks; the NYT finally
retracted that in June, 2017: "The assessment was made by four intelligence agencies --
the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, the
Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency. The assessment was not
approved by all 17 organizations in the American intelligence community."
AP claimed on February 2, 2018, that the Free Beacon commissioned the Steele Dossier;
they thereafter acknowledged that was false and
noted, instead: "Though the former spy, Christopher Steele, was hired by a firm that was
initially funded by the Washington Free Beacon, he did not begin work on the project until
after Democratic groups had begun funding it."
Widespread government and media claims that accused Russian agent Maria Butina offered
"sex for favors" were
totally false (and scurrilous).
After a Russian regional jet crashed on February 11, 2018, shortly after it took off from
Moscow, killing all 71 people aboard, Harvard Law Professor and frequent MSNBC contributor
Laurence Tribe
strongly implied Putin purposely caused the plane to go down in order to murder Sergei
Millian, a person vaguely linked to George Papadopoulos and Jared Kushner; in fact, Millian
was not on the plane nor, to date, has anyone claimed they had any evidence that Putin
ordered his own country's civilian passenger jet brought down.
Chancellor Angela Merkel that stupid? "Chancellor Angela Merkel used strong words on Wednesday condemning an "outrageous"
cyberattack by Russia's foreign intelligence service on the German Parliament, her personal
email account included. Russia, she said, was pursuing "a strategy of hybrid warfare."
Notable quotes:
"... That alleged attack happened in 2015. The attribution to Russia is as shoddy as all attributions of cyberattacks are. ..."
"... Intelligence officials had long suspected Russian operatives were behind the attack, but they took five years to collect the evidence, which was presented in a report given to Ms. Merkel's office just last week. ..."
"... This is really funny because we recently learned that the company which investigated the alleged DNC intrusion, CrowdStrike, had found no evidence , as in zero, that a Russian hacker group had targeted the DNC or that DNC emails were exfiltrated over the Internet: ..."
"... CrowdStrike, the private cyber-security firm that first accused Russia of hacking Democratic Party emails and served as a critical source for U.S. intelligence officials in the years-long Trump-Russia probe, acknowledged to Congress more than two years ago that it had no concrete evidence that Russian hackers stole emails from the Democratic National Committee's server. ..."
"... The DNC emails were most likely stolen by its local network administrator, Seth Rich , who provided them to Wikileaks before he was killed in a suspicious 'robbery' during which nothing was taken. ..."
"... The whole attribution of case of the stolen DNC emails to Russia is based on exactly nothing but intelligence rumors and CrowdStrike claims for which it had no evidence. As there is no evidence at all that the DNC was attacked by a Russian cybergroup what does that mean for the attribution of the attack on the German Bundestag to the very same group? ..."
The New York Times continues its anti-Russia campaign with a report about an old
cyberattack on German parliament which also targeted the parliament office of Chancellor Angela
Merkel.
Chancellor Angela Merkel used strong words on Wednesday condemning an "outrageous"
cyberattack by Russia's foreign intelligence service on the German Parliament, her personal
email account included. Russia, she said, was pursuing "a strategy of hybrid warfare."
But asked how Berlin intended to deal with recent revelations implicating the Russians,
Ms. Merkel was less forthcoming.
"We always reserve the right to take measures," she said in Parliament, then immediately
added, "Nevertheless, I will continue to strive for a good relationship with Russia, because
I believe that there is every reason to always continue these diplomatic efforts."
That alleged attack happened in 2015. The attribution to Russia is as shoddy as all
attributions of cyberattacks are.
Intelligence officials had long suspected Russian operatives were behind the attack, but they
took five years to collect the evidence, which was presented in a report given to Ms.
Merkel's office just last week.
Officials say the report traced the attack to the same Russian hacker group that targeted
the Democratic Party during the U.S. presidential election campaign in 2016.
This is really funny because we recently learned that the company which investigated the
alleged DNC intrusion, CrowdStrike,
had found no evidence , as in zero, that a Russian hacker group had targeted the DNC or
that DNC emails were exfiltrated over the Internet:
CrowdStrike, the private cyber-security firm that first accused Russia of hacking Democratic
Party emails and served as a critical source for U.S. intelligence officials in the
years-long Trump-Russia probe, acknowledged to Congress more than two years ago that it had
no concrete evidence that Russian hackers stole emails from the Democratic National
Committee's server.
...
[CrowdStrike President Shawn] Henry personally led the remediation and forensics analysis of
the DNC server after being warned of a breach in late April 2016; his work was paid for by
the DNC, which refused to turn over its server to the FBI. Asked for the date when alleged
Russian hackers stole data from the DNC server, Henry testified that CrowdStrike did not in
fact know if such a theft occurred at all : "We did not have concrete evidence that the data
was exfiltrated [moved electronically] from the DNC, but we have indicators that it was
exfiltrated," Henry said.
The DNC emails were most likely stolen by its local network administrator, Seth Rich , who provided
them to Wikileaks before he was killed in a suspicious 'robbery' during which nothing was
taken.
The whole attribution of case of the stolen DNC emails to Russia is based on exactly nothing
but intelligence rumors and CrowdStrike claims for which it had no evidence. As there is no
evidence at all that the DNC was attacked by a Russian cybergroup what does that mean for the
attribution of the attack on the German Bundestag to the very same group?
While the NYT also mentions that NSA actually snooped on Merkel's private phonecalls
it tries to keep the spotlight on Russia:
As such, Germany's democracy has been a target of very different kinds of Russian
intelligence operations, officials say. In December 2016, 900,000 Germans lost access to
internet and telephone services following a cyberattack traced to Russia.
That mass attack on internet home routers, which by the way happened in November 2016 not in
December, was done with the Mirai
worm :
More than 900,000 customers of German ISP Deutsche Telekom (DT) were knocked offline this
week after their Internet routers got infected by a new variant of a computer worm known as
Mirai. The malware wriggled inside the routers via a newly discovered vulnerability in a
feature that allows ISPs to remotely upgrade the firmware on the devices. But the new Mirai
malware turns that feature off once it infests a device, complicating DT's cleanup and
restoration efforts.
...
This new variant of Mirai builds on malware
source code released at the end of September . That leak came a little more a week after
a botnet based on Mirai was used in a record-sized
attack that caused KrebsOnSecurity to go offline for several
days . Since then, dozens of new Mirai botnets have emerged , all
competing for a finite pool of vulnerable IoT systems that can be infected.
The attack has not been attributed to Russia but to a British man who offered attacks as a
service.
He was arrested in February 2017:
A 29-year-old man has been arrested at Luton airport by the UK's National Crime Agency (NCA)
in connection with a massive internet attack that disrupted telephone, television and
internet services in Germany last November. As regular readers of We Live Security will
recall, over 900,000 Deutsche Telekom broadband customers were knocked offline last November
as an alleged attempt was made to hijack their routers into a destructive botnet.
...
The NCA arrested the British man under a European Arrest Warrant issued by Germany's Federal
Criminal Police Office (BKA) who have described the attack as a threat to Germany's national
communication infrastructure.
According to German prosecutors, the British man allegedly offered to sell access to the
botnet on the computer underground. Agencies are planning to extradite the man to Germany,
where – if convicted – he could face up to ten years imprisonment.
During the trial, Daniel admitted that he never intended for the routers to cease
functioning. He only wanted to silently control them so he can use them as part of a DDoS
botnet to increase his botnet firepower. As discussed earlier he also confessed being paid by
competitors to takedown Lonestar.
In Aug 2017 Daniel was
extradited back to the UK to face extortion charges after attempting to blackmail Lloyds
and Barclays banks. According to press reports, he asked the Lloyds to pay about
£75,000 in bitcoins for the attack to be called off.
The Mirai attack is widely known to have been attributed to Kaye. The case has been
discussed
at length . IT security journalist Brian Krebs, who's site was also attacked by a Mirai bot
net, has written several
stories about it. It was never 'traced to Russia' or attributed it to anyone else but Daniel
Kaye.
Besides that Kennhold writes of "Russia's foreign intelligence service, known as the
G.R.U.". The real Russian foreign intelligence services is the SVR. The military intelligence
agency of Russia was once called GRU but has been renamed to GU.
The New York Times just made up the claim about Russia hacking in Germany from
absolutely nothing. The whole piece was published without even the most basic research and fact
checking.
It seems that for the Times anything can be blamed on Russia completely independent
of what the actually facts say.
Posted by b on May 14, 2020 at 14:38 UTC |
Permalink
Along the same lines, it always bothered me that among all the (mostly contrived)
arguments about who might have been responsible for the alleged "hacking" of DNC as well as
Clinton's emails, we never heard mentioned one single time the one third party that we
absolutely KNOW had intercepted and collected all of those emails--the NSA! Never a peep
about how US intelligence services could be tempted to mischief when in possession of
everyone's sensitive, personal information.
The "Fancy Bear" group (also knowns as advanced persistent threat 28) that is claimed to be
behind the hacks is likely little more than the collection of hacking tools shared on the
open and hidden parts of RuNet or Russian-speaking Internet. Many of these Russian-speaking
hackers are
actually Ukrainians .
Some of the Russian hackers also worked for the FSB, like the members of Shaltai
Boltai group that were later arrested for treason. George Eliason claims Shaltai Boltai
actually worked for Ukrainians. For a short version of the story read this:
Cyberanalyst George Eliason has written some intriguing blogs recently claiming that the
"Fancy Bear" which hacked the DNC server in mid-2016 was in fact a branch of Ukrainian
intelligence linked to the Atlantic Council and Crowdstrike. I invite you to have a go at
one of his recent essays...
Patrick
Armstrong , May 14 2020 15:27 utc |
3 Wow! You've done it again. I was just writing my Sitrep and thinking what an amazing
coincidence it is that, just as the Russian pipelaying ship arrived to finish Nord Stream,
Merkel is told that them nasty Russkies are doing nasty things. I come here and you've
already solved it. Yet another scoop. Congratulations.
The NYT has removed that sentence about the attack on internet/phone access:
"Correction: May 14, 2020
An earlier version of this article incorrectly attributed responsibility for a 2016
cyberattack in which 900,000 Germans lost access to internet and telephone services. The
attack was carried out by a British citizen, not Russia. The article also misstated when the
attack took place. It was in November, not December. The sentence has been removed from the
article. "
From this we can learn that anything can be blamed by MSM, completely independent of what the
facts are. It is not limited to allegations related to Russia or China, but any and all
claims by MSM that have no direct reference to provable fact.
great coverage b... thank you... facts don't matter.. what matters is taking down any
positive image of russia, or better - putting up a constantly negative one... of this the
intel and usa msm are consistent... the sad reality is a lot of people will believe this
bullshit too...
i was just reading paul robinsons blog last night -
#DEMOCRACY RIP AND THE NARCISSISM OF RUSSIAGATE .. even paul is starting to getting
pissed off on the insanity of the media towards russia which is rare from what i have read
from him!
@ 3 patrick armstrong.. keep up the good work!! thanks for your work..
There is already a correction made to the DT attack - someone reads MofA! Shame they don't
get more of their new interpretation form here.
Whole piece reads here like it started as a Merkel gets close to Russia piece, shown
around to colleagues and politicians for feedback, and a ton of fake "why Merkel actually
hates the Russians" nonsense was added in.
After all pretty much everyone has tapped Merkel's phone by now.
Posted by: Duncan Idaho | May 12 2020 21:51 utc | 179 People feel safer if they believe Covid
was made in a lab--
That it is a natural occurring virus is a bit unsettling, and underscores the futility of
living in an emergent and evolving world.
Good point. It's interesting that people need conspiracies in order to feel that *someone*
is in control, rather than everything just being chaos.
On the other hand, people rarely believe that the people above them in the social
hierarchy engage in conspiracies. I read something years ago. Some author attended a
conference of business leaders in some industry. He asked them if they thought the executives
in their industry engaged in collusion or conspiracy. They all said, "sure". He then asked
them if they thought the senior people in politics in the country engaged in conspiracy. None
of them believed that. He speculated that it would be unsettling to people to believe that
the people who *rule them* are corrupt and conspiratorial even though they know that *they*
are corrupt and conspiratorial.
For the people who view themselves as "rabble rousers", however, it suits them to believe
that they can *influence* history, so having everything being a conspiracy just means that
they might somehow become such a "conspiracy" and defeat the conspiracy they don't like.
However, as I commented above, unless you're willing (and able, meaning you have the
skills and resources) to *kill* the conspirators, one is unlikely to be able to "change
history." How likely is it that any of these people will ever have the influence of a Martin
Luther, or a Ghandi - or Hitler? They're not likely to be that lucky.
It's like what a pick-up artist I watched on Youtube pointed out about hot women who have
a choice between working for a living at a normal job or trying to be a model or actress.
Given the actual - few - numbers of available "success slots" in either profession, the odds
of being successful are pretty low. One has millions of competitors in those fields trying to
be on the top.
The same limitation applies to "influencers". This is why we see everyone flocking to
Youtube to flog whatever they're interested in. And the ones who manage to get a couple
million "followers" end up being feted as if they were "genuine" successes. Some of those
people, of course, do put out useful information. A lot of them, however, are on par with a
character like Paris Hilton - superficial, irrelevant. It's like celebrity worship and the
worship of the British Royal family in general.
And that's all based on the subconscious notion that the more you're "visible" to the rest
of the world, somehow the more "life" you get awarded from "the gods." Or at least the more
you can get in terms of finances and survival chances. Everything boils down to the fear of
death - and lack of social influence threatens ostracism, which in ancient times was the
equivalent of death, being cast out of the tribe.
That's probably even why most of us post on blogs. LOL It's certainly why the trolls post
here.
It's better to focus on one's individual survival options in a rational way, rather than
trying to "roll the dice" and hope to somehow get ahead of the rest of the pack. It's better
to be Harry Harrison's "Stainless Steel Rat" (a well-known series of sci-fi novels about a
criminal who manages to get along in a future "crime-proof" society.) Who knows? Enough "rats
in the wainscotting" might cause the system to fall.
There are times when the whole history of the world seems to me just one long shipwreck;
all that matters is to save oneself. - Henrik Ibsen
MSM now run under control of intelligence agencies and use State Department of Foreign Office talking points, much like in the USSR, where this role was played by communist Party
Notable quotes:
"... Part of the problem is that newspapers have morphed into viewspapers. The distinction between reporting and comment has been blurred. Back in the 70s, leading publications only had one comment piece and an editorial. Their pages were packed with news items, with stories reported factually and without a 'bent'. ..."
"... Today, comment has taken over, but while there's no shortage of 'opinion', most of it is saying very much the same thing. I think we first saw this phenomenon in the lead up to the Iraq War. I was one of the very few mainstream commentators who ridiculed the claim that Iraq had WMDs. It was obvious to me that if the leaders of the UK and US genuinely believed Saddam possessed these terrible weapons, they wouldn't be planning to do the one thing which would provoke the Iraqi leader into using them, i.e. invade his country. Yet the Great WMDs Hoax, which a child of five could see through, was promoted by nearly all 'serious' journalists. The most vociferous media cheerleaders for the invasion faced no professional blowback, on the contrary, their careers have flourished. ..."
Trust in the written press in Britain is the lowest in 33 European countries. That's hardly surprising seeing how so many journalists
have become mere stenographers for, or lackeys of, the Establishment power elites. Just when you think the reputation of the UK media
couldn't sink any lower, it just did. An annual survey undertaken by EurobarometerEU, across 33 countries, puts the UK at the bottom,
with a net trust of -60. Yes that's right, minus 60 . It's a fall of 24 points since last year. Just 15 percent of Brits trust
their print media. But it's not the only survey showing a similar trend.
The attached graphic about trust in the written press, published last week, has not been widely reported in Britain. This is
a huge annual survey by @EurobarometerEU
across 33 countries. It's the ninth year out of the past ten that the UK has been last. We have a problem.
pic.twitter.com/8eYoQR7XZw
Newspapers came in rock bottom (with a rating of -50) in a YouGov poll on Sky where the question was asked, "How much do you
trust the following on Coronavirus?" And in case you think it's only the Sun we're talking about here, another poll showed that
distrust of so-called 'upmarket' papers was running at 52 percent.
How did we get here? I've got a collection of old newspapers and magazines dating back several decades. Part of the problem
is that newspapers have morphed into viewspapers. The distinction between reporting and comment has been blurred. Back in the 70s,
leading publications only had one comment piece and an editorial. Their pages were packed with news items, with stories reported
factually and without a 'bent'.
Today, comment has taken over, but while there's no shortage of 'opinion', most of it is saying very much the same thing.
I think we first saw this phenomenon in the lead up to the Iraq War. I was one of the very few mainstream commentators who ridiculed
the claim that Iraq had WMDs. It was obvious to me that if the leaders of the UK and US genuinely believed Saddam possessed these
terrible weapons, they wouldn't be planning to do the one thing which would provoke the Iraqi leader into using them, i.e. invade
his country. Yet the Great WMDs Hoax, which a child of five could see through, was promoted by nearly all 'serious' journalists.
The most vociferous media cheerleaders for the invasion faced no professional blowback, on the contrary, their careers have flourished.
As bad as the Iraq War propaganda was, things have got even worse since then. Obnoxious gatekeepers have ensured that the parameters
of what can and can't be said in print have narrowed still further.
In the mid-Noughties, I was writing regularly in the UK mainstream print media. So too was John Pilger. Our articles were popular
with readers, but not with the gatekeepers. When I
wrote a balanced, alternative
view on Belarus for the New Statesman in 2011, I came under fierce gatekeeper attack.
I forgot that on Belarus and many other issues, only one point of view was allowed. Silly me.
Only one thing can save UK print press
Today, the lack of diversity of opinion is one of the reasons why newspaper sales have crashed – (sales have
slumped by two-thirds in the past 20 years), and conversely why 'alternative' sites, and media outlets where a wide range of
opinions ARE heard have done so well. Who wants to pay money for a paper when the political views published in it range from pro-war
centrist-left, to pro-war centrist-right?
If there was a single newspaper or magazine column which examined forensically whether Labour really did have an anti-Semitism
'crisis' under Jeremy Corbyn, I must have missed it.
And apart from Mary Dejevsky in the i paper, where was the journalism examining the many inconsistencies in the official narrative
of the Skripal case? Why has 'Private Eye', which bills itself as 'anti-Establishment', not covered the ongoing Philip Cross Wikipedia
editing scandal ?
I'm sure the old 'Eye' of Richard Ingrams and Bron Waugh would have if Wikipedia had been around then.
And what about the Covid-19 coverage? Has any journalist asked the very simple question: if the virus is as bad as the government
says it is, and a domestic lockdown is necessary to stop its spread, why have flights continued to come into the country (including
from virus hotspots) unchecked?
Don't get me wrong, there are still some good columnists out there, but sadly you can count them on one hand.
The only thing that can save UK print media from total collapse is if there is a large-scale clear-out of the faux-left/neocon-dominated
commentariat and their replacement by writers who actually address the issues that readers are interested in. Newspapers used to
be published for their readers, now it seems most are published for people who write for other newspapers – and to enable 'Inside
the Tenters' to congratulate each other for their 'brilliant' articles on Twitter.
The smug, mutual back-slapping nonsense, seen at its worst at journalist 'award' ceremonies, has gone on for too long. We need
more old-style chain-smoking journos, not frightened of telling truth to power – and less smoke and mirrors.
Trust in British print media can be restored, but only if we go back to the future.
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those
of RT.
Neil Clark is a journalist, writer, broadcaster and blogger. His award winning blog can be found at www.neilclark66.blogspot.com.
He tweets on politics and world affairs @NeilClark66 is a journalist,
writer, broadcaster and blogger. His award winning blog can be found at www.neilclark66.blogspot.com. He tweets on politics and world
affairs @NeilClark66 6 May, 2020 17:39
Get short URL
The word conspiracy was invented to label anyone who questions or challenges falsehood based
on facts. These people operate by way of deception. We are all born with inner concious but
some of us end up selling our souls to gain worldly benefits. The Creator of Heavens and
Earth warns us not to sell our souls at the expense of hereafter. Unfortunately, many do not
believe in the Creator of heavens and Earth, Judgement day or Hell and Heaven so they
continue living their lives of deceit and lies despite the facts all around them.
We've been involved with the Cabinet Office Rapid Response Unit, with our 77th Brigade
helping to quash rumours from misinformation, but also to counter disinformation. Between
three and four thousand of our people have been involved, with around twenty thousand
available the whole time at high readiness.
To understand the implications of this statement, we have to go back to 2018, when Carter
gave a speech to the Royal United Services Institute.
"In our 77th Brigade," he said, "... we have got some remarkable talent when it comes to
social media, production design, and indeed Arabic poetry. Those sorts of skills we can't
afford to retain in the Regular component but they are the means of us delivering capability
in a much more imaginative way than we might have been able to do in the past."
77th Brigade
Previously known as the 'Security Assistance Group', 77th Brigade was stood up in 2015 as
part of ' Army
2020 '. The Security Assistance Group had been established following the amalgamation of
the Media Operations Group, 15 Psychological Operations Group, Security Capacity Building Team,
and the Military Stabilisation and Support Group.
77th Brigade is described
on their website as being about 'information and outreach'. But what does that mean?
General Carter again:
We also, though, need to continue to improve our ability to fight on this new battlefield,
and I think it's important that we build on the excellent foundation we've created for
Information Warfare through our 77th Brigade, which is now giving us the capability to
compete in the war of narratives at the tactical level. [Emphasis mine]
It is in this context, then, that Carter's words from last week's livestream should be
viewed. Carter has acknowledged that the British military is waging war on a section of its own
population.
'Rapid Response Unit'
Carter mentioned working with the Cabinet Office's ' Rapid Response Unit '. Established in
April 2018 and also known as the 'fake news unit', the Rapid Response Unit was given an initial
six months' funding. It brought together a "team of analysts, data scientists and media and
digital experts," armed with cutting-edge software, to "work round the clock to monitor online
breaking news stories and social media discussion."
According to the RRU's head, Alex Aiken:
The unit's round the clock monitoring service has identified several stories of concern
during the pilot, ranging from the chemical weapons attack in Syria to domestic stories
relating to the NHS and crime.
For example, following the Syria airstrikes, the unit identified that a number of false
narratives from alternative news sources were gaining traction online. These "alt-news"
sources are biased and rely on sensationalism rather than facts to pique readers'
interest.
Due to the way that search engine algorithms work, when people searched for information on
the strikes, these unreliable sources were appearing above official UK government
information. In fact, no government information was appearing on the first 15 pages of Google
results. We know that search is an excellent indicator of intention. It can reflect bias in
information received from elsewhere.
The unit therefore ensured those using search terms that indicated bias – such as
'false flag' – were presented with factual information on the UK's response. The RRU
improved the ranking from below 200 to number 1 within a matter of hours.
The Rapid Response Unit was given permanent funding in February 2019 .
Three months following the establishment of the Rapid Response Unit, Theresa May attended
the G7 summit in Quebec, Canada.
There she announced the establishment of "a new Rapid Response Mechanism ", following
Britain's proposal for "a new, more formalised approach to tackling foreign interference across
the G7" at the G7 Foreign Minister's meeting the previous month.
The agreement sends "a strong message that interference by Russia and other foreign states
would not be tolerated," she said.
"The Rapid Response Mechanism," she continued, "will support preventative and protective
cooperation between G7 countries, as well as post-incident responses", including:
Co-ordinated attribution of hostile activity
Joint work to assert a common narrative and response
The UK government's Rapid Response, then, is to create international agreement on a common
narrative (via the 'mechanism'), and then wage an information war on its own people to make
sure that narrative is protected in the media (via the 'unit').
Fusion
During Carter's 2018 RUSI speech, he explained the role of the mainstream press in "setting
up a well-informed public debate". He spoke about "political warfare" being war by other means,
and he said that winning that war would require a "fusion" approach.
Here, he is referring to the Fusion Doctrine, which was launched during the Theresa May
regime, as part of the 2015
National Security Capability Review .
"Many capabilities," it said, "that can contribute to national security lie outside
traditional national security departments and so we need stronger partnerships across
government and with the private and third sectors."
It should come as no surprise, then, that the Cabinet Office's Rapid Response Unit is not
only working with the military's 77th Brigade, but is "
leading on the 'rebuttal of false narratives' as part of the unit [that also] involves the
Home Office, DCMS, Number 10 and other agencies."
The Corona-Narrative
General Carter said his 77th Brigade is "helping to quash rumours from misinformation, but
also to counter disinformation."
What misinformation and disinformation is 77th Brigade helping to quash? How much of the '
disinformation ' originates from
77th Brigade in the first place?
'Monitoring and evaluating the information environment within boundaries or operational
area'
They not only 'counter' disinformation, but also watch social media, analysing how
disinformation, including their own, spreads; mapping the internet and the networks of people
sharing content between each other.
And for that, they have thousands deployed, and tens of thousands in reserve, not only in
77th Brigade directly, but right across government and the third sector.
"The mainstream media was falling into a pattern of groupthink on issue after issue,
often ignoring important factual information because it didn't fit with what all the Important
People knew to be true,"wrote
Parry in 2015 .
"Looking back over the past two decades," he continued, "I wish I could say that
the media trend that we detected in the mid-1990s had been reversed. But, if anything, it's
grown worse. The major Western news outlets now conflate the discrete difficulties from made-up
'fake news' and baseless 'conspiracy theories' with responsible dissenting analyses. All get
thrown into the same pot and
subjected to disdain and ridicule."
Such was the tactic used to make Parry himself look like a kook, when he shed light on
Iran/contra and the "October surprise," just as it was used in the mid-Nineties to demolish
Gary Webb, the investigative journalist who broke the story of the CIA's drug smuggling out of
Nicaragua.
By then the tactic had been used successfully for roughly thirty years, after the CIA, in
its Memo #1035-960, first weaponized the phrase "conspiracy theory" to discredit critics of the
Warren Report.
By the time Parry founded Consortium News -- as George Seldes (in 1940) and I.F. Stone (in
1953) had founded their respective antidotes to the propaganda gushing from the US press --
"conspiracy theory" had been absorbed into the hearts and minds of everybody in the US and
beyond, so that most people felt -- and feel -- that they must distrust their own quite
rational suspicions of elite attempts to rob them of their rights and freedoms, as if the very
notion of such covert class warfare, waged by Them against the rest of us, is absolutely crazy
on its face.
That is a very dangerous idea, as it has largely incapacitated We the People, by giving them
a sentimental misimpression of executive authority, so that they often can't believe our
government would do the things it's actually, demonstrably, been doing to the rest of us, and
peoples all over the world, for decades.
From the assassinations of our most beloved leaders, to the initiation, and protraction, of
gratuitous wars and rightist coups abroad, to the orchestration of horrific terrorist attacks
on our own soil, to the stealing of elections everywhere (including here), to the harassment
and imprisonment of whistle-blowers and other activists, to the shattering experiments in mind
control inflicted on prisoners, mental patients, students and other helpless people, to the
routine approval of drugs and vaccines that do lasting harm, and even kill; and so on.
Those independent outlets bold enough to tell the awful truths that all the other media
ridicule as lunacy are few and far between; and Robert Parry's was among the best of them.
The way I see it, conspiracy theory is "anything that contradicts the MSM propaganda -
unless that conspiracy theory has been propagated by the MSM itself". Moon of Alabama, and by
implication it's posters, have been cynically smeared by bought-and-paid-for shills like
propornot.com. Ironic you talk about qAnon, which is just another MSM conspiracy theory,
false flag or unicorn - take your pick.
The clandestine cooperation between Western intelligence services and the media has been
known for decades and is well documented. The following case shows just how closely and
comprehensively even leading European journalists have been cooperating with secret services
such as the CIA. [...]
It is essential for men of science to take an interest in the administration of their own
affairs or else the professional civil servant will step in -- and then the Lord help you.
Rutherford
Notable quotes:
"... The Mockingbird mass media tools have something far more important: Duty to an empire that is staggering from crises. The pandemic isn't even the greatest of the crises that is bedeviling the empire. Even the financial meltdown is just one of the biggies. A particularly insidious crisis growing in the West is the Mockingbird mass media losing control of the narratives needed to maintain empire. This leaves the media tools desperate, almost frantic, in their narrative spinning. ..."
The year that Rutherford died (1938 [sic]) there disappeared forever the happy days of
free scientific work which gave us such delight in our youth. Science has lost her freedom.
Science has become a productive force. She has become rich but she has become enslaved and
part of her is veiled in secrecy. I do not know whether Rutherford would continue to joke and
laugh as he used to.
"These media and these experts, both enamored of objectivity and
impartiality, have they a conscience ? Do they have ethics ?" --Chinese Ambassador quoted
and translated by Peter AU1 @152
The Mockingbird mass media tools have something far more important: Duty to an empire
that is staggering from crises. The pandemic isn't even the greatest of the crises that is
bedeviling the empire. Even the financial meltdown is just one of the biggies. A particularly
insidious crisis growing in the West is the Mockingbird mass media losing control of the
narratives needed to maintain empire. This leaves the media tools desperate, almost frantic,
in their narrative spinning.
By the way, everyone knows that Stephen Hawking was a guest at Epstein's Island, right? In
fact, a large number of notable scientists had been guests there. Now why would the CIA want
blackmail material on top scientists and "experts" ? Well, I guess that even though
scientists will naturally feel obligation to their benefactors' empire, their tendency to
prioritize truth might at times be inconvenient.
Of course we should be search for intelligence assets under each bed. But Bernie in retrospect does look like a second rate
preacher who was controlled or whom campaign was infiltrated by intelligence agencies having completely different agenda and pushing
him to self-destruct. His approval of Russiagate tells you everything you need to knoww about him: a sheep dog on a mission.
Notable quotes:
"... Tulsi exposed Kamala as not only lacking scruples, but also as weak and easily flustered. The [Intelligence] Man right then and there understood that with Tulsi, the revolution might NOT be televised . ..."
"... Bernie and his campaign then inexplicably began to help The [Intelligence] Man by embracing the negative branding being pushed onto Bernie and his campaign. What about Cuba, huh Bernie? The [Intelligence] Man 's puppets asked. Nice guys! Said Bernie and his people. Well, what about Socialism, huh Bernie? Socialism is Awesome! Bernie and his people said. And with that, The [Intelligence] Man knew he had won. ..."
"... Was Bernie following the advice of people secretly working for The [Intelligence] Man ? It sure looked like that ..."
"... Bernie's campaign should have stuck to his working-class New Deal branding. Instead, many of his leading surrogates had their own social conditioning agendas. An example of that elitist liberal mindset is with Hillary Clinton's basket of deplorables comment. ..."
"... That mentality from a political surrogate is poison to a campaign. Voters dislike politicians who scold them. Which is why so many of those types of Bernie surrogates are also known for being liberal interventionists. They scolded people who were against invading and bombing countries "for their own good." They called people traitors for not supporting their demands for regime-change wars in the Middle East and elsewhere. ..."
Before the loss of momentum on Super Tuesday the mounting enthusiasm among Berniecrats was palpable. Was Gil Scott-Heron wrong,
was the revolution going to be televised?
Tulsicrats already knew the revolution would not be televised. Tulsi Gabbard took down The [Intelligence] Man 's #1 choice
to lead Amerika, and that was televised live to the world. Kamala Harris had the
full backing of the Clinton/neocon foreign policy establishment . Tulsi exposed Kamala as not only lacking scruples, but
also as weak and easily flustered. The [Intelligence] Man right then and there understood that with Tulsi, the revolution might NOT
be televised .
After seeing the revolution begin to be televised, The [Intelligence] Man went after Tulsi will all the ferocity
that The [Intelligence] Man 's media/political machine could muster by inundating America 24/7 with:
Tulsi Gabbard works for Putin, she's a nazi, a fascist, a monster and (gasp) a Republican!
The [Intelligence] Man even
got some "Berniecrats" to smear
Tulsi . To make sure the revolution will not be televised The [Intelligence] Man then deplatformed Tulsi from televised
town halls, televised debates, and televised news.
The [Intelligence] Man then saw Bernie Sanders gaining momentum over the crowded field of candidates. The [Intelligence]
Man knew from seeing Tulsi in the debates that the revolution could be televised , but, The [Intelligence] Man
also knew he couldn't deplatform a front runner like Bernie. The [Intelligence] Man 's choice moving forward was simple
and obvious to calculate. Americans needed to learn that Bernie's economic plan to help the working class -- was in reality a communist
plot.
The [Intelligence] Man 's media/political machine went into overdrive to tell Americans that Bernie Sanders is an incarnation
of Karl Marx, of Mao and Stalin, of Venezuelan poverty, of Cuban totalitarianism, of all things Un-American. Just because Tulsi had
shown that the revolution could be televised .
Bernie and his campaign then inexplicably began to help The [Intelligence] Man by embracing the negative branding
being pushed onto Bernie and his campaign. What about Cuba, huh Bernie? The [Intelligence] Man 's puppets asked. Nice guys!
Said Bernie and his people. Well, what about Socialism, huh Bernie? Socialism is Awesome! Bernie and his people said. And with that, The [Intelligence] Man knew he had won.
The revolution will not be televised . The Bernie Sanders campaign didn't know how to relate to the average middle class
American. Why did they embrace The [Intelligence] Man 's negative branding? Did they believe they could easily change the
average American's attitude towards communism and socialism because like The Blues Brothers, they're on a mission from God?
Was Bernie following the advice of people secretly working for The [Intelligence] Man ? It sure looked like that.
Couldn't he see that by embracing being branded as The Socialist Savior™ it would ensure their campaign was doomed? Wasn't it obvious
that The [Intelligence] Man 's media/political machine would work 24/7 to convince Americans that Bernie Sanders is a communist
if he accepted the socialist branding? The [Intelligence] Man 's plan was simple and obvious -- repeat to people over and
over every single day that socialism=communism. That socialism=taking your money away. That socialism=making America a failed state.
That socialism=totalitarianism. The tactic to brand Bernie as a communist, as an enemy of the freedom loving American people, was
obvious to everyone in politics. Except to the people running Bernie's campaign. It seems they had no qualms with socialist branding.
The Sanders campaign embraced the socialism™ brand instead of fighting it. They embraced woke branding as well. Didn't they know
that the African American community are to a great extent devout Christians? Their vote was needed to have any chance of winning
the primary. Using a lot of political energy on promoting Identity politics may be popular with college kids and liberal elites,
but that worldview typically runs counter to the Bible based morality believed in by so many in the African American community. Devout
people don't like to be told there is something wrong with them if they believe in scriptural authority. And woke politics is nothing
if not a subjective exercise in didactic moralizing. So the revolution will not be televised.
Bernie's campaign should have stuck to his working-class New Deal branding. Instead, many of his leading surrogates had their
own social conditioning agendas. An example of that
elitist liberal mindset is with Hillary Clinton's basket of deplorables comment. Did anyone ask why she felt confidant enough
in that liberal upper-class environment to say that? She was playing to a crowd she was intimate with. She knew they had the same
type of liberal elitist views as her own. Which are a woke version of the attitude of Professor Henry Higgins towards the Eliza Doolittles
of the working class -- as in this video:
That mentality from a political surrogate is poison to a campaign. Voters dislike politicians who scold them. Which is why so
many of those types of Bernie surrogates are also known for being liberal interventionists. They scolded people who were against
invading and bombing countries "for their own good." They called people traitors for not supporting their demands for regime-change
wars in the Middle East and elsewhere. So the revolution will not be televised.
That let-them-eat-cake liberal upper-class attitude gets people killed. And not only in interventionist regime-change wars.
You see almost all liberal elites in America supporting harsh economic sanctions against countries who voted for the wrong type of
leader. Those leaders who nationalize natural resources instead of letting American and European corporations control them, tend
to find themselves all of a sudden being labeled dictators and drug kingpins. They find themselves all of a sudden fighting for their
lives against an opposition armed to the teeth. They see the liberal elite in America going all in for sanctions against their countries
which leaves their economies in tatters. For example, Trump's sanctions and coups against numerous leftist governments in Latin America
are supported by
the liberal elites . So the revolution will not be televised.
Bernie's surrogates who push their own pet social agendas in order to "educate" Americans lead people to feel like they are trying
to convert them to a religious cause. What they want is to be offered political help from a politician. Instead they often feel like
they are being asked to support a cause. That mentality doomed Liz Warren and it doomed Bernie Sanders as well. Those surrogates
may well know how to appeal to their like-minded trust fund nepotistic media gentry pals and liberal elites from Brooklyn, D.C.,
and L.A. -- but they know how to appeal to average Americans about as much as they do to Martians. Is that why Bernie lost even with
so much good will going into the primary? I don't know what went on inside their decision making process, all I can offer is what
I saw as an average person outside the campaign who wanted Bernie to succeed.
It is funny not-funny how Tulsi Gabbard always came to the aid of Bernie when The [Intelligence] Man was smearing
him. Whether it was over sexism claims or Russiagating him or anything else -- Tulsi always had his back. But Bernie was reluctant
to have anything to do with Tulsi when she was being openly deplatformed. Was it his decision or the people running his campaign
who helped to deplatform and shut down the only other true progressive and only ally in the primary? Who can say if it was their
pet causes which guided them? Or maybe it was their not wanting to jeopardize jobs after the Sanders campaign in the liberal elite
neocon dominated media/political job market? Or maybe it was something more basic. Like love for liberal elite money. Or love for
TurkishSaudiQatariPakistani money? With all those influences on the people running his campaign and on his media surrogates, who
can say if Bernie was sabotaged by them (like they did to Tulsi) or not. The revolution will not be televised.
"... Something is seriously sick about the DNC and it's collusion with the media. The pretence of democracy is crashing and the oligarchy exposed. ..."
Whether social democrat or socialist - I agree Sanders did progress the cause for needed
societal, financial and political change.
But why did he fold so weakly and meekly in both 2016 and again now?
Especially in the face of obvious vote rigging by the Hillary campaign (as proven in a
Florida civil court ruling - albeit with the judge's decision accepting the DNC Defense
argument that the DNC has the right to appoint their candidate and override the primaries -
sudden untimely death of two of the lawyers for the Bernie Sanders supporters who brought the
case as well).
This time the totally unexpected victory on "Super Thursday" as Sleepy Joe called it in 9
state primaries stinks to high heaven. Maybe he did win given the media support and enough
ignoramuses voted for a man who is blatantly suffering dementia as well as having been a
corrupt nepotist of the highest order and an alleged rapist and video documented serial
creepy fondler of women and young children.
Something is seriously sick about the DNC and it's collusion with the media. The
pretence of democracy is crashing and the oligarchy exposed.
Trump will win - because many will hope he is a renegade oligarch who has some moral
compass even if a broken one.
A social democrat will refuse to demand that General Motors make concessions to the
workers unless General Motors is making solid profits. Extend the concept to the entire
economy. Capitalism is in crisis. For a social democrat that means heavy demands are off the
table until the crisis is resolved and capitalism returns to profitability. How could Sanders
deliver on his promises even if he won? Better to just throw in the towel, at least from a
social democrat perspective.
"Something is seriously sick about the DNC and it's collusion with the media."
Indeed, but there is more to it. The mass media isn't so much colluding with the Dems as
the media has been largely taken over by a criminal gang ( Operation Mockingbird ),
and the same gang has taken over the Democrat party. Instructions to both the mass media and
the Dems are coming from the same folks, so it looks like collusion, but actual direct
connections between the two will not be so conspicuous.
"... Yet the mass media, freakishly, has had absolutely nothing to say about this extremely newsworthy story. ..."
"... The mass media's stone-dead silence on the OPCW scandal is becoming its own scandal, of equal or perhaps even greater significance than the OPCW scandal itself. It opens up a whole litany of questions which have tremendous importance for every citizen of the western world; questions like, how are people supposed to participate in democracy if all the outlets they normally turn to to make informed voting decisions adamantly refuse to tell them about the existence of massive news stories like the OPCW scandal? How are people meant to address such conspiracies of silence when there is no mechanism in place to hold the entire mass media to account for its complicity in it? And by what mechanism are all these outlets unifying in that conspiracy of silence? ..."
"... This is the FOURTH leak showing how the OPCW fabricated a report on a supposed Syrian 'chemical' attack," tweeted journalist Ben Norton. "And mainstream Western corporate media outlets are still silent, showing how authoritarian these 'democracies' are and how tightly they control info." "Media silence on this story is its own scandal," "Media silence on this story is its own scandal," "Media silence on this story is its own scandal," tweeted journalist Aaron Maté. ..."
This is getting really, really, really weird. WikiLeaks has WikiLeaks has
published yet another set of leaked
internal documents from within the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) adding even more material to
the mountain of evidence that we've been lied to about an alleged chemical weapons attack in Douma, Syria last year which resulted
in airstrikes upon that nation from the US, UK and France.
"... CNN concluded that "America's Russia nightmare is back." Maddow was ecstatic, bleating "Here we go again," recycling her failed conspiracy theories whole. Everybody quoted Adam Schiff firing off that Trump was "again jeopardizing our efforts to stop foreign meddling." Tying it all to the failed impeachment efforts, another writer said , "'Let the Voters Decide' doesn't work if Trump fires his national security staff so Russia can help him again." The NYT fretted , "Trump is intensifying his efforts to undermine the nation's intelligence agencies." John Brennan (after leaking for a while, most boils dry up and go away) said , "we are now in a full-blown national security crisis." The undead Hillary Clinton tweeted , "Putin's Puppet is at it again." ..."
"... But it's still a miss on Bernie. He did well in Nevada despite the leaks, though Russiagate II has a long way to go. Bernie himself assured us of that. Instead of pooh-poohing the idea that the Russians might be working for him, he instead gave it cred, saying , "Some of the ugly stuff on the internet attributed to our campaign may well not be coming from real supporters." ..."
"... The world's greatest intelligence team can't seem to come up with anything more specific than "interfering" and "meddling," as if pesky Aunt Vladimir is gossiping at the general store again. CBS reports that House members pressed the ODNI for evidence, such as phone intercepts, to back up claims that Russia is trying to help Trump, but briefers had none to offer. Even Jake Tapper , a Deep State loyalty card holder, raised some doubts. WaPo , which hosted one of the leaks, had to admit "It is not clear what form that Russian assistance has taken." ..."
"... Yes, yes, they have to protect sources and methods, but of course the quickest way to stop Russian influence is to expose it. Instead the ODNI dropped the turd in the punchbowl and walked away. Why not tell the public what media is being bought, which outlets are working, willingly or not, with Putin? Did the Reds implant a radio chip in Biden's skull? Will we be left hanging with the info-free claim "something something social media" again? ..."
"... Because the intel community learned its lesson in Russiagate I. Details can be investigated. That's where the old story fell apart. The dossier wasn't true. Michael Cohen never met the Russians in Prague. The a-ha discovery was that voters don't read much anyway, so just make claims. You'll never really prosecute or impeach anyone, so why bother with evidence (see everything Ukraine)? Just throw out accusations and let the media fill it all in for you. ..."
"... The intel community crossed a line in 2016, albeit clumsily (what was all that with Comey and Hillary?), to play an overt role in the electoral process. When that didn't work out and Trump was elected, they pivoted and drove us to the brink of all hell breaking loose with Russiagate I. The media welcomed and supported them. The Dems welcomed and supported them. Far too many Americans welcomed and supported them in some elaborate version of the ends justifying the means. ..."
"... The good news from 2016 was that the Deep State turned out to be less competent than we originally feared. ..."
The Russians are back, alongside the American intelligence agencies playing deep inside our elections. Who should we fear more?
Hint: not the Russians.
On February 13, the election security czar in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI)
briefed the House Intelligence Committee that the Russians were meddling again and that they favored Donald Trump. A few weeks
earlier, the ODNI
briefed Bernie Sanders that the Russians were also meddling in the Democratic primaries, this time in his favor. Both briefings
remained secret until this past week, when the former was leaked to the New York Times in time to smear Trump for replacing
his DNI, and the latter leaked to the Washington Post ahead of the Nevada caucuses to try and damage Sanders.
Russiagate is back, baby. Everyone welcome Russiagate II.
You didn't think after 2016 the bad boys of the intel "community" (which makes it sound like they all live together down in Florida
somewhere) weren't going to play their games again, and that they wouldn't learn from their mistakes? Those errors were in retrospect
amateurish. A salacious
dossier
built around a pee tape? Nefarious academics
befriending minor Trump campaign staffers who would tell all to an Aussie ambassador trolling London's pubs looking for young, fit
Americans? Falsified FISA applications when it was all too obvious even Trumpkin greenhorns weren't dumb enough to sleep with FBI
honeypots? You'd think after influencing
85 elections across the globe since World War II, they'd be better at it. But you also knew that after failing to whomp a bumpkin
like Trump once, they would keep trying.
Like any good intel op, you start with a tickle, make it seem like the targets are figuring it out for themselves. Get it out
there that Trump offered
Wikileaks' Julian Assange a pardon if he would state publicly that Russia wasn't involved in the 2016 DNC leaks. The story was all
garbage, not the least of which because Assange has been clear for years that it wasn't the Russians. And there was no offer of a
pardon from the White House. And conveniently Assange is locked in a foreign prison and can't comment.
Whatever. Just make sure you time the Assange story to hit the day after Trump pardoned numerous high-profile, white-collar criminals,
so even the casual reader had Trump = bad, with a side of Russian conspiracy, on their minds. You could almost imagine an announcer's
voice: "Previously, on Russiagate I "
Then, only a day after the Assange story (why be subtle?), the sequel hit the theaters with timed leaks to the NYT and
WaPo . The mainstream media went Code Red (the CIA has a long
history of working with the media to influence elections).
CNN
concluded that "America's Russia nightmare is back." Maddow was ecstatic,
bleating "Here we go again," recycling her failed conspiracy theories whole. Everybody quoted Adam Schiff
firing off that Trump was "again jeopardizing our efforts to stop foreign meddling." Tying it all to the failed impeachment efforts,
another writer
said , "'Let the Voters Decide' doesn't work if Trump fires his national security staff so Russia can help him again." The
NYT
fretted , "Trump is intensifying his efforts to undermine the nation's intelligence agencies." John Brennan (after leaking for
a while, most boils dry up and go away)
said , "we are now in a
full-blown national security crisis." The undead Hillary Clinton
tweeted , "Putin's Puppet is at it again."
It is clear we'll be hearing breaking and developing reports about this from sources believed to be close to others through November.
Despite the sense of desperation in the recycled memes and the way the media rose on command to the bait, it's intel community 1,
Trump 0.
But it's still a miss on Bernie. He did well in Nevada despite the leaks, though Russiagate II has a long way to go. Bernie himself
assured us of that. Instead of pooh-poohing the idea that the Russians might be working for him, he instead gave it cred,
saying , "Some of the ugly stuff on the internet attributed to our campaign may well not be coming from real supporters."
Sanders handed Russiagate II legs, signaling that he'll use it as cover for the Bros' online shenanigans, which were called out
at the last debate. That's playing with fire: it'll be too easy later on to invoke all this with "Komrade Bernie" memes in the already
wary purple states. "Putin and Trump are picking their opponent,"
opined Rahm Emanuel to get that ball rolling.
Summary to date: everyone is certain the Russians are working to influence the election (adopts cartoon Russian accent) but who
is the cat and who is the mouse?
Is Putin helping Trump get re-elected to remain his asset in place? Or is Putin helping Bernie "I Honeymooned in the Soviet Union"
Sanders to make him look like an asset to help Trump? Or are the Russkies really all in because Bernie is a True Socialist
sleeper
agent, the Emma Goldman of his time (Bernie's old enough to have taken Emma to high school prom)? Or is it not the Russians but the
American intel community helping Bernie to make it look like Putin is helping Bernie to help Trump? Or is it the Deep State saying
the Reds are helping Bernie to hurt Bernie to help their man Bloomberg? Are Russian spies tripping over American spies in caucus
hallways trying to get to the front of the room? Who can tell what is really afoot?
See, the devil is in the details, which is why we don't have any.
The world's greatest intelligence team can't seem to come up with anything more specific than "interfering" and "meddling," as
if pesky Aunt Vladimir is gossiping at the general store again. CBS
reports that House members pressed the ODNI for evidence, such as phone intercepts, to back up claims that Russia is trying to
help Trump, but briefers had none to offer. Even
Jake Tapper , a Deep State loyalty card holder, raised some doubts. WaPo , which hosted one of the leaks, had to admit
"It is not clear what form that Russian assistance has taken."
Yes, yes, they have to protect sources and methods, but of course the quickest way to stop Russian influence is to expose it.
Instead the ODNI dropped the turd in the punchbowl and walked away. Why not tell the public what media is being bought, which outlets
are working, willingly or not, with Putin? Did the Reds implant a radio chip in Biden's skull? Will we be left hanging with the info-free
claim "something something social media" again?
If you're going to scream that communist zombies with MAGA hats are inside the house , you're obligated to provide a little
bit more information. Why is it when specifics are required, the
response is always something like "Well, the Russians are sowing distrust and turning Americans against themselves in a way that
weakens national unity" as if we're all not eating enough green vegetables? Why leave us exposed to Russian influence for even a
second when it could all be shut down in an instant?
Because the intel community learned its lesson in Russiagate I. Details can be investigated. That's where the old story fell
apart. The dossier wasn't true. Michael
Cohen never met the
Russians in Prague. The a-ha discovery was that voters don't read much anyway, so just make claims. You'll never really prosecute
or impeach anyone, so why bother with evidence (see everything Ukraine)? Just throw out accusations and let the media fill it all
in for you. After all, they managed to convince a large number of Americans Trump's primary purpose in running for president
was to fill vacant hotel rooms at his properties. Let the nature of the source -- the brave lads of the intelligence agencies --
legitimize the accusations this time, not facts.
It will take a while to figure out who is playing whom. Is the goal to help Trump, help Bernie, or defeat both of them to support
Bloomberg? But don't let the challenge of seeing the whole picture obscure the obvious: the American intelligence agencies are once
again inside our election.
The intel community crossed a line in 2016, albeit clumsily (what was all that with Comey and Hillary?), to play an overt
role in the electoral process. When that didn't work out and Trump was elected, they
pivoted and drove us to
the brink of all hell breaking loose with Russiagate I. The media welcomed and supported them. The Dems welcomed and supported them.
Far too many Americans welcomed and supported them in some elaborate version of the ends justifying the means.
The good news from 2016 was that the Deep State turned out to be less competent than we originally feared. But they have
learned much from those mistakes, particularly how deft a tool a compliant MSM is. This election will be a historian's marker for
how a decent nation, fully warned in 2016, fooled itself in 2020 into self-harm. Forget about foreigners influencing our elections
from the outside; the zombies are already inside the house.
"Williams was born in Colón, Panama, to parents Akin Jules Williams and Sharon
Williams, who were both Panamanian. He graduated in 1972 from Oakwood Friends School in Poughkeepsie, New York
where he became clerk of the student body, editor of the student paper and was captain of the
baseball, cross-country and championship basketball team. He attended Haverford College , from which he
graduated with a baccalaureate in philosophy in 1976." wiki
---------------
I am curious as to how JW (Foxnews' most prominent token Lefty) got from Colon in the
Republic of Panama where he was a son of the generally oppressed and typically impoverished
class of West Indian people settled in the Republic of Panama to the Oakwood Friends School and
then graduated from Haverford College. Both of these are private Quaker schools and not cheap.
I do not know the answer to my question.
I was stationed in the Canal Zone 1965 and 1966 as a member of the "8th Special Forces
Group" at Ft. Gulick. I was in the intelligence staff section of the Group Headquarters.
Because of that I spent a lot of time with the operatives of Army Intelligence and the CIA,
both of whom were engaged among other things in Force Protection activities designed to make
safe the Canal Zone and US forces stationed therein.
The Partido del Pueblo was the Cuban and Soviet aligned Communist Party. The national
government of Panama treated it as a deadly enemy and a conduit for Cuban subversion. The
Panamanian government encouraged the US to keep the Partido del Pueblo as weak as possible.
This party led street riots, bank robberies and looting of stores in Colon in 1964 and 1965.
Half a dozen US solders were killed by snipers in these fandangos, shot in the Canal Zone from
across the border.
To get a grip on this situation the CIA and Army Intelligence and probably the FBI
clandestinely recruited as assets most of the senior members of the party and the politburo of
the Partido del Pueblo. We had so many that if USI told the politburo to not attend a meeting
and stay home, they lacked a quorum. To achieve these recruitments, the standard lures were; US
money, assistance for relatives to move to the States and scholarships (full ride) for their
children at good US private schools and colleges whose benevolent leaders could be persuaded to
help (fully funded) 3rd world kids.
Thanks for asking again, Colonel, for since you revealed these "lures," I've often wondered
if they help explain Williams's career of fake-"Liberal" hackery.
Dear Colonel,
No need to post my earlier reply: just wanted you to know I'm still grateful for this
question + all your wisdom. And part of what I admire is how concise your work is. THANKS.
I am just plain interested in how he gor where he is. IMO his strident leftist stance is
largely an act designed to fulfill Foxnews' expectations of his role.
The National Counterintelligence and Security Center (NCSC) released a new National Counterintelligence Strategy document on Monday
which outlines a "new approach" to US counterintelligence that places emphasis on "foreign" and "other adversarial threats" from
"non-state actors."
The document, entitled National Counterintelligence Strategy of the United States of America, 2020-2022, is dated January 7, 2020
and signed by President Donald Trump. It states that the US is facing an "expanding array of foreign intelligence threats by adversaries
who are using increasingly sophisticated methods to harm the United States."
As compared to the previous NCSC strategy released during the Obama administration at the end of 2015, the new orientation is
to the threats posed to the interests of US imperialism around the world by digital technologies, online information and social media.
In releasing the strategy document, NCSC Director William Evanina said that it represents a "paradigm shift in addressing foreign
intelligence threats as a nation."
The swearing in of William Evanina as Director of the National Counterintelligence and Security Center (NCSC) on May 15, 2018 [Photo
credit: dni.gov]
Pointing to the ongoing partnership between US intelligence and the technology industry on a range of operations, Evanina said,
"With the private sector and democratic institutions increasingly under attack, this is no longer a problem the U.S. Government can
address alone. It requires a whole-of-society response involving the private sector, an informed American public, as well as our
allies."
The NCSC Director goes on, "Sound counterintelligence and security procedures must become part of everyday American business practices.
Implementing the strategy will require partnerships, information sharing, and innovation across public and private sectors." Evanina,
of course, does not mention the fact that no greater threat exists to "democratic institutions" and "an informed American public"
than the US national intelligence apparatus.
The intelligence strategy document is very brief, uses generalizations and is short on the details of any specific threats. It
also provides only broad outlines of its plan of action and does not go into the specifics of what counterintelligence measures will
be taken to combat the threats it does enumerate. This is the modus operandi of the American intelligence agencies: say as little
as possible, repeat the age-old lies about promoting "democracy" around the world and then get on with the secret and criminal business
of US-sponsored mayhem and murder.
The NCSC strategy document lists the top foreign intelligence threats to US interests as Russia -- repeating the well-worn but
never proven assertion that the country is seeking to "instigate and exacerbate tensions and instability in the United States, including
interfering with the security of our elections" -- and China.
The document also mentions the US "adversaries" Cuba, Iran and North Korea as well as the organizations Hezbollah, ISIS and al-Qaeda
only once before moving on to its primary concern: the "significant threats" posed by "the ideologically motivated entities such
as hacktivists, leaktivists and public disclosure organizations."
The inclusion of individuals and organizations involved in exposing government and corporate criminality -- such as WikiLeaks
and its publisher Julian Assange as well as other journalists and news sites both within and outside the country that are prepared
to tell the public the truth -- makes clear that left-wing, socialist and other alternative political websites will be the target
of sustained US counterintelligence activities in the coming period.
Of significant concern for US intelligence is the impact of alternative and socialist political ideas and perspectives being disseminated
among the US population under conditions of growing class conflict, political hostility to the government and both parties of the
capitalist ruling elite and distrust of the corporate-controlled media.
The NCSC document emphasizes "influence campaigns in the United States to undermine confidence in our democratic institutions
and processes and sow division in our society, exert leverage over the United States and weaken our alliances." This is the exact
same language used by US intelligence during the concocted campaign over "Russian meddling" in the 2016 presidential elections. While
no evidence was ever presented proving that the Russian state was engage in an "influence campaign" in 2016, the US corporate media
incessantly reported and continues to report it as well-established fact.
The document then states that the influence campaigns "are designed, for example, to sway public opinion against US Government
policies or in favor of foreign agendas, influence and deceive key decision makers, alter public perceptions, and amplify conspiracy
theories. Our adversaries regard deception or manipulation of the views of U.S. citizens and policymakers to be an effective, inexpensive,
and low-risk method for achieving their strategic objectives."
It then states that US adversaries are using "a range of communications media to enable their covert influence campaigns. Using
false U.S. personas, foreign intelligence entities develop and operate social media sites and other forums to draw the attention
of U.S. audiences, spread misinformation, and deliver divisive messages."
The NCSC is a department within the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, a member of the US presidential Cabinet.
Joseph Maguire, a retired US Navy Vice Admiral after 36 years of military service, is currently the Acting Director of National Intelligence.
Officially, the purpose of US counterintelligence is to block the intelligence activities of foreign powers and to identity "entities
who are at risk of intelligence collection or attack by foreign adversaries." However, US counterintelligence operations have always
involved secret, murky and criminal activities carried out in the interests of US imperialism throughout the world.
The targeting of "hacktivists, leaktivists and public disclosure organizations" in the new strategy of US counterintelligence
makes it clear that a major assault on First Amendment rights of free speech and freedom of the press is being prepared. Due to the
global nature of the internet, online publishing and social media, it is impossible for US state agencies to make a clear distinction
between what it considers "foreign" and "domestic" threats.
Proof that the blurring of national boundary lines of counterintelligence is already underway was evident in the statement made
by NCSC Director Evanina at a gathering of cybersecurity officials on February 4. As an example of the actions to come, Evanina presented
the Justice Department's recent charges against the head of Harvard's chemistry and biology department, Charles Lieber, for making
false statements about his participation in a Chinese research program.
Furthermore, the use of the Espionage Act against individuals -- including former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, who revealed
the massive and illegal surveillance of the public by the state -- for leaking information related to national security is part of
the escalation of state repression against whistleblowers.
The Trump administration brought multiple charges against Assange on May 23, 2019 as part of the campaign to have the WikiLeaks
founder and editor extradited to the US from Britain.
Assange faces a 175-year prison sentence, or possibly the death penalty, in the US for courageously exposing the crimes of US
imperialism against the people of the world. Meanwhile, whistleblower Chelsea Manning has been imprisoned for nearly a year for refusing
to testify against him.
The defense of basic democratic rights such as free speech and freedom of the press -- and the immediate release of Assange and
Manning -- requires a mass political struggle by the working class internationally against the drive by the capitalist system toward
dictatorship and war and for the abolition of the NSA, CIA, NCSC and all other such organizations.
"... Edward Lewis, who had also produced Spartacus with Douglas earlier, spearheaded this film which tells the story of a cabal of oligarchs who arrange the murder of John Kennedy using three teams of professional mercenaries (former CIA men fired after the Bay of Pigs fiasco). ..."
"... The oligarchs attempting to play God in today's world, just as their predecessors who oversaw JFK's murder know that hunger, war and disease are not the natural state of humanity, but simply means of checking population growth. ..."
"... Hacked emails from Sony pictures published on WikiLeaks provided a smoking gun when it was revealed that the Obama administration had courted Hollywood execs to the task of promoting films to "counter Russian narratives" ..."
"... This is how the propaganda always works. The shit they churn out is always "in response" to a phoney threat. Thus the US "combats" Soviet expansion by building American bases everywhere and then – Lo and Behold! It's the US empire which has expanded. ..."
Hollywood film legend Kirk Douglas' passing on February 5th at the age of 103 has resulted in a
sickening level of hypocrisy from the leftist mainstream media outlets.
These outlets have written countless homages and memorials honoring the life of the man who
"used his star
power and influence in the late 1950s to help break the Hollywood blacklist"
as CNN reported on February 6
. Similar eulogies have followed this line from MSNBC, the NY Times, Washington
Post, as well as many Hollywood celebrities.
What makes this so sickening is not that these memorials are untrue, but rather that it is these same
MSM/Hollywood forces that are the heirs to the fascist McCarthyite machine which Kirk Douglass and his close network
of collaborators fought so courageously against during their lives.
Hollywood and the CIA Today
In recent decades, barring a few exceptions, Hollywood (just like much of the mainstream media) has become a
branch of the CIA and broader military industrial complex. While fake news agencies as CNN spin false facts to the
intellects of mushy-minded Americans, Hollywood prepares the fertile soil for those false seeds to grow by shaping
the hearts and imagination in their victims through the important hypnotic power of storytelling.
Tom Clancy's
Jack Ryan
, Spielberg's
Bridge of Spies
,
Red Sparrow
and
Bitter Harvest
are just a few of the
most popular propaganda films
which portray Russians as the nefarious villains of the earth and heroically
elevate the CIA to patriotic heights.
Hacked emails from Sony pictures
published on WikiLeaks
provided a smoking gun when it was revealed that the Obama administration had courted
Hollywood execs to the task of promoting films to
"counter Russian narratives"
and all of this in the midst
of a renewed Cold War terror which has led to attacks on Chinese scholars in America and an attempted coup against a
sitting U.S. President.
YET, just as Hollywood can serve as a force of great evil, Kirk Douglas and his small network of collaborators
demonstrated that it could equally serve as a force of great good. This is because films exhibiting a spirit of
honesty and courage can bypass the gatekeepers of intellect and strike at the inner being of the audience rendering a
people, under certain circumstances better patriots of their nation and citizens of the world.
This brings us to the important question of
"what truly made Kirk Douglas and his small but influential
network of collaborators so important during such a dark period of World history during the peak of the Cold War?"
Ending the Blacklist: Douglas and Trumbo
The above quote from a CNN memorial cited Douglas's efforts to end the Hollywood Blacklist. For those who are not
aware, the blacklist was the name given to the "untouchables" of Hollywood.
Those writers, directors and producers who courageously refused to cooperate with the fascist hearings of the
House on Un-American Activities run under the dictatorial leadership of Senator Joseph McCarthy and FBI Director J.
Edgar Hoover.
By the end of the hearings, hundreds of careers were destroyed and examples were made of ten leading writers led
by the great Dalton Trumbo- who were not only given prison sentences for defending the US Constitution, but who
became un-hirable for years after their release. Not only this, but anyone caught employing them were threatened with
similar penalties.
In spite of that grim reality many of them continued to work under pseudonyms with Trumbo even winning two
uncredited academy awards during the 1950s (
Roman Holiday
and
The Brave One
).
During this dark period, a network of brave film makers formed who worked very closely together for 20 years which
centered around Trumbo, Kirk Douglas, David Miller, John Frankenheimer, Stanley Kramer, Burt Lancaster and producer
Edward Lewis.
Many of the films produced by these men not only carried stories which shook the foundations of the newly
reorganized deep state, but also strove to awaken the moral sensibilities of Americans whose complacency had
permitted the creation of a new Pax Americana abroad, and racist police state within.
Kirk Douglas responded to this early on by forming his own studio called Bryna Productions which created the
anti-war classic
Paths of Glory
(1957) and
Spartacus
(1960).
Paths of Glory
told the true story of the unjust execution of several French soldiers who refused to obey
a suicide mission during WW1 and provided a strong statement against irrational wars but also arbitrary political
power run amok.
Set in 72 BC, Spartacus told the true story of a Thracian slave who led a two year freedom struggle against Rome
and spoke directly to the civil rights movement in America and fight against imperialism more broadly.
What gave Spartacus its strategic potency to end the Blacklist was due to the fact that it was written by the
leading untouchable "commie-lover" of America Dalton Trumbo. Kirk Douglas' last minute decision to use Trumbo's real
name was more of a risk than most people realize, and in later years, Douglas described this period:
The choices were hard. The consequences were painful and very real. During the blacklist, I had friends who went
into exile when no one would hire them; actors who committed suicide in despair I was threatened that using a
Blacklisted writer for Spartacus -- my friend Dalton Trumbo -- would mark me as a 'Commie-lover' and end my career.
There are times when one has to stand up for principle. I am so proud of my fellow actors who use their public
influence to speak out against injustice. At 98 years old, I have learned one lesson from history: It very often
repeats itself. I hope that Trumbo, a fine film, will remind all of us that the Blacklist was a terrible time in
our country, but that we must learn from it so that it will never happen again.
When the newly-elected president John Kennedy and his brother Robert crossed anti-Communist picket lines to first
attend the film, and then endorsed it loudly, the foundations of the Blacklist were destroyed and the edifice of 15
years of terror came crashing down.
Kennedy's Murder and Trumbo's Revenge
Kennedy's death in 1963 sent America into a spiral of despair, drugs and insanity. Films like Frankenheimber's
Manchurian Candidate
(1962), and
7 Days in
May
(1964) attempted to shed light on the deep state takeover of America but it was too late.
During the 1960s, Douglas, Ed Lewis, Trumbo and Frankenheimber continued to work closely together on films like
Lonely are the Brave
,
Town without Pity
,
The Fixer
,
Last Sunset
,
Seconds
,
The Train
,
Devil's Disciple
,
Johny Got His Gun
,
The Horsemen
and more. Sadly, the
cultural rot had set in too deeply and nothing came as close to the artistry of the dense 1957-1964 period of
creative resistance.
One little known film stands out quite a bit however, and since so little is known of this small masterpiece, a
word must be said now.
Ten years after Kennedy's murder, Trumbo, Edward Lewis, David Miller, Mark Lane and Garry Horrowitz created a film
which could be called "Trumbo's last stand". This film was called
Executive Action
(1973) and starred Kirk Douglas' long-time collaborator Burt Lancaster as a leading coordinator of the plot to
assassinate President John F. Kennedy.
Edward Lewis, who had also produced Spartacus with Douglas earlier, spearheaded this film which tells the story of
a cabal of oligarchs who arrange the murder of John Kennedy using three teams of professional mercenaries (former CIA
men fired after the Bay of Pigs fiasco).
This incredibly well-researched storyline infused fiction with powerful facts and was based upon the work of Mark
Lane- a close friend of the Kennedys, NY State Attorney, and civil rights activist (the only legislator to be
arrested as a Freedom rider fighting segregation).
During a powerful dialogue between James Farrington (Lancaster) and the leader of the cabal Robert Foster (played
by Robert Ryan), the gauntlet is dropped, as the true reason is given for Kennedy's murder in chilling detail: Global
Depopulation.
Here Farrington is told by Foster:
"The real problem is this James. In two decades there will be seven billion human beings on this planet. Most
of them brown, yellow or black. All of them hungry. All of them determined to love. They'll swarm out of their
breeding grounds into Europe and North America Hence, Vietnam. An all-out effort there will give us control of
south Asia for decades to come. And with proper planning, we can reduce the population to 550 million by the end
of the century. I know I've seen the data."
James:
"We sound rather like Gods reading the
Doomsday book don't we?"
Foster:
"Well, someone has to do it. Not only will the nations affected be better off. But
the techniques developed there can be used to reduce our own excess population: blacks, Puerto Ricans, Mexican
Americans, poverty prone whites, and so forth"
.
Although the film was pulled from most American theaters, it still stands as one of the most direct and chilling
refutations of the lone-gunman narrative and is also the only film this author is aware of which showcases the deeper
neo-Malthusian agenda underlying the murder of Kennedy which feared the optimistic vision he had threatened to create
as outlined in my previous paper
Remembering JFK's Vision for the Future that Should Have Been
.
The oligarchs attempting to play God in today's world, just as their predecessors who oversaw JFK's murder know
that hunger, war and disease are not the natural state of humanity, but simply means of checking population growth.
" leftist mainstream [USAmerican] media" – !! Leftist and lamestream? Both? Does Matthew Ehret not see
the glaring oxymoron? Stopped me reading any further, right there in the first paragraph. I prefer
writers who use words in accordance with reality. I'm getting ever more inclined to ignore the pointless
political circus in the US, as it continues with it's thoroughly reality-detached circling of the drain
of empires
And clearly he's completely out of touch with the harsh reality of our most likely future,
which has far more in common with 'The Road' than with 'Startrek'. I don't see any prospect at all of
human colonies on the Moon or Mars. We – humankind – are up for some serious collisions with reality as
we find ourselves forced to dump our 'outward into the universe by space travel' myth. Myth in the old,
literate sense of the word: a foundation story of our culture, which tells us how to relate to life, the
universe, and everything. Sometime this century we're going to have to ditch that particular dream, as
The Limits To Growth finally catch up with us big time.
Charlotte Russe
,
The film "Executive Action" provides a shocking glimpse into the omnipotent power of the US
military/security/surveillance corporate state. The film gives psychological insights into the
psychopathic mentality of this cabal. It's particularly depicted in the following video clip which
perfectly captures the prescient nature of the script's dialogue:
Gramsci [circa 1920: revolution hindered by traditional culture among proletarians: nation, family,
religion.]
György Bernát Löwinger / Willi Munzenberg [1922 meeting: use intellectuals to make Western
Civilisation stink]
Frankfurter Schule [subvert traditional Western culture. Founded 1924, main influence since 50's/60's]
Felix Weil / Carl Grünberg / Max Horkheimer / Theodor Adorno / Ernst Bloch / Herbert Marcuse / Walter
Benjamin / Leo Lowenthal / Otto Kirchheimer / Frederick Pollock
Saul David Alinsky ['70s onwards]
S(oros)JW
Dungroanin
,
I perhaps object to Gramsci in that list – and you have left out the real culprits the Foundations of
Ford, Carnegie, Rockefellers all the way to Gates, George Lucas and no doubt Bezos the real cultural
marxists who aim to control thought & history through Pharma and 'Education'.
Robbobbobin
,
" the real cultural Marxists who aim to control thought & history through Pharma and 'Education'."
And misapopriated 'charity'. Plus, you left out Buffet.
Hugh O'Neill
,
This was a superb article until the last paragraph in favour of
" a revived space program to establish permanent human colonies on the Moon and Mars " .
Although I could think of a few I wouldn't mind volunteering to be extra-terrestrial colonists, I felt
this topic somewhat distracted from the essential truth of the rest of the piece. There is much common
ground between my views and Ehret's, but his sling-shot extra terrestrial tangents were a leap too far
for Mankind. I also suspect that JFK himself might object to his vision for Humanity being thus hijacked.
I approximate my favourite quote: "For in the final analysis, we all live on the same small planet. We
breathe the same air. We cherish our children's future. And we are all mortal". Although Ehret might
interpret what he will from such a quote, it speaks to me of a love for this Earth, and the respect due
Mother Nature.
BigB
,
Ehret takes a counterfeit and cherrypicked selection of JFK's speeches to present a spurious virtual
history version of JFK that even Camelotists do not recognise.
Tackling Malthus head on, JFK said to the National Academy of Sciences on October 22, 1963:
"Malthus argued a century and a half ago that man, by using up all his available resources,
would forever press on the limits of subsistence, thus condemning humanity to an indefinite future
of misery and poverty. We can now begin to hope and, I believe, know that Malthus was expressing
not a law of nature, but merely the limitation then of scientific and social wisdom."
Within a month of this speech Kennedy was dead and a new green paradigm of adaption to limits
grew like a virus in poisonous environment of LSD, cultural irrationalism and the Vietnam War.
[Follow his links. He's not shy of linking his narrative constructions to weave a peculiar counter
history. I'm sure LaRouche would be proud of his protégé?]
And insinuating his imaginary agenda was the real reason why JFK was murdered: global depopulation.
To which the remedy is infinite technological expansionism, nuclear fusion, and space colonisation a
la the delusional rantings of Lynton LaRouche. Which is about as deluded an agenda that one can
imagine. And then some.
Now, I know I lost the Camelot narrative construction debate. And facts are merely ideologically
plastic in the hands of the mythologisers. But this fellow takes the piss and elevates Camelotism to a
whole new stratospheric level. Everyone knows McCarthy was a close personal friend of the Kennedy's
which has never been denied. And RFK was chosen by McCarthy as a lowly counsel on his committee. So,
however a minor capacity, RFK was directly involved in the witchhunt. Which is the first sign of a
pangloss. Then he takes the piss after that.
So, whilst I have vowed never to raise the Camelot issue ever again: this guy goes too far. Which
is how narrative constructivism works like Chinese Whispers. Ehret's new stratospheric space-age
Camelot becomes assimilated and reified as the assumptive base for even further embellishment. And
OffG is giving him credence. Where there no other essays on Kirk Douglas? Ones that did not come with
a heavy subliminal propagandic undertone?
Robbobbobin
,
I always had a problem with Mr Douglas Sr's tooth grinding persona of overwhelming "masculinity".
But on the other hand, that was when he was in his heyday and most of the adult males I knew then
(when I was a teenage expected-to-be-apprentice in that craft) seemed to suffer from the same
sexual perversion, so maybe Mr Douglas was just fitting his persona in.
Hugh O'Neill
,
BigB, hold onto your hat: I actually agree with much of this comment. (Perhaps because you have
used less-contorted language?). I had never heard of either Ehren or LaRouche. A quick google on
the latter is mind-boggling, even allowing for layers of smear and disinformation. Was he perhaps a
construct to make the FBI and CIA looks relatively sane?
I also agree with you that the planet is finite and we cannot keep abusing it under the present
extreme Capitalist method. I am sure you will agree that the biggest enemy of Mother Earth is the
American Empire, which beast grows stronger on the backs of Human suffering, mind control and
maximum extractive exploitation of Creation – including gullible Mankind.
However (and there has to be a However) are you not a tad guilty yourself of putting your own
biased interpretations of JFK's (and RFK's) deeds (and mis-deeds)?
For the record, no-one in the JFK admin used the term Camelot: it was a chance turn of phrase that
Jackie used in the immediate aftermath of the assassination, and an allusion to the musical that
she and Jack enjoyed. Whatever it is, you spit the word with the force of a pejorative. The Holy
Grail will not be within your grasp with that attitude ;-).
I think pugnacious political Catholic McCarthy was indeed a friend of Ambassador Joe Kennedy's, and
the sons would have inherited some of that familial baggage. But from my vague recollection of
Schlesinger, Bobby began to distance himself from McCarthy. There was too a Catholic distrust of
atheist Communism which I recall from my childhood, and which would have been driven by the Vatican
Office of Propaganda.
Those "Camelot mythologisers" would doubtless include James Douglass. Douglass made the case that
people change: their ideas develop in the light of experience and reflection, thus JFK moved from
propagandised Cold Warrior to a more Christian (Buddhist?) embrace of Humanity ("Let us make the
world safe for diversity") and his unpublished book on Immigrants. RFK likewise changed and his
insights into GDP as being the defining measure of Capitalist success hits the nail on the head (in
a speech 3 weeks before he died).
To return to the conversation between James & Foster in the film "Executive Action", I could well
imagine such within the CIA (and in some pubs). There are some nutters out there
I am not saying this lends any credence to Ehren's point or the script of "Executive Action". I
am simply saying that the small minds of PTB were receptive to the philosophy of Eugenics. And
those same small minds would have been opposed to JFK.
Lysias
,
Unfortunately, Kirk Douglas was a down-the-line defender of Israel, including of its war crimes.
wardropper
,
In Kirk Douglas's heyday, we were ALL defenders of Israel, because we didn't know about its war
crimes. And most of the world is still in denial about them.
I'm only making the point that we wouldn't criticize Mozart for not being Stravinsky. Everyone is a
child of their time to some extent.
Robbobbobin
,
" we were ALL defenders of Israel "
Telling me. I even went there to join in the fun. Fortunately
I got to travel over most of its then territory with a sabra who couldn't quite accept it,
but–equally–couldn't wholeheartedly embrace it, so I spent a lot of time listening to tales like
'This is (Hebrew name), which used to be called (Arab name) until 1948 when all the Arabs mmm ran
away.'
Even so, it took me a while after I backed off to Blighty for a break, to get some perspective
on it all, before I really began to realize there was something wrong with the conventional story
(about 95% of it, roughly) and fail to return.
Mike Ellwood
,
I had incorrectly thought I remembered his being in the film "Exodus". However, instead, it was
probably this one:
It is also Hollywood's film violence and torture that gives their CIA inspiration away. Tarantino must
have been one of Gina Haspel's favorites apart from the "Saw" sequels. Prepping future Anglo soldiers for
the "right" mindset.
Sick.
Lysias
,
After watching the first half hour of "Inglourious Basterds", I had to stop. I couldn't watch any more
of the violence. Just like the Nazis showing "Jud Suess" to Wehrmacht soldiers.
wardropper
,
Except that Tarantino is an entertainer, not a propaganda minister.
His taste is not everyone's taste, but I have a hunch he doesn't expect anyone to take him too
seriously. It's also nice that in his movies, it is largely stupid, corrupt and downright evil
people who get their come-uppance, unlike the nauseating trend of recent decades – which I consider
to be deliberate political propaganda – of portraying hopelessness, despair and wretchedness as the
best outcome modern people can expect from "the authorities", as well as repeatedly portraying the
scenario that nobody in government should be punished for anything.
A movie is, after all, not the same thing as a real life, and when real life becomes almost
unbearable, it is worth having a fantasy counter-balance to remind us of other solutions and
possibilities.
I like Tarantino's violence. It is comic-book violence, and I have not become a violent person as a
result of appreciating his work as lively entertainment.
It is only natural, however, that others have had life experiences which make them too sensitive to
reminders of human brutality, and of course I respect that.
Dungroanin
,
Just an 'entertainer'!
Just as Noel Coward was or all propagandists of that era.
I don't want to get into a full on dissection of the new hollywood bratpackers of the 90's
onwards and their work for the state but just consider the first Tarantino success and its
title , what does it mean? What are reservoir rats? Why the glorification of such ultraviolence?
Why the associated video games?
One just needs to consider just how many PMC's have sprouted in the US and UK and A few other
countries comprising the 5+1 eyed monster empire.
wardropper
,
Merely expressing a personal assessment of Tarantino as an entertainer. In his fantasy world
he does what he does extremely well, and I have no interest in him beyond that.
The war-hero comics the kids of my generation read were in the same vein, but they have not
coloured my informed opinion of modern Germans. Nor do I even live in my own "fatherland".
Frankly, I feel at home wherever decent people live.
People are people, life is life, and games are games. Of course it is important to understand
the difference, wherever you live, and I do share with you a concern that there are many who
do not understand that difference, but is the answer to protect ourselves from ourselves, as
the neoliberals would like to do for us?
I am not convinced that many of those "bratpackers" really "work" for the state, but rather
that the state allows itself to use any and all whom it finds useful at any given time. That
is not so easy to put an end to either, although it is just as well to be aware of the
tremendous scope of what the modern state permits itself.
Lysias
,
Veit Harlan, the director of "Jud Suess", was also not a propaganda minister.
wardropper
,
Nor does Tarantino have a Goebbels standing over him.
He's a successful specimen, going out on his own limb because he has the money to do so.
lysias
,
Over him Tarantino had Harvey Weinstein, the delighted producer of the film.
Fair dinkum
,
Curiosity and skepticism have been suffocated by the bloody hands of the ruling class.
The average punter is too busy making ends meet to question the strident voices of authoritarians.
The ongoing climate collapse will wake a few.
Wilmers31
,
Society is allergic to the truth. The G increasingly likes p1ssyfooting around the issues; they explain
how dangerous the AfD in Germany is and disliked this comment (not too tame, I admit):
The AfD has just been bequeathed a large sum of money by a late engineer from Bückeburg. They cannot
be destroyed by taboos. Get rid of the asylum clause and people will be with you again.
Human beings are also territorial beings. They do not appreciate people coming from all corners of the
globe, take up housing, and public money. When no money is available to compensate people for the loss of
their land and a German unemployed (my late brother) needs to die for lack of funds after paying into the
system for 35 years, some people do not take that lying down.
The people in Germany are also aware that certain folks strengthen conflicts and wars which releases
refugees. The asylum clause in the constitution has been a problem for a very long time. I warned them in
1980 when I was still there.
And it's not just war refugees who tap into the German public resources; street children from Morocco
needed extra facilities. If you want to destroy Germany and Europe, go right ahead with vilifying what
you call the right and take them all in, from Africa, Asia, and Latin America. The so called right will
lose their reason to exist when the asylum clause will be deleted, which might be difficult to see from a
Washington think tank.
The comment vanished within minutes after I tried to correct that "Washington" to Georgia (US State)
where the writer was. I was trying to be helpful, helping them to understand instead of just displaying
wishful thinking.
BigB
,
What a steaming pile of absolute propagandic sh1te. Not the bit about Kirk Douglas: the Kennedy codicil
at the end. Kennedy was killed in a neo-Malthusean plot? This guy has so many screws loose: his head must
rattle as it turns.
Ehret is such an inveterate propagandist: he cannot help himself. His agenda is of
an infinite open (economic) system (read his other loose stool water dribblings) that JFK was about to
install. So the Malthusian eco-fascists killed him to further their own agenda of global depopulation.
And now they run Hollywood. If anyone other than Ehret believes this – they really need to restart taking
their meds.
Admin: does no one proof read this sh1te before publishing it? Do you really believe in Casey, JFK,
and LaRouche's deranged infinite futurist agenda? If so: why also publish the 'No Deal For Nature' site?
The two agenda's are diametrically opposed and totally incompatible. And in comparison: this is bullshit
propaganda that feeds an already overactive cultural imagination that we can infinitely expand. Which is
the entire predication of late modern politics. And much of the basis of the BTL commentary.
Is this the famed 'BBC Balance'? Because there can be no 'balance' to thermodynamics. It is not an
opinion, or even a belief it is a stone cold brute fact of nature. One which applied to natural systems
becomes a limit on economic absolutism: we cannot grow infinitely. Not because of some bullshit plot on
JFK: but because of the ironclad laws of the world we live in.
It is hard enough for those who stand with nature to get anyone to accept that there are natural
limitations on a finite planet – without giving breathing space to this nut job. If you are going to
promote LaRouche through Ehret: we might as well say a requiem for nature and humanity now. Read his
other pieces: or just his own linked piece:
He believed that the human mind could conquer all challenges that both nature, vice and ignorance
can throw at us. JFK didn't see the world through a zero sum lens, nor did he believe in the
Malthusian "limits to growth" paradigm which his killers promulgated after his death.
You must have noticed in talking to Cory the numbers against the cultural ideological machinery are
tiny. And the chances of success infinitesimally small. That is because propaganda is diffuse and
everywhere. That's without giving Ehret/LaRouchian infinitism the time of day. If we want to change the
dialogue and get an unmoored technocratic culture to embed itself within its natural limitations we need
to be a lot more savvy about promoting the opposite agenda. And making the infinitesimally short odds
just a little shorter.
Hey if you want to depopulate the planet so badly why don't you start with yourself?
BigB
,
If you actually believe in Ehret/LaRouche's delusions – you already are ideologically aligned with
global depopulation. And our our technologically accelerated rate of species extinctionism.
Including our own. I, for one, would rather we didn't follow this insanity into the grave.
Promoting this ideology – barely concealed as a tribute – does nothing to foster any sort of
resistance. Even if it is token. We are way beyond the time when we have to draw a line as to
whether we are for nature or against it. Where do you stand? I've made my stance clear over the
years. If you condemn it: you condemn yourself. There is only one nature: and the mind is not its
technological master as Ehret believes. We live within our ecological and biological limitations:
or we do not live at all. Which seems to be too hard for most to understand.
The reason the planet is unlivable is because of "primitive accumulation" by greedy capitalist
scum who have wrecked the environment by plundering it. This planet is quite capable of
sustaining billions without their greed. If there is any depopulation required it is the elite
who are wrecking this place. Not some poor African farmer and his family which seems to be the
target of the above elitist trash.
The ones on the receiving end of McCarthyism and Hoovers FBI knew first hand WHO the real enemies
were.
paul
,
Like most Hollywood epics, it was grossly historically inaccurate.
Spartacus was killed early on in his final battle. He wasn't captured and defended by fellow slaves,
and then executed.
John Wayne's Alamo epic is totally inaccurate from beginning to end.
Like the ludicrous Errol Flynn films of the 40s.
Any resemblance to historical reality is purely coincidental.
Richard Le Sarc
,
Saw 'Executive Action' at a proper cinema last year. It's a beauty! Every local presstitute, who would
swear on their mother's grave that Oswald was, indeed, the 'lone gunman', should be forced to watch it,
like Alex in 'A Clockwork Orange'.
I personally thought it was excellent movie. Even better than Stone's JFK which was too murky and
surreal which is what you want if obfuscation is your objective.
wardropper
,
I even bought the movie. But those presstitutes own the world today, and persuading the people of the
world that green is not purple is still a superhuman task – or that they should "see what you see; not
what you are
supposed
to see".
Just as persuading the Richard Dawkinses or Christopher Hitchenses of the world that their clever
brains are missing something is still a superhuman task.
But one soldiers on . . .
Ramdan
,
I clicked on the "Executive Action" link and got a "This video is not available" ..
Is this just
me? maybe is not available on the country I'm in???!!
no soup for you
,
It works in certain countries. (Or for certain people?) If it works you get a
trailer
with the option to "Buy or rent".
Ramdan
,
Thanks is the country I'm in a socialist one .so we are de facto russian assets or no money as to
be attractive (consumers) . 😁😁😊.
Hollywood the place where narcissism and hypocrisy meet. I noticed that Jane Fonda wore "sustainable"
diamonds and gold jewelry to the Academy Awards. Whatever that is? Hooray for Hollywood!
Dungroanin
,
Thankyou Matthew, it had got to me too.
Wouldn't be me if I still didn't find some thing nitty to pick
over 😉
So I give you 'TOUGH GUYS' (1986).
One of my personal favourites and a great comedy also featuring the great Eli Wallach.
These guys had style – unlike the modern day brat packers and CIA whores of Clooney and co!
-- -- -
Meanwhile our Junta after the December coup in the UK gets it's ducks in order for our very own
fascist state , with the the help of the dumb 'patriot' voters who bought into the Brexit lies – aided
and abetted by the media presstitutes of all shapes.
Dungroanin
,
Cheers for down tick – always warms the heart knowing that truth is hurting!
Dungroanin, the EU is over with. The French, Italians, Spanish and many of the rest won't be far
behind the Brits.
The revolt is all about neoliberalism, the 'name that is never mentioned'.
Do you really think that Europeans revolting against neoliberalism are going to embrace America.
Seriously?
Dungroanin
,
A neo-liberal EU along the lines if Thatcherite/Blairite/Cummingshite IS certainly over and Macron
the Banker is over. And the Nato Atlantic Council gangster 2% fire-insurance is over.
The 4 freedoms and Schengen one is doing perfectly fine and will only settle into its full glory
without us in their tent pissing over all the furniture and in peoples food and faces.
We'll be begging to get back the moment we leave with our HARD brexit in less then a years time.
George Mc
,
And on the topic of pertinent scripts that probably wouldn't get past the cutting room nowadays, I always
remember the following dialogue from the end of "Three Days of the Condor". Turner (Robert Redford) is a
minor CIA analyst who finds his team assassinated and has to go on the run. He has this conversation with
a CIA deputy director Higgins (Cliff Robertson):
Turner: Do we have plans to invade the Middle East?
Higgins: Are you crazy?
Turner: Am I?
Higgins: Look, Turner
Turner: Do we have plans?
Higgins: No. Absolutely not. We have games. That's all. We play games. What if? How many men? What
would it take? Is there a cheaper way to destabilize a regime? That's what we're paid to do.
Turner: So Atwood just took the games too seriously. He was really going to do it, wasn't he?
Higgins: A renegade operation. Atwood knew 54/12 would never authorize it, not with the heat on the
company.
Turner: What if there hadn't been any heat? Suppose I hadn't stumbled on their plan?
Higgins: Different ballgame. Fact is, there was nothing wrong with the plan. Oh, the plan was all
right, the plan would've worked.
Turner: Boy, what is it with you people? You think not getting caught in a lie is the same thing as
telling the truth?
Higgins: No. It's simple economics. Today it's oil, right? In ten or fifteen years, food. Plutonium.
And maybe even sooner. Now, what do you think the people are gonna want us to do then?
Turner: Ask them.
Higgins: Not now -- then! Ask 'em when they're running out. Ask 'em when there's no heat in their homes
and they're cold. Ask 'em when their engines stop. Ask 'em when people who have never known hunger
start going hungry. You wanna know something? They won't want us to ask 'em. They'll just want us to
get it for 'em!
Turner: Boy, have you found a home. There were seven people killed, Higgins.
Higgins: The company didn't order it.
Turner: Atwood did. Atwood did. And who the hell is Atwood? He's you. He's all you guys. Seven people
killed, and you play fucking games!
Higgins: Right. And the other side does, too. That's why we can't let you stay outside.
One of the few movies made that was actually better than the book it was based on. One of my all time
favorites. The book isn't so much but the script was written in a style very similar to Eric Ambler
who like LeCarre didn't glorify the craft of intelligence unlike Fleming.
Another movie that is
better than the book is the Sum of All Fears which was made just before 9/11 but was rescheduled which
is in many ways truer to actual events than that turkey United 93.
George Mc
,
Wasn't there a whole spate of movies based around Flight 93 i.e. the most evidence free part of
9/11? Who needs evidence when you have Hollywood to tell you what happened.
As far as I know there was a TV miniseries or maybe two. Never saw them though watching the
movie was bad enough but I subjected myself to it because I'm writing a book on 9/11. Believe me
the suspension of disbelief required to watch it qualifies heroic measures. Most of it adheres
to the official story thus the genre would be fantasy or maybe action fantasy.
milosevic
,
Who needs evidence when you have Hollywood to tell you what happened.
better yet, who needs evidence when you have Hollywood to tell you what WILL happen?
I think senile would be a better word. He actually writes better than he interviews. I've
noticed ex-spooks make bad interviewees because you need a secret decoder ring to actually
understand what they're saying.
George Mc
,
Hacked emails from Sony pictures published on WikiLeaks provided a smoking gun when it was revealed that
the Obama administration had courted Hollywood execs to the task of promoting films to "counter Russian
narratives"
This is how the propaganda always works. The shit they churn out is always "in response" to
a phoney threat. Thus the US "combats" Soviet expansion by building American bases everywhere and then –
Lo and Behold! It's the US empire which has expanded.
vwbeetle
,
Try reading "Reel Bad Arabs" by Jack Shaheen about how Hollywood vilifies an entire race of people. I
believe he also made a doco on the subject. Hollywood has always advanced the Zionist narrative
because well, we know why.
True. Black Monday is the epitome of such propaganda. So is True Lies and The Siege all written and
directed by Zionist trash trying to spook Americans into believing that Arab Terrorism was an
actual problem which is total BS according to actual stats:
And goes some way to explain why Mel Gibson has to make his own movies now Another Australian
actor in the '30's, 40's and fifties the Great, Errol Flynn used to show his contempt for
Hollywood's elite, knowing full well that he was their greatest money maker, until his looks and
his lifestyle faded away ..He's still a Legend today though
Red Sparrow was totally unadulterated BS. First of all KGB called them "swallows" not sparrows.
Obviously the writer must have been jerking off to an episode of Rocky and Bullwinkle featuring Boris
and Natasha when he or she wrote it.
One of the best depictions of Soviet penetration was the
Americans. An excellent series that had you rooting for the Rooskies 🙂
lundiel
,
A British film that left a huge mark on me was "
The
long and the short and the tall"
about the British campaign in Malaya during WWII. These days we only
have propaganda like 1917.
"... Qanon suggests that the NSA and military include patriots who are trying to finesse a nonviolent transition away from the criminal pathology that has led the US to become an international vast organized crime organization, and purveyor of boundless atrocities. ..."
Does anyone have any thoughts ideas on the QANON phenomenon. I have swayed between
outright scepticism and then hope that it might be true - that some former high-ranking US
military personnel have hatched a plan and co-opted Trump, to drain the swamp, truth about
9-11 and prosecute all those involved, deal with Israel, End the Fed and restore proper money
etc.
Is it true? Or is it absolute bullshit and if so why?
QAnon=hope porn for Trump supporters. There's a video from a little over a year ago by a
couple of guys who make some good points about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3e_e5WI_mjg
Regardless of what one might think of the presenters, they have done their homework.
Is it true? Or is it absolute bullshit and if so why?
Posted by: James McCumiskey | Feb 12 2020 13:59 utc | 1
James, from my perspective Qanon's impact is far greater and more beneficial than
indicated by the disparaging remarks that followed your question.
To be clear, I haven't paid a lot of attention to it, but have paid enough attention to
understand that many tens of thousands of people have 'entered' and benefited from the QAnon
'school'.
Now this is not to pretend to know what the actual results will be or even what the actual
intentions of Qanon are.
People who might be more or less in the process of waking up to, say, that we live in a
kind of upside down world, have been given very many clues and crumbs to follow, to research.
The process of waking up is a lifetime process, but it helps to begin at some point, to no
longer just doze away through life.
Qanon begins with the observation that whereas pathological criminality on high gained
power, became dominant over the vast majority of people, most people are more or less salt of
the earth decent folks in their intentions.
But to 'unbrainwash' the brainwashed previously asleep requires a process of education.
The Qanon process is somewhat reminiscent of a Socratic dialogue, whereby cryptic questions
are posed, hints are given, but in the end, the spur is to 'go down the rabbit holes' and
discover what's really going on.
Qanon suggests that the NSA and military include patriots who are trying to finesse a
nonviolent transition away from the criminal pathology that has led the US to become an
international vast organized crime organization, and purveyor of boundless
atrocities.
Trump then is to be understood as a flawed but handy and workable temporary leadership
means by which the system of tyranny can be decisively undermined.
Again, I'm not writing this as a fan of either Trump or Qanon, but am trying to answer
your question beyond a reflexive jeer that appears common currency among the
'enlightened'.
h/t: jtrue.com - I have an eclectic range on what I read... some I agree with ... some I
don't... but things are getting so weird I 'don't throw the baby out with the
bathwater'...
Does anyone have any thoughts ideas on the QANON phenomenon
Newly senile baby boomers and ideological conservatives psy-oping themselves. One of the
myriad of mental gymnastics routines used by the conservative crowd to justify the
continuation of the Obama presidency under Trump, which itself continued the Bush presidency,
which continued the Clinton presidency... and on and on. A replacement for scientific social
analysis by the equivalent of numerology and astrology, for people who don't know what
science is and are probably distrustful of it to begin with. A good example: a friend of
mine's dad is really hardcore into it. He's also a chiropractor. Not a coincidence. There's a
certain type of cognitive style that will latch onto this kind of absurd shit and it's the
duty of the scientifically minded to inoculate people against it.
Qanon is certainly a psyop. The question is whether it's a wishful thinking deep-state
conspiracy theorist sitting in abasement with Cheetos and Dr. Pepper, or a disaffected rogue
insider spreading crumbs of critical thinking to the dazed and confused mass of "Americans"
who are victims of the greatest psyop in the history of the known universe; propagandized for
90 some years into the cult Baseball, Mom and Apple Pie.
Whatever Qanon is it has allowed white nationalist fascists to believe they are freedom
fighters on a grand quest to cleanse a swamp of corruption that is the true treason of the
"American Dream."
The United States is two-party political monopoly, the two sides serving the same coin of
'the money power.' There is no more useful idiot than the raging stable genius who believes
belligerence is wisdom, and money is love.
The United States is coming to a three-pronged fork in the road:
1. Collapse
2. Totalitarianism
3. Revolution
The billionaires are preparing for collapse and turning to off-world escape. Bill Gates
just ordered a ½ billion dollar hydrogen powered mega-yacht to ride it out in
Waterworld.
QANON is a fraud. See Sessions, now Barr, Bolton, McCain. Frauds. So Q was needed right from
thr beginning to divert people fom seing the Trump family business as usless.
The Trump WONT go after the greatest breaches of USA national security - Hillary and the
unsecured email at her home cupboard or the Awan family spy/blackmail racket in the Dem
congress members. QANON is cover for Trump family inaction.
QANON is useless for most but is a reference for those bloggers and YouTube commentators
to fool people into thinkingthey are 'in the know', have deep information when all they have
is tripe and hot air. So QANON is useful to fool fools, dupe dopes, and elevate the liar in
chief.
How can it be that after three years as president Trump had Vinman and Ciaramela STILL on
the NSC staff advising the White House? Then Bolton appointed was extreme blunder and then he
betrayed Trump. QANON blows smoke over Trump family lightweights while they pick pocket the
audience.
Bernie is not there to be president. his "community" job is to dog herd the progressive
crowds to vote, as a lesser evil, for the Judeo-Zionist corporate candidate, the donors'
choice, as he did servilely in 2016. ask him any question about foreign policy and you will
note, on the spot, where he stands: he approved, as a Senator, the last 3 out of 4 major wars
of the US empire. 95% of his domestic promises are undeliverable. we did love Obama,
didn´t we? we will adore Bernie! for sure.
Qanon is such garbage. Just look at what nietzshe1510 said about Bernie Sanders... The
same crap is being pulled on people that follow Qanon. Its up to you to be the best person
that you can be and make a difference in your family, one small group of people at a time,
all over the planet. Like a tidal wave of good intentions. Never mind Bernie Sanders, Tulsi
Gabbard or the media that support them. It is just a fu*kin gimmick.
@1 "QUANON"
Sounds like a fantasy from a Robert Heinlein novel; try "The Puppet Masters", or "Revolt in
2100". He also was a military officer, until he got invalided out.
The discussion about Qanon was enlightening. I voted for Trump but gave up on him after
Seymour Hersh's article about the first Syria strikes was published in Germany(because,
apparently, no U.S publisher wanted to touch it) I find myself drifting slowly back to the
leftism of my youth since then. As for Bernie, his former comrade Michael Parenti implied in
2015 that Bernie is afraid of the National Security State crowd, and I think that makes
sense. Bernie won't fight the Empire, which makes his domestic promises basically useless,
regardless of his motives. Honestly, I think he mostly is in this for the campaign
contributions, but who knows? He's a lot less relevant than a lot of people are willing to
admit. The empire seems to be running out of steam on its own as far as I can see, as
de-dollarization continues to gain momentum, particularly in Asia. Events in Iraq and places
like the Philippines should be more interesting watch than this boring election
I looked into several of the more detailed predictions and comments - they were uniformly
wrong, albeit loosely based on 1st level internet search results.
Fiction, not fact.
Psyops? Anything is possible, but I personally don't see it. Trump does just fine handling
Twitter himself.
My bet is that Qanon is simply Steve Bannon. Both have/had the same fake discourse and the
same targets.
The revealing clue was for me when I saw his video clip "The great awakening".
Who has ever peddled the Pizzagate without being himself a nuts? I only know Qanon and
Bannon (by means of Cambridge Analytica)
At 10:01 UTC today the Associated Press tweeted that "hundreds" gather in central Baghdad to
demand that American troops leave the country.
Thirty eight minutes earlier CNN had already reported that "hundreds of thousands" are
protesting in Baghdad against the U.S. troop presence in Iraq.
When AP sent the misleading tweet the commander of the Iraqi Federal Police Forces Jaffar
al-Batat had already announced that the number of demonstrators exceeds one million.
That number may well be correct. Reports said that the column of protesters was already
eight kilometers long even while many were still arriving.
George Galloway was a member of the British Parliament for nearly 30 years. He presents TV
and radio shows (including on RT). He is a film-maker, writer and a renowned orator.
Whoever replaces outgoing BBC Director General Tony Hall, be sure that establishment
interests will be in safe hands. But multiple scandals the broadcaster has been involved in
damaged it quite possibly beyond repair.
... ... ...
Corbyn had to be destroyed at almost ANY cost. Their news and current affairs output (and
appointments) over the Corbyn era of 2015-2019 was as crude, and crudely effective, as any
screaming, screeching Rupert Murdoch tabloid. Perhaps they were worried the ghost of Sir
Alasdair Milne would return to haunt them in the form of his son Seumas Milne, Corbyn's
director of communications and strategy and right-hand man. The junior Milne – also
Winchester and Oxford – is a considerably harder nut to crack than anyone the BBC had
ever had to deal with before
"... "disinformation and the cost of fake news." ..."
"... "how post-truth culture has become an increasingly dangerous part of the global information environment," ..."
"... To say Stelter's involvement in the documentary attracted mockery online would be an understatement. "This is like Harvey Weinstein doing a documentary on sexual assault," lawyer and journalist Rogan O'Handley wrote. ..."
"... "HBO has hired Brian Stelter to do a documentary on Fake News. That's like hiring Bernie Madoff to teach accounting. Like hiring Michael Moore to host a fashion show. Not to mention [Stelter] is the dullest human ever on television," ..."
If you were making a documentary on fake news and wanted to get journalists involved behind
the scenes, there are a few people you may want to avoid. One of those is CNN host Brian
Stelter. The HBO network is rightly being mocked for putting Stelter – the host of a CNN
show ironically named 'Reliable Sources' – on the team for an upcoming documentary on
fake news.
According to Stelter himself, the documentary will investigate "disinformation and the
cost of fake news." The film, for which Stelter was executive producer, will dive into
"how post-truth culture has become an increasingly dangerous part of the global information
environment," according to WarnerMedia.
HBO just announced something I've been working on for a couple of years: A documentary
titled "AFTER TRUTH: DISINFORMATION AND THE COST OF FAKE NEWS." The film will premiere on TV
and online this March. Directed by @a_rossi !
To say Stelter's involvement in the documentary attracted mockery online would be an
understatement. "This is like Harvey Weinstein doing a documentary on sexual assault," lawyer
and journalist Rogan O'Handley wrote.
"HBO has hired Brian Stelter to do a documentary on Fake News. That's like hiring Bernie
Madoff to teach accounting. Like hiring Michael Moore to host a fashion show. Not to mention
[Stelter] is the dullest human ever on television," radio host Mark Simone added.
But the article was flimsy even by Russiagate standards, and so certain questions inevitably
arise. What was it really about? Who's behind it? Who's the real target?
Here's a quick answer. It was about boosting Joe Biden, and its real target was his chief
rival, Bernie Sanders. And poor, inept Bernie walked straight into the trap.
The article was flimsy because rather than saying straight out that Russian intelligence
hacked Burisma, the company notorious for hiring Biden's son, Hunter, for $50,000 a month job,
reporters Nicole Perlroth and Matthew Rosenberg had to rely on unnamed "security experts" to
say it for them. While suggesting that the hackers were looking for dirt, they didn't quite say
that as well. Instead, they admitted that "it is not yet clear what the hackers found, or
precisely what they were searching for."
So we have no idea what they were up to, if anything at all. But the Times then quoted
"experts" to the effect that "the timing and scale of the attacks suggest that the Russians
could be searching for potentially embarrassing material on the Bidens – the same kind of
information that Mr. Trump wanted from Ukraine when he pressed for an investigation of the
Bidens and Burisma, setting off a chain of events that led to his impeachment." Since Trump and
the Russians are seeking the same information, they must be in cahoots, which is what Democrats
have been saying from the moment Trump took office. Given the lack of evidence, this was
meaningless as well.
But then came the kicker: two full paragraphs in which a Biden campaign spokesman was
permitted to expound on the notion that the Russians hacked Burisma because Biden is the
candidate that they and Trump fear the most.
"Donald Trump tried to coerce Ukraine into lying about Joe Biden and a major bipartisan,
international anti-corruption victory because he recognized that he can't beat the vice
president," the spokesman, Andrew Bates, said. "Now we know that Vladimir Putin also sees Joe
Biden as a threat. Any American president who had not repeatedly encouraged foreign
interventions of this kind would immediately condemn this attack on the sovereignty of our
elections."
If Biden is the number-one threat, then Sanders is not, presumably because the Times sees
him as soft on Moscow. If so, it means that he could be in for the same neo-McCarthyism that
antiwar candidate Tulsi Gabbard encountered last October when Hillary Clinton blasted her as
"the favorite of the Russians." Gabbard had the good sense to
blast her right back.
"Thank you @Hillary Clinton. You, the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and
personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long, have finally
come out from behind the curtain. From the day I announced my candidacy, there has been a
concerted campaign to destroy my reputation. We wondered who was behind it and why. Now we know
– it was always you, through your proxies and powerful allies in the corporate media and
war machine ."
If only Sanders did the same. But instead he put out a statement filled with the usual
anti-Russian clichés:
"The 2020 election is likely to be the most consequential election in modern American
history, and I am alarmed by new reports that Russia recently hacked into the Ukrainian gas
company at the center of the impeachment trial, as well as Russia's plans to once again meddle
in our elections and in our democracy. After our intelligence agencies unanimously agreed that
Russia interfered in the 2016 election, including with thousands of paid ads on Facebook, the
New York Times now reports that Russia likely represents the biggest threat of election meddle
in 2020, including through disinformation campaigns, promoting hatred, hacking into voting
systems, and by exploiting the political divisions sewn [sic] by Donald Trump ."
And so on for another 250 words. Not only did the statement put him in bed with the
intelligence agencies, but it makes him party to the big lie that the Kremlin was responsible
for putting Trump over the top in 2016.
Let's get one thing straight. Yes, Russian intelligence may have hacked the Democratic
National Committee. But cybersecurity was so lax that others may have been rummaging about as
well. (CrowdStrike, the company called in to investigate the hack, says it found not one but
two cyber-intruders.) Notwithstanding the Mueller report, all the available evidence
indicates
that Russia did not then pass along thousands of DNC emails that Wikileaks published in July
2016. (Julian Assange's statement six months later that "our source
is not the Russian government and it is not a state party" remains uncontroverted.) Similarly,
there's no evidence that the Kremlin had anything to do with the $45,000 worth of Facebook ads
purchased by a St. Petersburg company known as the Internet Research Agency – Robert
Mueller's 2018 indictment of the IRA was completely silent
on the subject of a Kremlin connection – and no evidence that the ads, which were
politically all over the map, had a remotely significant impact on the 2016 election.
All the rest is a classic CIA disinformation campaign aimed at drumming up anti-Russian
hysteria and delegitimizing anyone who fails to go along. And now Bernie Sanders is trying to
cover his derrière by hopping on board.
It won't work. Sanders will find himself having to take one loyalty oath after another as
the anti-Russia campaign flares anew. But it will never be enough, and he'll only wind up
looking tired and weak. Voters will opt for the supposedly more formidable Biden, who will end
up as a bug splat on the windshield of Donald Trump's speeding election campaign. With
impeachment no longer an issue, he'll be free to behave as dictatorially as he wishes as he
settles into his second term.
After inveighing against billionaire's wars, he'll find himself ensnared by the same
billionaire war machine. The trouble with Sanders is that he thinks he can win by playing by
the rules. But he can't because the rules are stacked against him. He'd know that if his
outlook was more radical. His problem is not that he's too much of a socialist. Rather, it's
that he's not enough.
Intelligence agencies recruit pornographers to lead their disinformation operations,
apparently because porn purveyors are so lacking in ethics they will tell public lies about
anything
The alleged 'founder' of Wikipedia ... Wales was 'selected' for this role after being in
the pornography-selling business
EU police agencies and the European Commission, have a detailed report on how Wikipedia is
a criminally-involved tool for intelligence agencies, using 'Twenty major techniques of CIA
– Wikipedia deception'
Another famous ex-pornographer recruited as a CIA propagandist is Glenn Greenwald. When
the intel agencies began running the hoax of 'Edward Snowden', he first 'leaked' to the
biographer of Bush Vice President Dick Cheney at the CIA's Washington Post
After realising this was too stupid to hold up, the intel agencies switched the front-man
role to Rothschild employee & gay ex-pornography-seller Glenn Greenwald of 'hairystuds',
Greenwald now funded by CIA billionaire Pierre Omidyar
For those who don't know, even Putin in Russia has hinted out loud he knows Snowden is
fake, Putin just playing along in the long string of mutual Russia-USA back-door favours to
each other
This stupid idea of "intersectionality" is just a fig leaf on dangerous government policy
Notable quotes:
"... Being labeled a conspiracist is actually not that bad, as probably 80% of major conspiracies (the term invented by CIA to discredit the opposition to Warren commission findings) proved to be the most adequate, albeit "politically incorrect" explanations of the events in question. They are just the explanations that undermine the establishment narrative. Right now most people (around 61% of voters and 71% of independents) believe that CIA operatives at senior levels played active role in JFK assassination. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-one-thing-in-politics-most-americans-believe-in-jfk-conspiracies/ ..."
"... the left, as a movement, is going through a prolonged identity crisis and that his group, instead, intends to stick to the original values, such as class warfare. ..."
"... The right-wingers' major gains from the working class are, according to Littorin, a token of widespread dissatisfaction with liberal economic migration that leads to "low-wage competition" and the "ghettoisation of communities", a development that "only benefits major companies". ..."
"... Littorin described multiculturalism, LGBT issues and the climate movement as state ideologies that are "rammed down people's throats". According to him, phenomena like LGBT-certification and the cult around 16-year-old climate activist Greta Thunberg and "other -isms" happen at the expense of the real issues, such as income equality. ..."
"... "Pride, for instance, has been reduced to dealing with sexual orientation. We believe that human dignity is primarily about having a job and having pension insurance that means that you are not forced to live on crumbs when you are old," Littorin explained. ..."
"... 20th-century Communism died with the Soviet Union, it has never been successfully updated for the 21st century ..."
"... similar thoughts in an opinion piece called "Socialists don't belong to the left", accusing the mainstream left of completely abandoning its base , switching from the working class to "parasitic grant-grabbing layers within the middle class". ..."
As I see it, intersectionality combines a recognition that people are oppressed both through the economic structures of capitalism
and as members of various subordinate groups with a rejection of both:
"essentialist" identity politics, based on the claim that some particular aspect of identity (gender, race, sexuality,
disability etc) should trump all others; and
"working class" politics, presented as a politics of universal liberation, but reduced by the failure of revolutionary
Marxism to another kind of identity politics (I took this formulation from
Don Arthur on Twitter. I had something
to say about class and Marxism
a while back)
likbez 01.02.20 at 1:11 am (no link)
Jake Gibson 01.01.20 at 3:49 pm @35
Here, I thought likbez was just a social reactionary, now I find he/she is also an infowars style conspiracist.
This is an ad hominem attack and as such is without merits.
Being labeled a conspiracist is actually not that bad, as probably 80% of major conspiracies (the term invented by CIA
to discredit the opposition to Warren commission findings) proved to be the most adequate, albeit "politically incorrect" explanations
of the events in question. They are just the explanations that undermine the establishment narrative. Right now most people (around
61% of voters and 71% of independents) believe that CIA operatives at senior levels played active role in JFK assassination.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-one-thing-in-politics-most-americans-believe-in-jfk-conspiracies/
So IMHO if a person views Russiagate as a color revolution against Trump run by intelligence agencies and Ukrainegate as attempt
to replicate 2018 success with Mueller witch hunt on a new level by neoliberal Democrats led by Pelosi and Schumer, this suggests
some attempt of independent thinking, and some level of resistance to neoliberal groupthink. Which may be a bridge too far, but
in general is not that bad, even if wrong.
The opposite camp that does not question the establishment narrative, especially as for Russiagate (and related false flag
operations such as DNC leak converted by Crowdstrike into Russian hack using CIA malware, probably from Vault 7 exposed by Wikileaks
and the creation of Gussifer 2.0 fake personality ) can be called a camp of neoliberal lemmings, or victims of neoliberal brainwashing,
your choice ;-)
Also for an Infowars adept I have friends in strange places -- a faction of Swedish communists -- which somehow managed to
replicate my views almost to a tee ;-)
Almost half of the members of the Communist Party in Malmö are resigning. Instead, they plan establish a new workers' party
that doesn't put as much emphasis on things like multiculturalism, LGBT issues and climate alarmism, which have become the
staples and rallying calls of today's left.
Nils Littorin, one of the defectors, explained to Lokaltidningen that today's left has become part of the elite and has
come to "dismiss the views of the working class as alien and problematic". Littorin suggested that the left, as a movement,
is going through a prolonged identity crisis and that his group, instead, intends to stick to the original values, such as
class warfare.
"They don't understand why so many workers don't think that multiculturalism, the LGBT movement and Greta Thunberg are something
fantastic, but instead believe we are in the 1930s' Germany and that workers who vote [right-wing] Sweden Democrats have been
infected by some Nazi sickness," he explained to Lokaltidningen.
The right-wingers' major gains from the working class are, according to Littorin, a token of widespread dissatisfaction
with liberal economic migration that leads to "low-wage competition" and the "ghettoisation of communities", a development
that "only benefits major companies".
According to Littorin, one of the underlying problems is a "chaotic" immigration policy that has led to cultural clashes,
segregation and exclusion due to an uncontrolled influx from parts of the world characterised by honour culture and clan mentalities.
Littorin described multiculturalism, LGBT issues and the climate movement as state ideologies that are "rammed down
people's throats". According to him, phenomena like LGBT-certification and the cult around 16-year-old climate activist Greta
Thunberg and "other -isms" happen at the expense of the real issues, such as income equality.
"Pride, for instance, has been reduced to dealing with sexual orientation. We believe that human dignity is primarily
about having a job and having pension insurance that means that you are not forced to live on crumbs when you are old," Littorin
explained.
The goal, according to Littorin is to enter Malmö City Council by 2022. The name of the party remains undetermined, but
Littorin stressed that the word "Communist" will no longer be present.
It's a word drawn to the dirt, a nasty word today, and not entirely undeservedly. In communist parties, there is this risk
of elitism, self-indulgence, and a belief that a certain avant-garde should lead a working class that does not know its own
best interests, instead of asking people what they want.
20th-century Communism died with the Soviet Union, it has never been successfully updated for the 21st century
but has been stuck in 100-year-old books. But the principles that Marx formulated, they still apply to me," Littorin concluded.
Earlier this week, Markus Allard, the leader of the left-wing Örebro Party expressed similar thoughts in an opinion
piece called "Socialists don't belong to the left", accusing the mainstream left of completely abandoning its base , switching
from the working class to "parasitic grant-grabbing layers within the middle class".
"... Bellingcat is an alleged group of amateur on-line researchers who have spent years shilling for the U.S. instigated war against the Syrian government, blaming the Douma chemical attack and others on the Assad government, and for the anti-Russian propaganda connected to, among other things, the Skripal poisoning case in England, and the downing of flight MH17 plane in Ukraine. ..."
"... The Intercept , along with its parent company First Look Media, recently hosted a workshop for pro-war, Google-funded organization Bellingcat in New York. The workshop, which cost $2,500 per person to attend and lasted five days, aimed to instruct participants in how to perform investigations using "open source" tools -- with Bellingcat's past, controversial investigations for use as case studies Thus, while The Intercept has long publicly promoted itself as an anti-interventionist and progressive media outlet, it is becoming clearer that – largely thanks to its ties to Omidyar – it is increasingly an organization that has more in common with Bellingcat, a group that launders NATO and U.S. propaganda and disguises it as "independent" and "investigative journalism." ..."
In the 1920s, the influential American intellectual Walter Lippman argued that the average
person was incapable of seeing or understanding the world clearly and needed to be guided by
experts behind the social curtain. In a number of books he laid out the theoretical foundations
for the practical work of Edward Bernays , who developed "public relations" (aka propaganda) to
carry out this task for the ruling elites. Bernays had honed his skills while working as a
propagandist for the United States during World War I, and after the war he set himself up as a
public relations counselor in New York City.
There is a fascinating exchange at the beginning of Adam Curtis's documentary, The
Century of Self , where Bernays, then nearly 100 years old but still very sharp, reveals
his manipulative mindset and that of so many of those who have followed in his wake. He says
the reason he couldn't call his new business "propaganda" was because the Germans had given
propaganda a "bad name," and so he came up with the euphemism "public relations." He then adds
that "if you could use it [i.e. propaganda] for war, you certainly could use it for peace." Of
course, he never used PR for peace but just to manipulate public opinion (he helped engineer
the CIA coup against the democratically elected Arbenz government in Guatemala in 1954 with
fake news broadcasts). He says "the Germans gave propaganda a bad name," not Bernays and the
United States with their vast campaign of lies, mainly aimed at the American people to get
their support for going to a war they opposed (think weapons of mass destruction). He sounds
proud of his war propaganda work that resounded to his credit since it led to support for the
"war to end all wars" and subsequently to a hit movie about WWI , Yankee Doodle Dandy
, made in 1942 to promote another war, since the first one somehow didn't achieve its lofty
goal.
As Bernays has said in his book Propaganda ,
The American motion picture is the greatest unconscious carrier of propaganda in the world
today.
He was a propagandist to the end. I suspect most viewers of the film are taken in by these
softly spoken words of an old man sipping a glass of wine at a dinner table with a woman who is
asking him questions. I have shown this film to hundreds of students and none has noticed his
legerdemain. It is an example of the sort of hocus-pocus I will be getting to shortly, the sly
insertion into seemingly liberal or matter-of-fact commentary of statements that imply a
different story. The placement of convincing or confusing disingenuous ingredients into a truth
sandwich – for Bernays knew that the bread of truth is essential to conceal untruth.
In the following years, Bernays, Lippman, and their ilk were joined by social "scientists,"
psychologists, and sundry others intent on making a sham out of the idea of democracy by
developing strategies and techniques for the engineering of social consensus consonant with the
wishes of the ruling classes. Their techniques of propaganda developed exponentially with the
development of technology, the creation of the CIA, its infiltration of all the major media,
and that agency's courting of what the CIA official Cord Meyer called in the 1950s "the
compatible left," having already had the right in its pocket. Today most people are, as is
said, "wired," and they get their information from the electronic media that is mostly
controlled by giant corporations in cahoots with government propagandists. Ask yourself: Has
the power of the oligarchic, permanent warfare state with its propaganda and spy networks
increased or decreased over your lifetime. The answer is obvious: the average people that
Lippman and Bernays trashed are losing and the ruling elites are winning.
This is not just because powerful propagandists are good at controlling so-called "average"
people's thinking, but, perhaps more importantly, because they are also adept – probably
more so – at confusing or directing the thinking of those who consider themselves above
average, those who still might read a book or two or have the concentration to read multiple
articles that offer different perspectives on a topic. This is what some call the professional
and intellectual classes, perhaps 15-20 % of the population, most of whom are not the ruling
elites but their employees and sometimes their mouthpieces. It is this segment of the
population that considers itself "informed," but the information they imbibe is often sprinkled
with bits of misdirection, both intentional and not, that beclouds their understanding of
important public matters but leaves them with the false impression that they are in the
know.
Recently I have noticed a group of interconnected examples of how this group of the
population that exerts influence incommensurate with their numbers has contributed to the
blurring of lines between fact and fiction. Within this group there are opinion makers who are
often journalists, writers, and cultural producers of some sort or other, and then the larger
number of the intellectual or schooled class who follow their opinions. This second group then
passes on their received opinions to those who look up to them.
There is a notorious propaganda outfit called Bellingcat , started by an unemployed
Englishman named Eliot Higgins, that has been funded by The Atlantic Council, a think-tank with
deep ties to the U.S. government, NATO, war manufacturers, and their allies, and the National
Endowment for Democracy (NED), another infamous U.S. front organization heavily involved in
so-called color revolution regime change operations all around the world, that has just won the
International Emmy Award for best documentary. The film with the Orwellian title, Bellingcat: Truth in a Post-Truth World, received its Emmy at a recent ceremony in New
York City.
Bellingcat is an alleged group of amateur on-line researchers who have spent years
shilling for the U.S. instigated war against the Syrian government, blaming the Douma chemical
attack and others on the Assad government, and for the anti-Russian propaganda connected to,
among other things, the Skripal poisoning case in England, and the downing of flight MH17 plane
in Ukraine.
It has been lauded by the corporate mainstream media in the west. Its support for
the equally fraudulent White Helmets (also funded by the US and the UK) in Syria has also been
praised by the western corporate media while being dissected as propaganda by many excellent
independent journalists such as Eva Bartlett, Vanessa Beeley, Catte Black, among others. It's
had its work skewered by the likes of Seymour Hersh and MIT professor Theodore Postol, and its
US government connections pointed out by many others, including Ben Norton and Max Blumenthal
at The Gray Zone. And now we have the mainstream media's wall of silence on the leaks from the
Organization for the Prohibition on Chemical Weapons (OPCW) concerning the Douma chemical
attack and the doctoring of their report that led to the illegal U.S. bombing of Syria in the
spring of 2018. Bellingcat was at the forefront of providing justification for such bombing,
and now the journalists Peter Hitchens, Tareq Harrad (who recently resigned from Newsweek after accusing the publication of suppressing his revelations about the OPCW
scandal) and others are fighting an uphill battle to get the truth out.
Yet Bellingcat: Truth in a Post-Truth World won the Emmy , fulfilling Bernays'
point about films being the greatest unconscious carriers of propaganda in the world today.
Who presented the Emmy Award to the film makers, but none other than the rebel journalist
Chris Hedges . Why he did so, I don't know. But that he did so clearly sends a message to those
who follow his work and trust him that it's okay to give a major cultural award to a propaganda
outfit. But then, perhaps he doesn't consider Bellingcat to be that.
Nor, one presumes, does The Intercept , the billionaire Pierre Omidyar owned
publication associated with Glen Greenwald and Jeremy Scahill, and also read by many
progressive-minded people. The Intercept that earlier this year disbanded the small
team that was tasked with reviewing and releasing more of the massive trove of documents they
received from Edward Snowden six years ago, a minute number of which have ever been released or
probably ever will be. As
Whitney Webb pointed out , last year The Intercept hosted a workshop for
Bellingcat. She wrote:
The Intercept , along with its parent company First Look Media, recently
hosted a workshop for pro-war, Google-funded organization Bellingcat in New York. The
workshop, which
cost $2,500 per person to attend and lasted five days, aimed to instruct participants in
how to perform investigations using "open source" tools -- with Bellingcat's past, controversial
investigations for use as case studies Thus, while The Intercept has long
publicly promoted itself as an anti-interventionist and progressive media outlet, it is
becoming clearer that – largely thanks to its ties to Omidyar – it is
increasingly an organization that has more in common with Bellingcat, a group that launders
NATO and U.S. propaganda and disguises it as "independent" and "investigative
journalism."
Then we have Jefferson Morley , the editor of The Deep State, former Washington
Post journalist, and JFK assassination researcher, who has written a praiseworthy review of the
Bellingcat film and who supports Bellingcat. "In my experience, Bellingcat is credible," he
writes in an Alternet article, "Bellingcat
documentary has the pace and plot of a thriller."
Morley has also just written an article for Counterpunch –
"Why the Douma Chemical Attack Wasn't a 'Managed Massacre'" – in which he disputes
the claim that the April 7, 2018 attack in the Damascus suburb was a false flag operation
carried out by Assad's opponents. "I do not see any evidence proving that Douma was a false
flag incident," he writes in this article that is written in a style that leaves one guessing
as to what exactly he is saying. It sounds convincing unless one concentrates, and then his
double messages emerge. Yet it is the kind of article that certain "sophisticated" left-wing
readers might read and feel is insightful. But then Morley, who has written considerably about
the CIA, edits a website that advertises itself as "the thinking person's portal to the world
of secret government," and recently had an exchange with former CIA Director John Brennan where
"Brennan put a friendly finger on my chest," said in February 2017, less than a month after
Trump was sworn in as president, that:
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 ."
Is it any wonder that some people might be a bit confused?
"I know what you're thinking about," said Tweedledum; "but it isn't so, nohow."
"Contrariwise," continued Tweedledee, "if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it
would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic."
As a final case in point, there is a recent book by Stephen Kinzer , Poisoner in Chief:
Sidney Gottlieb And The CIA Search For Mind Control, t he story of the chemist known as
Dr. Death who ran the CIA's MK-ULTRA mind control project, using LSD, torture, electric shock
therapy, hypnosis, etc.; developed sadistic methods of torture still used in black sites around
the world; and invented various ingenious techniques for assassination, many of which were
aimed at Fidel Castro. Gottlieb was responsible for brutal prison and hospital experiments and
untold death and suffering inflicted on all sorts of innocent people. His work was depraved in
the deepest sense; he worked with Nazis who experimented on Jews despite being Jewish
himself.
Kinzer writes in depth about this man who considered himself a patriot and a spiritual
person – a humane torturer and killer. It is an eye-opening book for anyone who does not
know about Gottlieb, who gave the CIA the essential tools they use in their "organized crime"
activities around the world – in the words of Douglass Valentine, the author of The
CIA as Organized Crime and The Phoenix Program . Kinzer's book is good history on
Gottlieb; however, he doesn't venture into the present activities of the CIA and Gottlieb's
patriotic followers, who no doubt exist and go about their business in secret.
After recounting in detail the sordid history of Gottlieb's secret work that is nauseating
to read about, Kinzer leaves the reader with these strange words:
Gottlieb was not a sadist, but he might well have been . Above all he was an instrument of
history. Understanding him is a deeply disturbing way of understanding ourselves.
What possibly could this mean? Not a sadist? An instrument of history? Understanding
ourselves? These few sentences, dropped out of nowhere, pull the rug out from under what is
generally an illuminating history and what seems like a moral indictment. This language is pure
mystification.
Kinzer also concludes that because Gottlieb said so, the CIA failed in their efforts to
develop methods of mind control and ended MK-ULTRA's experiments long ago. Why would he believe
the word of a man who personified the agency he worked for: a secret liar? He writes,
When Sydney Gottlieb brough MK-ULTRA to its end in the early 1960s, he told his CIA
superiors that he had found no reliable way to wipe away memory, make people abandon their
consciences, or commit crimes and then forget them.
As for those who might think otherwise, Kinzer suggests they have vivid imaginations and are
caught up in conspiracy thinking: "This [convincing others that the CIA had developed methods
of mind control when they hadn't] is Sydney Gottlieb's most unexpected legacy," he asserts. He
says this although Richard Helms, the CIA Director, destroyed all MK-Ultra records. He says
that Allen Dulles, Gottlieb, and Helms themselves were caught up in a complete fantasy about
mind control because they had seen too many movies and read too many books; mind control was
impossible, a failure, a myth, he maintains. It is the stuff of popular culture, entertainment.
In an interview with Chris Hedges, interestingly posted by Jefferson Morley at his website, The Deep State , Hedges agrees with Kinzer. Gottlieb, Dulles, et al. were all deluded.
Mind control was impossible. You couldn't create a Manchurian Candidate; by implication,
someone like Sirhan Sirhan could not have been programmed to be a fake Manchurian Candidate and
to have no memory of what he did, as he claims. He could not have been mind-controlled by the
CIA to perform his part as the seeming assassin of Senator Robert Kennedy while the real killer
shot RFK from behind. People who think like this should get real.
Furthermore, as is so common in books such as Kinzer's, he repeats the canard that JFK and
RFK knew about and pressured the CIA to assassinate Fidel Castro. This is demonstrably false,
as shown by the Church Committee and the Assassinations Record Review Board, among many others.
That Kinzer takes the word of notorious liars like Richard Helms and the top-level CIA
operative Samuel Halpern is simple incredible, something that is hard to consider a mistake.
Slipped into a truth sandwich, it is devoured and passed on. But it is false. Bullshit meant to
deceive.
But this is how these games are played. If you look carefully, you will see them widely.
Inform, enlighten, while throwing in doubletalk and untruths. The small number of people who
read such books and articles will come away knowing some history that has no current relevance
and being misinformed on other history that does. They will then be in the know, ready to pass
their "wisdom" on to those who care to listen. They will not think they are average.
But they will be mind controlled, and the killer cat will roam freely without a bell, ready
to devour the unsuspecting mice.
Edward Curtin is a writer whose work has appeared widely. He teaches sociology at
Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts. His website is http://edwardcurtin.com/
"Trump and his allies repeatedly promoted conspiracy theories asserting that the Crossfire
Hurricane investigation was opened on false pretenses for political purposes." that is a
quote from propaganda site wikipedia.. it amazes me how wikipedia is able to print this type
of stuff based off a link to a politico.com article! i got to looking at this thanks ew's
latest article -
"Fact Witness:" How Rod Rosenstein Got DOJ IG To Land a Plane on Bruce Ohr
it continues to amaze me how in lock step these folks are with the basic story line they
have been given - trump is in putins back pocket and drivel like that... one can say what
they want about trump, but does it always have to blur every other aspect of reality once you
have gone bonkers from him?? it appears that way.. i guess that is why they call it tds...
oh, and i am using that term, not as a trump supporter, but a reality supporter, lol..
"... Imagine millions of government employees paid for by America's tax payer class, involved in covert operations undermining nation states for the benefit of war mongering shadow overlords counting on more never ending chaos feeding their hunger for power. ..."
"... This isn't Orwell's 1984, this Team America on opioids. ..."
"... Senior OPCW official had orders from US/ the Donald. Remember that the Donald bombed Syria based on this fake report , after a false flag done by Al Qaeda's artistic branch, the White Helmets. ..."
"... Pray, do tell where are the consequences for these literal demons that engaged in war crimes? It is quite clear: as long as you are a member of the establishment, you can do whatever the f*ck you want. ..."
"... Third rate script, third rate actors and crooked investigators. TPTB seem to have a plan worked out. Their problem now is that we, the hoi-polloi, have seen it all before, many times, and we can now recognise ******** when it's used to try to influence us. ..."
"... If this is not lamentable enough, the OPCW – whose final report came to more than a hundred pages and which even issued an easy-to-read precis version for journalists – now slams shut its steel doors in the hope of preventing even more information reaching the press. ..."
"... Instead of these pieces concentrating on the whistleblower how about putting a little heat on the 50 lying bastards who initiated the coverup? ..."
"... The destruction of the countries of the Middle East for the sake of a dwarf with giant ambitions is the most stupid thing the United States has done over the past 30 years in its foreign policy. And yes, all the wars in the Middle East were grounded in lies. And the Americans paid for it all from start to finish. When Americans realize that they need to defend their national interests, and not other people's national interests, maybe something in the Middle East will change for the better. True, I am afraid that with the hight level of stupidity and shortsightedness that is common among Americans, the United States is more likely to be destroyed faster. No offense. ..."
"... And I propose to remember the Syrian Christians who were destroyed by the Saudi Wahhabis, hired by the CIA with the money of American taxpayers and at the request of Israel. Until the Americans begin to investigate the activities of the CIA (and this activity causes the United States only harm), the responsibility for this genocide (you heard right) will be on the American nation. It turns out that in the Middle East you are primarily destroying Christians. How interesting, why such zeal. ..."
"... According to whistleblower testimony and leaked documents, OPCW officials raised alarm about the suppression of critical findings that undermine the allegation that the Syrian government committed a chemical weapons attack in the city of Douma in April 2018. Haddad's editors at Newsweek rejected his attempts to cover the story. "If I don't find another position in journalism because of this, I'm perfectly happy to accept that consequence," Haddad says. "It's not desirable. But there is no way I could have continued in that job knowing that I couldn't report something like this." ..."
"... New leaks continue to expose a cover-up by the OPCW – the world's top chemical weapons watchdog – over a critical event in Syria. Documents, emails, and testimony from OPCW officials have raised major doubts about the allegation that the Syrian government committed a chemical weapons attack in the city of Douma in April 2018. The leaked OPCW information has been released in pieces by Wikileaks. The latest documents contain a number of significant revelations – including that that about 20 OPCW officials voiced concerns that their scientific findings and on-the-ground evidence was suppressed and excluded. ..."
Wikileaks has released their fourth set of leaks from the OPCW's Douma investigation,
revealing new details about the alleged deletion of important information regarding the
fact-finding mission.
RELEASE: OPCW-Douma Docs 4. Four leaked documents from the OPCW reveal that toxicologists
ruled out deaths from chlorine exposure and a senior official ordered the deletion of the
dissenting engineering report from OPCW's internal repository of documents. https://t.co/ndK4sRikNk
"One of the documents is an e-mail exchange dated 27 and 28 February between members of the
fact finding mission (FFM) deployed to Douma and the senior officials of the OPCW. It includes
an e-mail from Sebastien Braha, Chief of Cabinet at the OPCW , where he instructs that an
engineering report from Ian Henderson should be removed from the secure registry of the
organisation," WikiLeaks writes. Included in the email is the following directive:
" Please get this document out of DRA [Documents Registry Archive] And please remove all
traces, if any, of its delivery/storage/whatever in DRA.'"
According to Wikileaks, the main finding of Henderson, who inspected the sites in Douma, was
that two of the cylinders were most likely manually placed at the site, rather than
dropped.
"The main finding of Henderson, who inspected the sites in Douma and two cylinders that were
found on the site of the alleged attack, was that they were more likely manually placed there
than dropped from a plane or helicopter from considerable heights. His findings were omitted
from the official final OPCW report on the Douma incident," the Wikileaks report said.
It must be remembered that the U.S. launched an attack on Damascus, Syria on April 14, 2018
over alleged chemical weapons usage by pro-Assad forces at Douma.
Another document released Friday is minutes from a meeting on 6 June 2018 where four staff
members of the OPCW had discussions with "three Toxicologists/Clinical pharmacologists, one
bioanalytical and toxicological chemist" (all specialists in chemical weapons, according to the
minutes).
Minutes from an OPCW meeting with toxicologists specialized in chemical weapons: "the
experts were conclusive in their statements that there was
no correlation between symptoms and chlorine exposure". https://t.co/j5Jgjiz8UY pic.twitter.com/vgPaTtsdQN
The purpose of this meeting was two-fold. The first objective was "to solicit expert advice
on the value of exhuming suspected victims of the alleged chemical attack in Douma on 7 April
2018". According to the minutes, the OPCW team was advised by the experts that there would be
little use in conducting exhumations. The second point was "To elicit expert opinions from the
forensic toxicologists regarding the observed and reported symptoms of the alleged
victims."
More specifically, " whether the symptoms observed in victims were consistent with exposure
to chlorine or other reactive chlorine gas."
According to the minutes leaked Friday: "With respect to the consistency of the observed and
reported symptoms of the alleged victims with possible exposure to chlorine gas or similar, the
experts were conclusive in their statements that there was no correlation between symptoms and
chlorine exposure ."
The OPCW team members wrote that the key "take-away message" from the meeting was "that the
symptoms observed were inconsistent with exposure to chlorine and no other obvious candidate
chemical causing the symptoms could be identified".
The isisrahell have such long hand to pull the plug any stories implicating their crime in
progress otherwise they can put out some bs spins as bombshell reporting about US lies in
Afghanistan war on their wapo for public for those who read it was nothing important revealed
except being a misdirected na
If you want to pay off that student loan you're going to print what they tell you to
print. You're going to inject kids with what they tell you to inject them with. You're going
to think what they tell you to think or you're going to spend your days in a Prole bar
drinking Blatz.
yes, an attack was launched, 50 missiles I believe, after loud warnings that it was
coming, and none of them actually hit anything significant ... this is the way the game is
played .... the good news is that the missiles cost $50 million, and now they will have to be
replaced, by the Pentagon, first borrowing the money through the US Treasury offerings, and
then paying for them from new money printed by the Federal Reserve. capische?
That`s the way it`s always been, it`s the eternal war of good against evil.
And when one evil enemy is defeated, it`s necessary to create a new evil enemy, how else
can the Establishment Elite make money from war, death and destruction.
It's really very awkward & telling how ***** these bunch of western nations are
looking tough on taking out poor defenceless country like Syria on ******** & at the
satried to ease real kickass Russian as you described when they launch the attacks
I kind wish the US & their Zionist clown launch such huge attacks on Iran based on
false flag
I really wanted these evil aggressive powers to taste what it is like to get bombed back
even one they used to throw on multiple weaker nations freely with nothing to fear as
retribution etc
This organisations are all set up in Europe and US run by the filthiest filth on earth who
still think they have God given right to imperial rule over the world.
Your military-industrial-intelligence complex at work, creating justification for more
funding, like always - and who cares if people die as a result? Like Soros said, if they
didn't do it, someone else would. (do I need /sarc?).
They don't like to be shown to be in charge, just to be in charge. And if you think this
is a function of the current admin, you've been slow in the head and deaf and blind for quite
some time.
I've watched since Eisenhower, and "it's always something". Doesn't matter what color the
clown in chief's tie is.
Imagine millions of government employees paid for by America's tax payer class, involved
in covert operations undermining nation states for the benefit of war mongering shadow
overlords counting on more never ending chaos feeding their hunger for power.
This isn't Orwell's 1984, this Team America on opioids.
Senior OPCW official had orders from US/ the Donald. Remember that the Donald bombed Syria based on this fake report , after a false flag done
by Al Qaeda's artistic branch, the White Helmets.
Pray, do tell where are the consequences for these literal demons that engaged in war
crimes? It is quite clear: as long as you are a member of the establishment, you can do
whatever the f*ck you want. Why do we even follow the law, then? Given the precedent that is
being set, we might as well not have any.
Well, they are looking forward to using all those Israeli weapons, er, uh, products, that
local law enforcement has purchased...so watch out for Co-Intel Pro elicitation going
forward....?
Everybody knows the Golem (USA) does Isn'treal's bidding in Syria and elsewhere in the
Near East. Hopefully they keep hammering in the fact that this "gas attack" was an obvious
set-up to use as a pretext (flimsy itself on the face of it) to brutalize Assad and Syria on
behalf of Isn'treal.
The whole thing is built on ******* lies. Worst part about it is, nothing will happen.
Only official news is to believed. You see it and it is a lie. they tell you to believe
it. A lot of people casually believe whatever is spoken on TV. They become teachers and are
taught in college what is right and wrong. We only have a few years before all the brain dead
are in charge and robotically following the message like zombies with no brain
Third rate script, third rate actors and crooked investigators. TPTB seem to have a plan worked out. Their problem now is that we, the hoi-polloi, have
seen it all before, many times, and we can now recognise ******** when it's used to try to
influence us.
It is difficult to underestimate the seriousness of this manipulative act by the OPCW.
In a response to the conservative author Peter Hitchens, who also writes for the Mail on
Sunday – he is of course the brother of the late Christopher Hitchens – the
OPCW admits that its so-called technical secretariat "is conducting an internal
investigation about the unauthorised [sic] release of the document".
Then it adds: "At this time, there is no further public information on this matter and
the OPCW is unable to accommodate [sic] requests for interviews". It's a tactic that until
now seems to have worked: not a single news media which reported the OPCW's official
conclusions has followed up the story of the report which the OPCW suppressed.
And you bet the OPCW is not going to "accommodate" interviews. For here is an
institution investigating a war crime in a conflict which has cost hundreds of thousands of
lives – yet its only response to an enquiry about the engineers' "secret" assessment
is to concentrate on its own witch-hunt for the source of the document it wished to keep
secret from the world.
If this is not lamentable enough, the OPCW – whose final report came to more than
a hundred pages and which even issued an easy-to-read precis version for journalists
– now slams shut its steel doors in the hope of preventing even more information
reaching the press.
The destruction of the countries of the Middle East for the sake of a dwarf with giant
ambitions is the most stupid thing the United States has done over the past 30 years in its
foreign policy. And yes, all the wars in the Middle East were grounded in lies. And the
Americans paid for it all from start to finish. When Americans realize that they need to
defend their national interests, and not other people's national interests, maybe something
in the Middle East will change for the better. True, I am afraid that with the hight level of
stupidity and shortsightedness that is common among Americans, the United States is more
likely to be destroyed faster. No offense.
And I propose to remember the Syrian Christians who were destroyed by the Saudi Wahhabis,
hired by the CIA with the money of American taxpayers and at the request of Israel. Until the
Americans begin to investigate the activities of the CIA (and this activity causes the United
States only harm), the responsibility for this genocide (you heard right) will be on the
American nation. It turns out that in the Middle East you are primarily destroying
Christians. How interesting, why such zeal.
According to whistleblower testimony and leaked documents, OPCW officials raised alarm
about the suppression of critical findings that undermine the allegation that the Syrian
government committed a chemical weapons attack in the city of Douma in April 2018. Haddad's
editors at Newsweek rejected his attempts to cover the story. "If I don't find another
position in journalism because of this, I'm perfectly happy to accept that consequence,"
Haddad says. "It's not desirable. But there is no way I could have continued in that job
knowing that I couldn't report something like this."
New leaks continue to expose a cover-up by the OPCW – the world's top chemical
weapons watchdog – over a critical event in Syria. Documents, emails, and testimony
from OPCW officials have raised major doubts about the allegation that the Syrian government
committed a chemical weapons attack in the city of Douma in April 2018. The leaked OPCW
information has been released in pieces by Wikileaks. The latest documents contain a number
of significant revelations – including that that about 20 OPCW officials
voiced concerns that their scientific findings and on-the-ground evidence was suppressed and
excluded.
This is, without a doubt, a major global scandal: the OPCW, under reported US pressure,
suppressing vital evidence about allegations of chemical weapons. But that very fact exposes
another global scandal: with the exception of small outlets like The Grayzone, the mass media
has widely ignored or whitewashed this story. And this widespread censorship of the OPCW
scandal has just led one journalist to resign. Up until recently, Tareq Haddad was a reporter
at Newsweek. But in early December, Tareq announced that he had quit his position after
Newsweek refused to publish his story about the OPCW cover up over Syria.
The Washington Post has, after more than two years of investigation,
revealed that senior foreign policy officials in the White House, State and Defense
departments have known for some time that the U.S. intervention in Afghanistan was failing
.
In other words, government officials have been
lying .
Few people are shocked. That's a stark contrast to 1971, when the Pentagon Papers , a classified study of
decision-making about Vietnam, were leaked and published. The explosive Pentagon Papers showed
that the U.S. government had systematically lied about the reality that the U.S. was losing the
Vietnam War.
The failure of the U.S. campaign in Afghanistan has been known for years. Virtually
none of the U.S. goals have been met . These goals included a strong, democratic, uncorrupt
central government; the defeat of the Taliban; eliminating the poppy fields that contribute to
the world's heroin problem; an effective military and police and creating a healthy,
diversified economy.
The Inspector General has repeatedly documented the reality in its widely available (and
widely reported)
audits .
Despite this public record of failure, officials continued to trumpet political
and military gains on the ground, even that the U.S. could prevail.
Privately, they have been wringing their hands.
Shades of Vietnam.
Public confidence in government was shaken by the publication of the Pentagon Papers in
1971.
AP/Jim Wells
Sad history of Vietnam
The Pentagon
Papers revealed that senior officials asserted in the 1960s that the Viet Cong were dying
in record numbers, enemy leadership was decapitated and there was "light at
the end of the tunnel ." Defense Secretary Robert McNamara and his commanders, who knew the
reality, continuously called for even more force from 1961 to 1969.
H.R. McMaster, in his classic study of
Vietnam decision-making , excoriated the military for not bringing the truth to President
Lyndon Johnson, for presenting Johnson with the "lies that led to Vietnam."
Now we learn, courtesy of The Washington Post, that, when interviewed in 2015 as part of
Special Inspector General's " Lessons Learned " project,
Lute said , "We were devoid of a fundamental understanding of Afghanistan we didn't have
the foggiest notion of what we were undertaking."
While Afghanistan is clearly not Vietnam, Washington is still
Washington.
The U.S. secretly plotted and carried out the overthrow of the democratically elected leader
of Iran, Mohammad Mossadeq, in 1953. Here, an Iranian protests U.S. involvement in the coup.
Pahlavi Dynasty, public domain
But
Vietnam was the big lie , permanently exposing the gap between myth – the government
knows everything better – and reality – that policy is failing.
Since Vietnam, the media and congressional, think-tank and scholarly investigators have
suspected something with every intervention.
To the public , the truth about Afghanistan has been clear; public opinion has been way
ahead of what The Washington Post revealed.
Good reasons for lies
Lies are an integral part of national security operations. They seek credibility for
government policy. They mislead adversaries, cover up mistakes and failures.
Above all, they are intended to secure public support for policy and defeat opposition at
home. Political scientist John Mearsheimer has noted
that governments don't often lie to their allies and adversaries, "but instead seem more
inclined to lie to their own people."
In particular, secrecy and deception convey power. As philosopher Sissela Bok says ,
"Deception can be coercive. When it succeeds, it can give power to the deceiver."
Secrecy allows policies to be tweaked outside public view . Insiders gain influence
arguing for new approaches to the same goals. Even the goals can shift as interventions
deteriorate. The political consequences of failure may be avoided.
It is rare for an official to acknowledge failure and reverse policy; personal, political
and national credibility may be at stake. President Johnson insisted that he was not going to
be the "first
president to lose a war." Bush, Obama and even Trump did not want to "lose"
Afghanistan.
Nonetheless, lying about military interventions carries a serious risk.
The Pentagon Papers eroded public faith in the credibility of our democratic government.
That erosion was later reinforced by the Watergate scandal. As
Bok, the philosopher, wrote , "deception of this kind strikes at the very essence of
democratic government."
British leader Winston Churchill said , "In
war-time truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies."
Deception aimed at the public and the Axis was an essential part of Churchill's war
strategy.
The Afghanistan papers reveal yet again that statesmen still believe the truth should be
concealed. But the credibility of statecraft and leadership itself were seriously eroded by the
Vietnam lies, weakening the fabric of democracy.
The mild reaction to lying in plain sight about Afghanistan suggests the U.S. may be well
down the road to unravelling government's credibility and our democracy altogether.
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.
Jacques Ellul's 1973 Propaganda: The Formation of Men's Minds is still the antidote to
Bernaysian brainwashing. Short of reading it, there are excellent reviews on Amazon and
elsewhere. Ellul makes the same point as the author here, that no group is more taken in by
propaganda than the educated classes who fancy themselves above propaganda for being
constantly immersed in it.
@Adrian About Chris Hedges' participation in presenting this award to Bellingcat "News from
Underground" came yesterday up with this:
a friend who knows the background of Chris Hedges' involvement writes that "he was duped
into presenting the Emmy to Bellingcat -- and, from what I hear, he believes it was done
intentionally to smear him."
As this friend is someone I (and many others) quite admire for his integrity and bravery,
and as it's wholly plausible that Hedges would have been set up, I am reserving judgementon
his action, and urge people on this list to do so, too.
@Adrian Hedges would have known who the nominees are just seeing Bellingcat in there and
knowing this is the Emmies well, it's hard to believe otherwise than Hedges is a clever fake as
I have long suspected
Let's recall that Hedges in his previous life was an NYT war correspondent who covered the
Bosnian conflict knowing Yugoslavia quite well from visits there in the 1980s his reports
demonizing Serbs stood out like a sore thumb
I quickly pegged him as a complete liar, like the rest of the MSM propagandists that were
repeating boilerplate canards meant to demonize the hugely successful nation of Yugoslavia
which of course they were trying to tear apart
For instance, 'the Serb-dominated Yugoslavia' was a standard sentence that appeared
literally in every single story repeated ad nauseum literallu dozens of times a day and clearly
meant to convince the reader that dismantling the progressive and ethnically harmonious nation
of Yugoslavia was somehow the right thing to do
But it was pure bullshit anyone who had ever been to Yugoslavia would instantly recognize
that as a 'WTF ?'
There is much much more in Hedges' closet
But then, miraculously, he had a 'Road to Damascus' moment a few years later [we are
supposed to believe] and somehow became a 'good guy'
Bullshit Mr. Curtin nails the sly method here exactly
[The] bread of truth is essential to conceal untruth.
An excellent article
PS Counterpunch is a complete bullshit rag that has been coopted completely Plutocrat Pierre
Omidyar and his little 'Intercept' outfit is similarly continuing in the footsteps of prior
plutocrat propagandists like the Ford foundation Rockefellers and others
The ultimate goal is controlling YOU they need you to be obedient and believing and not ask
any questions
@FB Haven't looked at Bellingcat (not exactly a sophisticated operation if you ever worked
in the ad business) since MH 17 and Putin's Syria pacification, but upon reading this article
it became clear that Hedges must be either an idiot or deeply embedded.
One doesn't exclude the other, of course. The uneducated public wouldn't need to catch up on
so much information, and still get a great head start if they ever found out wtf "cui bono"
even means – but that's not gonna happen.
It's just not how the human mind works.
The tread is reproduced as is. And out 100 posts available in NYT "all view mode 90% can be classified as plain vanilla Neo-McCarthyism
If they are representative sample of the country, the country is crazy.
This editorial can also be classified as lunatic. But in reality it is much worse: the paper became completely subservant
to intelligence agencies. Should probably be renamed the Voice of the CIA. .
Monday's congressional hearing and the inspector general's report tell a similar story.
By Jesse Wegman Mr. Wegman is a member of the editorial board.
When it comes to Donald Trump and Russia, everything is connected.
That's the most important lesson from the two big events that played out Monday on Capitol Hill -- the House Judiciary Committee's
hearings on President Trump's impeachment and the
release of the report on the origins of the F.B.I.'s investigation into ties between the Trump campaign and the Russian government.
One of these involved the 2016 election. The other involves the 2020 election. Both tell versions of the same story: Mr. Trump
depends on, and welcomes, Russian interference to help him win the presidency. That was bad enough when he did it in 2016, openly
calling for Russia to hack into his opponent's emails -- which
Russians tried to do that
same day . But he was only a candidate then. Now that Mr. Trump is president, he is wielding the immense powers of his office
to achieve the same end.
That is precisely the type of abuse of power that the founders
were most concerned about when they
created the impeachment power, and it's why Democratic leaders in the House are pressing ahead with such urgency on their inquiry.
They are trying to ensure that the 2020 election, now less than a year away, is not corrupted by the president of the United States,
acting in league with a foreign power. "The integrity of our next election is at stake," said Representative Jerry Nadler, the chairman
of the Judiciary Committee. "Nothing could be more urgent."
On Monday morning, lawyers for the Democrats on the House Judiciary and Intelligence committees presented
the clearest and most comprehensive narrative yet of President Trump's monthslong shakedown of the new Ukrainian president, Volodymyr
Zelensky, for Mr. Trump's personal political benefit. They explained in methodical detail how the president withheld a White House
meeting and hundreds of millions of dollars in crucial, congressionally authorized military aid to Ukraine, all in an effort to get
Mr. Zelensky to announce two investigations -- one into Mr. Trump's political rival, Joe Biden, and his son, Hunter, and another
into Ukraine's supposed interference in the 2016 election.
David Leonhardt helps you make sense of the news -- and offers reading suggestions from around the web -- with commentary every
weekday morning.
Who would benefit from these announcements? Mr. Trump, who believes his re-election prospects are threatened most by Mr. Biden,
and Vladimir Putin, the president of Russia, who has been working for years to make Ukraine the fall guy for his own interference
in the 2016 election. Mr. Putin has not fooled serious people, like those in the American intelligence community who determined that
his government alone was responsible
for meddling on Mr. Trump's behalf . But he has fooled Republicans in Congress, who have degraded themselves and their offices
by faithfully parroting Mr. Putin's propaganda in the mainstream press.
Republicans are in lawyer mode, advocating for Trump as if he were their client. Lawyers make the best case they can for their
clients. It helps if they believe in the case, but it also helps to know the case's weaknesses so they can avoid them. The best
lawyers can do both at the same time. Republicans are called on by the Constitution to exit lawyer mode and enter juror mode (which
is, or should be, similar to why-did-this-aircraft-crash mode). So far, they are not heeding this call. From all appearances,
they are mouthing the words of the Constitution while avoiding or refusing to hear or understand them. They took an oath to support
the Constitution, but they are deaf to its call, or have moved to a place beyond understanding it.
The issue of whether to impeach was made by the President when he engaged in an abuse of his office for personal gain and then
obstructed Congress' oversight function. We all understand the political downside arising from an acquittal in the Senate but
that interest needs to be secondary to doing the right thing. On these facts, the decision representatives must make of whether
to impeach really is no decision at all. Just do the right thing.
When Senator John McCain died, he scripted his own funeral as a full bore defense against Trumpian Nationalism, and as an admonishment
against a GOP too willing to sell the soul of our nation out to a cultist repudiation of objective fact, truth, and Constitutional
order. McCain was a controversial maverick –a person I both admired and disliked in equal proportion. But there is one thing I
will always admire him for: his final letter to the nation. It was a warning! He blew a golden bugle to sound the alarm against
those entities both within and without our nation who wish to do our democratic republic harm. McCain, whether you agreed with
the premise of the Vietnam war or not, was an American hero who served his country and his fellow soldiers with incontrovertible
valor and love. President Donald Trump has no concept of what that dedication and sacrifice entails – and sadly, neither do many
of the GOP members who continue to lie and make excuses for a president who is clearly abusing his office for personal gain. McCain
characterized Trump's actions in Helsinki as an unfathomable 'abasement of the U.S. presidency.' All I can say is the GOP sure
ain't the party of my father who fought in WWII against fascism and autocracy. It aggrieves me to no end to witness what too many
members of Congress have become: tyrants toward the very meaning of American democracy. God save us from our own duplicity.
@Twg Well said, and though I sometimes did not agree with McCain on matters of policy, I wish he were still with us, hopefully
to show his fellow republicans what integrity looks like, and what America is supposed to be about. The Republican party I have
known and respected is alas, like Senator McCain, no longer with us.
Americans have to realize that the whole world is mocking us, and that doesn't necesarily inspire respect. That cold be dangerous.
Many medical professionals have noticed a decay in the mental abilities of the president, and certain abnormalities. It would
be wise to suggest to the family that maybe the best way forward, with minimal losses would be to motivate a retirement. That
would be face saving for them, and save the country from a bitter impeachment spectacle that would not be positive for the USA.
I'm waiting for Trump's financial info to be released. There's something in there he doesn't even want his base to know . I think
the logical conclusion is that whatever financials DJT has hidden do indeed lead to Moscow. Actually, all of this is very, very
alarming. Does Putin have a political asset planted here? Y or N I wish the answer was no and that we had a different President.
Can we as a nation hold things together when our leader wants to tear us apart?
All roads lead to the highest bidder(s). 21st century America in the era of Citizens United. Market pricing and the government
is open for transactional business domestic and international. Alternate realities per GRU/FOX/GOP misinformation. Combine foreign
money carefully grooming an in-need Trump, and a party worshipping money and you have a perfect storm removing any sense of civic
duty. Hundreds of years to build and unwound in a few decades, the breathtaking and tragic fall of greatness and hope in our lifetime.
It's not fiction, and every day I have to check if it's really happening, and shockingly it is.
There was no Russian meddling, only Ukraine who meddled in 2016 and they are still at it. Listening to the Judiciary Committee
hearings, it seems that the Russians have hacked into the Republican Party servers and are sending talking points to Republicans
who are defending the indefensible president.
At some point, Republicans have to ask themselves which is better for their party and the country. Slavish devotion to Trump,
or losing an election and leaving Democrats a mess to clean up, as in 1932 and 2008?
Block witnesses from testifying, then say that the hearing is incomplete. Romney told America at the Republican Convention in
2012 that Russia was our biggest enemy, DJT wanted them to help Republicans win in 2016, said he believed Putin in 2018, and wants
to convince us that it was really the Ukraine in 2019. The House has to impeach, even if politically it may be a bad move, because
it is the right thing to do; indeed, the very actions I've seen in the past several weeks has given me glimmers of hope for the
country.
Trump will be reelected for the reason that the Russian intelligence agencies are still able to hack our election results, because
Trump has blocked fixing the weaknesses. That is what happens when a Manchurian candidate is elected and then allowed to obstruct
justice. It is not clear the US will survive Trump. One key thing he did was arrange to have the teams at DHS that watch for smuggled
nuclear bombs were stood down and disbanded. See the report in the LA Times last July "Trump administration has gutted programs
aimed at detecting weapons of mass destruction".
I don't suppose a constructed transcript of Trump's meeting with Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov tomorrow will be offered up as
a token of our leader's transparency.
It's clear now that AG William Barr isn't interested in enforcing the rule of law with fellow republicans, and especially the
president. How can there be no recourse when an attorney general completely sells out to a criminal president? Can the employees
of the Justice Dept hold a vote of no confidence in the AG? Can 10,000 attorneys nationwide express the same? The prospect of
Trump and Barr running roughshod over the rule of law for another year is truly frightening.
65,845,063 voters knew clearly who this man was from the beginning and voted for what would have been a better now and future.
It was never any secret. 62,980,160 voters also knew clearly who this man was and voted for him anyway. If the Democrats can ensure
that we have a fair election in 2020. I'm confident they will win the majority in the house and senate and retake the White House
and the end game for Trump will be jail. The problem is, he might not be the only one who's crimes come to light and I suspect
a good lot of the GOP are threatening and blackmailing each other to hold the line. If there's any good men or women left in the
GOP, your country and history are calling you.
It has easy to predict Trump's next move for the last 3 years. Just ask, "What would both benefit Trump, and benefit Putin?" Trump
supporters = Putin supporters.
Do you know the American people are fed up with the discourse of all politicians. The republicans are fed up with any decency
for the republic. The democrats are fed up with the republicans not facing the common sense of a exec not capable of being the
President of the United states. I as a person am fed up with a political system that is not working for all people, just a select
few. It's time too have term limits for all positions in gov't. That means all people that serve the people whether it be judges,
senators or congressmen/women. It's time to find common sense again in our society as a whole society. We on this earth are all
HUMAN.
Unfortunately their are serious problems with term limits. Just consider yourself in the role of a Congressional Representative
limited to 4 terms. You know that in 8 years, you'll be be back on the job market. You can selflessly work for the public and
damage your ability to get a job or tend to people who can hire you after you leave office. You're rational. Which future would
you pick?
Trump needs to keep Putin happy lest he unleash with all the damaging info he has collected on Trump and his financial crooked
deals with Russians over decades. THe Russian mob reports to Putin as a former KGB agent he knows how to collect compromat on
a politician and how to use it to get Trump to break into a giddy smile when he sees Putin his master it's obvious to most keen
observers.
Folks it is simple. Can we hear what Trump and Putin said to each other a few months ago. It is recored and on a server it should
not be on. I am not sure why nobody is talking about these transcripts.
Finally! We get someone stating the obvious fact of Trump/Putin. Why are the Dems not talking about this all the time? Why are
Congressmen and women not asking the witnesses about this? This is the ONE thing the Republicans are afraid of, so it is the one
thing Democrats should do. I have been disappointed that the Russian asset thing hasn't been brought up....It's as if it is purposely
bold. Trump is a Russian asset, either witting or unwitting. I doubt if there is one upper Intelligence Official that wouldn't
say this. So find the right one and have them sit as a witness for this inquiry. And now the Russian big wig Diplomat and KGb
spy, Lavarov, is visiting tomorrow. Good grief! Everyone is thinking this, so get out and say it Dems! Dr. Fiona Hill tried to
lead into this direction but still the Dem Committee would take it up and aske her what she thought. Say it: All of Trump's Roads
Lead to Russia.
Any American adult who has made an effort to educate himself or herself about Mr. Mueller's investigation or these impeachment
proceedings understands that yes, with Trump all roads lead to Russia. Now if the poll numbers mean anything, Trump's crimes and
Russia's involvement only matter to about 60% of us. As Trump's poll numbers remain steady, some 40% of Americans don't care what
lawbreaking he is involved with or whether other nations now control our elections. Stop and think about this for a minute. Trump
supporters know but literally do not care that Russia is tampering with our elections (2016 and 2020). Their cult-like support
for Trump is why the Republican Senate will not remove him. There is no other reason Trump will remain in office. Trump has mesmerized
his supporters like a modern day Rasputin. They will do literally anything for him, and Senate Republicans know this. Trump voters
do not mind that Putin controls our nation at the highest levels of decision making. Again - think about this - they know he does,
and they do not care. So I ask the rest of us. Is this the America we want to live in? To raise our families in? Where a large,
rabid minority is in thrall to a lunatic puppet whose strings are firmly in Putin's hands? Because this is very much the America
we live in now. The time will come, though, when we, the majority, will no longer tolerate the Trump/Putin regime. But the longer
we wait, the harder it will be oust these tyrants.
In 2008, Donald Trump Jr. said Russia was an important source of funding for the Trump businesses. American banks wouldn't lend
him money. Saudi Arabia likely bailed out Jared's disastrous real estate investment in NYC. Follow. The. Money.
You say that Mr. Putin "has fooled Republicans in Congress, who have degraded themselves and their offices by faithfully parroting
Mr. Putin's propaganda in the mainstream press." You are correct on all counts, except that the Republicans have not been fooled
by Putin. They have gone along, headlong and absolutely willingly, in a complete sellout of personal and national principle and
integrity. They should not be forgiven for this conduct, any more than Mr. Trump should be forgiven for his sellout of America.
For Republicans who believe so fervently in their counterfactual narrative, there is an immediate remedy. Bring facts and evidence
to the Committees and testify under oath. Without witnesses and evidence presented under oath, all of the GOP antics simply look
foolish and very much like they are defending the guilty. It is unfortunate that there is no penalty for elected officials who
share unfounded conspiracy theories, engage in innuendo and obstruct process in official Committee hearings. It is also regretable
that this President is not held accountable for trying to intimidate witnesses in real time during testimony. And it is a sad
reality that one of the most corrupt rulers in the world, who rules a hostile power, has managed to entirely win over one of our
major parties.
The strangest defense advanced today was the idea that the alleged state of the economy was reason not to impeach the President:
the Republicans assert that America, the Constitution, the principle of our government are for sale to be bought by the rising
stock market and a plethora of low-wage jobs. We are Faust, and the smell of sulphur is nauseating.
If the IG's report on the 2016 Russia investigation had found the only problem was that two of the agents involved had horrible
hangnails, Barr and Trump would have condemned it.
Whatever Trump is doing, he always care about his main benefactors, Putin and MBS. This is the first time I have witnessed in
history that an American president became a Russian puppet with all his Republican followers at the Congress and Senate. American
constitutional crisis happening right in front of the world. I heard the cries of James Madison, John Adams and Benjamin Franklin
from their graves.
Sir, do you honestly think that House Republicans have been "fooled" by Mr. Putin? On the contrary, it's pretty obvious they understand
and believe the conclusions from our Intel community. These are instead willful lies for political gain. And while some Americans
may actually be misled by the theater presented as rebuttal to the impeachment, it's hard to imagine for most it's once again,
not conviction but convenience that places such "patriots" solidly in Russia's back pocket.
The pattern of behavior is clear and compelling: Trump is selling out this country, its national security, its integrity and sovereignty,
in order to keep power and avoid his own prosecution, and protect his financial interests. We must get the truth about his relationships
and indebtedness to Putin, the Saudis, and Erdogan. Our country has been hijacked and Trump will continue to corrupt the US and
turn it into an autocracy if he is not stopped and held accountable under the law.
The country voted for this President knowing he is a flawed man in many ways. I don't think anything changes here - the Senate
will speedily acquit him and the voters in the swing states will have to decide if they want to give Mr. Trump a second chance
while the rest of the country impotently watches.
If one looks at all of his actions as "How could this benefit Russia?" most of it makes sense. Why start a trade war with China
and Western allies? Why withdraw from Syria? Why try to polarize the American public? Effectively showing this to the public is
critical.
Excellent piece. We all know Trump, Inc. turned to Russian oligarchs after '08 for condo sales. It just so happened that those
same oligarchs (read as kleptocrats) were laundering money through Deutsche Bank, who was the only bank willing to lend to Trump.
Trump's loan officer amazingly was SC Justice Anthony Kennedy's son. Trump was and is a desperate man in need of cash/ Putin is
a desperate man who knows that the geyser of oil money that funds his national budget, and has done so since the 1920's, is coming
to an end. Russia has no large material economic exports other than oil and gas, but it does still have a large military, hence
the military incursions into Moldova, Ossetia, Georgia, Ukraine and Syria. Desperate men do desperate things, and desperately
try to project power with weak hands.
The Republicans in Congress were not fooled by the Russians. They believe in Trump no matter what the Russians do. The bottom
line is - What does Putin have on Trump
I don't understand why there hasn't been more of a pushback by the military. They went heavily for Trump in 20116, with many bases
in the South and many recruits from economically devastated areas, but in the interim, they have seen his reckless, lurching foreign
policy, worship of Putin, and clear evidence that somehow everything he does benefits Russia. A commander's first obligation is
to their troops, so knowing the man in charge considers their lives subject to both Trump's whims, and Putin's whispers should
provoke some reaction. No?
Unfortunately - to put it mildly - impeachment will have no effect on the conduct of the 2020 election. The wheels are already
turning, everyone knows their part, and only a massive commitment by an honest intelligence apparatus (if there is one) can stop
it. One can only hope that, in 2020, the American people make a statement so overwhelming that there can be no doubt as to their
intent, despite whatever meddling there may have been. It is entirely possible that there will never be a truly credible election
again as long as there are bad actors who are power hungry or bent on destabilizing democratic governments. And make no mistake,
these threats are coming from right wing autocracies, and they are in the ascendancy all over the world. American centrists and
liberals are the only force that can change that. Are those stakes big enough for you?
We may finally have the answer as to why Trump is so accommodating to Putin. Trump has so many investments in Russia dependent
on Putin's support. Trump financial reports will reveal this collusion between Trump and Putin. This should not come as a surprise
to attentive Americans. Think of the worst an American president can do and that will bring you close to understanding Trump.
Nobody's saying how Trump withholding military aid to Ukraine would benefit Putin and Russia in their WAR against Ukraine. It
was, indeed, MILITARY aid he was withholding, was it not? I understand that this is not the impeachable offense of attempting
to enlist a foreign government to win an election, but I believe this aspect of the situation should be brought out.
The Republican Party has been officially reduced to a giant miasma of fraud, fiction, fantasy, conspiracy theory, deflection,
misdirection and prevarication. After tax cuts for rich people and rich corporations...the GOP has no other public policy ideas
(except for bankrupting the government). A civilized country needs little things like infrastructure, education, technology, voting
rights, law and order, regulations, fair taxation and facts to move forward. But none of those things are ever mentioned by the
Republican Party; conspiracy-mongering and tax cuts are now the official governing planks of the Grand Old Propaganda/Grand One
Percent party. This is no way to manage a nation anywhere except into the ground. Americans need to hit the Trump-GOP eject button
before these Lord of the Fly Republicans take us over a very steep right-wing cliff of insanity.
The Republican Party is now Trump's party and the Republicans know it and are acting accordingly. You could call them opportunists
following the way the political winds are blowing. The Constitution is based on members of Congress caring about the Constitution
and searching for the truth. Since this is now not the case when if comes to the Republicans the Constitution has no remedy for
this situation. The only remedy is an election and if Trump can manipulate elections to his advantage using foreign powers then
there is no remedy and the system of government set up by the founders will be no more. The new system replacing it will be controlled
by Trump. Putin figured out how to control Russian elections so he always wins and it is likely that Trump has a goal of imitating
Putin. Ultimately this would mean taking over the press as Putin did. Trump cannot declare total victory as long as the there
is a free press which he has labeled the enemy of the people.
From an acute perspective ..indeed shocking to say the least of the nature of this peculiar relationship. But looking at the big
picture as evidence by all that has occurred in his or during this eye opening period for all the world to see....not so much
so...For me, this dynamic is much expected.
"The witness has used language which impugns the motives of the president and suggests he's disloyal to his country, and those
words should be stricken from the record and taken down," Mr. Johnson said. The Johnson rule effectively reads the impeachment
power out of the constitution. How can you impeach a president if no one can say anything bad about him/her?
We have yet to plow the most fertile road yet. What does Trump care about over all else? Trump. How does Trump gauge his progress?
His money. Where does his money come from? Good question. We all know he has filed for bankruptcy 6 times. We all know that because
of those bankruptcies, American banks will not loan him any money. We all know he has significant financial dealings with Deutsche
Bank. Now, who put the money in Deutsche Bank that ended up financing Trump's business.? That is the two billion dollar question.
We also know that Russian oligarchs deal in billions of dollars. We also know that Trump has close relations with Russian business
interests. We also know that Trump kowtows to Putin like Pence kowtows to him. We also know that Trump is doing everything possible
to conceal his financial dealings from everyone and everything. So, we know that one billion plus one billion equals two billion.
But does it also equal Trump? This money road is one we should take a ride on. Will it also take us to Putin?
The first Democratic candidate who labels Trump a "Russian agent" will own the simplest and most effective tag line going into
the general election, provided of course that that candidate does his best to channel his inner Trump by never backing down but
instead doubling down every chance he or she gets. Is Trump a Russian agent, paid for and accounted for? Not easy to say without
some doubt, but that doesn't really matter because he sure as shoottin' acts like one. And when have the facts ever stopped Trump
from going on the attack? The more Trump denies the label, the more he'll be digging his own grave. The real crime here is not
so much the strong arming of Zelenskyy for a Biden investigation. That's small potatoes compared to Trump's withholding congressionally
designated US military aid from a country engaged in a hot war with Russia, the same cast of characters who starved anywhere from
one to eleven million Ukrainians during the 1930's. The Russian agent must go.
I would not say Trump's lying "is effective", I would say it "has been effective". At some point, the public and his party may
have had it with the thuggery and we do not know when that breaking point is.
For the sake of protecting our 2020 elections from Russian hackers and disinformation, the House is justified in moving forward
fast, over the process howls of Republicans, with the compelling evidence they have surrounding Ukraine. But they need to continue
investigating his business and financial ties to Russia and any other autocratic governments and their oligarchs, e.g. Turkey
and Saudi Arabia. Especially if he is not convicted and removed by the Senate and stands for re-election, Americans need to know
what conflicts of interest he has in making foreign policy and military decisions because American soldiers' lives are at stake.
The Mueller investigation did not go down that road. Any businessman with global interests is automatically compromised, even
more than a vice president whose son sits on a foreign corporation's board of director. Trump's own children continue to do business
in foreign countries and we have no idea what Ivanka and Jared, sitting in the White House with top security clearances, are doing.
In short, Ukraine should not be the only concern of congressional oversight committees. There's a lot more.
Trump must believe that Russian help in 2016 did help him to win. He must feel that fake evidence presented by an "independent"
investigator such as a foreign government appears to carry more weight that the same fake evidence from a partisan investigator.
Otherwise why would he be taking such chances to duplicate via Ukraine what he got from the Russians in 2016. But now that the
Russian connection is outed, he can't go back to that well.
I worry it's all for naught. Dems in the House vote to impeach, GOP in the Senate vote to acquit. Trump remains highly competitive
in 2020 election, Russia and other adversaries interfere, Trump stays put. Then what?
@NA Wilson Think of this situation differently. To have all possible scope to defeat him, we must support everything we can to
undermine him. Lack of impeachment would have been business as usual. At some point his finances will get out and then all bets
are off.
@NA Wilson: It's all Hands on deck to save the country. Don't just vote, donate what money you can, work for candidates, knock
doors, make calls. It's the only way out of this nightmare.
The Impeachment hearings weren't really necessary to prove what most everyone who's been paying attention knows. With Trump, all
roads lead to Moscow. In fact, he's already acting very Putin-esque in his own way by forbidding anyone in the White House to
respond to subpoena, by installing the fear of God in those who do, by punishing anyone who dares to think or act on their own,
and then there's the act of holding a foreign country ransom until they agree to do his bidding -- not to mention inviting outside
interference in our presidential elections. All the signs are not only there but they are ominous. By holding himself above the
U.S. Constitution, Trump has declared war on this country and all the laws that govern it. And while entertainment-starved Americans
laugh and cheer at his rallies, he and the Republicans drain our right to vote, and with it our Democracy. Today wasn't an epiphany.
It was a warning.
There seems to be no discussion of the financial backing trump received after '08-09 from sources inside Russia and how these
actors would have expressed their support (or conditions for their silence) to the trump campaign during '15-16. Did the FBI not
identify and investigate the funders behind trump and their interactions with the campaign during 2016? Would this not have been
reasonable for an investigation to look into when its entire raison d'etre was to detect sources of Russian influence?
I wonder if Mr. Wegman believes that this editorial will change anyone's mind or influence how anyone votes in the upcoming presidential
election. Basically, this is classic preaching to the choir and sadly mostly a wasted effort. I would like to read articles with
proven ideas that worked to change the minds of Republicans and other like them. Such articles might give me some better ideas
to convince my pro-Trump friends and neighbors to Vote for America next November.
"When it comes to Donald Trump and Russia, everything is connected." This! This is the central fact of all the things Trump has
done (so far), and yet, the Democrats have failed to make this the central focus of the case against him. Instead, they've focused
on one incident, and not even the most egregious one, to justify impeachment and removal from office. This was a terrible miscalculation.
No, there is no doubt that Trump attempted to coerce Ukraine into helping with his re-election by announcing a bogus investigation
of the Bidens. Nor any doubt that this constituted "high crimes and misdemeanors". But this was not the highest of crimes he's
committed, nor have the Dems been able to convince any Republicans, or many independents, that this deserves Trump's removal.
Moreover, they failed to produce the "smoking gun" of one witness or document in Trump's own words directing the quid pro quo.
They gave plenty of room for the Republican attack machine to cast enough doubt and confusion that all but ensures Trump's acquittal
in the Senate. Instead of focusing only on this one incident, the Democrats should have built their case around the theme that
"with Trump, all roads lead to Russia". That is a crime that even the most skeptical doubter can grasp, and when linked together,
all of his crimes can be shown to be of a pattern of serving Putin, and not the people of the United States. All roads lead to
Putin, but the Democrats chose to follow a dead end.
@Kingfish52 I completely agree with you and truly don't understand why the Democrats have not been shouting this from the rooftops.
For mercy's sake! The problem is not just that the president solicited help from a foreign power for his own personal gain! That's
bad enough, but isn't the point that he did this because he is beholden to Russia? Russia. is. not. our. friend. Why aren't the
Democrats explaining this clearly to the American people? Trump is Putin's puppet and it could not be more obvious! Don't people
understand that it doesn't just happen to be Ukraine that Trump took a notion to squeeze for his "personal gain"? He doesn't just
want to win because it is so nice to win elections. He has to do what Putin tells him. Obviously, every last Republican in Congress
understands this clearly. Why can't the Democrats explain it to the American people clearly?
Obama did not provide lethal aid to Ukraine, after the Russians invaded Crimea. Obama did not Russia prevent the Iranian nuclear
deal. Trump cancelled the Iranian nuclear deal, then provided lethal aid to Ukraine. Now I get it. Trump is working for Putin.
By March 2015, the US had committed more than $120 million in security assistance for Ukraine and had pledged an additional $75
million worth of equipment including UAVs, counter-mortar radars, night vision devices and medical supplies, according to the
Pentagon's Defense Security Cooperation Agency. That assistance also included some 230 armored Humvee vehicles. Trump appears
to be echoing a critique leveled at the Obama administration by the late Republican Sen. John McCain. "The Ukrainians are being
slaughtered and we're sending blankets and meals," McCain said in 2015. "Blankets don't do well against Russian tanks." While
it never provided lethal aid, many of the items that the Obama administration did provide were seen as critical to Ukraine's military.
Part of the $250 million assistance package that the Trump administration announced (then froze and later unfroze) included many
of the same items that were provided under Obama, including medical equipment, night vision gear and counter-artillery radar.
The Trump administration did approve the provision of arms to Ukraine, including sniper rifles, rocket launchers and Javelin anti-tank
missiles, something long sought by Kiev.
@Mike Trump was not the one providing lethal aid to Ukraine. It was the house and senate that proposed and forced this aid into
an appropriation bill - against the wishes of the Trump administration. After Trump realized he could not block this funding he
did the second best thing - he used it to blackmail the Ukraine government to provide him with dirt on Biden and support for Putin's
favorite narrative (that it was Ukraine not Russia that interfered in the 2016 election).
@Mike It also took two acts of Congress to get the aid to Ukraine. Trump had nothing to do with it. Only the Impound Inclusion
Act for foreign aid allows the President to time the release of the funds, which Trump did not follow. The Act was created because
Nixon, like Trump, was playing fast and loose with our tax dollars. Who was the last President who asked for help from a foreign
intelligence agency? Which President favored foregn intelligence agencies over his own? Answer no one other than Trump. If that
doesn't show he's in someone's pocket, nothing does.
"... Haddad added that he is now seeking legal advice and looking into the possibility of whistleblower protections for himself, and said at the very least he will publish the information he has while omitting anything that could subject him to legal retaliation from his former employer. ..."
"... Newsweek has long been a reliable guard dog and attack dog for the US-centralized empire, with examples of stories that its editors did permit to go to print including an article by an actual, current military intelligence officer explaining why US prosecution of Julian Assange is a good thing, fawning puff pieces on the White Helmets , and despicable smear jobs on Tulsi Gabbard . ..."
"... Newsweek also recently published an article attacking Tucker Carlson for publicizing the OPCW scandal, basing its criticisms on a bogus Bellingcat article I debunked shortly after its publication . ..."
"Yesterday I resigned from Newsweek after my attempts to publish newsworthy revelations
about the leaked OPCW letter were refused for no valid reason," journalist Tareq Haddad
reported today via Twitter .
"I have collected evidence of how they suppressed the story in addition to evidence from
another case where info inconvenient to US government was removed, though it was factually
correct," Haddad said.
"I plan on publishing these details in full shortly. However, after asking my editors for
comment, as is journalistic practice, I received an email reminding me of confidentiality
clauses in my contract. I.e. I was threatened with legal action."
Haddad added that he is now
seeking legal advice and looking into the possibility of whistleblower protections for himself,
and said at the very least he will publish the information he has while omitting anything that
could subject him to legal retaliation from his former employer.
"I could have kept silent and kept my job, but I would not have been able to continue with
a clean conscience," Haddad said .
"I will have some instability now but the truth is more important."
This is the first direct insider report we're getting on the mass media's conspiracy of
silence on the OPCW scandal that I wrote
about just the other day . In how many other newsrooms is this exact same sort of
suppression happening, including threats of legal action, to journalists who don't have the
courage or ability to leave and speak out? There is no logical reason to assume that Haddad is
the only one encountering such roadblocks from mass media editors; he's just the only one going
public about it.
The ubiquitous propagandistic tactic of fake news by omission distorts the public's
worldview just as much as it would if mass media outlets were publishing bogus stories whole
cloth every day, only if they were doing that it would be much easier to pin them down on their
lies, hold them accountable, and discredit them.
A
recent FAIR article by Alan MacLeod documents how the Hong Kong demonstrations are pushed
front and center in mainstream consciousness despite the fact that to this day not one
protester has been killed by security forces, while far more deadly violence is being directed
at huge protests in empire-aligned nations like Haiti, Chile and Ecuador which have been almost
completely ignored by these same outlets.
This deliberate omission causes a distorted worldview
in casual and mainstream news media consumers in which protests are only happening in nations
that are outside the
US-centralized power alliance . We see the same kind of deliberate distortion-by-omission
with the way mass media continually pushes the
narrative
that Donald Trump is "soft on Russia", while remaining completely silent on the overwhelming
mountain of evidence to the contrary .
The time is now for everyone with a platform to start banging the drum about the OPCW
scandal, because we're seeing more and more signs that the deluge of leaks hemorrhaging from
that organisation is only going to increase. Mainstream propagandists aren't going to cover it,
so if larger alternative media outlets want to avoid being lumped in with them and discredited
in the same sweep it would be wise to start talking about this thing today. It's only going to
get more and more awkward for everyone who chose to remain silent, and more and more validating
for those who spoke out.
"... 'Where a charity is providing education in respect of a controversial issue it must do so in a way that allows the people being educated to make up their own minds.' ..."
"... Institute of Statecraft. ..."
"... Integrity Initiative, ..."
"... Institute of Statecraft, ..."
"... Integrity Initiative ..."
"... Open Information Partnership ..."
"... Institute of Statecraft ..."
"... Media Diversity Institute ..."
"... Institute of Statecraft ..."
"... Moon of Alabama ..."
"... Integrity Initiative ..."
"... Integrity Initiative. ..."
"... Integrity Initiative ..."
"... Institute of Statecraft ..."
"... Institute of Statecraft ..."
"... Institute of Statecraft ..."
"... Integrity Initiative ..."
"... 'Where a charity is providing education in respect of a controversial issue it must do so in a way that allows the people being educated to make up their own minds.' ..."
james @ 4 opined;"
thanks b... i don't understand why so much hate is directed at russia... is this due some
need to find someone to demonize, an outgrowth of christianity or god knows what? or is it
purely to generate more money into the industrial military complex"
I'm with ya' james, this demonization of Russia, and any countries that refuse the
empire's beck and call, is around to stay I'm afraid.
And yes, it's all of the above, but, mostly about the $.
'i don't understand why so much hate is directed at russia... is this due some need to
find someone to demonize, an outgrowth of christianity or god knows what? or is it purely to
generate more money into the industrial military complex? what is the rationale?...'
They're the nuclear rival that don't import many of the u.s.'s consumer products.
otherwise, it'd either be china, or both...
plus, of course, there's all them cold war memes that can be triggered in a sizable
portion of the population's heads...
I suspect the the antipathy to Russia and the extensive disinformation campaign stems from
a 'Five Eyes' project and strategy ... with the malign Uncle as its director.
@james #4 "i don't understand why so much hate is directed at russia..."
Same motivation as all forgotten empires had. Even our cat want some of it, staring down on
his employees from his basket high up on the fridge with that evil look on his face. We call
it his World Domination Command Centre, WDCC for short. Global domination is what they crave.
Kill the competition, loot its resources, more power, more money. America has been looted,
devastated. Time for the locusts to move on to greener pastures. Russia is the promised land,
the next wild west new world to colonize. Problem is, as always, the natives.
I am hopeful that more and more of the population are realising that if an organisation is
promoted by any western government as a source of information, then that organisation will
provide disinformation by default. There are few, if any, journalists anywhere that are not
part of the empirical disinformation program. Those that are not will be independent and,
therefore, by alternate default, extremely wary of western government/government-funded/NGO
sources. All the hegemon and it's vassals can do now is double-down and hope that the
populations will go back to sleep.
As with all things evil, the British oligarchy began in the 1830s targeting Russia as a
threat to its autocratic interests, in this case "defending" the Ottoman Empire against
Russia.
The Brits were further scared out of their wits when the 1917 Russian Revolution was on
the verge of establishing an anti-capitalist system. So they, along with a ragtag bag of
co-conspirators including the United States, launched a military invasion of Russia.
That's right, U.S. troops landed at two places in Russia and fought against Russian
soldiers. The Brits/U.S/et. al. suffered a humiliating defeat, leaving so quickly that U.S.
dead soldiers were left behind buried in Soviet soil, to be repatriated years later.
But it's Russia that is the threat to "us", right?
@ Trisha | Nov 4 2019 21:22 utc | 16
___________________________________________
Thanks for your informative comment. I'd started to reply to James that Russia has been a
default "boogie-man" and Western scapegoat since the 19th Century, but that sounded
unhelpfully circular-- and I didn't have the ambition to refresh my understanding with actual
historical facts. ;)
The fact that a sort of Western "coalition of the willing" invaded Russia after the 1917
revolution is still a well-kept secret! It was never mentioned in my (US) school courses,
from parochial school through the "Honors Survey of Western Civilization" course I took in
college.
At the end of last year some enterprising 'anonymous' person
released papers of the British Integrity Initiative. As we
reported at that time:
The British government financed Integrity Initiative is tasked with spreading
anti-Russian propaganda and thereby with influencing the public, military and governments of
a number of countries. What follows is an contextual analysis of the third batch of the
Initiative's internal papers which were
dumped by an anonymous yesterday.
Christopher Nigel Donnelly (CND) is the co-director of The Institute for Statecraft and founder of its offshoot
Integrity Initiative . The
Initiative claims to "Defend Democracy Against Disinformation".
Both, the Institute as well as the Initiative, claim to be independent Non-Government
Organizations. Both are financed by the British government, NATO and other state donors.
That plans seems to have been the blueprint for the
March 2018 mass expulsion of Russian diplomats during the Skripal affair. Several of the
other measures Donnelly and his ilk planned
have since been implemented.
The Institute of Statecraft was registered as a charity under Scottish law. After
the release of its papers the Scottish charity regulator OSCR investigated the status of the
Institute . Unsurprisingly the OSCR
found (pdf) that its shady behavior and its running of anti-Russian disinformation
campaigns did not justify its status:
In the course of our inquiry we found that the charity was not meeting the charity test
required for continuing registration as a charity in Scotland because:
its purposes were not entirely charitable
one of its most significant activities, a project known as Integrity Initiative, did
not provide public benefit in furtherance of the charity's purposes
private benefit to charity trustees was not incidental to the charity's activities that
advance its charitable purpose
The purpose of the charity was purportedly to educate the public. But the regulator found
that the Integrity Initiative did not educate but only spread its own version of
'reality' i.e. disinformation. The charity lacked neutrality:
In addition, our Meeting the Charity Test guidance states that:
'Where a charity is providing education in respect of a controversial issue it must do
so in a way that allows the people being educated to make up their own minds.'
OSCR's view is that the Integrity Initiative expressed a particular perspective intended
to persuade the public to a specific point of view and, given the nature of the subject
matter, it was not sufficiently neutral to advance education.
The crocks who were running the charity were filling their own pockets with the public money
the 'charity' received:
To pass the charity test any private benefit must be incidental to the organisation's
activities that advance its purposes, that is, it must be a necessary result or by-product of
the organisation's activities and not an end in itself.
We were concerned at the level of private benefit that a number of the charity's trustees
were gaining from the exercise of its functions.
There was no clear explanation as to why the salaries being paid to charity trustees were
considered reasonable and necessary, and we had concerns about the charity trustees'
decision-making process around these payments. We do not consider that this private benefit
was incidental to the organisation's activities that advanced its purposes.
The regulator also noted a lack of record keeping and a lack of documentation of decision
making by the Institute's trustees.
Unfortunately the charity regulator will not close down the Institute of
Statecraft. It accepted that it rectified its behavior by taking a number of measures:
the charity has ceased to undertake any activity related to the Integrity initiative,
and this is now undertaken by a non-charitable entity having no legal connection to the
charity
the charity has ceased to remunerate any of its charity trustees
the charity is taking external guidance on governance
some charity trustees are to stand down as soon as replacement charity trustees can be
identified
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
journalist 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 the end of last year some enterprising 'anonymous' person
released papers of the British Integrity Initiative. As we reported
at that time:
The British government financed Integrity Initiative is tasked with spreading
anti-Russian propaganda and thereby with influencing the public, military and governments
of a number of countries. What follows is an contextual analysis of the third batch of the
Initiative's internal papers which were
dumped by an anonymous yesterday.
Christopher Nigel Donnelly (CND) is the co-director of The Institute for Statecraft and founder of its
offshoot Integrity
Initiative . The Initiative claims to "Defend Democracy Against Disinformation".
Both, the Institute as well as the Initiative, claim to be independent Non-Government
Organizations. Both are financed by the British government, NATO and other state
donors.
That plans seems to have been the blueprint for the
March 2018 mass expulsion of Russian diplomats during the Skripal affair. Several of the
other measures Donnelly and his ilk planned
have since been implemented.
The Institute of Statecraft was registered as a charity under Scottish law. After
the release of its papers the Scottish charity regulator OSCR investigated the status of the
Institute . Unsurprisingly the OSCR
found (pdf) that its shady behavior and its running of anti-Russian disinformation
campaigns did not justify its status:
In the course of our inquiry we found that the charity was not meeting the charity test
required for continuing registration as a charity in Scotland because:
its purposes were not entirely charitable
one of its most significant activities, a project known as Integrity Initiative, did
not provide public benefit in furtherance of the charity's purposes
private benefit to charity trustees was not incidental to the charity's activities
that advance its charitable purpose
The purpose of the charity was purportedly to educate the public. But the regulator found
that the Integrity Initiative did not educate but only spread its own version of
'reality' i.e. disinformation. The charity lacked neutrality:
In addition, our Meeting the Charity Test guidance states that:
'Where a charity is providing education in respect of a controversial issue it must
do so in a way that allows the people being educated to make up their own minds.'
OSCR's view is that the Integrity Initiative expressed a particular perspective intended
to persuade the public to a specific point of view and, given the nature of the subject
matter, it was not sufficiently neutral to advance education.
The crocks who were running the charity were filling their own pockets with the public
money the 'charity' received:
To pass the charity test any private benefit must be incidental to the organisation's
activities that advance its purposes, that is, it must be a necessary result or by-product
of the organisation's activities and not an end in itself.
We were concerned at the level of private benefit that a number of the charity's
trustees were gaining from the exercise of its functions.
There was no clear explanation as to why the salaries being paid to charity trustees
were considered reasonable and necessary, and we had concerns about the charity trustees'
decision-making process around these payments. We do not consider that this private benefit
was incidental to the organisation's activities that advanced its purposes.
The regulator also noted a lack of record keeping and a lack of documentation of decision
making by the Institute's trustees.
Unfortunately the charity regulator will not close down the Institute of
Statecraft. It accepted that it rectified its behavior by taking a number of
measures:
the charity has ceased to undertake any activity related to the Integrity initiative,
and this is now undertaken by a non-charitable entity having no legal connection to the
charity
the charity has ceased to remunerate any of its charity trustees
the charity is taking external guidance on governance
some charity trustees are to stand down as soon as replacement charity trustees can
be identified
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 journalist 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:
Thanks, B. It's a pity the people of the UK have no foreseeable recourse to stop shadow
government operations like this that exist to disinform the people of the UK.
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.
thanks b... i don't understand why so much hate is directed at russia... is this due some
need to find someone to demonize, an outgrowth of christianity or god knows what? or is it
purely to generate more money into the industrial military complex? what is the rationale? i
agree with @ 1 - noyk - it is unfortunate the uk people are used as guinea pigs on such a
regular basis.. i suspect a similar exercise is in operation in canada and the west, although
it seems the msm fulfills this role here...
"CIA, FBI Informant Was Washington Post Source For Russiagate Smears."
The article details a segment of Russiagate's overall unraveling and outs WaPost's David
Ignatius as part of Operation Mockingbird. And I see no reason to dispute the item's
conclusion:
"These close connections between the Washington Post's Ignatius and individuals connected
to the American and British intelligence communities, and the false reporting that has taken
place over the last three-plus years, raise grave concerns that the warfare of the soft coup
aimed at President Trump includes using the media to push propaganda."
The longer the above conclusion's denied, the wider the polarization becomes between those
guided by facts and those following media fantasies.
james @ 4 opined;"
thanks b... i don't understand why so much hate is directed at russia... is this due some
need to find someone to demonize, an outgrowth of christianity or god knows what? or is it
purely to generate more money into the industrial military complex"
I'm with ya' james, this demonetization of Russia, and any countries that refuse the
empire's beck and call, is around to stay I'm afraid.
And yes, it's all of the above, but, mostly about the $.
'i don't understand why so much hate is directed at russia... is this due some need to
find someone to demonize, an outgrowth of christianity or god knows what? or is it purely to
generate more money into the industrial military complex? what is the rationale?...'
they're the nuclear rival that don't manufacture many of the u.s.'s consumer products.
otherwise, it'd either be china, or both...
plus, of course, there's all them cold war memes that can be triggered in a sizable
portion of the population's heads...
The OSCR report includes the Institute for Statecraft's own description of its purposes, but
nothing about its actual operations, other than the ones now being deemed unsatisfactory
under the charities law.
So now that the Institute has committed not to run the Integrity Initiative, and
not to enrich its trustees, what are its legitimate "charitable" activities that OSCR
is kindly allowing it to continue with?
I suspect the the antipathy to Russia and the extensive disinformation campaign stems from
a 'Five Eyes' project and strategy ... with the malign Uncle as its director.
As an Irish citizen, I think the British deep state - the original deep state -have been very
successful at demonising the enemies of 'freedom' and 'civilisation', the Irish yes, also the
Indians, Africans, Germans, french, Spanish, Muslims and now the Russians. Our enemies are
not each other rather the deep state. Let's recognise who our real enemy is
@james #4 "i don't understand why so much hate is directed at russia..."
Same motivation as all forgotten empires had. Even our cat want some of it, staring down on
his employees from his basket high up on the fridge with that evil look on his face. We call
it his World Domination Command Centre, WDCC for short. Global domination is what they crave.
Kill the competition, loot its resources, more power, more money. America has been looted,
devastated. Time for the locusts to move on to greener pastures. Russia is the promised land,
the next wild west new world to colonize. Problem is, as always, the natives.
I am hopeful that more and more of the population are realising that if an organisation is
promoted by any western government as a source of information, then that organisation will
provide disinformation by default. There are few, if any, journalists anywhere that are not
part of the empirical disinformation program. Those that are not will be independent and,
therefore, by alternate default, extremely wary of western government/government-funded/NGO
sources. All the hegemon and it's vassals can do now is double-down and hope that the
populations will go back to sleep.
@8 ben / @ 9 semiconscious / @ 11 chet380.. yes, there is that too, but is that it? money as
ben says rings true for me mostly... that is mostly how i see this...the agencies seem to be
a front for western oligarchs.. the kleptomaniacs want access to all russian resources and
have yet to be successful in getting it.. they succeeded in ukraine for the most part in
having the kleptos gain control over much of ukraine.. the 2014 coop was meant to solidify
more of that and poke russia in the eye too..
@ 13 joost... i would watch out for your cat! alas, we all seem to agree it is about
wanting to loot russia... we share a similar viewpoint.. it is really sick how so many are
ignorant pawns, or worse in all of this.. no wonder i make next to no money working in the
music industry... i am in the wrong game and don't share a lack of ethics on such display
with all these losers..
As with all things evil, the British oligarchy began in the 1830s targeting Russia as a
threat to its autocratic interests, in this case "defending" the Ottoman Empire against
Russia.
The Brits were further scared out of their wits when the 1917 Russian Revolution was on
the verge of establishing an anti-capitalist system. So they, along with a ragtag bag of
co-conspirators including the United States, launched a military invasion of Russia.
That's right, U.S. troops landed at two places in Russia and fought against Russian
soldiers. The Brits/U.S/et. al. suffered a humiliating defeat, leaving so quickly that U.S.
dead soldiers were left behind buried in Soviet soil, to be repatriated years later.
But it's Russia that is the threat to "us", right?
Reading through the OCSR's document at the PDF link in B's post, I am surprised (should I
be?) that during the entire decade-long period when the Institute of Statecraft was
registered as a charity, the OCSR did not see fit at any time to remind the organisation of
its responsibilities to keep proper records of its activities and decision-making, to provide
a proper formal and transparent structure for its activities that could be shown to
demonstrate a public benefit, and to have proper formal structures generally for its
day-to-day running and governance activities. The Scottish public have every right to hold
the OCSR to much higher standards of being a regulatory organisation making sure that
charities are run properly as charities and not simply accept those charities' word that they
will improve their operations when they have spent 10 long years taking money (some of it
taxpayers' money) and misusing it.
@ Trisha | Nov 4 2019 21:22 utc | 16
___________________________________________
Thanks for your informative comment. I'd started to reply to James that Russia has been a
default "boogie-man" and Western scapegoat since the 19th Century, but that sounded
unhelpfully circular-- and I didn't have the ambition to refresh my understanding with actual
historical facts. ;)
The fact that a sort of Western "coalition of the willing" invaded Russia after the 1917
revolution is still a well-kept secret! It was never mentioned in my (US) school courses,
from parochial school through the "Honors Survey of Western Civilization" course I took in
college.
@ 20..lol.. that is true... can't ver ask too many questions! and, it has been a repeat of
mccarthyism.. it's bizarre to see so many otherwise intelligent people swallow this crap.. i
think of emptywheel and how i used to think she was smart.. she is so busy looking at the
trees, she's incapable of seeing the forest..
@16 trisha... thanks... as i have mentioned here at moa numerous times, the book 'paris 1918'
by Margaret Macmillan is an excellent book that gives an overview and discusses exactly what
you are talking about.. i can't recommend the book enough.. https://www.bookbrowse.com/reviews/index.cfm/book_number/1135/Paris-1919
I ploughed through the Kit Klarenberg piece on Sputnik that b linked to and would have wept
at the Orwellian inversions of truth in the OIP's 'mission statment' if I'd had any tears
left after enduring the recent decades of lies and projection of the Empire's propaganda
machine. The Mighty Wurlitzer at corporate-speak indeed. In fact all I could do was laugh
like Group Captain Mandrake in Dr Strangelove when confronted with the madness of
General Ripper.
Tragically, the opening paragraph of their statement sounded like something Caitlin
Johnstone might pen, urging our side to be wary and vigilant of the propaganda of
them .
"Democracy cannot thrive without honest, accurate and freely available information about
the world around us We need to know where our information is coming from, we need to know
the motives (good, bad or neither) of those providing the information, and be in the habit
of thinking critically about everything we read and hear. Every one of us has the right to
be properly informed – that knowledge gives us strength. Every one of us shares
responsibility for informed engagement and critical thinking, to challenge the powerful and
uncover the truth An engaged population, equipped with clarity and the truth, is the
foundation for a world where we can all enjoy greater equality and greater peace."
"critical thinking"
"challenge the powerful"
"uncover the truth"
They are taking the tools that we need to deal with their perfidy, and
pretending that they need to use them to "challenge the powerful and uncover the
truth". I found this Orwellian inversion of the truth so chilling that I could only
laugh.
In all seriousness, I can only presume that they actually believe their own lies.
The Wolfowitz Doctrine (1992) states that Russia should remain America's main enemy for the
forseeable future because it inherited the USSR's nuclear arsenal. At least this is the
official rationale.
But there may be another reason. Courtesy from Pepe Escobar's facebook page:
@22 James ... thanks for the "Paris 1919" book reference, luckily it's available at my local
library. For a detailed history of (sadly) another in a long list of America's criminal acts
of aggressive war, I highly recommend Russian
Sideshow: America's Undeclared War, 1918-1920 by Robert L. Willett.
they are attacking Russia because they know that only military force can stop the collapse
the fake Dollar & all the Jewish printed wealth which goes with it. "yes, the Dollar is
our money, but, it is your problem" sort of imposed doctrine of the last half-century is
coming to an end & no naval carriers could stop its fall.
"CIA, FBI Informant Was Washington Post Source For Russiagate Smears."
The article details a segment of Russiagate's overall unraveling and outs WaPost's David
Ignatius as part of Operation Mockingbird. And I see no reason to dispute the item's
conclusion:
"These close connections between the Washington Post's Ignatius and individuals
connected to the American and British intelligence communities, and the false reporting
that has taken place over the last three-plus years, raise grave concerns that the warfare
of the soft coup aimed at President Trump includes using the media to push propaganda."
The longer the above conclusion's denied, the wider the polarization becomes between
those guided by facts and those following media fantasies.
"... 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.
re: human rights
The US, as far as I know, is the only country on the world that publishes an annual human
rights report (State Dept) and which regularly comments on what it sees as poor human rights
in other countries. This is despite the fact, as indicated above, that the US has a poor
record of human rights throughout its history, and still does with definite underclasses
separated geographically from the general public and in prison.
Regarding China, quite a few Chinese people were instrumental in building the railroads
that greatly contributed to the settling of the West. Then, after they had been used and
abused, and the tracks laid, Chinese were evicted from the country under the Chinese Exclusion Act which
technically only prohibited immigration, but was also used for eviction. There are many
Chinese descendants currently in Mexicali Mexico as a result. Also the US Border Patrol (now
used against Hispanics mostly) was originally formed to keep Chinese people out. . .China is
probably too polite to bring this up.
"... 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.
Battle of Blair... on Thu, 10/24/2019 - 7:10pm The same media that can't stop
chanting Russian interference, has completely ignored
this bombshell.
A recent investigation from independent news outlet Middle East Eye (9/30/19) uncovered
that a senior Twitter executive is, in fact, an officer in the British Army's 77th Brigade, a
unit dedicated to psychological operations (psyops), propaganda and online warfare.
I had to take note that later down the article it also read:
In September, Twitter suspended multiple accounts belonging to Cuban state media. And
along with Facebook and YouTube, it also suspended hundreds of Chinese accounts it claimed
were attempting to "sow political discord in Hong Kong" by "undermining the legitimacy" of
the protest movement. These social media giants have already deleted thousands of Venezuelan,
Russian and Iranian accounts and pages that were, in their own words, "in line with" those
governments' positions. The message is clear: Sharing opinions that do not fall in line with
official US doctrine will not be tolerated online .
I found this quite interesting because I was just permanently banned from Twitter for saying
to a propagandist media writer that "corporate whores gotta corporate whore."
"... 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.
www.aejmc.org
/home/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Journalism-Quarterly-1973-Donohue-652-9.pdfofmassmedia as interdependent
parts of a total social system in which they share facets of controlling, and being controlled by, other subsystems. A major purpose
of this paper is to relate the subsystems of massmedia to the total pattern of social organization and social control
and to point up the crucial nature of
Massmedia are media forms designed
to reach the largest audience possible. They include television, movies, radio, newspapers, magazines, books, records, video games
and the internet. Many studies have been conducted in the past century to measure the effects of massmedia on the
population in order to discover the best techniques to influence it.
https://en.wikipedia.org /wiki/CIA_influence_on_public_opinion
The Central Intelligence Agency has made use of massmedia assets, both foreign and domestic, for its covert operations.
In 1973, the Washington Star-News reported that CIA had enlisted more than thirty Americans working abroad as journalists, citing
an internal CIA inquiry ordered by CIA director William E. Colby.
Bill Barr: This is not decay. This is organized
destruction. Schiff was essentially running an illegal spy operation against the White House. Trade Deal With China Is a Blockbuster
"... When propaganda is cleverly engineered, people don't even recognize it as propaganda: welcome to the USSR, the United States of Suppression and Repression. The propaganda in the U.S. has reached such a high state that the majority of people accept it as "Pravda" (truth), even as their limbic system's BS detector is sensing there is a great disturbance in the Force. ..."
"... To give some examples: healthcare is over 18% of the nation's GDP, yet it makes up only 8.7% of the Consumer price Index. Hundreds of thousands of families have to declare bankruptcy as a result of crushing healthcare bills, but on the CPI components chart, it's a tiny little sliver just a bit more than recreation (5.7%). ..."
"... "Facts" are a funny thing when the data sources and massaging of that data are all purposefully opaque. Again, inflation is a lived-world example of how "official facts" are clearly massaged to support an essential narrative -- that inflation is so low it's basically signal noise, while in the real world it has impoverished the bottom 95% to a startling (but unmentionable) degree. ..."
"... This is what happened to this site in the bogus PropOrNot propaganda campaign of 2016, in which every alternative-media website that questioned the "approved narratives" was labeled "fake news" in a classic propaganda trick of labeling dissenters as propagandists to misdirect the citizenry from the actual propaganda (PropOrNot), which by the way was heavily promoted on page one by Jeff Bezos' propaganda mouthpiece, The Washington Post . (Who's your daddy, WP "journalists"?) ..."
"... Fake news, indeed. Those individuals who support the "approved narratives" and orthodoxies win gold stars, and so virtue-signaling is now the nation's most passionate hobby. (Shades of the Stasi...) ..."
"... In the wake of the 1976 Church Committee revelations on the institutional lawlessness and corruption of the FBI and CIA, the idea that former CIA propagandists and spy masters would be on TV as "commentators" would have been laughed off as a bad joke. Yet here are Clapper, Brennan et al, the "most likely to lie, obfuscate, rendition and propagandize" individuals in the nation welcomed as "experts" who we should all accept as trustworthy Big Brother. (Ahem) ..."
"... Welcome to the USSR: the United States of Suppression and Repression , where your views are welcome as long as they parrot "approved narratives" and the corporate-state's orthodoxies. "Facts" are only welcome if they lend credence to the "approved narratives" and orthodoxies. ..."
We're all against "fake news," right? Until your content is deemed "fake news" in a "fake news" indictment without any evidence,
trial or recourse.
When propaganda is cleverly engineered, people don't even recognize it as propaganda: welcome to the USSR, the United States
of Suppression and Repression. The propaganda in the U.S. has reached such a high state that the majority of people accept it as
"Pravda" (truth), even as their limbic system's BS detector is sensing there is a great disturbance in the Force.
Inflation is a good example. The official (i.e. propaganda) inflation rate is increasingly detached from the real-world declines
in the purchasing power of the bottom 80%, yet the jabbering talking heads on TV repeat the "low inflation" story with such conviction
that the dissonance between the "official narrative" and the real world must be "our fault"--a classic technique of brainwashing.
To give some examples: healthcare is over 18% of the nation's GDP, yet it makes up only 8.7% of the Consumer price Index.
Hundreds of thousands of families have to declare bankruptcy as a result of crushing healthcare bills, but on the CPI components
chart, it's a tiny little sliver just a bit more than recreation (5.7%).
Then there's education, which includes the $1.4 trillion borrowed by student debt-serfs--which is only part of the tsunami of
cash gushing into the coffers of the higher-education cartel. Yet education & communication (which presumably includes the Internet
/ mobile telephone service cartel's soaring prices) is another tiny sliver of the CPI, just 6.6%, a bit more than fun-and-games recreation.
As for housing costs, former Soviet apparatchiks must be high-fiving the Federal agencies for their inventive confusion of reality
with magical made-up "statistics." To estimate housing costs, the federal agency in charge of ginning up a low inflation number asks
homeowners to guess what their house would rent for, were it being rented--what's known as equivalent rent.
Wait a minute--don't we have actual sales data for houses, and actual rent data? Yes we do, but those are verboten because they
reflect skyrocketing inflation in housing costs, which is not allowed. So we use some fake guessing-game numbers, and the corporate
media dutifully delivers the "pravda" that inflation is 1.6% annually--basically signal noise, while in the real world (as measured
by the Chapwood Index) is running between 9% and 13% annually. How
the Chapwood Index is calculated )
As the dissonance between the real world experienced by the citizenry and what they're told is "pravda" by the media reaches extremes,
the media is forced to double-down on the propaganda , shouting down, marginalizing, discrediting, demonetizing and suppressing dissenters
via character assassination, following the old Soviet script to a tee.
(Clearly, the CIA's agitprop sector mastered the Soviet templates and has been applying what they learned to the domestic populace.
By all means, start by brainwashing the home audience so they don't catch on that the "news" is a Truman Show simulation.)
In 2014, Peter Pomerantsev, a British journalist born in the Soviet Union, published
Nothing Is True and Everything Is Possible: The Surreal Heart of the New Russia which drew on his years working in Russian
television to describe a society in giddy, hysterical flight from enlightenment empiricism. He wrote of how state-controlled Russian
broadcasting "became ever more twisted, the need to incite panic and fear ever more urgent; rationality was tuned out, and Kremlin-friendly
cults and hatemongers were put on prime time."
Now, he's written a penetrating follow-up,
This Is Not Propaganda: Adventures in the War Against Reality that is partly an effort to make sense of how the disorienting
phenomena he observed in Russia went global. The child of exiled Soviet dissidents, Pomerantsev juxtaposes his family's story
-- unfolding at a time when ideas, art and information seemed to challenge tyranny -- with a present in which truth scarcely appears
to matter.
"During glasnost, it seemed that the truth would set everybody free," he writes. "Facts seemed possessed of power; dictators
seemed so afraid of facts that they suppressed them. But something has gone drastically wrong: We have access to more information
and evidence than ever, but facts seem to have lost their power."
"Facts" are a funny thing when the data sources and massaging of that data are all purposefully opaque. Again, inflation is
a lived-world example of how "official facts" are clearly massaged to support an essential narrative -- that inflation is so low
it's basically signal noise, while in the real world it has impoverished the bottom 95% to a startling (but unmentionable) degree.
This is the reality as inflation has eaten up wages' purchasing power:
Families
Go Deep in Debt to Stay in the Middle Class Wages stalled but costs haven't, so people increasingly rent or finance what their
parents might have owned outright Median household income in the U.S. was $61,372 at the end of 2017, according to the Census
Bureau. When inflation is taken into account, that is just above the 1999 level.
We're all against "fake news," right? Until your content is deemed "fake news" in a "fake news" indictment without any evidence,
trial or recourse. This is what happened to this site in the bogus PropOrNot propaganda campaign of 2016, in which every alternative-media
website that questioned the "approved narratives" was labeled "fake news" in a classic propaganda trick of labeling dissenters as
propagandists to misdirect the citizenry from the actual propaganda (PropOrNot), which by the way was heavily promoted on page one
by Jeff Bezos' propaganda mouthpiece, The Washington Post . (Who's your daddy, WP "journalists"?)
Meanwhile, back in reality, the primary source of data here on oftwominds.com is 1) the Federal Reserve data base (FRED) 2) IRS
data and 3) content and charts posted by the cream of the U.S. corporate media Foreign Affairs, Wall Street Journal and the New York
Times.
Fake news, indeed. Those individuals who support the "approved narratives" and orthodoxies win gold stars, and so virtue-signaling
is now the nation's most passionate hobby. (Shades of the Stasi...)
In the wake of the 1976 Church Committee revelations on the institutional lawlessness and corruption of the FBI and CIA, the
idea that former CIA propagandists and spy masters would be on TV as "commentators" would have been laughed off as a bad joke. Yet
here are Clapper, Brennan et al, the "most likely to lie, obfuscate, rendition and propagandize" individuals in the nation welcomed
as "experts" who we should all accept as trustworthy Big Brother. (Ahem)
What if every employee in the corporate media who was paid (or coerced) by the FBI, NSA, CIA etc. had to wear a large colorful
badge that read, "owned by the FBI/CIA"? Would that change our view of the validity of the "approved narratives"?
Welcome to the USSR: the United States of Suppression and Repression , where your views are welcome as long as they parrot
"approved narratives" and the corporate-state's orthodoxies. "Facts" are only welcome if they lend credence to the "approved narratives"
and orthodoxies.
For example, corporate earnings are rising. Never mind estimates were slashed, that was buried in footnotes a month ago. What
matters is Corporate America will once again "beat estimates" by a penny, or a nickel, or gasp, oh the wonderment, by a dime, on
earnings that were slashed by a dollar when "nobody was looking." Meanwhile, back in reality, the bottom 95% have been losing ground
for two decades. But don't say anything, you'll be guilty of "fake news."
"... It's a major unanticipated consequence of the digital "revolution." It has gotten us stuck looking backward at events, obsessively replaying them, while working overtime to spin them favorably for one team or the other, at the expense of actually living in real time and dealing with reality as it unspools with us. If life were a ballgame, we'd only be watching jumbotron replays while failing to pay attention to the action on the field. ..."
"... The stupendous failure of the Mueller Investigation only revealed what can happen when extraordinary bad faith, dishonesty, and incompetence are brought to this project of reinventing "truth" -- of who did what and why -- while it provoked a counter-industry of detecting its gross falsifications. ..."
"... Perhaps you can see why unleashing the CIA, NSA, and the FBI on political enemies by Mr. Obama and his cohorts has become such a disaster. When that scheme blew up, the intel community went to the mattresses, as the saying goes in Mafia legend and lore. The "company" found itself at existential risk. Of course, the CIA has long been accused of following an agenda of its own simply because it had the means to do it. It had the manpower, the money, and the equipment to run whatever operations it felt like running, and a history of going its own way out of sheer institutional arrogance, of knowing better than the crackers and clowns elected by the hoi-polloi. The secrecy inherent in its charter was a green light for limitless mischief and some of the agency's directors showed open contempt for the occupants of the White House. Think: Allen Dulles and William Casey. And lately, Mr. Brennan. ..."
Here's one big reason that America is driving itself batshit crazy : the explosion of computerized records, emails, inter-office
memos, Twitter trails, Facebook memorabilia, iPhone videos, YouTubes, recorded conversations, and the vast alternative universe of
storage capacity for all this stuff makes it seem possible to constantly go back and reconstruct reality. All it has really done
is amplified the potential for political mischief to suicide level.
It's a major unanticipated consequence of the digital "revolution." It has gotten us stuck looking backward at events, obsessively
replaying them, while working overtime to spin them favorably for one team or the other, at the expense of actually living in real
time and dealing with reality as it unspools with us. If life were a ballgame, we'd only be watching jumbotron replays while failing
to pay attention to the action on the field.
Before all this, history was left largely to historians, who curated it from a range of views for carefully considered introduction
to the stream of human culture, and managed this process at a pace that allowed a polity to get on with its business at hand in the
here-and-now -- instead of incessantly and recursively reviewing events that have already happened 24/7. The more electronic media
has evolved, the more it lends itself to manipulation, propaganda, and falsification of whatever happened five minutes, or five hours,
or five weeks ago.
This is exactly why and how the losing team in the 2016 election has worked so hard to change that bit of history. The stupendous
failure of the Mueller Investigation only revealed what can happen when extraordinary bad faith, dishonesty, and incompetence are
brought to this project of reinventing "truth" -- of who did what and why -- while it provoked a counter-industry of detecting its
gross falsifications.
This dynamic has long been systematically studied and applied by institutions like the so-called "intelligence community," and
has gotten so out-of-hand that its main mission these days appears to be the maximum gaslighting of the nation -- for the purpose
of its own desperate self-defense. The "Whistleblower" episode is the latest turn in dishonestly manipulated records, but the most
interesting feature of it is that the release of the actual transcript of the Trump-Zelensky phone call did not affect the "narrative"
precooked between the CIA and Adam Schiff's House Intel Committee. They just blundered on with the story and when major parts of
the replay didn't add up, they retreated to secret sessions in the basement of the US capitol.
Perhaps you can see why unleashing the CIA, NSA, and the FBI on political enemies by Mr. Obama and his cohorts has become
such a disaster. When that scheme blew up, the intel community went to the mattresses, as the saying goes in Mafia legend and lore.
The "company" found itself at existential risk. Of course, the CIA has long been accused of following an agenda of its own simply
because it had the means to do it. It had the manpower, the money, and the equipment to run whatever operations it felt like running,
and a history of going its own way out of sheer institutional arrogance, of knowing better than the crackers and clowns elected by
the hoi-polloi. The secrecy inherent in its charter was a green light for limitless mischief and some of the agency's directors showed
open contempt for the occupants of the White House. Think: Allen Dulles and William Casey. And lately, Mr. Brennan.
The recently-spawned NSA has mainly added the capacity to turn everything that happens into replay material, since it is suspected
of recording every phone call, every email, every financial transaction, every closed-circuit screen capture, and anything else its
computers can snare for storage in its Utah Data Storage Center. Now you know why the actions of Edward Snowden were so significant.
He did what he did because he was moral enough to know the face of malevolence when he saw it. That he survives in exile is a miracle.
As for the FBI, only an exceptional species of ineptitude explains the trouble they got themselves into with the RussiaGate fiasco.
The unbelievable election loss of Mrs. Clinton screwed the pooch for them, and the desperate acts that followed only made things
worse. The incompetence and mendacity on display was only matched by Mr. Mueller and his lawyers, who were supposed to be the FBI's
cleanup crew and only left a bigger mess -- all of it cataloged in digital records.
Now, persons throughout all these agencies are waiting for the hammer to fall. If they are prosecuted, the process will entail
yet another monumental excursion into the replaying of those digital records. It could go on for years. So, the final act in the
collapse of the USA will be the government choking itself to death on replayed narratives from its own server farms.
In the meantime, events are actually tending in a direction that will eventually deprive the nation of the means to continue most
of its accustomed activities including credible elections, food distribution, a reliable electric grid, and perhaps even self-defense.
Foreign new coverage in modern western societies is controlled by intelligence agencies. There are no exceptions.
Notable quotes:
"... At this stage, any one who still believes in the western propaganda about China is simply too brain-washed and not too smart for any cure. Excuse me, I should say "too dumb for any cure". ..."
"... For example, Nathan Rich's recent video shows how media biased reporting of Hong Kong compare with Ukraine riots. The contrast can't be anymore stark: ..."
"... All these so-called anti communist slant against countries, I suspect, have its origins in the Vatican. People seem to forget that they should bear false witness https://www.youtube.com/embed/yUGPIeE9kMc?feature=oembed ..."
@d
dan " ..media biased Hong Kong reporting ."
How would American cops react to punks tossing Molotov Cocktails at them? Arson is a felony
but there would be no need for a trial just a coroner.
@Godfree Roberts "The
weird result of this enormous, expensive effort is that, while we were busy lying to
ourselves about China "
At this stage, any one who still believes in the western propaganda about China is
simply too brain-washed and not too smart for any cure. Excuse me, I should say "too dumb for
any cure".
For example, Nathan Rich's recent video shows how media biased reporting of Hong Kong
compare with Ukraine riots. The contrast can't be anymore stark:
@Godfree Roberts Here
is a good analysis of how the main stream media (MSM) gang up to give propaganda, and how I
wish they have objective comments about China or any country they do not like.
All these so-called anti communist slant against countries, I suspect, have its origins in
the Vatican. People seem to forget that they should bear false witness
"... As for Falun Gong's potential affiliations with the CIA and NED that's another quite plausible storyline altogether. ..."
"... One surely wondered (until how) how Falun Gong can fund The Epoch Times using the same business model that Sheldon Adelson uses to fund a pro-Netanyahu newspaper "Israel Hayom" in Israel that Netanyahu himself endorses and which he or other people in the Israeli government might privilege with news of events that the rest of the Israeli news media has no access to. In this way "Israel Hayom", offered for free in Israel, poses a threat to other Israeli newspapers which have no rich patron to fund their activities and pay their staff but must rely on people buying their papers or regularly subscribing to them. ..."
Some of Mr Li's pronouncements are certainly unconventional, some would say just plain strange.
He believes aliens walk the Earth and he has reportedly said he can walk through walls and make himself invisible.
Mr Li says that he is a being from from a higher level who has come to help humankind from the destruction it could face as
the result of rampant evil.
In 1999 the cult attempted to gain political power in China. The government shut it down for pushing its followers to not use
medical therapies. Li Hongzhi and some of his followers moved to the United States. As the cult is strongly anti-communist the U.S.
government used it to put pressure on China. Some institutions and companies related to Falun Gong are openly funded with U.S. government
money.
The main media outlet of the Falun Gong organization is the Epoch Times . NBC reports of its
astonishing growth as a pro-Trump social media force:
By the numbers, there is no bigger advocate of President Donald Trump on Facebook than The Epoch Times.
The small New York-based nonprofit news outlet has spent more than $1.5 million on about 11,000 pro-Trump advertisements in
the last six months, according to data from Facebook's advertising archive -- more than any organization outside of the Trump
campaign itself, and more than most Democratic presidential candidates have spent on their own campaigns.
Those video ads -- in which unidentified spokespeople thumb through a newspaper to praise Trump, peddle conspiracy theories
about the "Deep State," and criticize "fake news" media -- strike a familiar tone in the online conservative news ecosystem. The
Epoch Times looks like many of the conservative outlets that have gained followings in recent years.
...
In April, at the height of its ad spending, videos from the Epoch Media Group, which includes The Epoch Times and digital video
outlet New Tang Dynasty, or NTD, combined for around 3 billion views on Facebook, YouTube and Twitter, ranking 11th among all
video creators across platforms and outranking every other traditional news publisher.
...
The Epoch Times brought in $8.1 million in revenue in 2017 -- double what it had the previous year -- and reported spending $7.2
million on "printing newspaper and creating web and media programs." Most of its revenue comes from advertising and "web and media
income," according to the group's annual tax filings, while individual donations and subscriptions to the paper make up less than
10 percent of its revenue.
New Tang Dynasty's 2017 revenue, according to IRS records, was $18 million, a 150 percent increase over the year before. It
spent $16.2 million.
XXX
The NBC report says it is not clear where the "web and media" money that gets invested in pro-Trump advertisement actually
comes from. I didn't realize it was the same Epoch Times that did a good job covering Russia-Gate:
"The Democrats could up their game by taking a deeper look into this issue." you mean the CIA democrats like Mark Warner? the
US has nothing to offer the world except war, which is why the people of the US must destroy this country. there is 1000% bipartisan
agreement on the war drive against both china & russia. both parties spend their days yelling at each other about who is the most
commie, like moscow mitch or comrade nancy, b/c they are unified in their war drive. as they are on anything else that matters.
this country exists to wage war, as the platform for projection of power, against competitors. nothing else. the illusion that
any of the operators w/in the system, any of them at all, are doing anything but crafting a persona in relation to power for self-aggrandizement,
not challenging power in the slightest, is not helpful.
Thanks for the info on Shen Yun.
In the Bay Area, it seems there are at least 3 or 4 permanent Shen Yun advertising billboards at any given time. Just yesterday,
I passed one advertising tickets for 2020!
The Epoch Times is also very widespread in distribution, although unclear on the actual readers. It seems that every 2nd SF Weekly
box has an Epoch Times one next to it, although my personal experience is mostly downtown where the large Cantonese speaking population
is.
Falun Gong is kinda like Scientology crossed with Amway. Get rich quick while simultaneously healing your goiters. In its best
days it was a terrible scam. Now it is just a blunt instrument that the US State Department uses to try and beat China with.
The Epoch Times' Jeff Carlson has been in the thick of uncovering the broad Democratic Party coup (in league with transnational
intelligence assets) against the Trump Presidency. Thus b's depiction here of the Dems potentially acting in the role of white
knight subverts mountains of evidence. As for Falun Gong's potential affiliations with the CIA and NED that's another quite
plausible storyline altogether.
Perhaps experience affords one the possibility of rapidly discerning the underbelly of an organized grouping like Falun Gong.
Early in its manifestations on streets in Europe it became as apparent as the nose on one's face that it was a well financed propaganda
tool for the gullible and naive. In short, its a ridiculous novelty, a con job and a rip off for all who are taken in by such
preposterous pretensions when its plainly so assuming in its virulent hatred. Anyone who protests their disturbing, illegal and
unacceptable behavior best be prepared to be bitten.. Like various other cults they are not what they appear. Rather they are
a mish-mash of absurd fantasies and hypnotic imaginations. Finally, such groups can seem innocent enough and yet become highly
dangerous to others. But ask around and expect the response they are nice, gentle, kind and harmless or other such understanding
expressions. Don't be taken in by the setup folks!
Thanks B for an excellent survey covering Falun Gong's business activities and cybersecurity connections with the US government
and its agencies.
One surely wondered (until how) how Falun Gong can fund The Epoch Times using the same business model that Sheldon Adelson
uses to fund a pro-Netanyahu newspaper "Israel Hayom" in Israel that Netanyahu himself endorses and which he or other people in
the Israeli government might privilege with news of events that the rest of the Israeli news media has no access to. In this way
"Israel Hayom", offered for free in Israel, poses a threat to other Israeli newspapers which have no rich patron to fund their
activities and pay their staff but must rely on people buying their papers or regularly subscribing to them.
Also, when the sources of most news about prisoners having organs forcibly removed from them by the Chinese government go back
to Falun Gong itself, one has to wonder about the veracity of such claims. If after 20, 30 years of such claims, there is still
no independent verification of the claims of forced organ removals and transplants (and the British design firm Forensic Architecture
hasn't yet been approached to create its 3D Bellingcrap-style visual recreations of the horrific surgery theatres in which the
operations supposedly take place), then we must regard these claims with all the scepticism and scorn they may deserve.
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 .
David Warner Mathisen definitely know what he is talking about due to his long military career... Freefall speed
is documented and is an embarrassment to the official story, because freefall is impossible for a naturally
collapsing building.
Now we need to dig into the role of Larry Silverstein in the
Building 7 collapse.
Notable quotes:
"... Below is a video showing several film sequences taken from different locations and documenting multiple angles of World Trade Center Building 7 collapsing at freefall speed eighteen years ago on September 11, 2001. ..."
"... The four words "Building Seven Freefall Speed" provide all the evidence needed to conclude that the so-called "official narrative" promoted by the mainstream media for the past eighteen years is a lie, as is the fraudulent 9/11 Commission Report of 2004. ..."
"... Earlier this month, a team of engineers at the University of Alaska published their draft findings from a five-year investigation into the collapse of Building 7 ..."
"... This damning report by a team of university engineers has received no attention from the mainstream media outlets which continue to promote the bankrupt "official" narrative of the events of September 11, 2001. ..."
"... its rate of collapse can be measured and found to be indistinguishable from freefall speed, as physics teacher David Chandler explains in an interview here (and as he eventually forced NIST to admit), beginning at around 0:43:00 in the interview. ..."
"... the collapse of the 47-story steel-beam building World Trade Center 7 into its own footprint at freefall speed is all the evidence needed to reveal extensive and deliberate premeditated criminal activity by powerful forces that had the ability to prepare pre-positioned demolition charges in that building ..."
"... Indeed, the evidence is overwhelming, to the point that no one can any longer be excused for accepting the official story. Certainly during the first few days and weeks after the attacks, or even during the first few years, men and women could be excused for accepting the official story (particularly given the level to which the mainstream media controls opinion in the united states). ..."
"... Additionally, I would also recommend the interviews which are archived at the website of Visibility 9-11 , which includes valuable interviews with Kevin Ryan but also numerous important interviews with former military officers who explain that the failure of the military to scramble fighters to intercept the hijacked airplanes, and the failure of air defense weapons to stop a jet from hitting the Pentagon (if indeed a jet did hit the Pentagon), are also completely inexplicable to anyone who knows anything at all about military operations, unless the official story is completely false and something else was going on that day. ..."
"... In addition to these interviews and the Dig Within blog of Kevin Ryan, I would also strongly recommend everybody read the article by Dr. Gary G. Kohls entitled " Why Do Good People Become Silent About the Documented Facts that Disprove the Official 9/11 Narrative? " which was published on Global Research a few days ago, on September 6, 2019. ..."
"... on some level, we already know we have been bamboozled, even if our conscious mind refuses to accept what we already know. ..."
"... Previous posts have compared this tendency of the egoic mind to the blissfully ignorant character of Michael Scott in the television series The Office (US version): see here for example, and also here . ..."
"... The imposition of a vast surveillance mechanism upon the people of this country (and of other countries) based on the fraudulent pretext of "preventing terrorism" (and the lying narrative that has been perpetuated with the full complicity of the mainstream media for the past eighteen years) is in complete violation of the human rights which are enumerated in the Bill of Rights and which declare: ..."
"... David Warner Mathisen graduated from the US Military Academy at West Point and became an Infantry officer in the 82nd Airborne Division and the 4th Infantry Division. He is a graduate of the US Army's Ranger School and the 82nd Airborne Division's Jumpmaster Course, among many other awards and decorations. He was later selected to become an instructor in the Department of English Literature and Philosophy at West Point and has a Masters degree from Texas A&M University. ..."
Below is a video showing several film sequences
taken from different locations and documenting multiple angles of World Trade Center Building 7 collapsing at freefall speed eighteen
years ago on September 11, 2001.
The four words "Building Seven Freefall Speed" provide all the evidence needed to conclude that the so-called "official narrative"
promoted by the mainstream media for the past eighteen years is a lie, as is the fraudulent 9/11 Commission Report of 2004.
Earlier this month, a team of engineers at the University of Alaska
published their draft findings from a five-year investigation into the collapse of Building 7, which was not hit by any airplane
on September 11, 2001, and concluded that fires could not possibly have caused the collapse of that 47-story steel-frame building
-- rather, the collapse seen could have only been caused by the near-simultaneous failure of every support column (43 in number).
This damning report by a team of university engineers has received no attention from the mainstream media outlets which continue
to promote the bankrupt "official" narrative of the events of September 11, 2001.
Various individuals at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) tried to argue that the collapse of Building
7 was slower than freefall speed, but its rate of collapse can be measured and found to be indistinguishable from freefall speed,
as physics teacher David Chandler explains in an
interview
here (and as he eventually forced NIST to admit), beginning at around 0:43:00 in the interview.
Although the collapse of the 47-story steel-beam building World Trade Center 7 into its own footprint at freefall speed is all
the evidence needed to reveal extensive and deliberate premeditated criminal activity by powerful forces that had the ability to
prepare pre-positioned demolition charges in that building prior to the flight of the aircraft into the Twin Towers of the World
Trade Center (Buildings One and Two), as well as the power to cover up the evidence of this criminal activity and to deflect questioning
by government agencies and suppress the story in the mainstream news, the collapse of Building 7 is by no means the only evidence
which points to the same conclusion.
Indeed, the evidence is overwhelming, to the point that no one can any longer be excused for accepting the official story. Certainly
during the first few days and weeks after the attacks, or even during the first few years, men and women could be excused for accepting
the official story (particularly given the level to which the mainstream media controls opinion in the united states).
However, eighteen years later there is simply no excuse anymore -- except for the fact that the ramifications of the admission
that the official story is a flagrant fraud and a lie are so distressing that many people cannot actually bring themselves to consciously
admit what they in fact already know subconsciously.
For additional evidence, I strongly recommend the work of the indefatigable Kevin Robert Ryan , whose blog at Dig Within should be required reading for every man and woman in the united
states -- as well as those in the rest of the world, since the ramifications of the murders of innocent men, women and children on
September 11, 2001 have led to the murders of literally millions of other innocent men, women and children around the world since
that day, and the consequences of the failure to absorb the truth of what actually took place, and the consequences of the
failure to address the lies that are built upon the fraudulent explanation of what took place on September 11, continue to
negatively impact men and women everywhere on our planet.
Additionally, I would also recommend the interviews which are archived at the website of Visibility 9-11 , which includes valuable interviews with Kevin Ryan
but also numerous important interviews with former military officers who explain that the failure of the military to scramble fighters
to intercept the hijacked airplanes, and the failure of air defense weapons to stop a jet from hitting the Pentagon (if indeed a
jet did hit the Pentagon), are also completely inexplicable to anyone who knows anything at all about military operations, unless
the official story is completely false and something else was going on that day.
I would also strongly recommend listening very carefully to the series of five interviews with Kevin Ryan on Guns and Butter with Bonnie Faulkner, which can be found in the
Guns and Butterpodcast archive here . These interviews,
from 2013, are numbered 287, 288, 289, 290, and 291 in the archive.
I would in fact recommend listening to nearly every interview in that archive of Bonnie Faulkner's show, even though I do not
of course agree with every single guest nor with every single view expressed in every single interview. Indeed, if you carefully
read Kevin Ryan's blog which was linked above, you will find a
blog post by Kevin Ryan dated June 24, 2018 in which he
explicitly names James Fetzer along with Judy Woods as likely disinformation agents working to discredit and divert the efforts of
9/11 researchers. James Fetzer appears on Guns and Butter several times in the archived interview page linked above.
That article contains a number of stunning quotations about the ongoing failure to address the now-obvious lies we are being told
about the attacks of September 11. One of these quotations, by astronomer Carl Sagan (1934 – 1996), is particularly noteworthy --
even though I certainly do not agree with everything Carl Sagan ever said or wrote. Regarding our propensity to refuse to acknowledge
what we already know deep down to be true, Carl Sagan said:
One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle.
We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It's simply too painful to acknowledge, even
to ourselves, that we've been taken.
This quotation is from Sagan's 1995 text, The Demon-Haunted World (with which I have points of disagreement, but which
is extremely valuable for that quotation alone, and which I might suggest turning around on some of the points that Sagan was arguing
as well, as a cautionary warning to those who have accepted too wholeheartedly some of Sagan's teachings and opinions).
This quotation shows that on some level, we already know we have been bamboozled, even if our conscious mind refuses to accept
what we already know. This internal division is actually addressed in the world's ancient myths, which consistently illustrate that
our egoic mind often refuses to acknowledge the higher wisdom we have available to us through the reality of our authentic self,
sometimes called our Higher Self. Previous posts have compared this tendency of the egoic mind to the blissfully ignorant character
of Michael Scott in the television series The Office (US version): see
here for example,
and also here .
The important author Peter Kingsley has noted that in ancient myth, the role of the prophet was to bring awareness and acknowledgement
of that which the egoic mind refuses to see -- which is consistent with the observation that it is through our authentic self (which
already knows) that we have access to the realm of the gods. In the Iliad, for example, Dr. Kingsley notes that Apollo sends disaster
upon the Achaean forces until the prophet Calchas reveals the source of the god's anger: Agamemnon's refusal to free the young woman
Chryseis, whom Agamemnon has seized in the course of the fighting during the Trojan War, and who is the daughter of a priest of Apollo.
Until Agamemnon atones for this insult to the god, Apollo will continue to visit destruction upon those following Agamemnon.
Until we acknowledge and correct what our Higher Self already knows to be the problem, we ourselves will be out of step with the
divine realm.
If we look the other way at the murder of thousands of innocent men, women and children on September 11, 2001, and deliberately
refuse to see the truth that we already know deep down in our subconscious, then we will face the displeasure of the Invisible Realm.
Just as we are shown in the ancient myths, the truth must be acknowledged and admitted, and then the wrong that has been done must
be corrected.
In the case of the mass murder perpetrated on September 11, eighteen years ago, that admission requires us to face the fact that
the "terrorists" who were blamed for that attack were not the actual terrorists that we need to be focusing on.
Please note that I am very careful not to say that "the government" is the source of the problem: I would argue that the government
is the lawful expression of the will of the people and that the government, rightly understood, is exactly what these criminal perpetrators
actually fear the most, if the people ever become aware of what is going on. The government, which is established by the Constitution,
forbids the perpetration of murder upon innocent men, women and children in order to initiate wars of aggression against countries
that never invaded or attacked us (under the false pretense that they did so). Those who do so are actually opposed to our government
under the Constitution and can be dealt with within the framework of the law as established by the Constitution, which establishes
a very clear penalty for treason.
When the people acknowledge and admit the complete bankruptcy of the lie we have been told about the attacks of September 11,
the correction of that lie will involve demanding the immediate repeal and dismantling of the so-called "USA PATRIOT Act" which was
enacted in the weeks immediately following September 11, 2001 and which clearly violates the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Additionally, the correction of that lie will involve demanding the immediate cessation of the military operations which were
initiated based upon the fraudulent narrative of the attacks of that day, and which have led to invasion and overthrow of the nations
that were falsely blamed as being the perpetrators of those attacks and the seizure of their natural resources.
The imposition of a vast surveillance mechanism upon the people of this country (and of other countries) based on the fraudulent
pretext of "preventing terrorism" (and the lying narrative that has been perpetuated with the full complicity of the mainstream media
for the past eighteen years) is in complete violation of the human rights which are enumerated in the Bill of Rights and which declare:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing
the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
That human right has been grievously trampled upon under the false description of what actually took place during the September
11 attacks. Numerous technology companies have been allowed and even encouraged (and paid, with public moneys) to create technologies
which flagrantly and shamelessly violate "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" and
which track their every move and even enable secret eavesdropping upon their conversation and the secret capture of video within
their homes and private settings, without any probable cause whatsoever.
When we admit and acknowledge that we have been lied to about the events of September 11, which has been falsely used as a supposed
justification for the violation of these human rights (with complete disregard for the supreme law of the land as established in
the Constitution), then we will also demand the immediate cessation of any such intrusion upon the right of the people to "be secure
in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" -- including the cessation of any business models which involve spying on men and
women.
Companies which cannot find a business model that does not violate the Bill of Rights should lose their corporate charter and
the privilege of limited liability, which are extended to them by the people (through the government of the people, by the people
and for the people) only upon the condition that their behavior as corporations do not violate the inherent rights of men and women
as acknowledged in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.
It is well beyond the time when we must acknowledge and admit that we have been lied to about the events of September 11, 2001
-- and that we continue to be lied to about the events of that awful day. September 11, 2001 is in fact only one such event in a
long history which stretches back prior to 2001, to other events which should have awakened the people to the presence of a very
powerful and very dangerous criminal cabal acting in direct contravention to the Constitution long before we ever got to 2001 --
but the events of September 11 are so blatant, so violent, and so full of evidence which contradicts the fraudulent narrative that
they actually cannot be believed by anyone who spends even the slightest amount of time looking at that evidence.
Indeed, we already know deep down that we have been bamboozled by the lie of the so-called "official narrative" of September 11.
But until we admit to ourselves and acknowledge to others that we've ignored the truth that we already know, then the bamboozle
still has us .
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog
site, internet forums. etc.
David Warner Mathisen graduated from the US Military Academy at West Point and became an Infantry officer in the 82nd Airborne
Division and the 4th Infantry Division. He is a graduate of the US Army's Ranger School and the 82nd Airborne Division's Jumpmaster
Course, among many other awards and decorations. He was later selected to become an instructor in the Department of English Literature
and Philosophy at West Point and has a Masters degree from Texas A&M University.
David Warner Mathisen graduated from the US Military Academy at West Point and became an Infantry officer in the 82nd Airborne
Division and the 4th Infantry Division. He is a graduate of the US Army's Ranger School and the 82nd Airborne Division's Jumpmaster
Course, among many other awards and decorations. He was later selected to become an instructor in the Department of English Literature
and Philosophy at West Point and has a Masters degree from Texas A&M University.
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
"everyone in journalism appears completely untroubled by the complete paucity of information
that an organisation which troubles them"
Robert Parry's pieces on perception management. They come up by putting perception
management in the site search at Consortium News. Parry read through the Reagan papers.
"Declassified documents now reveal how extensive Reagan's propaganda project became with
inter-agency task forces assigned to develop "themes" that would push American "hot
buttons.""
But things were about to change. In a Jan. 13, 1983, memo, NSC Advisor Clark foresaw the
need for non-governmental money to advance this cause. "We will develop a scenario for
obtaining private funding," Clark wrote. (Just five days later, President Reagan personally
welcomed media magnate Rupert Murdoch into the Oval Office for a private meeting, according
to records on file at the Reagan library.)
As administration officials reached out to wealthy supporters, lines against domestic
propaganda soon were crossed as the operation took aim not only at foreign audiences but at
U.S. public opinion, the press and congressional Democrats who opposed funding the Nicaraguan
Contras." https://consortiumnews.com/2014/12/28/the-victory-of-perception-management/
Jean Seberg on a phone call during the filming of 'Joan of Arc', directed by
Otto Preminger, in 1957, in London
( AFP/Getty )
T
he circumstances of
Jean Seberg
's death 40 years ago in late August 1979 were squalid and pathetic. The American star's body lay
decomposing in a car on a street in
Paris
for 10 days before the French police discovered it. There was a bottle of barbiturates and a suicide note
beside the corpse. As the press reported, her body had "baked in the sun" and the odour was "unimaginably foul". This
was the actress who, at the start of her career, was described as "so unimaginably fresh" by her colleagues.
Paris
was the city with which Seberg was most closely associated. Every film lover remembers her in
Jean-Luc Godard
's
Breathless
(1960) in her white
New York Herald Tribune
T-shirt, selling newspapers and gallivanting around the streets with her co-star,
Jean-Paul Belmondo.
Seberg had one of the strangest and most contradictory careers of any
Hollywood
star during the postwar years.
"She was so misunderstood. It's not like you need to hero-worship a celebrity, they are just people you want to
look at. The fact that people stared at her and fixated on things that were not real, projections: that really
ultimately destroyed her,"
Kristen Stewart
, who plays her in the new film,
Seberg
, commented recently of the ill-fated actress in a
Vanity Fair
interview. As an actress who has worked on both big Hollywood productions like
Twilight
and in independent French arthouse features, Stewart seems perfectly qualified to play her.
Seberg
, a world premiere at the
Venice film festival
, isn't a straight biopic. Its focus is its subject's deadly entanglement with the
FBI
. Days after her suicide, the FBI admitted that its agents had plotted to ruin her reputation as part of their
counter-intelligence programme, Cointelpro, authorised by FBI founder,
J Edgar Hoover
himself. Seberg's crime, in Hoover's eyes, was her involvement in political causes and her support
of the
Black Panther Party
. In particular, they were suspicious of her close links with Black Power leader, Hakim Jamal
(played in the film by Anthony Mackie).
Kristen Stewart as Jean
Seberg
in Benedict
Andrews's film '
Seberg
'
(Amazon Studios)
In 1970, the FBI planted the false rumour that Seberg was pregnant by a Black Panther Party member in order to
"cause her embarrassment" and "cheapen her image" with the American public. Their plan worked. It was dispiriting but
inevitable that some gossip columnists followed the false leads that the FBI dangled in front of them. From the FBI's
point of view, she was involved in radical politics, had contributed financially to the Black Panthers and was
therefore fair game. The story was picked up by gossip columnist, Joyce Haber, who referred obliquely to it in the
Los Angeles Times
.
Newsweek
also wrote about it and named Seberg.
"Under the ruthless gaze of the FBI, the threads of Jean's life come apart," Benedict Andrews, the director of
Seberg
, pointed out. The assault on her reputation set in motion the events that led to her death a decade
later. At the time of the leak, Seberg had indeed been pregnant. In the wake of reading the false stories about
herself, she went into labour. Her baby was born prematurely and died a few days later.
The woman Hoover set out to crush was the quintessential young American, "the golden sunflower girl" from the
midwest, as she was characterised. A pharmacist's daughter who had grown up in Marshalltown, Iowa, she had won
Hollywood's version of the Lottery by landing the lead role in Otto Preminger's George Bernard Shaw adaptation,
Saint Joan
(1957). The autocratic Preminger had launched a nationwide talent hunt for a new Joan of Arc. A
reported 18,000 girls had sent in pictures and resumes and 3,000 had been given personal auditions. Seberg got the
part. She was the one, as TV show host Ed Sullivan put it, who had "caught lightning in a bottle". It was the
equivalent of Vivien Leigh being cast as Scarlett O'Hara in
Gone With the Wind
(1939).
Seberg
and Jean-Paul
Belmondo
in Jean-Luc
Godard's
'Breathless' (Films Around The World)
Preminger was the perfect gentleman off-set but, when the cameras began to roll, he turned into a bad-tempered
ogre. He used every ruse at his disposal to publicise the film and its new young star. It would have made the perfect
story about overnight stardom if it hadn't been for the fact that the film didn't turn out very well. By her own
admission, Seberg wasn't obvious casting. She talked about being burnt at the stake twice, first in making the movie
and then by the critics. Preminger cast her in a second film,
Bonjour Tristesse
(1958) but then discarded her. "He used me like a Kleenex and then threw me away", is how she
described her treatment at his hands.
The irony is that Preminger had been right all along. Seberg really was a special talent. She had a spontaneity,
mischief and lambent grace on screen that immediately enraptured the young critics and would-be filmmakers from
Cahiers du Cinéma
in France. "When Jean Seberg is on the screen, which is all the time, you can't look at
anything else," Francois Truffaut enthused about her performance in
Bonjour Tristesse
. Godard and Claude Chabrol were equally smitten with her.
In one of the more bizarre transformations in Hollywood history, the midwestern girl-next-door type became the
sacred muse of the French Nouvelle Vague.
Seberg was wryly humorous about the effect she exercised on French male directors. "I was their new Jerry Lewis, I
suppose," she told journalist Rex Reed, comparing herself to the American comedian who made goofy films with Dean
Martin and was treated with near contempt by American critics but revered as "Le Roi du Crazy" by their French
counterparts. "Godard is like a Paul Klee painting, always hiding behind those funny dark glasses," she suggested,
going on to call the French auteurs who worshipped her "very strange little men".
Thanks to
Breathless
, Seberg also became more highly valued back in Hollywood. Director Robert Rossen, who cast her in one
of her greatest roles as the beautiful schizophrenic opposite
Warren Beatty
and
Peter Fonda
in
Lillith
(1964) spoke of her "flawed American girl quality, sort of like a cheerleader who's cracked up". She had
prominent roles in all-star blockbusters like
Airport
(1970) and successfully held her own against such scene-stealers as Lee Marvin and
Clint Eastwood
in
Paint Your Wagon
(1969).
That, though, was the period before Hoover and the FBI set about destroying her just as surely as Otto Preminger
had tried to create her as a star in the late Fifties in the first place.
Preminger and Hoover bookend her career. The media colluded with those two patriarchs, building her up and then
knocking her down.
Elements of Seberg's story are utterly heartbreaking. As Alistair Cooke told British listeners in one of his
Letters from America
broadcasts the week after her death, she took her prematurely born baby's corpse back home
to Iowa "in a glass coffin as a glaring proof that the baby was white – an excessive reaction perhaps but in 1970,
she knew that the FBI could and did destroy hundreds of radicals and non radicals".
On each anniversary of the baby's death, her then-husband Romain Gary later revealed, she had attempted suicide.
Seberg
as the beautiful schizophrenic who starred opposite Warren Beatty and Peter Fonda in '
Lillith
'
(1964) (Glasshouse/Rex)
Seberg continued to work throughout the 1970s, making an experimental film with Philippe Garrel and collaborating
on projects with her third husband, Dennis Berry. She wrote to Ingmar Bergman, the great Swedish director, telling
him that she looked a little like Bibi Andersson, who had starred in Bergman films from
The Seventh Seal
(1957) to
Persona
(1966), and expressing her fervent desire to work with him. The letter is kept in Bergman's archives. He
received it and read it – but didn't deign to reply to it.
If Seberg was feeling marginalised and paranoid in her final years, you could hardly blame her given the FBI
harassment, the upheaval in her private life and the alarming way her career had begun to creak. As her biographer
David Richards notes, she was putting on weight, drinking too much and seemed to be in a state of permanent
"psychological siege". By the late 1970s, she was close to being forgotten. Her death, though, put her right back on
the front pages. The public was reminded of just how abominably she had been treated both by Hollywood and by the
FBI. There was a sense of frustration over talent that had never been properly fulfilled. Then again, as is pointed
out in Mark Rappaport's dramatised documentary,
From The Journals of Jean Seberg
(1995), most of her films may have been "mediocre", but she made one or two
"great ones" and that is more than in most careers. Now, with Stewart portraying her on screen (and already being
talked up for awards), Seberg is likely to be rediscovered all over again
'Seberg' is a world premiere at the Venice Film Festival on Friday 30 August (labiennale.org). It has its UK premiere
at the London Film Festival on 4 and 5 October (bfi.org.uk)
It is apparent that the caricature of the Soviet Union in both productions is really a stand-in for the present-day Russian government
under Vladimir Putin. As only American exceptionalism could permit, Hollywood did not hold the same disdain for his predecessor,
Boris Yeltsin, whose legacy of high inflation and national debt have since been eliminated. In fact, most have forgotten that the
same filmdom community outraged about Russia's supposed interference in the 2016 U.S. election made a celebratory movie back in 2003,
Spinning Boris , which practically boasted about the instrumental role the West played in Yeltsin's 1996 reelection in Russia.
The highly unpopular alcoholic politician benefited from a near universal media bias as virtually all the federation's news outlets
came under the control of the 'oligarchs' (in America known simply as billionaires) which his economic policies of mass privatization
of state industry enriched overnight.
Yeltsin initially polled at less than 10% and was far behind Communist Party candidate Gennady Zyuganov until he became the recipient
of billions from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) thanks to his corrupt campaign manager, Anatoly Chubais, now one of the most
hated men in all of Russia. After the purging of votes and rampant ballot-box stuffing, Yeltsin successfully closed the gap between
his opponent thanks to the overt U.S. meddling.
Spinning Boris was directed by Roger Spottiswoode, who previously helmed an installment in the James Bond series, Tomorrow
Never Dies . The 1997 entry in the franchise is one of thousands of Hollywood films and network television shows exposed by journalists
Matthew Alford and Tom Secker as having been influenced or directly assisted by the Pentagon and CIA in their must-read book National
Security Cinema: The Shocking New Evidence of Government Control in Hollywood. Based on evidence from documents revealed in Freedom
of Information Act (FOIA) requests, their investigation divulges the previously unknown extent to which the national security complex
has gone in exerting control over content in the film industry. While it has always been known that the military held sway over movies
that required usage of its facilities and equipment to be produced, the level of impact on such films in the pre-production and editing
stages, as well as the control over non-military themed flicks one wouldn't suspect to be under supervision by Washington and Langley,
is exhaustively uncovered.
As expected, Hollywood and the military-industrial complex's intimate relationship during the Cold War is featured prominently
in Alford and Secker's investigative work. It is unclear whether HBO or Netflix sought US military assistance or were directly involved
with the national security state in their respective productions, but these are just two recent examples of many where the correlated
increase in geopolitical tensions with Moscow is reflected. The upcoming sequel to DC's Wonder Woman set to be released next
year , Wonder Woman 1984, featuring the female superhero " coming into conflict with the Soviet Union during the Cold War
in the 1980s ", is yet another. Reprising her role is Israeli actress and IDF veteran is Gal Gadot as the title character, ironically
starring in a blockbuster that will demonize the Eurasian state which saved her ethnicity from extinction. Given the Pentagon's involvement
in the debacle surounding 2014's The Interview which provoked very real tensions with North Korea, it is likely they are at
least closely examining any entertainment with content regarding Russia, if not directly pre-approving it for review.
Ultimately, the Western panic about its imperial decline is not limited to assigning blame to Moscow. Sinophobia has manifested
as well in recent films such as the 2016 sci-fi film Arrival where the extra-terrestrials who reach Earth seem more interested
in communicating with Beijing as the global superpower than the U.S. However, while the West forebodes the return of Russia and China
to greater standing, you can be certain its real fear lies elsewhere. The fact that Chernobyl and Stranger Things are
as preoccupied with portraying socialism in a bad light as they are in rendering Moscow nefarious shows the real underlying trepidation
of the ruling elite that concerns the resurgence of class consciousness. The West must learn its lesson that its state of perpetual
war has caused its own downfall or it could attempt a last line of defense that would inevitably conscript all of humanity to its
death as the ruling class nearly did to the world in 1914 and 1939.
The article about how many intelligence officials (retired) now work for the corporate press
is misleading. It does not take into account the "undeclared" operatives such as Anderson
Cooper and Rachael Maddow. Cooper went to work for the CIA and they out him in his job,
Maddow is a Rhodes Scholar, a trained apparatchik for the elites.
This is nothing new, after WWII, when the press was most compliant and the CIA was formed
the press was "taken over" by the newly reforming and consolidating of deep state power.
There was Operation Mockingbird which was exposed long ago but nothing changes if they get
caught they just reorganize and continue.
"... However, while throughout Webb's articles she draws linkages that lead to the Mossad, she only suggests CIA connections. This is similar to but milder than a point made in an article written by Philip Giraldi, a former CIA counter-terrorism specialist, " Did Pedophile Jeffrey Epstein Work for Mossad? " Giraldi writes that the CIA "would have no particular motive to acquire an agent like Epstein." This makes no sense. Of course, it would. The CIA and the FBI have a long record of such activities, and to hold such a club over the heads of presidents, senators, et al to make sure they do their bidding is obviously a strong motivation. ..."
"... The CIA is organized crime, and if Epstein is Mossad connected, he is CIA also, which is most likely. Epstein could not have operated as he did for decades without being sustained and protected. ..."
"... no prosecution of the central operational cog in the gang, Ghislaine Maxwell, or her cohorts named in the fantastic settlement agreement ..."
"... “It is a mind game of extraordinary proportions, orchestrated by the perverted power elites who run the show and are abetted by their partners in the corporate mass media, even some in the alternative press who mean well but are confused, or are disinformation agents in the business of sowing confusion together with their mainstream Operation Mockingbird partners.” ..."
W hen phrases such as "the deep state" and "conspiracy theory" become staples of both the
corporate mainstream media and the alternative press, we know the realities behind these
phrases have outlasted their usefulness for the ruling elites who control the United States and
for their critics, each of whom uses them refutably or corroboratively. These phrases are
bandied about so often that they have become hackneyed and inane.
Everything is shallow now, in our faces, and by being in our faces the truth is taking place
behind our backs. The obvious can't be true since it's so obvious, so let us search for other
explanations, and when the searchers search, let us call them "conspiracy nuts." It is a mind
game of extraordinary proportions, orchestrated by the perverted power elites who run the show
and are abetted by their partners in the corporate mass media, even some in the alternative
press who mean well but are confused, or are disinformation agents in the business of sowing
confusion together with their mainstream Operation Mockingbird partners.
It is a spectacle of open secrecy, in which the CIA, which created the "conspiracy theory"
meme to ridicule critics of the Warren Commission's absurd explanation of the Kennedy
assassination, has effectively sucked everyone into a game of to and fro in which only they
win.
"When I make a word do a lot of work like that," said Humpty Dumpty, "I always pay it
extra."
Outside the Narrative Frame
Only by stepping outside this narrative frame with its vocabulary can we begin to grasp the
truth here in our Wonderland of endless illusions.
Death, sex, power, intrigue, murder, suicide – these are the staples of the penny
press of the 19 th century, Joseph Pulitzer's New York World , Hearst's
New York Journal , the tabloids, today's mass media, and the CIA. 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.
Robert Pfaller in 2016. (Suzie1212, CC BY-SA 4.0, Wikimedia Commons)
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
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, events like the JFK assassination 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.
The debate over whether Jeffrey Epstein committed suicide or not is a pseudo-debate meant to
keep people spinning their wheels over nothing. 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.
(Christopher Dombres, CC0, Wikimedia Commons)
Debates to Nowhere
It's akin to asking who pulled the trigger that killed President John 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. Kennedy's murder in broad daylight in public view is the
paradigmatic event of modern times. It is obvious to anyone who 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.
New York Post: Reigniting the narrative.
A corollary example of another recent national headline grabber, the Mueller investigation,
is apropos here. Douglas Valentine, expert on the CIA and author of "The CIA as Organized
Crime," said in a recent interview that in all the endless mass media discussions of the
Mueller investigation, one obvious question was never asked: What is the CIA's role in it all?
It was never asked because the job of the corporate mass media is to work for the CIA, not to
expose it as a nest of organized criminals and murderers that it is.
What is important in the Epstein case is the deep back story, a tale that goes back decades
and is explored by Whitney Webb in a series of fine
articles for the Mint Press. Read her articles and you will see how Epstein is just the current
manifestation of the sordid history of the American marriage between various factions of the
American ruling elites, whose business is sexual exploitation as a fringe benefit of being
willing members of the economic and military exploitation of the world. A marriage of spies,
mafia, intelligence agencies, sexual perverts, foreign governments and American traitors who
will stop at nothing to advance their interests.
Destroys the Fairy Tale of Democracy
It is a hard story to swallow because it destroys the fairy tale that has been constructed
about American "democracy" and the decency of our leaders. Webb's articles are not based on
secret documents but on readily available information open to a diligent researcher. It's known
history that has been buried, as is most history in a country of amnesiacs and educational
illiterates. The average person doesn't have Webb's skill or time to pull it all together, but
they can read her illuminating work. Often, however, it is the will to truth that is
lacking.
While Webb places the Epstein matter in an historical context, she does not "solve" the
case, since there is nothing to solve. It is another story from a long litany of sex/espionage
stories openly available to anyone willing to look. They tell the same story. Like many
commentators, she draws many linkages to the Israeli Mossad's long-standing connections to this
criminal under and over world in the United States and throughout the world. She writes:
"Ultimately, the picture painted by the evidence is not a direct tie to a single
intelligence agency but a web linking key members of the Mega Group [a secretive group of
Jewish billionaires, including Epstein's patron Leslie Wexner], politicians, and officials in
both the U.S. and Israel, and an organized-crime network with deep business and intelligence
ties in both nations."
If anything is obvious about the Epstein case, it is that he was part of a sexual blackmail
operation tied to intelligence agencies. Such blackmail has long been central to the methods of
intelligence agencies worldwide and many arrows rightfully point to the Mossad.
However, while throughout Webb's articles she draws linkages that lead to the Mossad, she
only suggests CIA connections. This is similar to but milder than a point made in an article
written by Philip Giraldi, a former CIA counter-terrorism specialist, " Did Pedophile
Jeffrey Epstein Work for Mossad? " Giraldi writes that the CIA "would have no particular
motive to acquire an agent like Epstein." This makes no sense. Of course, it would. The CIA and
the FBI have a long record of such activities, and to hold such a club over the heads of
presidents, senators, et al to make sure they do their bidding is obviously a strong
motivation.
Valentine's point about not asking the question about the CIA's involvement in the Mueller
investigation pertains. Does Giraldi believe that the Mossad operates independently of the CIA?
Or that they don't work in tandem? His statement is very strange.
The CIA is organized crime, and if Epstein is Mossad connected, he is CIA also, which is
most likely. Epstein could not have operated as he did for decades without being sustained and
protected. Now that he is dead there will be no trial, just as there will be no mainstream
media or justice department revelations about the CIA or Mossad. There will be a lot of
gibberish about conspiracy theories and the open secret that is the spectacle of secrecy will
roll on. There will, of course, be much sex talk and outrage. We will anxiously await the movie
and the TV "exposés." Most people will know, and pretend they don't, that the country is
ruled by gangsters who would pimp their mothers if it served their interests.
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.
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.
As John Berger said, "In storytelling everything depends on what follows what. And the
truest order is seldom obvious."
Educated in the classics, philosophy, literature, theology, and sociology, Ed Curtin is a
former professor of sociology. His writing on varied topics has appeared widely over many
years. He sees all his work as an effort to enhance human freedom.
Prince Andrew hung out with Epstein because he made a good tuna on rye. We are all conditioned to accept that powerful
people do not have to go to jail. Its just the way it is and will always remain so. There is not an honest person anywhere on
planet earth who believes that Bill Clinton and the others did not have sex with “those girls”. America and the west are
morally corrupt piles of garbage. No wonder the African Americans and others rage against an unbalanced system of justice.
Actually it is just poor people of any color who get the book thrown at them.
I saw the pictures yesterday on the telegraph of the young blond girl leaving Epsteins Manhattan home with Prince Andrew
poking his head out the door. The girl looked like she was no older than 14. The dear old Queen doesn’t represent justice
either.
Vera Gottlieb, August 20, 2019 at 11:29
Just curious…will the Epstein saga be as prolonged and boring as the Russiagate saga???
Litchfield, August 20, 2019 at 14:00
I don’t think so.
It is in the interest of the puppetmeister to let thing die out ASAP. Not so the Russiagate hoax: the idea was to prolong it
in the hopes of finally finding a smoking gun of some kind. With the Epstein story we are awash in smoking guns, but they are
being ignored.
Dan D. August 20, 2019 at 09:34
If there is no trial and further revelations about the nature of this operation, which should be expected, it won’t simply
be because Epstein is dead, but because there will be no prosecution of the central operational cog in the gang,
Ghislaine Maxwell, or her cohorts named in the fantastic settlement agreement. There are more than sufficient facts in
the public sphere to proceed.
Bob Van Noy, August 20, 2019 at 09:07
“It is a mind game of extraordinary proportions, orchestrated by the perverted power elites who run the show and
are abetted by their partners in the corporate mass media, even some in the alternative press who mean well but are
confused, or are disinformation agents in the business of sowing confusion together with their mainstream Operation
Mockingbird partners.”
“The CIA is organized crime,…”
Edward Curtin has summarized our contemporary hell as few others can. In the above comments he fully describes our dilemma
and underscores the necessity for sites like Consortiumnews to present the truth for citizens to be able to sort truth from
lies. Still we cannot forget that our democracy is “a criminal conspiracy”…
I actually believe knowing what happened to Epstein is knowable. It is also important because it will reveal who/what has
the power to make such a thing happen. However, while this information will take a long time to come out it is our job to
push on behalf of his victims right now.
There is information showing that Maxwell and several other people committed multiple rapes of children. We do not see her,
Prince Andrew, Bill Clinton and Donald Trump, just to name a few, hauled in for questioning. That really needs to happen. We
have built up the powerful into untouchable icons. This needs to full stop now. These are not icons, they are potential and
likely guilty child rapists of children. Our power system is held up by unspeakable cruelty to children and to others who
simply don’t have the power to fight back unless we offer our support and services to them. There is enough testimony and
other evidence to bring them in for questioning.
The conspiracy to commit rape should be ready to go. Investigators have had that information for a long time. I’m not buying
that they are too incompetent to move that case forward. We are going to need to push for this. Deliberate infliction of
human misery is evil and it is not acceptable to create one’s society on such a thing.
There is ground penetrating radar which can see under Jeff’s concrete pour. It can also show the tunnels on the islands.
“Lost” evidence can be relocated from it’s undisclosed location. The ranch in NM can be sealed off and also scanned by this
radar. No one should believe agencies with the resources of this government behind them are incapable of doing such things.
In the meantime, there is a tape of Jeff’s wing from that night. There’s one from the hospital and the investigators can
offer immunity to anyone guard or hospital/ambulance employee in exchange for their truthful explanation of what they were
doing and what they saw. This was not a series of incompetent actions which all went one way and one way only. It took a lot
of planning and a lot of resources. That means there are a lot of witnesses.
We do need to uncover and dismantle this chain of human misery. No More.
ML, August 20, 2019 at 11:27
Excellent comment, Jill. As a family medicine nurse practitioner for many years, I have witnessed and helped many teen
victims of adults who thought it somehow A-ok to sexually take advantage of them. I understand teen psychology. They are
wholly unprepared to deal with the often underhanded tactics of pedophiles who use charm, deceit, threats, flattery, physical
violence, tangible needed goods like money, clothing, or even a place to sleep, to get what they want— sex with a young
person.
It is truly evil and that is not too strong a word for it. Epstein apparently used all of these tactics on his victims.
How I wish there were a hell for the likes of him.
Litchfield, August 20, 2019 at 12:14
I agree with all you say, and thanks for putting it so clearly. There is NO EXCUSE for this case NOT to go forward and for
all the parties of interest to be interrogated, and not with velvet gloves on. Clinton, Andrew, Dersh, Wexner, Maxwell, just
for starters. Possibly Barr should recuse himself, as he seems to be too intertwined with the Epstein background story.
Brian Murphy, August 20, 2019 at 12:42
Is it really such a mystery what organizations acting together have the capability to have done this? They are identified
in the article. The western coalition of intelligence agencies, which includes the Mossad along with NATO powers. In the USA,
that includes the entire intelligence apparatus — CIA, NSA, MIA, FBI, Secret Service, as supported and defended by the DOJ.
Which of those entities placed someone in the jail cell to crack his neck is somewhat immaterial. The current President
and at least one former President were implicated, which justifies the use of the full arsenal in the minds of those
involved, as a “threat to national security,” which of course means strictly “threat to the profits of certain entities.”
Walter, August 20, 2019 at 06:56
There is sparse evidence and zero proof that the charming fellow committed suicide, and only claims (somebody said stuff)
that he’s actually dead. (Same for his girlfriend’s dad, same for Skirpal :–)
Whitney Webb at Mintpressnews is doing good job on Mr E.
"... Obviously, a large fraction of everything described by our government leaders or presented in the pages of our most respectable newspapers -- from the 9/11 attacks to the most insignificant local case of petty urban corruption -- could objectively be categorized as a "conspiracy theory" but such words are never applied. ..."
"... Put another way, there are good "conspiracy theories" and bad "conspiracy theories," with the former being the ones promoted by pundits on mainstream television shows and hence never described as such ..."
"... by the time we attacked Iraq in 2003, polls revealed that some 70% of the American public believed that Saddam was personally involved in the destruction of our World Trade Center. By that date I don't doubt that many millions of patriotic but low-information Americans would have angrily denounced and vilified as a "crazy conspiracy theorist" anyone with the temerity to suggest that Saddam had not been behind 9/11, despite almost no one in authority having ever explicitly made such a fallacious claim. ..."
"... Based on an important FOIA disclosure, the book's headline revelation was that the CIA was very likely responsible for the widespread introduction of "conspiracy theory" as a term of political abuse, having orchestrated that development as a deliberate means of influencing public opinion. ..."
"... So as a means of damage control, the CIA distributed a secret memo to all its field offices requesting that they enlist their media assets in efforts to ridicule and attack such critics as irrational supporters of "conspiracy theories." Soon afterward, there suddenly appeared statements in the media making those exact points, with some of the wording, arguments, and patterns of usage closely matching those CIA guidelines. The result was a huge spike in the pejorative use of the phrase, which spread throughout the American media, with the residual impact continueing right down to the present day. Thus, there is considerable evidence in support of this particular "conspiracy theory" explaining the widespread appearance of attacks on "conspiracy theories" in the public media. ..."
"... But although the CIA appears to have effectively manipulated public opinion in order to transform the phrase "conspiracy theory" into a powerful weapon of ideological combat, the author also describes how the necessary philosophical ground had actually been prepared a couple of decades earlier. Around the time of the Second World War, an important shift in political theory caused a huge decline in the respectability of any "conspiratorial" explanation of historical events. ..."
"... Meanwhile, Strauss, a founding figure in modern neo-conservative thought, was equally harsh in his attacks upon conspiracy analysis, but for polar-opposite reasons. In his mind, elite conspiracies were absolutely necessary and beneficial, a crucial social defense against anarchy or totalitarianism, but their effectiveness obviously depended upon keeping them hidden from the prying eyes of the ignorant masses. His main problem with "conspiracy theories" was not that they were always false, but they might often be true, and therefore their spread was potentially disruptive to the smooth functioning of society. So as a matter of self-defense, elites needed to actively suppress or otherwise undercut the unauthorized investigation of suspected conspiracies. ..."
"... This argument may be more than purely hypothetical. A crucial turning point in America's renewed Cold War against Russia was the passage of the 2012 Magnitsky Act by Congress, punitively targeting various supposedly corrupt Russian officials for their alleged involvement in the illegal persecution and death of an employee of Bill Browder, an American hedge-fund manager with large Russian holdings. However, there's actually quite a bit of evidence that it was Browder himself who was actually the mastermind and beneficiary of the gigantic corruption scheme, while his employee was planning to testify against him and was therefore fearful of his life for that reason. Naturally, the American media has provided scarcely a single mention of these remarkable revelations regarding what might amount to a gigantic Magnitsky Hoax of geopolitical significance. ..."
"... To some extent the creation of the Internet and the vast proliferation of alternative media outlets, including my own small webzine , have somewhat altered this depressing picture. So it is hardly surprising that a very substantial fraction of the discussion dominating these Samizdat-like publications concerns exactly those subjects regularly condemned as "crazy conspiracy theories" by our mainstream media organs. ..."
"... Such unfiltered speculation must surely be a source of considerable irritation and worry to government officials who have long relied upon the complicity of their tame media organs to allow their serious misdeeds to pass unnoticed and unpunished. Indeed, several years ago a senior Obama Administration official argued that the free discussion of various "conspiracy theories" on the Internet was so potentially harmful that government agents should be recruited to "cognitively infiltrate" and disrupt them, essentially proposing a high-tech version of the highly controversial Cointelpro operations undertaken by J. Edgar Hoover's FBI. ..."
A year or two ago, I saw the much-touted science fiction film Interstellar , and
although the plot wasn't any good, one early scene was quite amusing. For various reasons, the
American government of the future claimed that our Moon Landings of the late 1960s had been
faked, a trick aimed at winning the Cold War by bankrupting Russia into fruitless space efforts
of its own. This inversion of historical reality was accepted as true by nearly everyone, and
those few people who claimed that Neil Armstrong had indeed set foot on the Moon were
universally ridiculed as "crazy conspiracy theorists." This seems a realistic portrayal of
human nature to me.
Obviously, a large fraction of everything described by our government leaders or presented
in the pages of our most respectable newspapers -- from the 9/11 attacks to the most
insignificant local case of petty urban corruption -- could objectively be categorized as a
"conspiracy theory" but such words are never applied. Instead, use of that highly loaded phrase
is reserved for those theories, whether plausible or fanciful, that do not possess the
endorsement stamp of establishmentarian approval.
Put another way, there are good "conspiracy theories" and bad "conspiracy theories," with
the former being the ones promoted by pundits on mainstream television shows and hence never
described as such. I've sometimes joked with people that if ownership and control of our
television stations and other major media outlets suddenly changed, the new information regime
would require only a few weeks of concerted effort to totally invert all of our most famous
"conspiracy theories" in the minds of the gullible American public. The notion that nineteen
Arabs armed with box-cutters hijacked several jetliners, easily evaded our NORAD air defenses,
and reduced several landmark buildings to rubble would soon be universally ridiculed as the
most preposterous "conspiracy theory" ever to have gone straight from the comic books into the
minds of the mentally ill, easily surpassing the absurd "lone gunman" theory of the JFK
assassination.
Even without such changes in media control, huge shifts in American public beliefs have
frequently occurred in the recent past, merely on the basis of implied association. In the
initial weeks and months following the 2001 attacks, every American media organ was enlisted to
denounce and vilify Osama Bin Laden, the purported Islamicist master-mind, as our greatest
national enemy, with his bearded visage endlessly appearing on television and in print, soon
becoming one of the most recognizable faces in the world. But as the Bush Administration and
its key media allies prepared a war against Iraq, the images of the Burning Towers were instead
regularly juxtaposed with mustachioed photos of dictator Saddam Hussein, Bin Laden's
arch-enemy. As a consequence, by the time we attacked Iraq in 2003, polls revealed that some
70% of the American
public believed that Saddam was personally involved in the destruction of our World Trade
Center. By that date I don't doubt that many millions of patriotic but low-information
Americans would have angrily denounced and vilified as a "crazy conspiracy theorist" anyone
with the temerity to suggest that Saddam had not been behind 9/11, despite almost no one
in authority having ever explicitly made such a fallacious claim.
These factors of media manipulation were very much in my mind a couple of years ago
when I stumbled across a short but fascinating book published by the University of Texas
academic press. The author of Conspiracy Theory in Americawas Prof. Lance deHaven-Smith, a former president of
the Florida Political Science Association.
Based on an important FOIA disclosure, the book's headline revelation was that the CIA was
very likely responsible for the widespread introduction of "conspiracy theory" as a term of
political abuse, having orchestrated that development as a deliberate means of influencing
public opinion.
During the mid-1960s there had been increasing public skepticism about the Warren Commission
findings that a lone gunman, Lee Harvey Oswald, had been solely responsible for President
Kennedy's assassination, and growing suspicions that top-ranking American leaders had also been
involved. So as a means of damage control, the CIA distributed a secret memo to all its field
offices requesting that they enlist their media assets in efforts to ridicule and attack such
critics as irrational supporters of "conspiracy theories." Soon afterward, there suddenly
appeared statements in the media making those exact points, with some of the wording,
arguments, and patterns of usage closely matching those CIA guidelines. The result was a huge
spike in the pejorative use of the phrase, which spread throughout the American media, with the
residual impact continueing right down to the present day. Thus, there is considerable evidence
in support of this particular "conspiracy theory" explaining the widespread appearance of
attacks on "conspiracy theories" in the public media.
But although the CIA appears to have effectively manipulated public opinion in order to
transform the phrase "conspiracy theory" into a powerful weapon of ideological combat, the
author also describes how the necessary philosophical ground had actually been prepared a
couple of decades earlier. Around the time of the Second World War, an important shift in
political theory caused a huge decline in the respectability of any "conspiratorial"
explanation of historical events.
For decades prior to that conflict, one of our most prominent scholars and public
intellectuals had been historian Charles Beard , whose influential writings
had heavily focused on the harmful role of various elite conspiracies in shaping American
policy for the benefit of the few at the expense of the many, with his examples ranging from
the earliest history of the United States down to the nation's entry into WWI. Obviously,
researchers never claimed that all major historical events had hidden causes, but it was widely
accepted that some of them did, and attempting to investigate those possibilities was deemed a
perfectly acceptable academic enterprise.
However, Beard was a strong opponent of American entry into the Second World War, and he was
marginalized in the years that followed, even prior to his death in 1948. Many younger public
intellectuals of a similar bent also suffered the same fate, or were even purged from
respectability and denied any access to the mainstream media. At the same time, the totally
contrary perspectives of two European political philosophers, Karl Popper and Leo Strauss , gradually gained ascendancy in
American intellectual circles, and their ideas became dominant in public life.
Popper, the more widely influential, presented broad, largely theoretical objections to the
very possibility of important conspiracies ever existing, suggesting that these would be
implausibly difficult to implement given the fallibility of human agents; what might appear a
conspiracy actually amounted to individual actors pursuing their narrow aims. Even more
importantly, he regarded "conspiratorial beliefs" as an extremely dangerous social malady, a
major contributing factor to the rise of Nazism and other deadly totalitarian ideologies. His
own background as an individual of Jewish ancestry who had fled Austria in 1937 surely
contributed to the depth of his feelings on these philosophical matters.
Meanwhile, Strauss, a founding figure in modern neo-conservative thought, was equally harsh
in his attacks upon conspiracy analysis, but for polar-opposite reasons. In his mind, elite
conspiracies were absolutely necessary and beneficial, a crucial social defense against anarchy
or totalitarianism, but their effectiveness obviously depended upon keeping them hidden from
the prying eyes of the ignorant masses. His main problem with "conspiracy theories" was not
that they were always false, but they might often be true, and therefore their spread was
potentially disruptive to the smooth functioning of society. So as a matter of self-defense,
elites needed to actively suppress or otherwise undercut the unauthorized investigation of
suspected conspiracies.
Even for most educated Americans, theorists such as Beard, Popper, and Strauss are probably
no more than vague names mentioned in textbooks, and that was certainly true in my own case.
But while the influence of Beard seems to have largely disappeared in elite circles, the same
is hardly true of his rivals. Popper probably ranks as one of the founders of modern liberal
thought, with an individual as politically influential as left-liberal financier George Soros claiming to
be his intellectual disciple . Meanwhile, the neo-conservative
thinkers who have totally dominated the Republican Party and the Conservative Movement for
the last couple of decades often proudly trace their ideas back to Strauss.
So, through a mixture of Popperian and Straussian thinking, the traditional American
tendency to regard elite conspiracies as a real but harmful aspect of our society was gradually
stigmatized as either paranoid or politically dangerous, laying the conditions for its
exclusion from respectable discourse.
By 1964, this intellectual revolution had largely been completed, as indicated by the
overwhelmingly positive reaction to the famous article by political scientist Richard
Hofstadter critiquing the so-called "paranoid
style" in American politics , which he denounced as the underlying cause of widespread
popular belief in implausible conspiracy theories. To a considerable extent, he seemed to be
attacking straw men, recounting and ridiculing the most outlandish conspiratorial beliefs,
while seeming to ignore the ones that had been proven correct. For example, he described how
some of the more hysterical anti-Communists claimed that tens of thousands of Red Chinese
troops were hidden in Mexico, preparing an attack on San Diego, while he failed to even
acknowledge that for years Communist spies had indeed served near the very top of the U.S.
government. Not even the most conspiratorially minded individual suggests that all alleged
conspiracies are true, merely that some of them might be.
Most of these shifts in public sentiment occurred before I was born or when I was a very
young child, and my own views were shaped by the rather conventional media narratives that I
absorbed. Hence, for nearly my entire life, I always automatically dismissed all of the
so-called "conspiracy theories" as ridiculous, never once even considering that any of them
might possibly be true.
To the extent that I ever thought about the matter, my reasoning was simple and based on
what seemed like good, solid common sense. Any conspiracy responsible for some important public
event must surely have many separate "moving parts" to it, whether actors or actions taken, let
us say numbering at least 100 or more. Now given the imperfect nature of all attempts at
concealment, it would surely be impossible for all of these to be kept entirely hidden. So even
if a conspiracy were initially 95% successful in remaining undetected, five major clues would
still be left in plain sight for investigators to find. And once the buzzing cloud of
journalists noticed these, such blatant evidence of conspiracy would certainly attract an
additional swarm of energetic investigators, tracing those items back to their origins, with
more pieces gradually being uncovered until the entire cover-up likely collapsed. Even if not
all the crucial facts were ever determined, at least the simple conclusion that there had
indeed been some sort of conspiracy would quickly become established.
However, there was a tacit assumption in my reasoning, one that I have since decided was
entirely false. Obviously, many potential conspiracies either involve powerful governmental
officials or situations in which their disclosure would represent a source of considerable
embarrassment to such individuals. But I had always assumed that even if government failed in
its investigatory role, the dedicated bloodhounds of the Fourth Estate would invariably come
through, tirelessly seeking truth, ratings, and Pulitzers. However, once I gradually began
realizing that the media was merely "Our American Pravda" and perhaps had
been so for decades, I suddenly recognized the flaw in my logic. If those five -- or ten or
twenty or fifty -- initial clues were simply ignored by the media, whether through laziness,
incompetence, or much less venial sins, then there would be absolutely nothing to prevent
successful conspiracies from taking place and remaining undetected, perhaps even the most
blatant and careless ones.
In fact, I would extend this notion to a general principle. Substantial control of the media
is almost always an absolute prerequisite for any successful conspiracy, the greater the degree
of control the better. So when weighing the plausibility of any conspiracy, the first matter to
investigate is who controls the local media and to what extent.
Let us consider a simple thought-experiment. For various reasons these days, the entire
American media is extraordinarily hostile to Russia, certainly much more so than it ever was
toward the Communist Soviet Union during the 1970s and 1980s. Hence I would argue that the
likelihood of any large-scale Russian conspiracy taking place within the operative zone of
those media organs is virtually nil. Indeed, we are constantly bombarded with stories of
alleged Russian conspiracies that appear to be "false positives," dire allegations seemingly
having little factual basis or actually being totally ridiculous. Meanwhile, even the crudest
sort of anti-Russian conspiracy might easily occur without receiving any serious
mainstream media notice or investigation.
This argument may be more than purely hypothetical. A crucial turning point in America's
renewed Cold War against Russia was the passage of the 2012 Magnitsky Act by Congress,
punitively targeting various supposedly corrupt Russian officials for their alleged involvement
in the illegal persecution and death of an employee of Bill Browder, an American hedge-fund
manager with large Russian holdings. However, there's actually quite a bit of evidence that
it was Browder himself who was actually the mastermind and beneficiary of the gigantic
corruption scheme, while his employee was planning to testify against him and was therefore
fearful of his life for that reason. Naturally, the American media has provided scarcely a
single mention of these remarkable revelations regarding what might amount to a gigantic
Magnitsky Hoax of
geopolitical significance.
To some extent the creation of the Internet and the vast proliferation of alternative media
outlets, including my
own small webzine , have somewhat altered this depressing picture. So it is hardly
surprising that a very substantial fraction of the discussion dominating these Samizdat-like
publications concerns exactly those subjects regularly condemned as "crazy conspiracy theories"
by our mainstream media organs.
Such unfiltered speculation must surely be a source of
considerable irritation and worry to government officials who have long relied upon the
complicity of their tame media organs to allow their serious misdeeds to pass unnoticed and
unpunished. Indeed, several years ago a senior Obama Administration official argued
that the free discussion of various "conspiracy theories" on the Internet was so potentially
harmful that government agents should be recruited to "cognitively infiltrate" and disrupt
them, essentially proposing a high-tech version of the highly controversial Cointelpro operations
undertaken by J. Edgar Hoover's FBI.
Until just a few years ago I'd scarcely even heard of Charles Beard, once ranked among the towering figures of
20th century American intellectual life . But the more I've discovered the number of
serious crimes and disasters that have completely escaped substantial media scrutiny, the more
I wonder what other matters may still remain hidden. So perhaps Beard was correct all along in
recognizing the respectability of "conspiracy theories," and we should return to his
traditional American way of thinking, notwithstanding endless conspiratorial propaganda
campaigns by the CIA and others to persuade us that we should dismiss such notions without any
serious consideration.
"... "I am not into conspiracy theories. But Epstein had destructive information on an extraordinary number of extraordinarily powerful people. It is not easy to commit suicide in prison. ..."
"... The meaningless of the term has been clearly illustrated by Russiagate, whose adherents react with sputtering outrage whenever anyone points out that they're engaged in a conspiracy theory, despite the self-evident fact that that's exactly what it is: a theory about a band of powerful Russian conspirators conspiring with the highest levels of the U.S. government. Their objection is not due to a belief that they're not theorizing about a conspiracy, their objection is due to the fact that a highly stigmatized label that they're accustomed to applying to other people has been applied to them. The label is rejected because its actual definition is ignored to the point of meaninglessness. ..."
"... The term "conspiracy theory" should always serve as red flag to any astute reader concerning what follows. The term was reportedly coined by a CIA disinformation guy in the late 1960s to counter and discredit efforts to get at the truth of the Kennedy assassination. ..."
"... Individuals hanging themselves almost never possess information about how it is done. Typically they either hurl themselves off something like a staircase or kick away something they are standing on, as a chair or stool. Neither of those approaches has much probability of producing the classic executioner's result, although the first can certainly break neck bones or even behead someone. Epstein, we know, used neither of those methods. Indeed, he couldn't, given the small, deliberately-bare cell he was in. ..."
"... What is required to achieve the instantly-broken neck, and in just the right place for quick death, is a drop of a certain amount plus a certain positioning of the rope. Those conditions generally are not possible with efforts like hanging by bedsheets. ..."
"... Sheets, incidentally, as I've previously noted, not even available to inmates at this institution. They sleep on special paper sheets. ..."
"... The term 'conspiracy theory' appears to have first been used by the CIA in the 1960s about those who did not believe the findings of the Warren Commission report on the JFK assassination. ..."
"... The assertion that Epstein's death cannot be questioned without accusations of 'conspiracy theory' seems contradicted by the fact that many people, in and out of government, including AG Barr have found the circumstances in need of an investigation. Has anyone yet accused Barr of being a conspiracy theorist for finding the Epstein death questionable? ..."
"... When the "Conspiracy Theorist" sirens are blaring, you can be certain that an elite crime has just been openly committed and they are triggering the populace to suppress any questioning of the narrative; it is all very Pavoliavian. ..."
"... This will then be followed by an endless set of dead-end inquiries which trains are minds to focus on the trivial. Were sheets in Epstein's Prison? Why were the prison guards too exhausted to monitor the prisoner? Or, my favorite – Why were the cameras off, I think a 5-year-old child could answer that question. ..."
"... If you ever wonder how Intelligence Agencies spend their day, with their budget the size of Bulgaria's GNP, I say, look no further. ..."
"... Now we get to the big one, why did Epstein return to the US when he had to know an arrest warrant had been issued? This one bothers me the most. Epstein had the money and the means to live in many countries without extradition to the US. ..."
"... If someone in power wanted him dead, it would make more sense to do it before all of the attention, not after he's arrested. ..."
"... "That epithet has a sordid history in the annals of U.S. intelligence. Legendary CIA Director Allen Dulles used the "brand-them-conspiracy-theorists" ploy following the assassination of President John F. Kennedy when many objected -- understandably -- to letting him pretty much run the Warren Commission, even though the CIA was suspected of having played a role in the murder. The "conspiracy theorist" tactic worked like a charm then, and now. Well, up until just now." ..."
"... The question should be about evidence for or against any conspiracy theory. ..."
"... In the Epstein case there is a very strong motive, by very powerful interests, to have him gone. There was a very strange lapse in the watchfulness of the prison where Epstein was kept. There has to be an inquiry. ..."
"... Part of the use of this 'conspiracy theory' term is an effort by mass, established (corporate) media to discredit and dismiss alternate media. They are aiming to protect their market by intimating that they report the truth (TM) while over there, the internet is full of hyperventilated, wild and rediculous trash. ..."
"... The invariable responses from everyone ever associated with "high-society", sex-addicted, global criminal pimp for the wealthy-and-powerful Jeffrey Epstein, – on his scandalous and disgusting activities across many years, and finally Epstein's world-record-setting-mystery death: "No comment." ..."
"... there are names of actual people who signed off on taking him off suicide watch, removing his cell mate, and telling the guards to not worry about checking in on Epstein that night. Those are all strange things which should have an answer if a reporter with the resources of the powerful behind them cared to know ..."
"... Clearly, the message is, don't ask questions. That's exactly the opposite of what everyone should be doing who wants to understand what has happened. ..."
"... A Fitbit or equivalent on Epstein with preset alarms monitored at a guard station ( or , for that matter , by his family or lawyers over the web ) could have prevented Epstein's death , but in 2019 , that's a big ask , I suppose. Maybe in a few decades. ..."
"... Apparently "pending further investigation" is now code for "national security"/"classified." Come on. They've had the body since Saturday morning. What are the results of the medical examination? This question under FOIA auspices and principle. ..."
"... The entire Russia-gate hoax is a conspiracy theory. What we need then, in advance of the Gestapo on the Doorstep, is to define conspiracy theory properly as either a) founded in facts and logic or b) founded in spin and deceit. We could then apply for Conspiracy-A permits, and have them sitting in our wallets with the rest of our cards. Again, we should be reminded of 1918 and Eugene Debs. ..."
"... – Every organized crime operation is a conspiracy, and many are charged as such. – Watergate was a conspiracy–in fact, it was a collection of conspiracies. (Let me count the ways ) – Iran-Contra was quite an elaborate conspiracy that no one would have believed if the participants hadn't been busted. Tu parles! – The CIA's overthrow of Allende in Chile in 1973 was a conspiracy. – The CIA's overthrow of Mossadegh in Iran in 1953 was a conspiracy. – The CIA's many assassinations of foreign leaders around the world for decades are all conspiracies. – All of the CIA's operations in partnership with Mossad or MI6 are and have been conspiracies. – September 11 was a conspiracy. It's just a question of which version (or "conspiracy theory") you wish to believe–there are many. – The concoction of "evidence" to rush to war in Iraq was a conspiracy. – The concoction of "evidence" for the Gulf of Tonkin resolution was a conspiracy, – LBJ's coverup of Israel's deliberate attack on the USS Liberty was a conspiracy. ..."
Plutocratic propaganda outlet MSNBC has run a spin segment about the medical examiner's determination of the cause of Jeffrey
Epstein's death "pending further information."
"Our sources are still saying that it looks like suicide, and this is going to set conspiracy theorists abuzz I fear," said NBC
correspondent Ken Dilanian. "NBC News has been hearing all day long that there are no indications of foul play, and that this looks
like a suicide and that he hung himself in his cell."
Dilanian, who stumbled over the phrase "conspiracy theorists" in his haste to get it in the first soundbite, is a known asset
of the Central Intelligence Agency. This is not a conspiracy theory, this is a well-documented fact. A 2014
article in
The Intercept titled "The CIA's Mop-Up Man" reveals email exchanges obtained via Freedom of Information Act request between
Dilanian and CIA public affairs officers which "show that Dilanian enjoyed a closely collaborative relationship with the agency,
explicitly promising positive news coverage and sometimes sending the press office entire story drafts for review prior to publication."
There is no reason to give Dilanian the benefit of the doubt that this cozy relationship has ended, so anything he puts forward can
safely be dismissed as CIA public relations.
Up until the news broke that Epstein's autopsy has been unable to readily confirm suicide, mass media headlines everywhere have
been unquestioningly blaring that that was known to have been the cause of the accused sex trafficker's death. This despite the fact
that the FBI's investigation has been
explicitly labeling it an " apparent suicide," and despite the fact that Epstein is credibly believed to have been involved
in an intelligence-tied sexual blackmail
operation
involving
many powerful people , any number of whom stood
to gain plenty from his death .
Berating by Mass Media Narrative Managers
So, things are moving in a very weird way, and people are understandably weirded out. The response to this from mass media narrative
managers has, of course, been to berate everyone as "conspiracy theorists."
These outlets generally match Dilanian's tone in branding anyone who questions the official story about Epstein's death as a raving
lunatic. Meanwhile, normal human beings all across the political spectrum are
expressing skepticism
on social media about the "suicide" narrative we're all being force-fed by the establishment narrative managers, many of them
prefacing their skepticism with some variation on the phrase "I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but "
"I'm not a conspiracy theorist but there are an awful lot of very powerful people who would like to see this Epstein thing go
away. Is anyone investigating the guard on duty?"
tweeted actor Patricia Heaton.
"I am not into conspiracy theories. But Epstein had destructive information on an extraordinary number of extraordinarily
powerful people. It is not easy to commit suicide in prison. Especially after being placed on suicide watch. Especially after
already allegedly trying," tweeted
public defender Scott Hechinger.
Journalist Abi Wilkinson summed up the silliness of this widespread preface very nicely,
tweeting , " 'I'm not a conspiracy theorist'
is such a weird assertion when you think about it, the idea there's a binary between believing all conspiracies and flat out rejecting
the very concept of conspiracy in all circumstances."
Indeed, I think it's fair to say that we are all conspiracy theorists if we're really honest with ourselves. Not everyone believes
that the official stories about 9/11 and the JFK assassination are riddled with plot holes or what have you, but I doubt that anyone
who really sat down and sincerely grappled with the question "Do powerful people conspire?" would honestly deny it. Some are just
more self-aware than others about the self-evident reality that powerful people conspire all the time, and it's only a question of
how and with whom and to what extent.
Dictionary Definition
The word "conspire" is defined by Merriam-Webster
as "to join in a secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act or an act which becomes unlawful as a result of the secret agreement."
No sane person would deny that this is a thing that happens, nor that this is likely a thing that happens to some extent among the
powerful in their own nation. This by itself is a theory about conspiracy per definition, and it accurately applies to pretty much
everyone. Since it applies to pretty much everyone, the label is essentially meaningless, either as a pejorative or as anything else.
The meaningless of the term has been clearly illustrated by Russiagate, whose adherents react with sputtering outrage whenever
anyone points out that they're engaged in a conspiracy theory, despite the self-evident fact that that's exactly what it is: a theory
about a band of powerful Russian conspirators conspiring with the highest levels of the U.S. government. Their objection is not due
to a belief that they're not theorizing about a conspiracy, their objection is due to the fact that a highly stigmatized label that
they're accustomed to applying to other people has been applied to them. The label is rejected because its actual definition is ignored
to the point of meaninglessness.
The problem has never been with the actual term "conspiracy theory;" the problem has been with its deliberate and completely meaningless
use as a pejorative. The best way to address this would be a populist move to de-stigmatize the label by taking ownership of it.
Last month Cornell University professor Dave Callum
tweeted , "I am a 'conspiracy theorist'.
I believe men and women of wealth and power conspire. If you don't think so, then you are what is called 'an idiot'. If you believe
stuff but fear the label, you are what is called 'a coward'."
This is what we all must do. The debate must be forcibly moved from the absurd question of whether or not conspiracies are a thing
to the important question of which conspiracy theories are valid and to what degree.
And we should probably hurry. Yahoo News reported earlier this
month that the FBI recently published an intelligence bulletin describing "conspiracy theory-driven domestic extremists" as a
growing threat, and this was before the recent spate of U.S. shootings got establishment narrative-makers
pushing for new domestic
terrorism laws . This combined with the fact that we can't even ask questions about extremely suspicious events like Jeffrey
Epstein's death without being tarred with this meaningless pejorative by the mass media thought police means we're at extreme risk
of being shoved into something far more Orwellian in the near future.
The term "conspiracy theory" should always serve as red flag to any astute reader concerning what follows. The term was
reportedly coined by a CIA disinformation guy in the late 1960s to counter and discredit efforts to get at the truth of the Kennedy
assassination.
It's amazing the way it has hung around.
The mainline press loves the phrase, and you'll find it somewhere in their output weekly trying to discredit this or that matter.
The autopsy of Jeffrey Epstein is reported to have shown that his neck was broken, "in several places. "The coroner stated
that she "is confident the cause of death is suicide by hanging."
I don't know. I 'm certainly not an expert. In traditional capital-punishment hanging, as in a prison by an executioner, the
neck is indeed broken, but as I understand it, cleanly, not "in several places."
That is how a hanged person dies, not by strangulation, something that is the result only of botched hangings.
Virtually all self-hangings are botched hangings.
Individuals hanging themselves almost never possess information about how it is done. Typically they either hurl themselves
off something like a staircase or kick away something they are standing on, as a chair or stool. Neither of those approaches has
much probability of producing the classic executioner's result, although the first can certainly break neck bones or even behead
someone. Epstein, we know, used neither of those methods. Indeed, he couldn't, given the small, deliberately-bare cell he was
in.
What is required to achieve the instantly-broken neck, and in just the right place for quick death, is a drop of a certain
amount plus a certain positioning of the rope. Those conditions generally are not possible with efforts like hanging by bedsheets.
Sheets, incidentally, as I've previously noted, not even available to inmates at this institution. They sleep on special
paper sheets.
Newspaper reports of how Epstein killed himself say that the six-foot man tied a bedsheet to the top of the bunk bed in
the small cell and then kneeled towards the floor, strangling himself. It is not easy to see how doing that could result in a
neck broken "in several places."
I think the autopsy result, at least to a non-expert, only increases doubts.
Tony , August 15, 2019 at 08:53
The term 'conspiracy theory' appears to have first been used by the CIA in the 1960s about those who did not believe the
findings of the Warren Commission report on the JFK assassination.
Some people, apparently, thought that LBJ might have had something to do with it.
Fancy thinking that the person who was facing being dumped as vice president and who had spent so much time trying to get JFK
to visit his home state might have had something to do with it!
By any proper investigative standards, Johnson should have been seen as a suspect. And yet he was able to appoint his own panel
of investigation and to determine its membership. Absolutely unbelievable!
Anonymous , August 14, 2019 at 23:23
People who run around slinging terms like "conspiracy theorist" are more than just empowered by psychiatry – it is literally
what brought this plague of all the stigma against all dissent and doubt being more than just a mere slur. People come up with
some flat out absurd nonsense all the time -- but so what.
If it's absurd, ignore it. Argue against it if you think they aren't trolling and weren't just conditioned to be a self unaware
sockpuppet – but don't comdemn for it, or you destroy the one thing that stands in the way of this country becoming a tyranny
on a level that will make "1984" sound like the Teletubbies.
nwwoods , August 14, 2019 at 21:04
See Whitney Webb's three part (and more to come) series on the Epstein saga at Mint Press News, but be sure do fasten your
seatbelts.
Steve Parosns , August 14, 2019 at 16:11
The assertion that Epstein's death cannot be questioned without accusations of 'conspiracy theory' seems contradicted by
the fact that many people, in and out of government, including AG Barr have found the circumstances in need of an investigation.
Has anyone yet accused Barr of being a conspiracy theorist for finding the Epstein death questionable?
Deniz , August 14, 2019 at 18:04
I have no doubt that Barr is about to launch another investigation that will be long on theatrics, but short on convictions.
I assume you have overlooked the uncanny coincidence of Donald Barr's appointment of an unlettered Epstein at Dalton.
Skip Scott , August 15, 2019 at 08:01
Given Barr's history, I have little faith in him. I think he may actually be in there to squelch any real investigation while
pretending to support one. And yes, it is ALL theater.
Steve Parsons , August 14, 2019 at 16:09
A glaring non-sequitir should be corrected: "There is no reason to give Dilanian the benefit of the doubt that this cozy relationship
has ended, so anything he puts forward can safely be dismissed as CIA public relations."
Because a journalist had a cozy relation with the CIA does NOT mean "everything" s/he writes IS dismissable as "CIA pulbic
relatiions".
The article about the 'cozy relationship" did not prove "everything" he wrote was "CIA public relations" in the past, so there
is no reason to believe "everything" he writes in the future is either!
This is one way conspiracy theories work – a part is taken for the whole, a suspicion becomes a proof.
Please edit your statement to something that does follow, like "Since there havbe been well-documented instances of this author
writing distorted stories to serve the CIA's interests, anything he writes "could be" the same.
You have written that is should be dismissed without scrutiny. Never a good idea.
manorborn , August 14, 2019 at 14:07
It should be a civic duty to be a conspiracy theorist considering how our rogue government has never once told us the truth
about anything and has consistently shown itself as the world's leading aggressor.
Deniz , August 14, 2019 at 12:53
When the "Conspiracy Theorist" sirens are blaring, you can be certain that an elite crime has just been openly committed
and they are triggering the populace to suppress any questioning of the narrative; it is all very Pavoliavian.
This will then be followed by an endless set of dead-end inquiries which trains are minds to focus on the trivial. Were
sheets in Epstein's Prison? Why were the prison guards too exhausted to monitor the prisoner? Or, my favorite – Why were the cameras
off, I think a 5-year-old child could answer that question.
If you ever wonder how Intelligence Agencies spend their day, with their budget the size of Bulgaria's GNP, I say, look
no further.
Brian , August 14, 2019 at 11:50
I have this gut feeling that no one is asking the right questions about this case, I respect Caitlin as a journalist, so I'm
really surprised she didn't "go there". So let me tighten up my tin foil hat, and dive in.
The first thing I've noticed is everyone and every "news" organization has come to the conclusion that Epstein is dead, why?
We have no proof of this, the one photo I've seen has discrepancies of this fact, right off the bat I noticed there was no backboard
under the patient on the stretcher. No official EMT would perform CPR on a patient, on a padded stretcher without one. The EMT
wasn't positioned to be performing chest compressions properly on the patient (fake?).
Next we are to believe the total breakdown in the prison surrounding this incident was a coincidence and/or failure of the
staff. Now I believe in coincidences, but the more there are for a given incident, the less likely that was the cause. Given the
high profile of this prisoner, it becomes even less likely. Epstein had the ability to take down many high profile people, why
wasn't he under 24/7 surveillance?
No one is questioning the supposed visit to Epstein from AG Barr, why? How often does the AG of the US visit a prisoner, especially
one with ties to the prisoner (Barr's father was OSS during WWII, and hired Epstein to teach without a college degree at a prestigious
school in NY in the early 1970's)?
Now we get to the big one, why did Epstein return to the US when he had to know an arrest warrant had been issued? This
one bothers me the most. Epstein had the money and the means to live in many countries without extradition to the US. Why
come back if you didn't have a guarantee of basically getting "off the hook" with a "slap on the wrist", like in south Florida?
It makes no sense.
If someone in power wanted him dead, it would make more sense to do it before all of the attention, not after he's arrested.
... ... ...
Guy , August 14, 2019 at 11:47
All options/opinions will be put forward in order to properly obfuscate the truth and the truth might never see the light of
day. Much too much at stake for too many .It will probably go down as another event left for the conspiracy theorists .Move on
folks, nothing to see here .
Jeff Harrison , August 14, 2019 at 11:45
Here's what Uncle Ray had to offer about "conspiracy theorists":
"That epithet has a sordid history in the annals of U.S. intelligence. Legendary CIA Director Allen Dulles used the
"brand-them-conspiracy-theorists" ploy following the assassination of President John F. Kennedy when many objected -- understandably
-- to letting him pretty much run the Warren Commission, even though the CIA was suspected of having played a role in the murder.
The "conspiracy theorist" tactic worked like a charm then, and now. Well, up until just now."
Randal Marlin , August 14, 2019 at 11:36
Undoubtedly conspiracy theories can be correct or they can be false. An example is 9/11, where a conspiracy between the largely
Saudi attackers certainly existed. Some have argued that further conspiracies must have taken place. To have made the accurate
decision about exactly where the planes that flew into the twin towers should hit would have required highly sophisticated knowledge
about the building's construction, about the amount of fuel the planes should carry, which floor to hit, etc. It is reasonable
to suppose other knowledgeable people were in on the conspiracy. There are further more speculative theories, some that are worth
pursuing, others not.
The question should be about evidence for or against any conspiracy theory. Which among various conspiracy theories
are supported by the evidence?
In the Epstein case there is a very strong motive, by very powerful interests, to have him gone. There was a very strange
lapse in the watchfulness of the prison where Epstein was kept. There has to be an inquiry.
Glennn , August 14, 2019 at 10:41
Great article. Here's a quote from Adam Smith about the elites – Smith calls them the masters – combining. "We rarely hear,
it has been said, of the combination of masters; though frequently of those of workmen. But whoever imagines, upon this account,
that masters rarely combine, is as ignorant of the world as of the subject.
Masters are always and every where in a sort of tacit, but constant and uniform combination, not to raise the wages of labour
above their actual rate. To violate this combination is every where a most unpopular action, and a sort of reproach to a master
among his neighbours and equals. We seldom, indeed, hear of this combination, because it is the usual, and one may say, the natural
state of things which nobody ever hears of. "
LH , August 14, 2019 at 10:12
Isn't it strange how all the corporate media are in lock step on 'conspiracy theories' and Epstein?
Part of the use of this 'conspiracy theory' term is an effort by mass, established (corporate) media to discredit and dismiss
alternate media. They are aiming to protect their market by intimating that they report the truth (TM) while over there, the internet
is full of hyperventilated, wild and rediculous trash.
They are choosing to report that these myriad of views exist, but mainly as a warning their readers/viewers not to bother going
there because there is nothing but these 'conspiracy theories'.
Yet, the corporate media seem to echo the same shallow reporting on Epstein.
If the narrative doesn't feel right in your gut then it probably isn't
Realist , August 14, 2019 at 05:23
The people running the system can never admit Epstein's death was due to anything other than suicide. If such evidence exists,
it will be suppressed. If it were admitted that the guy was knocked off, those in control would be held to account. Nothing could
be more un-American than that.
Outside hit men did not just fortuitously waltz in, enter his cell and off him under the noses of the American security state.
They would need as much inside assistance as Mr. Phelps had to deviously arrange on a weekly basis in "Mission Impossible." Such
sources of help would be limited to rather few suspects and their superiors in the chain of command. Heads would roll.
So I say, the guaranteed finding of any committee "investigating" this will be that the guards assigned to check on Epstein
periodically were remiss (overworked, don't ya know?), offering him the small window of 0pportunity to strangle himself with the
single-ply Charmin substitute he meticulously hoarded for weeks until it could support the weight of a 200-lb man 2-ft above the
floor near his bunk.
It's either the above scenario, or an anorexic double-jointed ninja climbed the outside wall of the building, removed the glass
from the 4-inch wide window overlooking the courtyard below, squeezed into Epstein's cell as he slept and strangled him in his
bunk. Don't bother dusting for prints, he was wearing latex gloves. Even Mark Furman will never come up with a "plausible" alternative
to Epstain's suiciding, no matter who killed him.
Zhu , August 14, 2019 at 05:14
It is legitimate to be suspicious about the circumstance of Epstein's death. But it is also true that most if the conspiracy
stories people like to repeat are fantasy fiction. Lizard men from Zeta Reticuli do not rule the world.
Tiu , August 14, 2019 at 03:45
It's done it's job – now this event event is dominating all the headlines. Makes me wonder what it is that isn't supposed to
be noticed?!
Vivek Jain , August 14, 2019 at 01:51
"[C]onspiracies do exist. If we define conspiracy as planning in secrecy for illicit purposes while misleading the public as
to what is happening, then there have been conspiracies aplenty."
– Michael Parenti
"No social order of any complexity exists without the application of conscious human agency. Ruling elements must intentionally
strive to maintain the conditions of their hegemonic rule. The social order of a society does not operate like a mystical abstracted
entity. It is directed for the most part by people who deliberately pursue certain goals, using all kinds of power, including
propaganda, persuasion, fraud, deceit, fear, secrecy, coercion, concessions, and sometimes even concerted violence and other criminal
ploys . we might consider how conspiracy [by which most people seem to mean secret, consciously planned programs by persons in
high places] is one of the instruments used by the dominant interests in political life. Some conspiracies are imagined; some
are real."
– Parenti
The invariable responses from everyone ever associated with "high-society", sex-addicted, global criminal pimp for the
wealthy-and-powerful Jeffrey Epstein, – on his scandalous and disgusting activities across many years, and finally Epstein's world-record-setting-mystery
death: "No comment."
CitizenOne , August 13, 2019 at 22:33
Relax folks. There is nothing to get alarmed about. Trustworthy Attorney General William Barr has sleepily assured us in his
quiet droll words that he will dig deep into the matter and investigate it with all the force he can muster which is not much.
We can relax knowing that the investigation will be thorough like a fresh coat of whitewash on a rotting fence and completed in
just a few days or weeks and it will be an open and shut case that some prison guard didn't do his or her job very good like he
or she was supposed to. Then the case will be closed as an unfortunate event due to the poor performance of some bad prison guards.
Somebody will be suspended for not doing their job real good but real bad and the matter will be officially closed leaving everyone
else with questions that persist labeled as supporters of a conspiracy theory A.K.A. a lunatic.
Whew, that was a close one and we are all soon to be glad that the investigation resulted in fingering incompetent prison guards
case closed. Move along folks, nothing to see here.
Roger Milbrandt , August 13, 2019 at 21:59
This is quite a good discussion of the irresponsible and tendentious use of the phrase "conspiracy theory." I think you should
point out that in the case of 9/11 every explanation presupposes a conspiracy, at least by the Merriam-Webster definition of the
term. The only exception would be the claim that the hijackers acted independently and that the fact that all of these events
occurred on the same day is a coincidence. But who ever offers this non-conspiracy-theory explanation?
Whenever you ascribe conscious intent and pursuit of self interest at the top, you will hear someone say: 'What are you,
a conspiracy theorist?' You can say farmers consciously organize to pursue their interests and everybody will say 'Uh huh,
farmers are organized.' You can say machinists or auto workers are organizing and everybody will say 'Uh huh, they're consciously
organizing and pursuing their own interests,' or school teachers, and other people. But if you say the people who own most
of America and most of the world – if you say they consciously organize and pursue things to get what they want, then you hear
people say 'Oh, you have a Conspiracy theory? You think they really do that?'
The alternative to a conspiracy theory is an Innocence theory. That is, they do all of this stuff but they're not pursuing
self interest. They just do it, you know. The other alternative is a Somnambulist theory. Somnambulism is the tendency to walk
in your sleep. David Rockefeller gets up in the morning and says, 'What am I going to do, to advance and protect my interests?
No, no, that would be conspiratorial.' Another alternative would be Coincidence theory: it's just coincidence that this happened.
A variation of coincidence theory is Uncanny theory. Then there's Stupidity theory and Incompetence theory. There's also Stochastic
theory. It means everything happening by random there's really no causality, as such. Stuff just happens. History is just these
eventualities that tumble down on top of each other.
Abby , August 13, 2019 at 21:05
That one of the biggest prisoners in history was being guarded by a person who wasn't a prison guard makes me think that he
was either killed in his cell or removed from it to go into the never lands never to be seen again.
Why wouldn't they have taken every possible step to make sure he stayed alive? If they wanted him to testify they would have.
I think that this is an in your face and blatant show that the PTB are running on us. "Sure we know that you don't believe the
official story, but what can you do about it?"
Tom Kath , August 13, 2019 at 20:57
Caitlin, as you have often remarked, "who controls the narrative controls the world". I have already suggested to Ray that
we should concentrate on discrediting and undermining the FAITH in the benevolence of these controlling agencies. We might then
deal later with the "truth" (discrediting their narrative).
OlyaPola , August 14, 2019 at 08:08
"Everyone's a Conspiracy Theorist. The only problem with the term is the meaningless use of it as a pejorative " ...
"who controls the narrative controls the world"
"Doubling down" in self-absorption obfuscates that who chooses the narratives frames perception, thereby obviating the "need
to control" whilst encouraging extrapolations of resort to belief to bridge doubt, sometimes known as "conspiracy theories".
Welcome to the O.K. Corral.
Jill , August 13, 2019 at 20:53
There are so many unanswered questions and conflicting information regarding Epstein's ? that I thought it was very telling
that the press of the powerful was worried about conspiracy theories. Why would that be where they put all their energy?
The press of the powerful would be much better engaged in trying to get as much actual information as possible out to the public.
Instead it's all unnamed sources say this or that contradictory thing. The strange thing is, in this case there is documented
information. The prison has cameras in the hallway which can be reviewed. This might answer the question as to whether there were
screams coming from Epstein's cell, what time that occurred, who was around, etc.
Further, there are names of actual people who signed off on taking him off suicide watch, removing his cell mate, and telling
the guards to not worry about checking in on Epstein that night. Those are all strange things which should have an answer if a
reporter with the resources of the powerful behind them cared to know.
Clearly, the message is, don't ask questions. That's exactly the opposite of what everyone should be doing who wants to
understand what has happened. Many of the questions have (or should have) answers. I believe the press of the powerful should
attend to getting those answers and quit being concerned about what anyone believes. If the answers to knowable information show
that a conspiracy took place, that is simply what happened. Berating people for wanting to know what actually happened, for demanding
answers to questions that are knowable, is called propaganda. It most certainly is not journalism.
Marko , August 13, 2019 at 20:32
A Fitbit or equivalent on Epstein with preset alarms monitored at a guard station ( or , for that matter , by his family
or lawyers over the web ) could have prevented Epstein's death , but in 2019 , that's a big ask , I suppose. Maybe in a few decades.
Not that it WOULD have prevented Epstein's death. There's always a workaround.
hetro , August 13, 2019 at 20:23
Apparently "pending further investigation" is now code for "national security"/"classified." Come on. They've had the body
since Saturday morning. What are the results of the medical examination? This question under FOIA auspices and principle.
hetro , August 13, 2019 at 20:19
Good points, very good points. The fight is for clarity and precision. The brainwashing machinery is working very hard to demonize
whatever opposes its will. So a legitimate phrase "conspiracy theory" is pejorated or demonized.
The entire Russia-gate hoax is a conspiracy theory. What we need then, in advance of the Gestapo on the Doorstep, is to
define conspiracy theory properly as either a) founded in facts and logic or b) founded in spin and deceit. We could then apply
for Conspiracy-A permits, and have them sitting in our wallets with the rest of our cards. Again, we should be reminded of 1918
and Eugene Debs.
Archie , August 15, 2019 at 03:37
The term "conspiracy theory" is used so often and so casually that it's worth exploring its history and meaning.
Right off the bat, when we hear that something is a "conspiracy theory," we're expected to understand that people are talking
about a crackpot idea. That much is clear, as Spock says in Star Trek IV.
But if we analyze the term, we can see it's a bit strange. Are conspiracies so unusual? – Every organized crime operation is a conspiracy, and many are charged as such.
– Watergate was a conspiracy–in fact, it was a collection of conspiracies. (Let me count the ways )
– Iran-Contra was quite an elaborate conspiracy that no one would have believed if the participants hadn't been busted. Tu
parles!
– The CIA's overthrow of Allende in Chile in 1973 was a conspiracy.
– The CIA's overthrow of Mossadegh in Iran in 1953 was a conspiracy.
– The CIA's many assassinations of foreign leaders around the world for decades are all conspiracies.
– All of the CIA's operations in partnership with Mossad or MI6 are and have been conspiracies.
– September 11 was a conspiracy. It's just a question of which version (or "conspiracy theory") you wish to believe–there are
many.
– The concoction of "evidence" to rush to war in Iraq was a conspiracy.
– The concoction of "evidence" for the Gulf of Tonkin resolution was a conspiracy,
– LBJ's coverup of Israel's deliberate attack on the USS Liberty was a conspiracy.
I'm tired of coming up with examples. You get the point.
Now, what's a "theory"?
A theory is an explanation for phenomena in the world for which there is actual evidence. A theory is well on the way to being
considered fact, though it may not be established fact without further evidence. A theory is distinct from a hypothesis in that
a hypothesis is an explanation that has not received evidence leading to its acceptance or confirmation as fact.
Here are some examples of theories:
1. The Theory of Evolution–Who doubts that apart from evangelical Protestants or people with little education? We aren't
100% sure of all the details, but we accept the overall theory as fact.
2. The Theory of Gravity–Does anyone doubt it? Of course, like evolution, gravity is a lot more complex than most of us
know.
3. The Theory of Relativity–This one many people might doubt, but it's generally accepted as fact, and you probably don't
doubt it yourself.
4. Newton's Theories (or Laws) of Motion–Most people don't even know them, but they're (all three of them) accepted as
fact.
5. Genetic theory–This is vast and complex and certainly subject to modification upon the introduction of new evidence,
but we all (mostly) accept that we have genes that determine our physical characteristics at the very least. Genetic determination
of intelligence is much more subject to caution (nature vs. nurture).
6. Language Acquisition theory–This is much more subject to change and hard to accept as plain fact, given the very fluid
nature of the evidence for and against the various ideas that theory involves.
What about borderline theories, or theories that might better be called "hypotheses"?
The main "theory" that comes to mind is String Theory in Physics. Since there's evidence neither for nor against it and physicists
have stated that it is unfalsifiable (or impossible to prove or disprove by experimentation), it might be better to call it "the
String Hypothesis."
Mathematical Theory:
There is so much mathematical theory, all of which has a solid underpinning of irrefutable proof. By the standards of modern
physics, a major concept in mathematics, the Riemann Hypothesis, would be called "Riemann Theory," since all available evidence
appears to confirm it. However, that's not good enough for mathematicians. No proof currently exists (or has yet been verified,
but see Attiyah), so it's still considered a "hypothesis."
HISTORY OF THE TERM "Conspiracy Theory": The term was coined by Allen Dulles, the ex-head of the CIA, fired by John Kennedy
for having lied to him about the Bay of Pigs. Dulles was the effective head of the Warren Commission, although the titular head
was Earl Warren, who was actually a mere figurehead. (See Douglass, JFK and the Unspeakable. )
LONG STORY SHORT: The term "conspiracy theory" is strange but typical shorthand for telling us which ideas are taboo to believe
or even entertain, but an examination of the term shows just how ridiculous it is.
OlyaPola , August 16, 2019 at 04:08
"However, that's not good enough for mathematicians. No proof currently exists (or has yet been verified, but see Attiyah),
so it's still considered a "hypothesis."
Many including Mr. Feynman were aware of many causal networks, developments and consequences in and of "Cargo cult science"
and hence it's still considered a (indefinite article) "hypothesis" and illustration of resort to belief to bridge doubt to attain
"comfort/confort/confront" by many practitioners not restricted to mathematicians.
Among the consequences of "Cargo cult science" are the "practices and other outcomes" of Boeing and Microsoft not restricted
to patching as functions of many causal networks in illustration of decay as a process of fertilisation, akin to doubt as a catalyst
in "Science".
@Sean McBride Not sure if I'm correct here, but my understanding is that the CIA (&
& Dulles in particular) "invented" the term ""conspiracy theory" to further muddy the
waters in the wash up from the Kennedy assassination.
A nice analysis of the rhetorical structure of conspiracy theories in general.
Another important aspect of this: the use of conspiracy theories to generate propaganda
sufficiently toxic to severely damage or even destroy political opponents. For instance,
Russiagate.
The mainstream media, since 2016, while railing against the conspiratorial mindset expressed
in Internet alternative media channels, have been wallowing in it, promoting it with all the
power at their disposal. Talk about twisty and sinister doublethink. One could almost describe
it as diabolical.
They are often portraying false conspiracy theories as truth, and true conspiracy research
as lies -- turning reality upside down and inside out.
Jewish economist Murray Rothbard contrasts "deep" conspiracy theories with "shallow" ones.
According to Rothbard, a shallow theorist observes an event and asks, who benefits? He or she
then jumps to the conclusion that the posited beneficiary is responsible for covertly
influencing events. Under this theory, Israel benefiting from the events of 9/11 made it into a
prime suspect. This is often a completely legitimate strategy and is exactly how detective and
investigative researchers operate. In order to identify the culprit, they may well ask who
would benefit from the crime. Of course this is only a first step towards substantiation.
According to Rothbard the "deep" conspiracy theorist begins with a hunch and then seeks out
evidence. Rothbard describes deep conspiracy theory as the result of confirming whether certain
facts actual fit one's initial 'paranoia.' This explanation pretty much describes a lot of how
science works. Any given scientific theory defines the realm of facts that may support or
refute its validity. Science is a deductive reasoning process, so that in science, it is the
theory that defines the relevance of the evidence. Would Rothbard describe Newtonian physics as
'deeply conspiratorial'? I doubt it. My guess is that, bearing Rothbard in mind, attributing a
'conspiratorial nature' to a theory is an attempt the deny the relevance of the evidence it
brings to light.
If for instance, the theory that Epstein was a Mossad agent is 'conspiratorial,' then the
facts that he was a business partner of Ehud Barak and
involved in a company that uses Israeli military intelligence tactics become irrelevant. The
same applies to former Federal Prosecutor Alex Acosta's admission that Epstein belonged to
intelligence and that was why he was the beneficiary of a laughable plea deal. If, for
example, the theory that it was the Jews who led the 1917 Bolshevik revolution is
'conspiratorial,' then the facts regarding the demography that led
the revolution and its criminal nature are of no
consequence.
The labelling of a theory as conspiratorial is an attempt to erase uncomfortable evidence by
reprioritising the relevance of certain facts.
'Conspiracy theory' is how the mainstream media characterizes any narrative that differs
from their reporting of the official line. What is a conspiracy theory? Can it be defined in
categorical terms? Can a conspiracy theory be validated forensically or refuted by similar
means? What criteria can be used to differentiate between a conspiracy theory and theoretical
musings?
The labelling of a theory as 'conspiratorial' is an attempt to discredit its author/authors
and deny its validity. A 'conspiracy theory' usually involves an explanatory thesis that points
to a malevolent plot often involving a secretive interested party. The term 'conspiracy theory'
has a pejorative connotation: its use suggests that the theory appeals to prejudice and/or
involves a farfetched, unsubstantiated narrative built on insufficient evidence.
Those who oppose conspiracy theories argue that such theories resist falsification and are
reinforced by circular reasoning, that such theories are primarily based on beliefs, as opposed
to academic or scientific reasoning.
But this critique is also not exactly based on valid scholarly principles. It isn't just
'conspiracy theories' that resist falsification or are reinforced by circular reasoning. The
philosopher Karl Popper, who defined the principle of falsifiability, would categorically
maintain that Freudian psychoanalysis and Marxism fail for the same reasons. The Oedipal
complex, for instance, has never been scientifically proven and can't be scientifically
falsified or validated. Marxism also resists falsification. Despite Marx's 'scientific'
predictions, the proletarian revolution never occurred. I have personally never come across
anyone who refers to Marx or Freud as 'conspiracy theorists.' 'Resisting falsification' and
"reinforced by circular reasoning," are traits of non-scientific theories and do not apply only
to 'conspiracy theories.'
The Oxford English Dictionary defines conspiracy theory as "the theory that an event or
phenomenon occurs as a result of a conspiracy between interested parties; spec. a belief
that some covert but influential agency (typically political in motivation and oppressive in
intent) is responsible for an unexplained event".
The Oxford dictionary does not set forth the criteria that define a conspiracy theory in
categorical terms. The history of mankind is saturated with references to hidden plots led by
influential parties.
The problem with refuting conspiracy theories is that they are often more elegant and
explanatory than the official competing narratives. Such theories have a tendency to ascribe
blame to hegemonic powers. In the past, conspiracy theories were popular mostly amongst fringe
circles, they are now becoming commonplace in mass media. Alternative narratives are widely
disseminated through social media. In some cases, they have been disseminated by official news
outlets and even by the current American president. It is possible that the rapid rise in
popularity of alternative explanatory theories is an indication of a growing mistrust of the
current ruling class, its ideals, its interests and its demography.
The response to the story of Jeffrey Epstein's suicide is illustrative. The official
narrative provoked a reaction that was a mixture of disbelief expressed in satire and inspired
a plethora of theories that attempted to explain the saga that had escalated into the biggest
sex scandal in the history of America and beyond.
The obvious question is what has led to the increase in popularity of so called 'conspiracy
theories'? I would push it further and ask, why is a society that claims to be 'free' is
threatened by the rise of alternative explanatory narratives?
In truth, the question is itself misleading. No one is really afraid of 'conspiracy
theories' per se. You will not be arrested or lose your job for being a 'climate change
denier.' You may speculate on and even deny the moon landing as much as you like. You are free
to speculate about Kennedy's assassination as long as you don't mention the Mossad . You can even
survive being a 911 truther and espouse as many alternative narratives as you like, however,
the suggestion that ' Israel did 911' will get you
into serious trouble. Examining 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion' as a fictional,
however
prophetic , piece of literature can lead to imprisonment in some countries. Digging into
the true origin of Bolshevism and the demographics of the Soviet revolution is practically a
suicidal act. Telling the truth about Hitler's agreement with the Zionist agency
will definitely result in your expulsion from the British Labour party and you will be accused
of being
at the least, theoretically conspiratorial .
"... 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'.
"... 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.
"... "You have no evidence for the so-called Russian IO. It is a fabrication." In fact, Putin rejects the claim many times publicly saying that Russia does not meddle in foreign elections as a matter of policy. Maybe I'm gullible, but I find his disclaimer pretty convincing.... ..."
"... Is there an unseen connection between the Democrat leadership and the Intel agencies??? And --if there is-- does that mean we are headed for a one-party system??? ..."
"... The Russians trying to rig the elections meme was a fallback for the failure of the “trump is a russianstooge" meme. ..."
Here are some insights into the minds of many movers and shakers in Russiagate:
Key US officials behind the Russia investigation have made no secret of their animus
towards Russia.
"I do always hate the Russians," Lisa Page, a senior FBI lawyer on the Russia probe,
testified to Congress in July 2018. "It is my opinion that with respect to Western ideals
and who it is and what it is we stand for as Americans, Russia poses the most dangerous
threat to that way of life."
As he opened the FBI's probe of the Trump campaign's ties to Russians in July 2016,
FBI agent Peter Strzok texted Page: "fuck the cheating motherfucking Russians Bastards. I
hate them I think they're probably the worst. Fucking conniving cheating savages."
Speaking to NBC News in May 2017, former director of national intelligence James
Clapper explained why US officials saw interactions between the Trump camp and Russian
nationals as a cause for alarm: "The Russians," Clapper said, "almost genetically driven to
co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever, which is a typical Russian technique. So we were
concerned."
In a May interview with Lawfare, former FBI general counsel Jim Baker, who helped
oversee the Russia probe, explained the origins of the investigation as follows: "It was
about Russia, period, full stop. When the [George] Papadopoulos information comes across
our radar screen, it's coming across in the sense that we were always looking at Russia.
we've been thinking about Russia as a threat actor for decades and decades."
"You have no evidence for the so-called Russian IO. It is a fabrication." In fact, Putin
rejects the claim many times publicly saying that Russia does not meddle in foreign elections
as a matter of policy. Maybe I'm gullible, but I find his disclaimer pretty
convincing....
My question for Larry Johnson requires some speculation on his part: How did the claims of
"Russia meddling" which began with the DNC and Hillary campaign, take root at the FBI, CIA
and NSA???
Is there an unseen connection between the Democrat leadership and the Intel agencies???
And --if there is-- does that mean we are headed for a one-party system???
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..
"... 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
"
"... Early in any psychology course, students are taught to be very cautious about accepting people's reports. A simple trick is to stage some sort of interruption to the lecture by confederates, and later ask the students to write down what they witnessed. Typically, they will misremember the events, sequences and even the number of people who staged the tableaux. Don't trust witnesses, is the message. ..."
"... The three assumptions -- lack of rationality, stubbornness, and costs -- imply that there is slim chance that people can ever learn or be educated out of their biases; ..."
"... So, are we as hopeless as some psychologists claim we are? In fact, probably not. Not all the initial claims have been substantiated. For example, it seems we are not as loss averse as previously claimed. Does our susceptibility to printed visual illusions show that we lack judgement in real life? ..."
"... Well the sad fact is that there's nobody in the position to protect "governments" from their own biases, and "scientists" from theirs ..."
"... Long ago a lawyer acquaintance, referring to a specific judge, told me that the judge seemed to "make shit up as he was going along". I have long held psychiatry fits that statement very well. ..."
"... Here we have a real scientist fighting the nonsense spreading from (neoclassical) economics into other realms of science/academia. ..."
"... Behavioral economics is a sideline by-product of neoclassical micro-economic theory. It tries to cope with experimental data that is inconsistent with that theory. ..."
"... Everything in neoclassical economics is a travesty. "Rational choice theory" and its application in "micro economics" is false from the ground up. It basically assumes that people are gobbling up resources without plan, meaning or relevant circumstances. Neoclassical micro economic theory is so false and illogical that I would not know where to start in a comment, so I should like to refer to a whole book about it: Keen, Steve: "Debunking economics". ..."
"... As the theory is totally wrong it is really not surprising that countless experiments show that people do not behave the way neoclassical theory predicts. How do economists react to this? Of course they assume that people are "irrational" because they do not behave according to their studied theory. (Why would you ever change your basic theory because of some tedious facts?) ..."
"... The title of the 1st ed. of Keen's book was "Debunking Economics: The Naked Emperor of the Social Sciences" which was simply a perfect title. ..."
Early in any psychology course, students are taught to be very cautious about accepting people's reports. A simple trick is
to stage some sort of interruption to the lecture by confederates, and later ask the students to write down what they witnessed.
Typically, they will misremember the events, sequences and even the number of people who staged the tableaux. Don't trust witnesses,
is the message.
Another approach is to show visual illusions, such as getting estimates of line lengths in the Muller-Lyer illusion, or studying
simple line lengths under social pressure, as in the Asch experiment, or trying to solve the Peter Wason logic problems, or the puzzles
set by Kahneman and Tversky. All these appear to show severe limitations of human judgment. Psychology is full of cautionary tales
about the foibles of common folk.
As a consequence of this softening up, psychology students come to regard themselves and most people as fallible, malleable, unreliable,
biased and generally irrational. No wonder psychologists feel superior to the average citizen, since they understand human limitations
and, with their superior training, hope to rise above such lowly superstitions.
However, society still functions, people overcome errors and many things work well most of the time. Have psychologists, for one
reason or another, misunderstood people, and been too quick to assume that they are incapable of rational thought?
He is particularly interested in the economic consequences of apparent irrationality, and whether our presumed biases really result
in us making bad economic decisions. If so, some argue we need a benign force, say a government, to protect us from our lack of capacity.
Perhaps we need a tattoo on our forehead: Diminished Responsibility.
The argument leading from cognitive biases to governmental paternalism -- in short, the irrationality argument -- consists
of three assumptions and one conclusion:
1. Lack of rationality. Experiments have shown that people's intuitions are systematically biased.
2. Stubbornness. Like visual illusions, biases are persistent and hardly corrigible by education.
3. Substantial costs. Biases may incur substantial welfare-relevant costs such as lower wealth, health, or happiness.
4. Biases justify governmental paternalism. To protect people from theirbiases, governments should "nudge" the public
toward better behavior.
The three assumptions -- lack of rationality, stubbornness, and costs -- imply that there is slim chance that people can ever
learn or be educated out of their biases; instead governments need to step in with a policy called libertarian paternalism (Thaler
and Sunstein, 2003).
So, are we as hopeless as some psychologists claim we are? In fact, probably not. Not all the initial claims have been substantiated.
For example, it seems we are not as loss averse as previously claimed. Does our susceptibility to printed visual illusions show that
we lack judgement in real life?
In Shepard's (1990) words, "to fool a visual system that has a full binocular and freely mobile view of a well-illuminated scene
is next to impossible" (p. 122). Thus, in psychology, the visual system is seen more as a genius than a fool in making intelligent
inferences, and inferences, after all, are necessary for making sense of the images on the retina.
Most crucially, can people make probability judgements? Let us see. Try solving this one:
A disease has a base rate of .1, and a test is performed that has a hit rate of .9 (the conditional probability of a positive
test given disease) and a false positive rate of .1 (the conditional probability of a positive test given no disease). What is
the probability that a random person with a positive test result actually has the disease?
Most people fail this test, including 79% of gynaecologists giving breast screening tests. Some researchers have drawn the conclusion
that people are fundamentally unable to deal with conditional probabilities. On the contrary, there is a way of laying out the problem
such that most people have no difficulty with it. Watch what it looks like when presented as natural frequencies:
Among every 100 people, 10 are expected to have a disease. Among those 10, nine are expected to correctly test positive. Among
the 90 people without the disease, nine are expected to falsely test positive. What proportion of those who test positive actually
have the disease?
In this format the positive test result gives us 9 people with the disease and 9 people without the disease, so the chance that
a positive test result shows a real disease is 50/50. Only 13% of gynaecologists fail this presentation.
Summing up the virtues of natural frequencies, Gigerenzer says:
When college students were given a 2-hour course in natural frequencies, the number of correct Bayesian inferences increased
from 10% to 90%; most important, this 90% rate was maintained 3 months after training (Sedlmeier and Gigerenzer, 2001). Meta-analyses
have also documented the "de-biasing" effect, and natural frequencies are now a technical term in evidence-based medicine (Akiet
al., 2011; McDowell and Jacobs, 2017). These results are consistent with a long literature on techniques for successfully teaching
statistical reasoning (e.g., Fonget al., 1986). In sum, humans can learn Bayesian inference quickly if the information is presented
in natural frequencies.
If the problem is set out in a simple format, almost all of us can all do conditional probabilities.
I taught my medical students about the base rate screening problem in the late 1970s, based on: Robyn Dawes (1962) "A note on
base rates and psychometric efficiency". Decades later, alarmed by the positive scan detection of an unexplained mass, I confided
my fears to a psychiatrist friend. He did a quick differential diagnosis on bowel cancer, showing I had no relevant symptoms, and
reminded me I had lectured him as a student on base rates decades before, so I ought to relax. Indeed, it was false positive.
Here are the relevant figures, set out in terms of natural frequencies
Every test has a false positive rate (every step is being taken to reduce these), and when screening is used for entire populations
many patients have to undergo further investigations, sometimes including surgery.
Setting out frequencies in a logical sequence can often prevent misunderstandings. Say a man on trial for having murdered his
spouse has previously physically abused her. Should his previous history of abuse not be raised in Court because only 1 woman in
2500 cases of abuse is murdered by her abuser? Of course, whatever a defence lawyer may argue and a Court may accept, this is back
to front. OJ Simpson was not on trial for spousal abuse, but for the murder of his former partner. The relevant question is: what
is the probability that a man murdered his partner, given that she has been murdered and that he previously battered her.
Accepting the figures used by the defence lawyer, if 1 in 2500 women are murdered every year by their abusive male partners, how
many women are murdered by men who did not previously abuse them? Using government figures that 5 women in 100,000 are murdered every
year then putting everything onto the same 100,000 population, the frequencies look like this:
So, 40 to 5, it is 8 times more probable that abused women are murdered by their abuser. A relevant issue to raise in Court about
the past history of an accused man.
Are people's presumed biases costly, in the sense of making them vulnerable to exploitation, such that they can be turned into
a money pump, or is it a case of "once bitten, twice shy"? In fact, there is no evidence that these apparently persistent logical
errors actually result in people continually making costly errors. That presumption turns out to be a bias bias.
Gigerenzer goes on to show that people are in fact correct in their understanding of the randomness of short sequences of coin
tosses, and Kahneman and Tversky wrong. Elegantly, he also shows that the "hot hand" of successful players in basketball is a real
phenomenon, and not a stubborn illusion as claimed.
With equal elegance he disposes of a result I had depended upon since Slovic (1982), which is that people over-estimate the frequency
of rare risks and under-estimate the frequency of common risks. This finding has led to the belief that people are no good at estimating
risk. Who could doubt that a TV series about Chernobyl will lead citizens to have an exaggerated fear of nuclear power stations?
The original Slovic study was based on 39 college students, not exactly a fair sample of humanity. The conceit of psychologists
knows no bounds. Gigerenzer looks at the data and shows that it is yet another example of regression to the mean. This is an apparent
effect which arises whenever the predictor is less than perfect (the most common case), an unsystematic error effect, which is already
evident when you calculate the correlation coefficient. Parental height and their children's heights are positively but not perfectly
correlated at about r = 0.5. Predictions made in either direction will under-predict in either direction, simply because they are
not perfect, and do not capture all the variation. Try drawing out the correlation as an ellipse to see the effect of regression,
compared to the perfect case of the straight line of r= 1.0
What diminishes in the presence of noise is the variability of the estimates, both the estimates of the height of the sons based
on that of their fathers, and vice versa. Regression toward the mean is a result of unsystematic, not systematic error (Stigler,1999).
Gigerenzer also looks at the supposed finding that people are over-confidence in predictions, and finds that it is another regression
to the mean problem.
Gigerenzer then goes on to consider that old favourite, that most people think they are better than average, which supposedly
cannot be the case, because average people are average.
Consider the finding that most drivers think they drive better than average. If better driving is interpreted as meaning fewer
accidents, then most drivers' beliefs are actually true. The number of accidents per person has a skewed distribution, and an
analysis of U.S. accident statistics showed that some 80% of drivers have fewer accidents than the average number of accidents
(Mousavi and Gigerenzer, 2011)
Then he looks at the classical demonstration of framing, that is to say, the way people appear to be easily swayed by how the
same facts are "framed" or presented to the person who has to make a decision.
A patient suffering from a serious heart disease considers high-risk surgery and asks a doctor about its prospects.
The doctor can frame the answer in two ways:
Positive Frame: Five years after surgery, 90% of patients are alive.
Negative Frame: Five years after surgery, 10% of patients are dead.
Should the patient listen to how the doctor frames the answer? Behavioral economists say no because both frames are logically
equivalent (Kahneman, 2011). Nevertheless, people do listen. More are willing to agree to a medical procedure if the doctor uses
positive framing (90% alive) than if negative framing is used (10% dead) (Moxeyet al., 2003). Framing effects challenge the assumption
of stable preferences, leading to preference reversals. Thaler and Sunstein (2008) who presented the above surgery problem, concluded
that "framing works because people tend to be somewhat mindless, passive decisionmakers" (p. 40)
Gigerenzer points out that in this particular example, subjects are having to make their judgements without knowing a key fact:
how many survive without surgery. If you know that you have a datum which is more influential. These are the sorts of questions patients
will often ask about, and discuss with other patients, or with several doctors. Furthermore, you don't have to spin a statistic.
You could simply say: "Five years after surgery, 90% of patients are alive and 10% are dead".
Gigerenzer gives an explanation which is very relevant to current discussions about the meaning of intelligence, and about the
power of intelligence tests:
In sum, the principle of logical equivalence or "description invariance" is a poor guide to understanding how human intelligence
deals with an uncertain world where not everything is stated explicitly. It misses the very nature of intelligence, the ability
to go beyond the information given (Bruner, 1973)
The key is to take uncertainty seriously, take heuristics seriously, and beware of the bias bias.
One important conclusion I draw from this entire paper is that the logical puzzles enjoyed by Kahneman, Tversky, Stanovich and
others are rightly rejected by psychometricians as usually being poor indicators of real ability. They fail because they are designed
to lead people up the garden path, and depend on idiosyncratic interpretations.
Critics of examinations of either intellectual ability or scholastic attainment are fond of claiming that the items are "arbitrary".
Not really. Scholastic tests have to be close to the curriculum in question, but still need to a have question forms which are simple
to understand so that the stress lies in how students formulate the answer, not in how they decipher the structure of the question.
Intellectual tests have to avoid particular curricula and restrict themselves to the common ground of what most people in a community
understand. Questions have to be super-simple, so that the correct answer follows easily from the question, with minimal ambiguity.
Furthermore, in the case of national scholastic tests, and particularly in the case of intelligence tests, legal authorities will
pore over the test, looking at each item for suspected biases of a sexual, racial or socio-economic nature. Designing an intelligence
test is a difficult and expensive matter. Many putative new tests of intelligence never even get to the legal hurdle, because they
flounder on matters of reliability and validity, and reveal themselves to be little better than the current range of assessments.
In conclusion, both in psychology and behavioural economics, some researchers have probably been too keen to allege bias in cases
where there are unsystematic errors, or no errors at all. The corrective is to learn about base rates, and to use natural frequencies
as a guide to good decision-making.
Don't bother boosting your IQ. Boost your understanding of natural frequencies.
Good concrete advice. Perhaps even more useful for those who need to explain things like this to others than for those seeking
to understand for themselves.
"intelligence deals with an uncertain world where not everything is stated explicitly. It misses the very nature of intelligence,
the ability to go beyond the information given (Bruner, 1973)"
"The key is to take uncertainty seriously, take heuristics seriously, and beware of the bias bias."
Actually I think this is an example of an increasingly common genre of malapropism, where the writer gropes for the right word,
finds one that is similar, and settles for that. The worst of it is that readers intuitively understand what was intended, and
then adopt the marginally incorrect usage themselves. That's perhaps how the world and his dog came to say "literally" when they
mean "figuratively". Maybe a topic for a future article?
In 2009 Google finished engineering a reverse search engine to find out what kind of searches people did most often. Seth Davidowitz
and Steven Pinker wrote a very fascinating/entertaining book using the tool called Everybody Lies
Everybody Lies offers fascinating, surprising, and sometimes laugh-out-loud insights into everything from economics to ethics
to sports to race to sex, gender, and more, all drawn from the world of big data. What percentage of white voters didn't vote
for Barack Obama because he's black? Does where you go to school effect how successful you are in life? Do parents secretly
favor boy children over girls? Do violent films affect the crime rate? Can you beat the stock market? How regularly do we lie
about our sex lives, and who's more self-conscious about sex, men or women?
Investigating these questions and a host of others, Seth Stephens-Davidowitz offers revelations that can help us understand
ourselves and our lives better. Drawing on studies and experiments on how we really live and think, he demonstrates in fascinating
and often funny ways the extent to which all the world is indeed a lab. With conclusions ranging from strange-but-true to thought-provoking
to disturbing, he explores the power of this digital truth serum and its deeper potential – revealing biases deeply embedded
within us, information we can use to change our culture, and the questions we're afraid to ask that might be essential to our
health – both emotional and physical. All of us are touched by big data every day, and its influence is multiplying. Everybody
Lies challenges us to think differently about how we see it and the world.
I shall treat this posting (for which many thanks, doc) as an invitation to sing a much-loved song: everybody should read Gigerenzer's
Reckoning with Risk. With great clarity it teaches what everyone ought to know about probability.
(It could also serve as a model for writing in English about technical subjects. Americans and Britons should study the English
of this German – he knows how, you know.)
Inspired by "The original Slovic study was based on 39 college students" I shall also sing another favorite song. Much of Psychology
is based on what small numbers of American undergraduates report they think they think.
" Gigerenzer points out that in this particular example, subjects are having to make their judgements without knowing a key fact:
how many survive without surgery. "
This one reminds of the false dichotomy. The patient has additional options! Like changing diet, and behaviours such as exercise,
elimination of occupational stress , etc.
The statistical outcomes for a person change when the person changes their circumstances/conditions.
@Tom
Welsh A disposition (conveyance) of an awkwardly shaped chunk out of a vast estate contained reference to "the slither of
ground bounded on or towards the north east and extending two hundred and twenty four meters or thereby along a chain link fence "
Not poor clients (either side) nor cheap lawyers. And who never erred?
Better than deliberately inserting "errors" to guarantee a stream of tidy up work (not unknown in the "professional" world)
in future.
Good article. 79% of gynaecologists fail a simple conditional probability test?! Many if not most medical research papers use
advanced statistics. Medical doctors must read these papers to fully understand their field. So, if medical doctors don't fully
understand them, they are not properly doing their job. Those papers use mathematical expressions, not English. Converting them
to another form of English, instead of using the mathematical expressions isn't a solution.
Regarding witnesses: When that jet crashed into Rockaway several years ago, a high percentage of witnesses said that they saw
smoke before the crash. But there was actually no smoke. The witnesses were adjusting what they saw to conform to their past experience
of seeing movie and newsreel footage of planes smoking in the air before a crash. Children actually make very good witnesses.
Regarding the chart. Missing, up there in the vicinity of cancer and heart disease. The third-leading cause of death. 250,000
per year, according to a 2016 Hopkins study. Medical negligence.
1. Lack of rationality. Experiments have shown that people's intuitions are systematically biased.
2. Stubbornness. Like visual illusions, biases are persistent and hardly corrigible by education.
3. Substantial costs. Biases may incur substantial welfare-relevant costs such as lower wealth, health, or happiness.
4. Biases justify governmental paternalism. To protect people from theirbiases, governments should "nudge" the public toward
better behavior.
Well the sad fact is that there's nobody in the position to protect "governments" from their own biases, and "scientists"
from theirs.
So, behind the smoke of all words and rationalisations, the law is unchanged: everyone strives to gain and exert as much power
as possible over as many others as possible. Most do that without writing papers to say it is right, others write papers,
others books. Anyway, the fundamental law would stay as it is even if all this writing labour was spared, wouldn't it?
But then another fundamental law, the law of framing all one's drives as moral and beneffective comes into play the papers
and the books are useful, after all.
An interesting article. However, I think that the only thing we have to know about how illogical psychiatry is this:
In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) asked all members attending its convention to vote on whether they believed
homosexuality to be a mental disorder. 5,854 psychiatrists voted to remove homosexuality from the DSM, and 3,810 to retain
it.
The APA then compromised, removing homosexuality from the DSM but replacing it, in effect, with "sexual orientation disturbance"
for people "in conflict with" their sexual orientation. Not until 1987 did homosexuality completely fall out of the DSM.
The article makes no mention of the fact that no "new science" was brought to support the resolution.
It appears that the psychiatrists were voting based on feelings rather than science. Since that time, the now 50+ genders have
been accepted as "normal" by the APA. My family has had members in multiple generations suffering from mental illness. None were
"cured". I know others with the same circumstances.
How does one conclude that being repulsed by the prime directive of every
living organism – reproduce yourself – is "normal"? That is not to say these people are horrible or evil, just not normal. How
can someone, who thinks (s)he is a cat be mentally ill, but a grown man thinking he is a female child is not?
Long ago a lawyer acquaintance, referring to a specific judge, told me that the judge seemed to "make shit up as he was going
along". I have long held psychiatry fits that statement very well.
Thank you for this article. I find the information about the interpretation of statistical data very interesting. My take on the
background of the article is this:
Here we have a real scientist fighting the nonsense spreading from (neoclassical) economics into other realms of science/academia.
Behavioral economics is a sideline by-product of neoclassical micro-economic theory. It tries to cope with experimental
data that is inconsistent with that theory.
Everything in neoclassical economics is a travesty. "Rational choice theory" and its application in "micro economics" is
false from the ground up. It basically assumes that people are gobbling up resources without plan, meaning or relevant circumstances.
Neoclassical micro economic theory is so false and illogical that I would not know where to start in a comment, so I should like
to refer to a whole book about it:
Keen, Steve: "Debunking economics".
As the theory is totally wrong it is really not surprising that countless experiments show that people do not behave the
way neoclassical theory predicts. How do economists react to this? Of course they assume that people are "irrational" because
they do not behave according to their studied theory. (Why would you ever change your basic theory because of some tedious facts?)
We live in a strange world in which such people have control over university faculties, journals, famous prizes. But at least
we have some scientists who defend their area of knowledge against the spreading nonsense produced by economists.
The title of the 1st ed. of Keen's book was "Debunking Economics: The Naked Emperor of the Social Sciences" which was simply
a perfect title.
"... "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
"... 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.
"... Within America, the alphabet agencies from NSA to CIA to FBI had betrayed their country as obviously as Figuera did, though they didn't run away, yet. Our colleagues Mike Whitney and Philip Giraldi described the conspiracy organised by John Brennan of CIA with active participation of FBI's James Comey, to regime-change the US. ..."
"... The CIA spies in England and passes the results to the British Intelligence. MI6 spies in the US and passes the results to CIA. They became integrated to unbelievable extent in the worldwide network of spies. ..."
"... It is not the Deep State anymore; it is world spooks who had united against their legitimate masters. Instead of staying loyal to their country, the spooks betrayed their countries. They are not only strictly-for-cash – they think they know better what is good for you. In a way, they are a new incarnation of the Cecil Rhodes Society . Democratically-elected politicians and statesmen have to obey them or meet their displeasure, as Corbyn and Trump did. ..."
"... Everywhere, in the US, the UK, and Russia, the spooks became too powerful to handle. The CIA stood behind assassination of JFK and tried to take down Trump. The British Intelligence undermined Jeremy Corbyn, after assisting the CIA in pushing for the Iraq war. They created the Steele Dossier, invented the Skripal hoax and had brought Russia and the West to the brink of nuclear war. ..."
"... In the Ukraine, the heads of their state security, SBU had plotted against the last legitimate president Mr Victor Yanukovych. They helped to organise and run the Maidan 2014 manifestations and misled their President, until he was forced to escape abroad. The Maidan manifestations could be compared with the Yellow Vests movement; however, Macron, an appointee of the Network, had support of his spies, and stayed in power, while Yanukovych had been betrayed and overthrown. ..."
"... You'd ask me, were they so stupid that they believed their own propaganda of inevitable Clinton's victory? Yes, they were and are stupid. They are no sages, evil or benevolent. My main objection to the conspiracy theorists is that they usually view the plotters as omniscient and all-powerful. They are too greedy to be all-powerful, and they are too silly to be omniscient. ..."
"... Now, however, the secret services' cohesion and integration increased to the next level, making it difficult to deal with them. ..."
"... People are fickle and not always know what is good for them; there are many demagogues to mislead the crowd. And still, elected legitimate officials should have precedence in governing, while non-elected ones should obey – and it means the Network spooks and media men should know their place. ..."
"... How did John Brennan, James Clapper, James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Christopher Steele and other Spygate principals manage to rise to the top of the intelligence bureaucracy? ..."
"... These characters have indulged in an orgy of highly conspicuous partisan political meddling and ranting that has created the strong public impression that they engaged in an attempted coup to overthrow a sitting American president on the basis of a frame-up that was largely fueled by Russian disinformation. ..."
"... Brennan in particular: can you imagine any previous CIA director comporting himself in this manner? Throwing all caution to the winds? Inconceivable. Brennan, Comey and Clapper have inflicted serious damage on the reputation of the CIA, FBI and ODNI. ..."
"... It's not just illegal surveillance and blackmail that gives the spies power, it's impunity for even the gravest crimes. If you don't get the message of blackmail you can be tortured or shot, with a bullet like JFK and RFK and Reagan, or with illegal biological weapons like Daschel and Leahy. Institutionalized impunity stares us in the face from US state papers. ..."
"... It's not that CIA and other neo-Gestapos escaped control. They were designed from inception for totalitarian control. The one poor bastard in Congress who pointed that out, Tydings, had McCarthy sicced on him for his cheek. CIA is not out of control; it's firmly IN control. ..."
"... It was funny during the Cold war (the original one) – whenever each side unveiled that a spy from the other side has defected to them – they would say it was because of ideology – i.e. the spy defected to them because he "believed" in "democracy" or socialism – depending on the case. ..."
"... And in order to discredit their own spies when they defected to the other side – they would say that they did it for money, because they were greedy and that they betrayed "democracy" or socialism ..."
"... The other crucial role that spies usually play is that they allow the adversaries to keep technological balance via industrial espionage. By transferring top military secrets, they don't allow any side to gain crucial strategic advantage that might encourage them to do something foolish – like start a nuclear war. Prime example of this were probably the Rosenbergs – who helped USSR close the nuclear weapons gap with US and kept the world in a shaky nuclear arms balance. ..."
"... Profound analysis by Mr. Shamir. It confirms that one of the important reasons for the decline of freemasonry is the monopolization of political conspiracy by the intelligence services. Who needs the lodge when you have the CIA. ..."
"... Spooks are everywhere, from secretaries "losing" important communications to CNN news anchors roleplaying with crisis actors, but they are at their most powerful when they are appointed to powerful positions. President Trump's National Security Advisor is a spook and he does what he wants. ..."
"... John le Carre described it perfectly in "A Perfect Spy". The spooks form their own country. They are only loyal to themselves. ..."
"... A global supra-powerful, organized and united, privately directed, publicly backed society of high technology robin hood_mercenary_spooks who conduct sub-legal "scratch-my-back-I'll-scratch-your-back [in the nation of the other] routines"; who ignore duty to country, its constitutions, its laws and human rights. The are evil, global acting, high technology nomads with a monopoly on extortion and terror. ..."
"... Your statement "spooks and ex-spooks feel more proximity to their enemies and colleagues in other countries than to their fellow citizens" fails makes clear the importance of containment-of-citizen access to information. Nation states are armed, rule making structures that invent propaganda and control access to information. Information containment and filtering is the essence of the political and economic power of a national leader and it is more import to the evil your article addresses. ..."
"... Control of the media is 50 times more important than control of the government? Nearly all actions of consequence are intended to drain the governed masses and such efforts can only be successful if the lobbying, false-misleading mind controlling privately owned (92% own by just 6 entities) centrally directed media can effectively control the all information environments. ..."
"... While understanding the mechanics is helpful don't neglect the purpose. Why is more important than how. The why is control. They don't care what you believe, but only what you do. You can be on the left, right, mainstream, or fringe and they won't care as long as you eat what they serve. Take a minute to think about what they want you to do and strongly consider not doing it. ..."
Conspiratorially-minded writers envisaged the Shadow World Government as a board of evil sages surrounded by the financiers and
cinema moguls. That would be bad enough; in infinitely worse reality, our world is run by the Junior Ganymede that went berserk.
It is not a government, but a network, like freemasonry of old, and it consists chiefly of treacherous spies and pens-for-hire, two
kinds of service personnel, that collected a lot of data and tools of influence, and instead of serving their masters loyally, had
decided to lead the world in the direction they prefer.
German Admiral Wilhelm Canaris, the last head of the Abwehr, Hitler's Military Intelligence, had been such a spy with political
ambitions. He supported Hitler as the mighty enemy of Communism; on a certain stage he came to conclusion that the US will do the
job better and switched to the Anglo-American side. He was uncovered and executed for treason. His colleague General Reinhard Gehlen
also betrayed his Führer and had switched to the American side. After the war, he continued his war against Soviet Russia, this time
for CIA instead of Abwehr.
The spies are treacherous by their nature. They contact people who betrayed their countries; they work under cover, pretending
to be somebody else; for them the switch of loyalty is as usual and normal as the gender change operation for a Moroccan doctor who
is doing that 8 to 5 every day. They mix with foreign spies, they kill people with impunity; they break every law, human or divine.
They are extremely dangerous if they do it for their own country. They are infinitely more dangerous if they work for themselves
and still keep their institutional capabilities and international network.
Recently we had a painful reminding of their treacherous nature. Venezuela's top spy, the former director of the Bolivarian National
Intelligence Service (Sebin), Manuel Cristopher Figuera , had switched sides during the last coup attempt and escaped abroad
as the coup failed. He discovered that his membership on the Junior Ganymede of the spooks is more important for him than his duty
to his country and its constitution.
Within America, the alphabet agencies from NSA to CIA to FBI had betrayed their country as obviously as Figuera did, though
they didn't run away, yet. Our colleagues Mike
Whitney and Philip Giraldi described
the conspiracy organised by John Brennan of CIA with active participation of FBI's James Comey, to regime-change the US. In
the conspiracy, foreign intelligence agencies, primarily the British GCHQ, played an important role. As by law, these spies aren't
allowed to operate on their home ground, they go into you-scratch-my-back-I'll-scratch-your-back routine. The CIA spies in England
and passes the results to the British Intelligence. MI6 spies in the US and passes the results to CIA. They became integrated to
unbelievable extent in the worldwide network of spies.
It is not the Deep State anymore; it is world spooks who had united against their legitimate masters. Instead of staying loyal
to their country, the spooks betrayed their countries. They are not only strictly-for-cash – they think they know better what is
good for you. In a way, they are a new incarnation of the
Cecil Rhodes Society . Democratically-elected politicians
and statesmen have to obey them or meet their displeasure, as Corbyn and Trump did.
Everywhere, in the US, the UK, and Russia, the spooks became too powerful to handle. The CIA stood behind assassination of
JFK and tried to take down Trump. The British Intelligence undermined Jeremy Corbyn, after assisting the CIA in pushing for the Iraq
war. They created the Steele Dossier, invented the Skripal hoax and had brought Russia and the West to the brink of nuclear war.
Russian spooks are in a special relations mode with the global network – for many years. In Russia, persistent rumours claim the
perilous Perestroika of Mikhail Gorbachev had been designed and initiated by the KGB chief (1967 – 1982)
Yuri Andropov . He and his appointees
dismantled the socialist state and prepared the takeover of 1991 in the interests of the One World project.
Andropov (who had stepped into Brezhnev's shoes in 1982 and died in 1984) had advanced Gorbachev and his architect of glasnost,
Alexander Yakovlev . Andropov
also promoted the arch-traitor KGB General Oleg Kalugin
to head its counter-intelligence. Later, Kalugin betrayed his country, escaped to the US and delivered all Russian spies he knew
of to the FBI hands.
In late 1980s-early 1990s, the KGB, originally the guarding dog of the Russian working class, had betrayed its Communist masters
and switched to work for the Network. But for their betrayal, Gorbachev would not be able to destroy his country so fast: the KGB
neutralised or misinformed the Communist leadership.
They allowed Chernobyl to explode; they permitted a German pilot to land on the Red Square – this was used by Gorbachev as an
excuse to sack the whole lot of patriotic generals. The KGB people were active in subverting other socialist states, too. They executed
the Romanian leader Ceausescu and his wife; they brought down the GDR, the socialist Germany; they plotted with Yeltsin against Gorbachev
and with Gorbachev against Romanov. As the result of their plotting, the USSR fell apart.
The KGB plotters of 1991 had thought that post-Communist Russia would be treated by the West like the prodigal son, with a fattened
calf being slaughtered for the welcome feast. To their disappointment, the stupid bastards discovered that their country was to play
the part of the fattened calf at the feast, and they were turned from unseen rulers into billionaires' bodyguards. Years later, Vladimir
Putin came to power in Russia with the blessing of the world spooks and bankers, but being too independent a man to submit, he took
his country into its present nationalist course, trying to regain some lost ground. The dissatisfied spooks supported him.
Only recently Putin began to trim the wild growth of his own intelligence service, the FSB. It is possible the cautious president
had been alerted by the surprising insistence of the Western media that the alleged attempt on Skripal and other visible cases had
been attributed to the GRU, the relatively small Russian Military Intelligence, while the much bigger FSB had been forgotten. The
head of
FSB cybercrime department had been arrested and sentenced for lengthy term of imprisonment, and two FSB colonels had been arrested
as the search of their premises revealed immense
amounts of cash , both Russian and foreign currency. Such piles of roubles and dollars could be assembled only for an attempt
to change the regime, as it was demanded by the Network.
In the Ukraine, the heads of their state security, SBU had plotted against the last legitimate president Mr Victor Yanukovych.
They helped to organise and run the Maidan 2014 manifestations and misled their President, until he was forced to escape abroad.
The Maidan manifestations could be compared with the Yellow Vests movement; however, Macron, an appointee of the Network, had support
of his spies, and stayed in power, while Yanukovych had been betrayed and overthrown.
In the US, the spooks allowed Donald Trump to become the leading Republican candidate, for they thought he would certainly lose
to Mme Clinton. Surprisingly, he had won, and since then, this man who was advanced as an easy prey, as a buffoon, had been hunted
by the spooks-and-scribes freemasonry.
You'd ask me, were they so stupid that they believed their own propaganda of inevitable Clinton's victory? Yes, they were
and are stupid. They are no sages, evil or benevolent. My main objection to the conspiracy theorists is that they usually view the
plotters as omniscient and all-powerful. They are too greedy to be all-powerful, and they are too silly to be omniscient.
Their knowledge of official leaders' faults gives them their feeling of power, but this knowledge can be translated into actual
control only for weak-minded men. Strong leaders do not submit easily. Putin has had his quota of imprudent or outright criminal
acts in his past, but he never allowed the blackmailers to dictate him their agenda. Netanyahu, another strong man of modern politics,
also had managed to survive blackmail. Meanwhile, Trump defeated all attempts to unseat him, though his enemies had used his alleged
lack of delicacy in relation to women, blacks and Jews to its utmost. He waded through the deep pond of Russiagate like Gulliver.
But he has to purge the alphabet agencies to reach safety.
In Russia, the problem is acute. Many Russian spooks and ex-spooks feel more proximity to their enemies and colleagues in other
countries than to their fellow citizens. There is a freemasonic quality in their camaraderie. Such a quality could be commendable
in soldiers after the war is over, but here the war is going on. Russian spooks are particularly besotted with their declared enemies;
apparently it is the Christian quality of the Russian soul, but a very annoying one.
When Snowden reached Moscow after his daring escape from Hong Kong, the Russian TV screened a discussion that I participated in,
among journalists, members of parliament and ex-spies. The Russian spooks said that Snowden is a traitor; a person who betrayed his
agency can't be trusted and should be sent to the US in shackles. They felt they belong to the Spy World, with its inner bond, while
their loyalty to Russia was a distant second.
During recent visit of Mike Pompeo to Sochi, the head of SVR, the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service, Mr Sergey Naryshkin
proposed the State Secretary Mike Pompeo, the ex-CIA director,
to expand contacts between Russian and US special services at a higher level. He clarified that he actively interacted with Pompeo
during the period when he was the head of the CIA. Why would he need contacts with his adversary? It would be much better to avoid
contacts altogether.
Even president Putin, who is first of all a Russian nationalist (or a patriot, as they say), who has granted Snowden asylum in
Moscow at a high price of seriously worsening relations with Obama's administration, even Putin has told Stone that Snowden shouldn't
have leaked the documents the way he did. "If he didn't like anything at his work he should have simply resigned, but he went further",
a response proving he didn't completely freed himself from the spooks' freemasonry.
While the spooks plot, the scribes justify their plots. Media is also a weapon, and a mighty one. In Richard Wagner's opera
Lohengrin , the protagonist is defeated by the smear campaign in the media. Despite his miraculous arrival, despite his glorious
victory, the evil witch succeeds to poison minds of the hero's wife and of the court. The pen can counter the sword. When the two
are integrated, as in the union of spooks and scribes, it is too dangerous tool to leave intact.
In many countries of Europe, editorial international policies had been outsourced to the spooky Atlantic Council, the Washington-based
think tank. The Atlantic Council is strongly connected with NATO alliance and with Brussels bureaucracy, the tools of control over
Europe. Another tool is
The
Integrity Initiative , where the difference between spies and journalists is
blurred
. And so is the difference between the left and the right. The left and the right-wing media use different arguments, surprisingly
leading to the same bottom line, because both are tools of warfare for the same Network.
In 1930s, they were divided. The German and the British agents pulled and pushed in the opposite directions. The Russian military
became so friendly with the Germans, that at a certain time, Hitler believed the Russian generals would side with him against their
own leader. The Russian spooks were befriended by the Brits, and had tried to push Russia to confront Hitler. The cautious Marshal
Stalin had purged the Red Army's pro-German Generals, and the NKVD's pro-British spooks, and delayed the outbreak of hostilities
as much as he could. Now, however, the secret services' cohesion and integration increased to the next level, making it difficult
to deal with them.
If they are so powerful, integrated and united, shouldn't we throw a towel in the ring and surrender? Hell, no! Their success
is their undoing. They plot, but Allah is the best plotter, – our Muslim friends say. Indeed, when they succeed to suborn a party,
the people vote with their feet. The Brexit is the case to consider. The Network wanted to undermine the Brexit; so they neutralised
Corbyn by the antisemitism pursuit while May had made all she could to sabotage the Brexit while calling for it in public. Awfully
clever of them – but the British voter responded with dropping both established parties. So their clever plot misfired.
People are fickle and not always know what is good for them; there are many demagogues to mislead the crowd. And still, elected
legitimate officials should have precedence in governing, while non-elected ones should obey – and it means the Network spooks and
media men should know their place.
How did John Brennan, James Clapper, James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Christopher Steele and other Spygate principals manage
to rise to the top of the intelligence bureaucracy?
Spymasters are usually renowned for their inscrutability and for playing their cards close to their vests.
These characters have indulged in an orgy of highly conspicuous partisan political meddling and ranting that has created
the strong public impression that they engaged in an attempted coup to overthrow a sitting American president on the basis of
a frame-up that was largely fueled by Russian disinformation.
Brennan in particular: can you imagine any previous CIA director comporting himself in this manner? Throwing all caution
to the winds? Inconceivable. Brennan, Comey and Clapper have inflicted serious damage on the reputation of the CIA, FBI and ODNI.
Forthcoming books will no doubt get into all the remarkable and bizarre details.
Donald Trump has demonstrated the ability to troll and goad many of his opponents into a state of imbecility. It's a negotiating
tactic -- knock them off balance, provoke them to lose control. No matter how smart they are, some people take the bait.
I am sitting here pointing to my nose. Spies run the world – contemporary history in a nutshell. A few provisos:
– It's not just illegal surveillance and blackmail that gives the spies power, it's impunity for even the gravest crimes.
If you don't get the message of blackmail you can be tortured or shot, with a bullet like JFK and RFK and Reagan, or with illegal
biological weapons like Daschel and Leahy. Institutionalized impunity stares us in the face from US state papers.
– It's not that CIA and other neo-Gestapos escaped control. They were designed from inception for totalitarian control.
The one poor bastard in Congress who pointed that out, Tydings, had McCarthy sicced on him for his cheek. CIA is not out of control;
it's firmly IN control.
– There is a crucial difference between US and Russian spies. Russians can go over the head of their government to the world.
That's the only effective check on state criminal enterprise like CIA. Article 17 of the Russian Constitution says "in the Russian
Federation rights and freedoms of person and citizen are recognized and guaranteed pursuant to the generally recognized principles
and norms of international law and in accordance with this Constitution." Article 18 states that rights and freedoms of the person
and citizen are directly applicable, which prevents the kind of bad-faith tricks the USA pulls, like declaring "non-self executing"
treaties, or making legally void reservations, declarations, understandings, and provisos to screw you out of your rights. Article
46(3) guarantees citizens a constitutional right to appeal to inter-State bodies for the protection of human rights and freedoms
if internal legal redress has been exhausted. Ratified international treaties including the ICCPR supersede any domestic legislation
stipulating otherwise.
Isn't it just collusion that holds certain elite groups together, including in some businesses where a lot of chicanery goes on.
The most important thing is to be in on it as one of them, not as a person who can be trusted not to say anything, but as one
of the gang. It's exactly how absenteeism-friendly offices full of crony parents with crony-parent managers work.
The only problem for the guy at the tippy top is what would happen if such a tight group turned on him / her? Maybe, some leaders
see the value in protecting a few brave individuals, like Snowden, letting any coup-stirring spooks know that some people are
watching the Establishment's rights violators, too. Those with technical knowledge have more capacity than most to do it or, at
least, to understand how it works.
In a country founded on individual liberties, including Fourth Amendment privacy rights that were protected by less greedy
generations, the US should have elected leaders that put the US Constitution first, but that is too much to ask in an era when
the top dogs in business & government are all colluding for money.
In Russia, persistent rumours claim the perilous Perestroika of Mikhail Gorbachev had been designed and initiated by the
KGB chief (1967 – 1982) Yuri Andropov.
FWIW, I have heard the exact same thing from Russian commenters myself. Some have insisted that, if Andropov had lived long
enough, he would have carried glasnost and perestroika himself.
Spies are loathsome bunch, with questionable loyalties and personal integrity. But I believe that overall they play a positive
role. They play a positive role because they help adversaries gain insight into their adversary's activities.
If it wasn't for the spies, paranoia about what the other side is doing can get out of hand and cause wrong actions to take
place. The problem with the spies is also that no one knows how much they can be trusted and on whose side they are really on.
It was funny during the Cold war (the original one) – whenever each side unveiled that a spy from the other side has defected
to them – they would say it was because of ideology – i.e. the spy defected to them because he "believed" in "democracy" or socialism
– depending on the case.
And in order to discredit their own spies when they defected to the other side – they would say that they did it for money,
because they were greedy and that they betrayed "democracy" or socialism.
The other crucial role that spies usually play is that they allow the adversaries to keep technological balance via industrial
espionage. By transferring top military secrets, they don't allow any side to gain crucial strategic advantage that might encourage
them to do something foolish – like start a nuclear war. Prime example of this were probably the Rosenbergs – who helped USSR
close the nuclear weapons gap with US and kept the world in a shaky nuclear arms balance.
Profound analysis by Mr. Shamir. It confirms that one of the important reasons for the decline of freemasonry is the monopolization
of political conspiracy by the intelligence services. Who needs the lodge when you have the CIA.
An aspect of the rule of spies that Mr. Shamir does not touch on is the legitimization of this rule through popular culture.
This started with the James Bond novels and movies and by now has become ubiquitous. Spies and assassins are the heroes of the
masses. While secrecy is still needed for tactical reasons in the case of specific operations, overall secrecy is not needed nor
even desirable. So you have thugs like Pompeo actually boasting of their villainy before audiences of college students at Texas
A&M and you have the Mossad supporting the publication of the book Rise and Kill First which is an extensive account of their
world-wide assassination policy. They have the power; now they want the perks that go with it, including being treated like rock
stars.
dear mr Shamir, the criminals are not only stupid but also utterly wicked. they will be stricken down in the twinkling of the
eye and will cry out why God? all the righteous will shout for joy and give thanks to the Almighty for judging Babylon. woe unto
them! they will have no place to hide or run to.
Ezekiel 9 (NKJV)
The Wicked Are Slain
9 Then He called out in my hearing with a loud voice, saying, "Let those who have charge over the city draw near, each with a
deadly weapon in his hand." 2 And suddenly six men came from the direction of the upper gate, which faces north, each with his
battle-ax in his hand. One man among them was clothed with linen and had a writer's inkhorn at his side. They went in and stood
beside the bronze altar.
3 Now the glory of the God of Israel had gone up from the cherub, where it had been, to the threshold of the temple. And He
called to the man clothed with linen, who had the writer's inkhorn at his side; 4 and the Lord said to him, "Go through the midst
of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and put a mark on the foreheads of the men who sigh and cry over all the abominations
that are done within it."
5 To the others He said in my hearing, "Go after him through the city and kill; do not let your eye spare, nor have any pity.
6 Utterly slay old and young men, maidens and little children and women; but do not come near anyone on whom is the mark; and
begin at My sanctuary." So they began with the elders who were before the temple. 7 Then He said to them, "Defile the temple,
and fill the courts with the slain. Go out!" And they went out and killed in the city.
8 So it was, that while they were killing them, I was left alone; and I fell on my face and cried out, and said, "Ah, Lord
God! Will You destroy all the remnant of Israel in pouring out Your fury on Jerusalem?"
9 Then He said to me, "The iniquity of the house of Israel and Judah is exceedingly great, and the land is full of bloodshed,
and the city full of perversity; for they say, 'The Lord has forsaken the land, and the Lord does not see!' 10 And as for Me also,
My eye will neither spare, nor will I have pity, but I will recompense their deeds on their own head."
11 Just then, the man clothed with linen, who had the inkhorn at his side, reported back and said, "I have done as You commanded
me."
E Michael Jones was just warning President Trump about the possibility of this in the Straits of Hormuz.
https://youtu.be/iIm3WuJAVEE?t=272
Spooks are everywhere, from secretaries "losing" important communications to CNN news anchors roleplaying with crisis actors,
but they are at their most powerful when they are appointed to powerful positions. President Trump's National Security Advisor
is a spook and he does what he wants.
John le Carre described it perfectly in "A Perfect Spy". The spooks form their own country. They are only loyal to themselves.
@Antares that's because the Mossad
isn't like "our" spy agencies. it's closer to the old paradigm of the hashishim or true assassins. Mossad "agents" don't gad around
wearing dark glasses and tapping phones; they run proper deep cover operations. "sleepers" is a term used in the USA. they have
jobs. they look "normal". They integrate
Do spies run the world? No not really, bankers run the world.
Bankers constitute most of the deep state in the US/UK in particular and most of Europe. It is the bankers/deep state which
control the intelligence agencies. The ethnicity of a hefty proportion of said bankers is plain to see for anyone with functioning
critical faculties. How else can a tiny country in the middle east have such influence in the US? How else do we explain why 2/3
of the UK parliament are "friends of Israel" How come financial institutions can commit felonies and no one does jail time? why
is Israel allowed to commit war crimes and break international law with total impunity? who got bailed out of their gambling debts
at the expense of inflicting "austerity" on most of the western world?
How did John Brennan, James Clapper, James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Christopher Steele and other Spygate principals manage
to rise to the top of the intelligence bureaucracy?
A global supra-powerful, organized and united, privately directed, publicly backed society of high technology robin hood_mercenary_spooks
who conduct sub-legal "scratch-my-back-I'll-scratch-your-back [in the nation of the other] routines"; who ignore duty to country,
its constitutions, its laws and human rights. The are evil, global acting, high technology nomads with a monopoly on extortion
and terror.
Since winning, Trump has been hunted by the spooks-and-scribes freemasonry. <fallacy is that Trump could have gained the assistence
of every American, had Trump just used his powers to declassify all secret information and make it available to the public, instead
he chases Assange, and continues to conduct the affairs of his office in secret.
Propaganda preys on belief.. it is more powerful than an atomic weapon.. when the facts are hidden or when the facts are changed,
distorted or destroyed.
Your statement "spooks and ex-spooks feel more proximity to their enemies and colleagues in other countries than to their
fellow citizens" fails makes clear the importance of containment-of-citizen access to information. Nation states are armed, rule
making structures that invent propaganda and control access to information. Information containment and filtering is the essence
of the political and economic power of a national leader and it is more import to the evil your article addresses.
https://theintercept.com/2019/05/08/josh-gottheimer-democrats-yemen/
<i wrote IRT to the article, that contents appearing in private media supported monopoly powered corporations and distributed
to the public, direct the use of military and the willingness of soldiers of 22 different countries.
Control of the media is 50 times more important than control of the government? Nearly all actions of consequence are intended
to drain the governed masses and such efforts can only be successful if the lobbying, false-misleading mind controlling privately
owned (92% own by just 6 entities) centrally directed media can effectively control the all information environments.
I am bothered by you article because it looks to be Trumped weighted and failes to make clear it is these secret apolitical,
human rights abusers, that direct the contents of the media distributed articles that appear in the privately owmed, media distributed
to the public. Also not explained is how the cost of advertising is shared by the monopoly powered corporations, and it is that
advertising that is the source of support that keeps the fake news in business, the nation state propaganda in line, and the support
of robin -hood terror.
Monopoly powered global corporation advertising funds the fake and misleading private media, that is why the open internet
has been shut in tight. In order for the evil, global acting, high technology nomads to continue their extortion and terror activities
they need the media, its their only real weapon. I have never meet a member of any of the twenty two agencies that was not a trained,
certified mental case terrorist.
I think the interplay between the spooks and scribes warrants a deeper explanation. Covert action refers to anything in which
the author can disclaim his responsibility, ie it looks like someone else or something else. The handler in a political operation
cannot abuse his agent because the agent is the actor. The handler in an intelligence gathering operation can abuse his agent
because the agent merely enables action.
The political operations in this case are propaganda. The Congress of Cultural Freedom is the most clearly described one to
date. Propaganda is necessary in any mass society to ensure that voters care about the right issues, the right way, at the right
time. Propaganda can be true, false, or a mix of the two. Black propaganda deals in falsehoods, ie the Steele Dossier. Black propaganda
works best when it enables a pre-planned operation, but it pollutes the intelligence gathering process with disinformation.
Intelligence gathering is colloquially called investigative reporting. If anyone knows about Gary Webb, Alan Frankovich, or
Michael Hastings they know you can't really do that job well for very long. So how do the old timers last so long? It's a back
and forth. The reporter brings all of his information on a subject to his intelligence source (handler). The source then says,
"print this, print that, sit on that, and since you've been a good boy here's a little something you didn't know." The true role
of the investigative reporter is to conduct counterintelligence and package it as a limited hangout.
While understanding the mechanics is helpful don't neglect the purpose. Why is more important than how. The why is control.
They don't care what you believe, but only what you do. You can be on the left, right, mainstream, or fringe and they won't care
as long as you eat what they serve. Take a minute to think about what they want you to do and strongly consider not doing it.
@Sean McBride And now Trump should
have then all rounded up and hung from the trees in the front of the Whitehouse. Anything less should be seen as encouragement.
The worst among us rule over the rest of us. As Plato said, this needs to change. How to do that? We don't know, but we desperately
need to find out ..
Obama was a very effective promoter of what might be called the "globalist" agenda. He of course didn't invent it but did appoint
those three.
Wayne Madsen gave a convincing account in his speculation that both Obama's parent's were CIA operatives. So it's "all
the family" and in the details one might conclude with the author that indeed "spies run the world."
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.
"... 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. ..."
9/23/1975 Tom Charles Huston Church Committee Testimony
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.
"... 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
"... I don' know what are the revenues of NYT or The Guardian, but I know that the US government spends 750 million a year on the Agency for Global Media (formerly Broadcasting Board of Governors). If you think US or France is under attack by warmongers, you can't imagine how many propagandists are these 750 million hiring in low-COL places like Serbia, Burma, Venezuela. ..."
"... The situation is even worse today as the CIA and Pentagon have massive propaganda budgets and have infiltrated the media at every level , the public is unaware that each day they are brainwashed by the MSM to support the agenda of the "deep State' and the MIC. ..."
"... No mention of the journalists as CIA assets who publish planted stories? Isn't Dr Udo Ulfkotte one who did that, repented, told all in his best-seller Bought Journalists, and as a warning to others unselfishly dropped dead of a heart attack within a couple of years? ..."
"... The best sentence was the one expressing the Establishment's collective faux shock that anything other than Russian spybots could be responsible for the serfs' rejection of the "two centrist parties" that have sponged up lobbyist money for 3 decades, cashing in on the globalist-Neoliberal economy, as rents rose and wages fell. ..."
"... Not too sure about the US even remaining important as a continent wide farm.. The aquifers in the West and Midwest are being inexorably drawn down to sustain the current rate of farming, so it's possible North America's value would primarily be as a source of pockets of human talent in the sciences and technologies. ..."
the hysteria emanating from the nyt, cnn and the rest of the msm is the result of a conscious
or subconscious grasp that socialism dying worldwide. the great ponzi scam of forcing future
generations to pay for the cookies and ice cream of the present generation has hit the math
of the complete dearth of unencumbered assets from which to emit more unpayable debt,
insufficient economic growth upon which to pretend the debt can be serviced forget about
repayment and the simple fact demographichs throughout the west are so negative the
government and public pension scheme blowup in the several years
the more intelligent members of the establishment know in their bones the jig is up. hence
the great and urgent need to turn up .lets over throw sovereign nations so the plunder model
..venezuela, syria, russia, china et al.can find more unencumbered assets to be brought into
the nyc, london orbit of banks from which new debt can be emitted.
the west is staring at its last decade of global rule, a rule that began 500 years ago. by
the 2030's finance, manufacturing and all the global power and prestige that goes with it
moves from ny, london to shanghai and moscow.
if the united states is lucky and remains intact, a giant IF, we may wind up as continent
size farm with a smidgen of non competitive industry here and there.
the west has only disinformation with which to go to war against the rising east. the
weapons of the west are powerful ONLY in their quantity. Russian weapons already are many
years beyond anything the pentagon has in the field and the gap is only increasing, ergo the
us treasury is forced to fight the battle using sanctions and other forms of restrictions, a
long term losing strategy irrespective of any short terms gains.
so, cj worry not, the disinformation campaign is backed by nothing but hot air and the
rage from being thwarted by china and russia as well as brave pipsqueakes like iran and
venezuela.
see it for what it is, transparent sound and fury signifying nothing
I don' know what are the revenues of NYT or The Guardian, but I know that the US government
spends 750 million a year on the Agency for Global Media (formerly Broadcasting Board of
Governors). If you think US or France is under attack by warmongers, you can't imagine how
many propagandists are these 750 million hiring in low-COL places like Serbia, Burma,
Venezuela.
I don' know what are the revenues of NYT or The Guardian, but I know that the US
government spends 750 million a year on the Agency for Global Media (formerly Broadcasting
Board of Governors). If you think US or France is under attack by warmongers, you can't
imagine how many propagandists are these 750 million hiring in low-COL places like Serbia,
Burma, Venezuela.
In 1917 US Congressman Calloway informed Congress that J.P. Morgan interests had purchased 25
of the nations leading newspapers and replaced their editors in order to control the mass
media for the benefit of the plutocrats/money interests who ran the country and who still do
. The situation is even worse today as the CIA and Pentagon have massive propaganda budgets
and have infiltrated the media at every level , the public is unaware that each day they are
brainwashed by the MSM to support the agenda of the "deep State' and the MIC.
See, half a century after McCarthy, wingers got their noses into some (not all) Soviet files,
and got to scream, nonstop and to this day, "See!@@#$% McCarthy was RIGHT!"
Betya in a half century, if we're still around, the same type people are going to get
nosing in some files somewhere and find incontrovertible evidence that: "See!@#%$%^^ The New
York Times was RIGHT!"
And then there's the evil Russian spywhale, which the disinformationists want us to
believe is just a harmless "therapy Beluga" for kids, but which has clearly been strapped
with some sort of monstrous, mind-controlling apparatus that enables the Kremlin to
remotely implant a host of dangerous "populist" ideas in the brains of defenseless
Norwegian fishermen, weaponizing them into a horde of neo-Odinist Viking berserkers who
will scream down out of Scandinavia and storm the EU Parliament in Brussels smelling of
akvavit and fermented shark.
You had me doing a cartoon spit-take with this beaut!
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
No mention of the journalists as CIA assets who publish planted stories? Isn't Dr Udo
Ulfkotte one who did that, repented, told all in his best-seller Bought Journalists, and as a
warning to others unselfishly dropped dead of a heart attack within a couple of years?
" that enables the Kremlin to remotely implant a host of dangerous "populist" ideas in
the brains of defenseless Norwegian fishermen, weaponizing them into a horde of neo-Odinist
Viking berserkers who will scream down out of Scandinavia and storm the EU Parliament in
Brussels smelling of akvavit and fermented shark "
It isn't the akvavit that does it, but you can't do it without the akvavit.
And then there's the evil Russian spywhale, which the disinformationists want us to
believe is just a harmless "therapy Beluga" for kids, but which has clearly been strapped
with some sort of monstrous, mind-controlling apparatus that enables the Kremlin to
remotely implant a host of dangerous "populist" ideas in the brains of defenseless
Norwegian fishermen, weaponizing them into a horde of neo-Odinist Viking berserkers who
will scream down out of Scandinavia and storm the EU Parliament in Brussels smelling of
akvavit and fermented shark.
I had a good laugh at the Spy Whale schtick. One look at the thing, and you get the
idea it should've been in a Pink Panther movie.
Made up shit that only a mind of a child could believe.
The best sentence was the one expressing the Establishment's collective faux shock that
anything other than Russian spybots could be responsible for the serfs' rejection of the "two
centrist parties" that have sponged up lobbyist money for 3 decades, cashing in on the
globalist-Neoliberal economy, as rents rose and wages fell.
The serfs have to love that. How
could they not embrace it? Only spybots beaming up doom-and-gloom messages from halfway
around the globe could persuade the thick-headed serfs that the part-time / churn / gig
economy is anything but nirvana.
@paraglider I think
you're probably right about the inevitable collapse of the West as the dominant global power.
Not too sure about the US even remaining important as a continent wide farm.. The aquifers
in the West and Midwest are being inexorably drawn down to sustain the current rate of
farming, so it's possible North America's value would primarily be as a source of pockets of
human talent in the sciences and technologies.
Also Russia has been making some progress, but unless that continues it may not reach the
level of competitiveness in science, industry and domestic product to be any more than a
junior partner to China.
Whatever happens, a sea change in history seems unavoidable and it won't be what our
present rulers think it will. I don't pretend to think I can reliably predict what is
coming.
I used to know Russian disinformation when I saw it because it was obvious when it came from
the USSR. Then the MSM peddled it as authentic as when, in response to Soviet deployment of
IRBM in Europe, pinkos magically appeared to protest the American deployment of similar
weapons. It was well funded too as Brezhnev had serious oil revenues to finance both his
military and his disinformation campaigns and the USSR had 125% of America's population and a
satellite Eastern Europe to boot.
Now I am to believe a motheaten "Russia' with less than half the US population, a hostile
Ukraine and no Eastern European satrapies is able to exert more 'influence' in the West than
the mighty USSR. Yet those same 'pinkos' would have me believe a castrated Russia is an
existential threat. Come on!
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.
Important article that shed some light on the methods of disinformation in foreign events used by neoliberal MSM
Notable quotes:
"... However, there is a simple reason why the global agencies, despite their importance, are virtually unknown to the general public. To quote a Swiss media professor: "Radio and television usually do not name their sources, and only specialists can decipher references in magazines." (Blum 1995, P. 9) The motive for this discretion, however, should be clear: news outlets are not particularly keen to let readers know that they haven't researched most of their contributions themselves. ..."
"... Much of our media does not have own foreign correspondents, so they have no choice but to rely completely on global agencies for foreign news. But what about the big daily newspapers and TV stations that have their own international correspondents? In German-speaking countries, for example, these include newspapers such NZZ, FAZ, Sueddeutsche Zeitung, Welt, and public broadcasters. ..."
"... Moreover, in war zones, correspondents rarely venture out. On the Syria war, for example, many journalists "reported" from cities such as Istanbul, Beirut, Cairo or even from Cyprus. In addition, many journalists lack the language skills to understand local people and media. ..."
"... How do correspondents under such circumstances know what the "news" is in their region of the world? The main answer is once again: from global agencies. The Dutch Middle East correspondent Joris Luyendijk has impressively described how correspondents work and how they depend on the world agencies in his book "People Like Us: Misrepresenting the Middle East" : ..."
"... The central role of news agencies also explains why, in geopolitical conflicts, most media use the same original sources. In the Syrian war, for example, the "Syrian Observatory for Human Rights" – a dubious one-man organization based in London – featured prominently. The media rarely inquired directly at this "Observatory", as its operator was in fact difficult to reach, even for journalists. ..."
"... Ulrich Tilgner, a veteran Middle East correspondent for German and Swiss television, warned in 2003, shortly after the Iraq war, of acts of deception by the military and the role played by the media: ..."
"... What is known to the US military, would not be foreign to US intelligence services. 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: ..."
"... "In all press systems, the news media are instruments of those who exercise political and economic power. Newspapers, periodicals, radio and television stations do not act independently, although they have the possibility of independent exercise of power." (Altschull 1984/1995, p. 298) ..."
"How does the newspaper know what it knows?" The answer to this question is likely to
surprise some newspaper readers: "The main source of information is stories from news agencies.
The almost anonymously operating news agencies are in a way the key to world events. So what
are the names of these agencies, how do they work and who finances them? To judge how well one
is informed about events in East and West, one should know the answers to these questions."
(Höhne 1977, p. 11)
A Swiss media researcher points out:
"The news agencies are the most important suppliers of material to mass media. No daily
media outlet can manage without them. () So the news agencies influence our image of the
world; above all, we get to know what they have selected." (Blum 1995, p. 9)
In view of their essential importance, it is all the more astonishing that these agencies
are hardly known to the public:
"A large part of society is unaware that news agencies exist at all In fact, they play an
enormously important role in the media market. But despite this great importance, little
attention has been paid to them in the past." (Schulten-Jaspers 2013, p. 13)
Even the head of a news agency noted:
"There is something strange about news agencies. They are little known to the public.
Unlike a newspaper, their activity is not so much in the spotlight, yet they can always be
found at the source of the story." (Segbers 2007, p. 9)
"The Invisible Nerve Center of the Media System"
So what are the names of these agencies that are "always at the source of the story"? There
are now only three global agencies left:
The American Associated Press ( AP ) with over 4000 employees worldwide.
The AP belongs to US media companies and has its main editorial office in New York. AP news
is used by around 12,000 international media outlets, reaching more than half of the world's
population every day.
The quasi-governmental French Agence France-Presse ( AFP ) based in Paris and with around
4000 employees. The AFP sends over 3000 stories and photos every day to media all over the
world.
The British agency Reuters in London, which is privately owned and employs just over 3000
people. Reuters was acquired in 2008 by Canadian media entrepreneur Thomson – one of
the 25 richest people in the world – and merged into Thomson Reuters , headquartered in New York.
In addition, many countries run their own news agencies. However, when it comes to
international news, these usually rely on the three global agencies and simply copy and
translate their reports.
The three global news agencies Reuters, AFP and AP, and the three national agencies of the
German-speaking countries of Austria (APA), Germany (DPA) and Switzerland (SDA).
Wolfgang Vyslozil, former managing director of the Austrian APA, described the key role of
news agencies with these words:
"News agencies are rarely in the public eye. Yet they are one of the most influential and
at the same time one of the least known media types. They are key institutions of substantial
importance to any media system. They are the invisible nerve center that connects all parts
of this system." (Segbers 2007, p.10)
Small abbreviation, great effect
However, there is a simple reason why the global agencies, despite their importance, are
virtually unknown to the general public. To quote a Swiss media professor: "Radio and
television usually do not name their sources, and only specialists can decipher references in
magazines." (Blum 1995, P. 9) The motive for this discretion, however, should be clear: news outlets are not particularly
keen to let readers know that they haven't researched most of their contributions
themselves.
The following figure shows some examples of source tagging in popular German-language
newspapers. Next to the agency abbreviations we find the initials of editors who have edited
the respective agency report.
News agencies as sources in newspaper articles
Occasionally, newspapers use agency material but do not label it at all. A study in 2011
from the Swiss Research Institute for the Public Sphere and Society at the University of
Zurich came to the following conclusions (FOEG 2011):
"Agency contributions are exploited integrally without labeling them, or they are
partially rewritten to make them appear as an editorial contribution. In addition, there is a
practice of 'spicing up' agency reports with little effort; for example, visualization
techniques are used: unpublished agency reports are enriched with images and graphics and
presented as comprehensive reports."
The agencies play a prominent role not only in the press, but also in private and public
broadcasting. This is confirmed by Volker Braeutigam, who worked
for the German state broadcaster ARD for ten years and views the dominance of these agencies
critically:
"One fundamental problem is that the newsroom at ARD sources its information mainly from
three sources: the news agencies DPA/AP, Reuters and AFP: one German/American, one British
and one French. () The editor working on a news topic only needs to select a few text
passages on the screen that he considers essential, rearrange them and glue them together
with a few flourishes."
Swiss Radio and Television (SRF), too, largely bases itself on reports from these agencies.
Asked by viewers why a peace march in Ukraine was not reported, the editors
said : "To date, we have not received a single report of this march from the independent
agencies Reuters, AP and AFP."
In fact, not only the text, but also the images, sound and video recordings that we
encounter in our media every day, are mostly from the very same agencies. What the uninitiated
audience might think of as contributions from their local newspaper or TV station, are actually
copied reports from New York, London and Paris.
Some media have even gone a step further and have, for lack of resources, outsourced their
entire foreign editorial office to an agency. Moreover, it is well known that many news portals
on the internet mostly publish agency reports (see e.g., Paterson 2007, Johnston 2011,
MacGregor 2013).
In the end, this dependency on the global agencies creates a striking similarity in
international reporting: from Vienna to Washington, our media often report the same topics,
using many of the same phrases – a phenomenon that would otherwise rather be associated
with "controlled media" in authoritarian states.
The following graphic shows some examples from German and international publications. As you
can see, despite the claimed objectivity, a slight (geo-)political bias sometimes creeps
in.
"Putin threatens", "Iran provokes", "NATO concerned", "Assad stronghold": Similarities in
content and wording due to reports by global news agencies.
The role of correspondents
Much of our media does not have own foreign correspondents, so they have no choice but to
rely completely on global agencies for foreign news. But what about the big daily newspapers
and TV stations that have their own international correspondents? In German-speaking countries,
for example, these include newspapers such NZZ, FAZ, Sueddeutsche Zeitung, Welt, and public
broadcasters.
First of all, the size ratios should be kept in mind: while the global agencies have several
thousand employees worldwide, even the Swiss newspaper NZZ, known for its international
reporting, maintains only 35 foreign correspondents (including their business correspondents).
In huge countries such as China or India, only one correspondent is stationed; all of South
America is covered by only two journalists, while in even larger Africa no-one is on the ground
permanently.
Moreover, in war zones, correspondents rarely venture out. On the Syria war, for example,
many journalists "reported" from cities such as Istanbul, Beirut, Cairo or even from Cyprus. In
addition, many journalists lack the language skills to understand local people and media.
How do correspondents under such circumstances know what the "news" is in their region of
the world? The main answer is once again: from global agencies. The Dutch Middle East
correspondent Joris Luyendijk has impressively described how correspondents work and how they
depend on the world agencies in his book "People Like Us:
Misrepresenting the Middle East" :
"I'd imagined correspondents to be historians-of-the-moment. When something important
happened, they'd go after it, find out what was going on, and report on it. But I didn't go
off to find out what was going on; that had been done long before. I went along to present an
on-the-spot report. ()
The editors in the Netherlands called when something happened, they faxed or emailed the
press releases, and I'd retell them in my own words on the radio, or rework them into an
article for the newspaper. This was the reason my editors found it more important that I
could be reached in the place itself than that I knew what was going on. The news agencies
provided enough information for you to be able to write or talk you way through any crisis or
summit meeting.
That's why you often come across the same images and stories if you leaf through a few
different newspapers or click the news channels.
Our men and women in London, Paris, Berlin and Washington bureaus – all thought that
wrong topics were dominating the news and that we were following the standards of the news
agencies too slavishly. ()
The common idea about correspondents is that they 'have the story', () but the reality is
that the news is a conveyor belt in a bread factory. The correspondents stand at the end of
the conveyor belt, pretending we've baked that white loaf ourselves, while in fact all we've
done is put it in its wrapping. ()
Afterwards, a friend asked me how I'd managed to answer all the questions during those
cross-talks, every hour and without hesitation. When I told him that, like on the TV-news,
you knew all the questions in advance, his e-mailed response came packed with expletives. My
friend had relalized that, for decades, what he'd been watching and listening to on the news
was pure theatre." (Luyendjik 2009, p. 20-22, 76, 189)
In other words, the typical correspondent is in general not able to do independent research,
but rather deals with and reinforces those topics that are already prescribed by the news
agencies – the notorious "mainstream effect".
In addition, for cost-saving reasons many media outlets nowadays have to share their few
foreign correspondents, and within individual media groups, foreign reports are often used by
several publications – none of which contributes to diversity in reporting.
"What the agency does not report, does not take place"
The central role of news agencies also explains why, in geopolitical conflicts, most media
use the same original sources. In the Syrian war, for example, the "Syrian Observatory for
Human Rights" – a dubious one-man organization based in London – featured
prominently. The media rarely inquired directly at this "Observatory", as its operator was in
fact difficult to reach, even for journalists.
Rather, the "Observatory" delivered its stories to global agencies, which then forwarded
them to thousands of media outlets, which in turn "informed" hundreds of millions of readers
and viewers worldwide. The reason why the agencies, of all places, referred to this strange
"Observatory" in their reporting – and who really financed it – is a question that
was rarely asked.
The former chief editor of the German news agency DPA, Manfred Steffens, therefore states in
his book "The Business of News":
"A news story does not become more correct simply because one is able to provide a source
for it. It is indeed rather questionable to trust a news story more just because a source is
cited. () Behind the protective shield such a 'source' means for a news story, some people
are quite inclined to spread rather adventurous things, even if they themselves have
legitimate doubts about their correctness; the responsibility, at least morally, can always
be attributed to the cited source." (Steffens 1969, p. 106)
Dependence on global agencies is also a major reason why media coverage of geopolitical
conflicts is often superficial and erratic, while historic relationships and background are
fragmented or altogether absent. As put by Steffens:
"News agencies receive their impulses almost exclusively from current events and are
therefore by their very nature ahistoric. They are reluctant to add any more context than is
strictly required." (Steffens 1969, p. 32)
Finally, the dominance of global agencies explains why certain geopolitical issues and
events – which often do not fit very well into the US/NATO narrative or are too
"unimportant" – are not mentioned in our media at all: if the agencies do not report on
something, then most Western media will not be aware of it. As pointed out on the occasion of
the 50th anniversary of the German DPA: "What the agency does not report, does not take place."
(Wilke 2000, p. 1)
While some topics do not appear at all in our media, other topics are very prominent –
even though they shouldn't actually be: "Often the mass media do not report on reality, but on
a constructed or staged reality. () Several studies have shown that the mass media are
predominantly determined by PR activities and that passive, receptive attitudes outweigh
active-researching ones." (Blum 1995, p. 16)
In fact, due to the rather low journalistic performance of our media and their high
dependence on a few news agencies, it is easy for interested parties to spread propaganda and
disinformation in a supposedly respectable format to a worldwide audience. DPA editor Steffens
warned of this danger:
"The critical sense gets more lulled the more respected the news agency or newspaper is.
Someone who wants to introduce a questionable story into the world press only needs to try to
put his story in a reasonably reputable agency, to be sure that it then appears a little
later in the others. Sometimes it happens that a hoax passes from agency to agency and
becomes ever more credible." (Steffens 1969, p. 234)
Among the most active actors in "injecting" questionable geopolitical news are the military
and defense ministries. For example, in 2009, the head of the American news agency AP, Tom
Curley,
made public that the Pentagon employs more than 27,000 PR specialists who, with a budget of
nearly $ 5 billion a year, are working the media and circulating targeted manipulations. In
addition, high-ranking US generals had threatened that they would "ruin" the AP and him if the
journalists reported too critically on the US military.
Despite – or because of? – such threats our media regularly publish dubious
stories sourced to some unnamed "informants" from "US defense circles".
Ulrich Tilgner, a veteran Middle East correspondent for German and Swiss television, warned
in 2003, shortly after the Iraq war, of acts of deception by the military and the role played
by the media:
"With the help of the media, the military determine the public perception and use it for
their plans. They manage to stir expectations and spread scenarios and deceptions. In this
new kind of war, the PR strategists of the US administration fulfill a similar function as
the bomber pilots. The special departments for public relations in the Pentagon and in the
secret services have become combatants in the information war. () The US military
specifically uses the lack of transparency in media coverage for their deception maneuvers.
The way they spread information, which is then picked up and distributed by newspapers and
broadcasters, makes it impossible for readers, listeners or viewers to trace the original
source. Thus, the audience will fail to recognize the actual intention of the military."
(Tilgner 2003, p. 132)
What is known to the US military, would not be foreign to US intelligence services. 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:
Former CIA officer and whistleblower John Stockwell said of his work in the
Angolan war,
"The basic theme was to make it look like an [enemy] aggression in Angola. So any kind of
story that you could write and get into the media anywhere in the world, that pushed that
line, we did. One third of my staff in this task force were covert action, were
propagandists, whose professional career job was to make up stories and finding ways of
getting them into the press. () The editors in most Western newspapers are not too skeptical
of messages that conform to general views and prejudices. () So we came up with another
story, and it was kept going for weeks. () [But] it was all fiction."
Fred Bridgland
looked back on his work as a war correspondent for the Reuters agency: "We based our reports on
official communications. It was not until years later that I learned a little CIA
disinformation expert had sat in the US embassy, in Lusaka and composed that communiqué,
and it bore no relation at all to truth. () Basically, and to put it very crudely, you can
publish any old crap and it will get newspaper room."
And former CIA analyst David MacMichael described his work in the
Contra War in Nicaragua with these words:
"They said our intelligence of Nicaragua was so good that we could even register when
someone flushed a toilet. But I had the feeling that the stories we were giving to the press
came straight out of the toilet." (Hird 1985)
Of course, the intelligence services also have a large number of direct contacts in our media,
which can be "leaked" information to if necessary. But without the central role of the global
news agencies, the worldwide synchronization of propaganda and disinformation would never be so
efficient.
Through this "propaganda multiplier", dubious stories from PR experts working for
governments, military and intelligence services reach the general public more or less unchecked
and unfiltered. The journalists refer to the news agencies and the news agencies refer to their
sources. Although they often attempt to point out uncertainties with terms such as "apparent",
"alleged" and the like – by then the rumor has long been spread to the world and its
effect taken place.
The Propaganda Multiplier: Governments, military and intelligence services using global
news agencies to disseminate their messages to a worldwide audience.
As the New York Times reported
In addition to global news agencies, there is another source that is often used by media
outlets around the world to report on geopolitical conflicts, namely the major publications in
Great Britain and the US.
For example, news outlets like the New York Times or BBC have up to 100 foreign
correspondents and other external employees. However, Middle East correspondent Luyendijk
points out:
"Dutch news teams, me included, fed on the selection of news made by quality media like
CNN, the BBC, and the New York Times . We did that on the assumption
that their correspondents understood the Arab world and commanded a view of it – but
many of them turned out not to speak Arabic, or at least not enough to be able to have a
conversation in it or to follow the local media. Many of the top dogs at CNN, the BBC, the
Independent, the Guardian, the New Yorker, and the NYT were more often than not dependent on
assistants and translators." (Luyendijk p. 47)
In addition, the sources of these media outlets are often not easy to verify ("military
circles", "anonymous government officials", "intelligence officials" and the like) and can
therefore also be used for the dissemination of propaganda. In any case, the widespread
orientation towards the Anglo-Saxon publications leads to a further convergence in the
geopolitical coverage in our media.
The following figure shows some examples of such citation based on the Syria coverage of the
largest daily newspaper in Switzerland, Tages-Anzeiger. The articles are all from the first
days of October 2015, when Russia for the first time intervened directly in the Syrian war
(US/UK sources are highlighted):
Frequent citation of British and US media, exemplified by the Syria war coverage of Swiss
daily newspaper Tages-Anzeiger in October 2015.
The desired narrative
But why do journalists in our media not simply try to research and report independently of
the global agencies and the Anglo-Saxon media? Middle East correspondent Luyendijk describes
his experiences:
"You might suggest that I should have looked for sources I could trust. I did try, but
whenever I wanted to write a story without using news agencies, the main Anglo-Saxon media,
or talking heads, it fell apart. () Obviously I, as a correspondent, could tell very
different stories about one and the same situation. But the media could only present one of
them, and often enough, that was exactly the story that confirmed the prevailing image."
(Luyendijk p.54ff)
Media researcher Noam Chomsky has described this effect in his essay "What makes the mainstream media mainstream" as
follows: "If you leave the official line, if you produce dissenting reports, then you will soon
feel this. () There are many ways to get you back in line quickly. If you don't follow the
guidelines, you will not keep your job long. This system works pretty well, and it reflects
established power structures." (Chomsky 1997)
Nevertheless, some of the leading journalists continue to believe that nobody can tell them
what to write. How does this add up? Media researcher Chomsky clarifies the apparent contradiction:
"[T]he point is that they wouldn't be there unless they had already demonstrated that
nobody has to tell them what to write because they are going say the right thing. If they had
started off at the Metro desk, or something, and had pursued the wrong kind of stories, they
never would have made it to the positions where they can now say anything they like. () They
have been through the socialization system." (Chomsky 1997)
Ultimately, this "socialization process" leads to a journalism that generally no longer
independently researches and critically reports on geopolitical conflicts (and some other
topics), but seeks to consolidate the desired narrative through appropriate editorials,
commentary, and interviewees.
Conclusion: The "First Law of Journalism"
Former AP journalist Herbert Altschull called it the First Law of Journalism:
"In all press systems, the news media are instruments of those who exercise political and
economic power. Newspapers, periodicals, radio and television stations do not act
independently, although they have the possibility of independent exercise of power."
(Altschull 1984/1995, p. 298)
In that sense, it is logical that our traditional media – which are predominantly
financed by advertising or the state – represent the geopolitical interests of the
transatlantic alliance, given that both the advertising corporations as well as the states
themselves are dependent on the US dominated transatlantic economic and security
architecture.
In addition, our leading media and their key people are – in the spirit of Chomsky's
"socialization" – often themselves part of the networks of the transatlantic elite. Some
of the most important institutions in this regard include the US Council on Foreign Relations
(CFR), the Bilderberg Group, and the Trilateral Commission (see in-depth study of these networks
).
Indeed, most well-known publications basically may be seen as "establishment media". This is
because, in the past, the freedom of the press was rather theoretical, given significant entry
barriers such as broadcasting licenses, frequency slots, requirements for financing and
technical infrastructure, limited sales channels, dependence on advertising, and other
restrictions.
It was only due to the Internet that Altschull's First Law has been broken to some extent.
Thus, in recent years a high-quality, reader-funded journalism has emerged, often outperforming
traditional media in terms of critical reporting. Some of these "alternative" publications
already reach a very large audience, showing that the „mass" does not have to be a
problem for the quality of a media outlet.
Nevertheless, up to now the traditional media has been able to attract a solid majority of
online visitors, too. This, in turn, is closely linked to the hidden role of news agencies,
whose up-to-the-minute reports form the backbone of most news portals.
Will "political and economic power", according to Altschull's Law, retain control over the
news, or will "uncontrolled" news change the political and economic power structure? The coming
years will show.
Case study: Syria war coverage
As part of a case study, the Syria war coverage of nine leading daily newspapers from
Germany, Austria and Switzerland were examined for plurality of viewpoints and reliance on news
agencies. The following newspapers were selected:
For Germany: Die Welt, Süddeutsche Zeitung (SZ), and Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung
(FAZ)
For Switzerland: Neue Zürcher Zeitung (NZZ), Tagesanzeiger (TA), and Basler Zeitung
(BaZ)
For Austria: Standard, Kurier, and Die Presse
The investigation period was defined as October 1 to 15, 2015, i.e. the first two weeks
after Russia's direct intervention in the Syrian conflict. The entire print and online coverage
of these newspapers was taken into account. Any Sunday editions were not taken into account, as
not all of the newspapers examined have such. In total, 381 newspaper articles met the stated
criteria.
In a first step, the articles were classified according to their properties into the
following groups:
Agencies : Reports from news agencies (with agency code)
Mixed : Simple reports (with author names) that are based in whole or in part on agency
reports
Reports : Editorial background reports and analyzes
Opinions/Comments : Opinions and guest comments
Interviews : interviews with experts, politicians etc.
Investigative : Investigative research that reveals new information or context
The following Figure 1 shows the composition of the articles for the nine newspapers
analyzed in total. As can be seen, 55% of articles were news agency reports; 23% editorial
reports based on agency material; 9% background reports; 10% opinions and guest comments; 2%
interviews; and 0% based on investigative research.
Figure 1: Types of articles (total; n=381)
The pure agency texts – from short notices to the detailed reports – were mostly
on the Internet pages of the daily newspapers: on the one hand, the pressure for breaking news
is higher than in the printed edition, on the other hand, there are no space restrictions. Most
other types of articles were found in both the online and printed editions; some exclusive
interviews and background reports were found only in the printed editions. All items were
collected only once for the investigation.
The following Figure 2 shows the same classification on a per newspaper basis. During the
observation period (two weeks), most newspapers published between 40 and 50 articles on the
Syrian conflict (print and online). In the German newspaper Die Welt there were more
(58), in the Basler Zeitung and the Austrian Kurier , however, significantly less
(29 or 33).
Depending on which newspaper, the share of agency reports is almost 50% (Welt,
Süddeutsche, NZZ, Basler Zeitung), just under 60% (FAZ, Tagesanzeiger), and 60 to 70%
(Presse, Standard, Kurier). Together with the agency-based reports, the proportion in most
newspapers is between approx. 70% and 80%. These proportions are consistent with previous media
studies (e.g., Blum 1995, Johnston 2011, MacGregor 2013, Paterson 2007).
In the background reports, the Swiss newspapers were leading (five to six pieces), followed
by Welt , Süddeutsche and Standard (four each) and the other
newspapers (one to three). The background reports and analyzes were in particular devoted to
the situation and development in the Middle East, as well as to the motives and interests of
individual actors (for example Russia, Turkey, the Islamic State).
However, most of the commentaries were to be found in the German newspapers (seven comments
each), followed by Standard (five), NZZ and Tagesanzeiger (four each).
Basler Zeitung did not publish any commentaries during the observation period, but two
interviews. Other interviews were conducted by Standard (three) and Kurier and
Presse (one each). Investigative research, however, could not be found in any of the
newspapers.
In particular, in the case of the three German newspapers, a journalistically problematic
blending of opinion pieces and reports was noted. Reports contained strong expressions of
opinion even though they were not marked as commentary. The present study was in any case based
on the article labeling by the newspaper.
Figure 2: Types of articles per newspaper
The following Figure 3 shows the breakdown of agency stories (by agency abbreviation) for
each news agency, in total and per country. The 211 agency reports carried a total of 277
agency codes (a story may consist of material from more than one agency). In total, 24% of
agency reports came from the AFP; about 20% each by the DPA, APA and Reuters; 9% of the SDA; 6%
of the AP; and 11% were unknown (no labeling or blanket term "agencies").
In Germany, the DPA, AFP and Reuters each have a share of about one third of the news
stories. In Switzerland, the SDA and the AFP are in the lead, and in Austria, the APA and
Reuters.
In fact, the shares of the global agencies AFP, AP and Reuters are likely to be even higher,
as the Swiss SDA and the Austrian APA obtain their international reports mainly from the global
agencies and the German DPA cooperates closely with the American AP.
It should also be noted that, for historical reasons, the global agencies are represented
differently in different regions of the world. For events in Asia, Ukraine or Africa, the share
of each agency will therefore be different than from events in the Middle East.
Figure 3: Share of news agencies, total (n=277) and per country
In the next step, central statements were used to rate the orientation of editorial opinions
(28), guest comments (10) and interview partners (7) (a total of 45 articles). As Figure 4
shows, 82% of the contributions were generally US/NATO friendly, 16% neutral or balanced, and
2% predominantly US/NATO critical.
The only predominantly US/NATO-critical contribution was an op-ed in the Austrian
Standard on October 2, 2015, titled: "The strategy of regime change has failed. A
distinction between ‚good' and ‚bad' terrorist groups in Syria makes the Western
policy untrustworthy."
Figure 4: Orientation of editorial opinions, guest comments, and interviewees (total;
n=45).
The following Figure 5 shows the orientation of the contributions, guest comments and
interviewees, in turn broken down by individual newspapers. As can be seen, Welt,
Süddeutsche Zeitung, NZZ, Zürcher Tagesanzeiger and the Austrian newspaper
Kurier presented exclusively US/NATO-friendly opinion and guest contributions; this goes
for FAZ too, with the exception of one neutral/balanced contribution. The
Standard brought four US/NATO friendly, three balanced/neutral, as well as the already
mentioned US/NATO critical opinion contributions.
Presse was the only one of the examined newspapers to predominantly publish
neutral/balanced opinions and guest contributions. The Basler Zeitung published one
US/NATO-friendly and one balanced contribution. Shortly after the observation period (October
16, 2015), Basler Zeitung also published an interview with the President of the Russian
Parliament. This would of course have been counted as a contribution critical of the
US/NATO.
Figure 5: Basic orientation of opinion pieces and interviewees per newspaper
In a further analysis, a full-text keyword search for "propaganda" (and word combinations
thereof) was used to investigate in which cases the newspapers themselves identified propaganda
in one of the two geopolitical conflict sides, USA/NATO or Russia (the participant "IS/ISIS"
was not considered). In total, twenty such cases were identified. Figure 6 shows the result: in
85% of the cases, propaganda was identified on the Russian side of the conflict, in 15% the
identification was neutral or unstated, and in 0% of the cases propaganda was identified on the
USA/NATO side of the conflict.
It should be noted that about half of the cases (nine) were in the Swiss NZZ , which
spoke of Russian propaganda quite frequently ("Kremlin propaganda", "Moscow propaganda
machine", "propaganda stories", "Russian propaganda apparatus" etc.), followed by German
FAZ (three), Welt and Süddeutsche Zeitung (two each) and the Austrian
newspaper Kurier (one). The other newspapers did not mention propaganda, or only in a
neutral context (or in the context of IS).
Figure 6: Attribution of propaganda to conflict parties (total; n=20).
Conclusion
In this case study, the geopolitical coverage in nine leading daily newspapers from Germany,
Austria and Switzerland was examined for diversity and journalistic performance using the
example of the Syrian war.
The results confirm the high dependence on the global news agencies (63 to 90%, excluding
commentaries and interviews) and the lack of own investigative research, as well as the rather
biased commenting on events in favor of the US/NATO side (82% positive; 2% negative), whose
stories were not checked by the newspapers for any propaganda.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email
lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Whats difficult to understand here is who is driving who. The white house uses the media, the
media uses the white house. The CIA uses both. All of them use the Pentagon, which in turn
uses and serves the MIC. These stories that suddenly appear could be any one of those parties
using the press, or a drive by the press to prepare the stage for war on behalf of their
corporate overlords.
It is not " the job of the media to point that out", the job of the media is to serve
shareholders interest, whoever they may be. It is, however, the responsibility of a
conscientious public to discriminate very carefully between various consumable media outlets.
It is the duty of patriotic journalists to support their country's war efforts in times of
war, is it not? America has been at war for a very long time. For as long as the latest crop
of crappy "journalists" can remember (assuming they can remember anything beyond
yesterday's breakfast, which we see precious little evidence of).
Maybe in Europe and the rest of the world outside America there remains this idealized
conception of what journalism should be about, but that is long gone in the US. In America
the journalists consider themselves the "boots on the ground" in the psy-op
information war. They know that they are just as vital to America's imperial ambitions as the
Special Forces assassins and CIA covert operatives directing the death squads.
The CIA does the coordination of media narratives. You can think of them as the conductor
of the orchestra... the organist at the Mighty Wurlitzer . The CIA also
direct a lot of covert operations to strong-arm vassals into line and to knock states off
balance that try to resist the empire. They also do lots of assassinations of labor
organizers and the like.
But who is above the CIA? Who does the CIA work for? Certainly not the US Executive
Branch! The CIA kills presidents when they feel the need.
Just ask yourself who benefits. The corporate elites at Coca-Cola, Nestle, Exxon,
Monsanto, GE, and so on; and above them the elites at maybe a dozen giant financial
syndicates whose evils psychohistorian is always going on about (he is right, by the way).
These are the folks that gather at the Bilderberg and Bohemian Grove meet-ups where the large
scale plans are hatched and corrections to faltering plans are debated and that the CIA must
then fine tune and implement.
The Obama adminstration knew about the Russian attempts, yet did not alert the Trump
campaign. Instead the Obama administration sent spies to entrap low level operatives, with
the hope of eventually nailing Trump himself or a close advisor. Why?
Because the intelligence community wanted that insurance policy on Trump. Not to remove
him from office, but to control him in the event he won. The intelligence community and
defense community wants and needs perpetual war and conflict to justify themselves. Trump was
campaigning on better relations with Russia and pulling back the us global defense footprint.
This was not acceptable to them, so they needed to make sure they could control him. Do what
we want or certain information is released.
Somehow, they lost control over the operation, which resulted in the appointmemt of
Mueller. Forcing the plot against Trump out into the open is the best thing that could have
happened to Trump. Trump now holds all the cards in his control and possible retaliation
against the wrongdoers. I predict no action against any of the real wrongdoers, so Trump
maintains his control over a severly wounded intelligence community. He has the power over
them now, by threating prosecutions and disclosure of what they really did.
1 week ago
"Sprawling" How many CIA fucksticks, or boondoggle procuring disinformation spewing,
sell-their-own-mother contractors, like New Knowledge, are out there conspiring to screw
people over and install some goomed poodle puppet of the empire like Juan Guido? Jesus
titty-fucking Christ. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Look! Russians!
"[Risen and his ilk] are engaged in a calculated rear-guard campaign to prevent the public
from moving on to the next level of implications. Since the MSM and deep state PTB were so
clearly willing and able to fabricate 'collusion', what other articles of faith are
fabrications? WMDs of course.
But then there are the others: ISIS and Al Qaeda were our enemies? The news media tells
the truth? Syrian government gas attacks? Iran is a menace? Russian "invasion" of Ukraine?
[Anita Hill and Christine Blasey were 'abused' by being asked questions?]
Assertions that Qadafi and now Maduro were/are bad guys?
America is a free country? Mass immigration is AOK? The rich create wealth?
The 9/11 attacks were the work of a handful of Arab guys? Israel is our true friend and
wants peace?
The whole edifice is undermined and Congressional and media reciters [and deep state
shills posting here like Alberto, Lela, Felix95, and Mike5000] have the job of diverting the
public from thinking the unthinkable."
1 week ago
"Too little too late."
Not for all of us. A significant number of progressives who ardently rejected the
evidence-free hysteria retain credibility to press for all of those things.
1 week ago
"If you or Glenn cared about any of those things, you'd be writing incessantly about them,
but you don't."
Even if that were true, it would not alter that we were right about this Russiagate moral
panic, and many of you were recklessly wrong
"It's not a non sequitur to say so."
It is. (As is your peculiar fixation on Pierre Omidyar.) See above.
1 week ago
that's a reply to Mona above...
1 week ago
" let's look at gun control, climate change, immigration, infrastructure, medical needs,
college debt, abortion rights, justice for people of color, gerrymandering, voting
rights"
What progressives and Democrats should have been doing the last three years, not promoting
and agitating for a baseless -- and recklessly dangerous -- moral panic. Direction for how to
proceed should come from those who had the wisdom and reason to reject the evidence-free
mania.
1 week ago
Instead of telling others what they should be doing, why don't you do it yourself?
Too exhausted trying to control what you can't?
1 week ago
" why don't you do it yourself?"
I do. Part of that effort is making clear to one and all that many progressives never
promoted a baseless moral panic that made Democrats and the media look like Alex Jones. Some
of us can be trusted to be evidence-based.
1 week ago
And you dont think that was part of the purpose?
You think the DNC cares about any of those important things? Keeping the focus off the
democrats was the most important objective of Russiagate.That and starting another cold war
which makes them even more dangerous than Trump.
1 week ago
you won't find it on the 2020 Democratic Party platform either ... which is still stuck on
2016:
Hopefully, this the coda of the Russiagate saga. From my perspective it revealed more
about America's Deep State than it did about Russia's alleged malign intent.
The Deep State has entered into mainstream American politics. We know it is there and that
it is a potent threat to American self rule, far more dangerous than Russia or any of the
external challenges.
Many things remain unanswered. For example, in an interconnected, internet world, where
does big tech fit in? Are Google, Facebook et al American companies? Do they enforce American
policy? Is it just America or do they whore for anybody with money? Does it mean that people
in China and Russia are not allowed to use these platforms even though it is freely available
on the net? One thing remains the same. The Establishment likes a rigged game.
It's nasty mess and over all looms the specter of the Deep State.
1 week ago
Absolutely. Also, all this banter about Russia influence and Trump, will not change the
*fact* that Mueller did not recommend to indict Trump on the 'collusion/conspiracy' issue,
nor the 'obstruction' issue. It's fact. Fact. Meaning it can't go backwards. Meaning all the
howling and screaming is not going to change anything from that report. Mueller would have
nailed Trump to the proverbial wall if he could, but didn't, because he Just.Didn' t.Have.It .
Secondly, we have a much more serious issue. We have the Deep State who has infiltrated
our political system, to the point that they attempted a coup. Like they do in totalitarian
countries. Right here in the good ole USA.
While voters naively went to vote in 2016, the intelligence agencies coupled with the
strong arm of HRC and the DNC conspired to upend the election because they wanted their
favorite to win. And they were so sure she was going to win, that they all jumped on
it...gleefully.
They committed sedition. They all need to go to jail.
They did far more damage to this country and our laws, our Constitution, and our belief in
an honest voting system than all the Russian bots around. Add in a conspiring media, who
spewed lies and half truths and glaring omissions of facts to the American people..
What more do you folks need? This isn't about Trump. It's about the rule of law. If they
get away with this travesty, you can kiss our elections goodbye. Totalitarianism here we
come.
1 week ago (Edited)
"You can kiss our elections goodbye"
I did that back in 2004 when our voting system turned into a Black Box with
moronic/ignorant government officials overseeing a cabal of opportunistic, conflict of
interest ridden, behind-closed-doors contractors, running a back door littered, populace
duping sham.
1 week ago
How about December 12, 2000, when the Supreme Court lawlessly intervened to hand the
presidency to Bush and the entire political establishment submitted with barely a peep? That
was a judicial coup, and we cannot escape the consequences.
1 week ago
Yes. That, too.
But now we have stinging evidence that the coup was attempted and they used false
information to obtain FISAs to unmask people in their scheme to get Trump to take him
down.
I don't like Trump. But I will stick up for any President who is duly elected by the
people. For the people, by the people, of the people. Anyone who tries to take away our
rights because THEY feel they are arbiters of who becomes President, needs to have their
proverbial heads on a platter. Put orange suits on all of them, and let them ponder about
their stupidity and arrogance behind bars.
And that goes also for Missy Hillary, the ringleader.
1 week ago
Understatement of the year - hell, the millennia:
The Deep State has entered into mainstream American politics. We know it is there and that
it is a potent threat to American self rule, far more dangerous than Russia or any of the
external challenges.
The U.S. Deep State most likely did that in November, 1963, and has been
ensconced in power ever since.
1 week ago
They dont even hide it anymore.Heck they are out front cheer leading this ruse...How do
criminals like Brennan and Clapper and Haden get jobs at MSNBC and CNN?
They belong in prison.
1 week ago
The classic rumor I remember was the Russians employing a killer whale with a bear trap
attached as an anti-personnel device esp. against SEAL types.
1 week ago
We need to address the Clientelist War Wing of the Dem Party that has formed an ugly
alliance with our intelligence apparatus, before we can even start confronting Trump.Repeat
after me, "The Russiagate Spin has actually worked in Trump's favor"..
Chomsky: "By Focusing On Russia, Democrats Handed Trump A "Huge Gift" And Possibly The
2020 Election"
Did Trump lie the world into wars?
That madman wanted to work with Russia and not start WW3.....
That madman wanted to pull out of Syria and Afghanistan and make peace with N korea
That madman hasnt started any new wars and wouldn't be in Venezuela if not for Russia
gate.
Trump is lot of unsavory thing but the real madmen are the people who pushed this
Russiagte ruse and another Cold War with Russia based on lies and there is this....
The Mueller Report Indicts the Trump-Russia Conspiracy Theory The real Russiagate scandal
is the damage it has done to our democratic system and media. By Aaron Maté
Since, as Woody Allen once famously observed 90% of life is just showing up, I might
recommend you'd have a better sense of accomplishment if you didn't waste all your time on an
internet comment board. Then maybe you could earn some kind of descriptive label beyond TDS
victim.
1 week ago
THIS:
This dead end conspiracy theory is the only weapon Trump will have in 2020 and he will use
it mercilessly. Provided him by clowns like you.
Russiagters have handed Donald Trump a pretty package going into the 2020
election. Now he can accurately say the establishment media and Democrats traffic in
conspiracies and delusional lies. That he is also a deluded lying freak won't destroy the
value of the gift -- delivered with a big lovely bow called the Mueller Report.
1 week ago (Edited)
Even if every accusation, every hyped news story, every rumour of the Russian
"interference" in the US election, an "interference" that we are bizarrely told did not
influence the outcome of the election, were true, it would amount to an existential madness
by a species whose "sell by" date has long passed on this planet.
Prove that Russian "interference," as opposed to Israeli or Saudi or every other
interference, influenced the results of an election where lobbies and billionaires hold sway,
where political party corruption determines the candidate, where the loser refuses to concede
the results, where local corruption and disenfranchisement determine state results, where
corporations are considered human beings and where Americans cannot vote directly for
President in an undemocratic system and you will have grounds to fulfill the wish of
blindered journalists like James Risen whose unwitting obsession is to extinguish human life
on Earth, a consequence that, truth be told, is only conditionally negative.
1 week ago
More embarrassing, paranoid nonsense from Intercept's house Russiagater, James Risen. I
usually skim the works of Risen, just to make sure he's still as lunatic as ever. This is the
line that sums up the entire laughably dangerous farrago of Risen-think above:
"Manafort and Butina may have been on two sides of a complex new kind of spy game that few
outsiders understand."
Boy, you got that right, James. C'mon, Mr. Insider, explain it to us Outsiders again.
1 week ago
The first casualty of Russia's sprawling spy game seems to have been the mental health of
large swathes of America's 4th Estate.
Just because Sergei Millain is Johnny Foreigner (or Ivan Foreigner if you prefer), it
doesn't follow he is in Putin's pocket.
Sergei Millain offered money to George Papadopolous for the sole reason of justifying the
FBI's FISA warrant. Because Papadopolous refused Millain's offer they had to claim they
believed he was an agent of Israel.
1 week ago
Stephen F. Cohen: Mueller Probe Hysteria Endangers National Security By Preventing Trump
From Talking With Russia
And the Rachel Maddow prize for investigative conspiracy theorising goes to...
1 week ago
The point of these articles is not to make Liberals hate Trump, it is to make liberals
hate Russia. Why is that? Why did Obama and his admin, including Neocons Susan Powers, Susan
Rice, Victoria Nuland and Billary Clinton want to create a new cold war. Of all the nations
to be worried about influencing our elections, Russia is way down on the list.
Just embarrassing. Come out and say it. You are a voice for the lobbies and special
interests
1 week ago
When can we expect Mr. Risen's series of articles about Israel's documented and
undocumented interference in our elections, ongoing spy campaign and/or (much) worse?
We await with bated breath.
1 week ago
LOL. James Risen article with "Russia" in headline. Stopped reading went straight to
comments.
1 week ago
Same. Risen is a one-dimensional hack.
1 week ago
"Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
The above statement completely negates any impact from Risen's article, as the entire
wretched thing is innuendo.
1 week ago
Maddow shows how Russiagate borders on clinically significance delusion:
Glenn Greenwald Verified account @ggreenwald
Maddow is claiming the Republic is existentially threatened because YouTube recommended
a show hosted by Chris Hedges, a Pulitzer-winning ex-NYT reporter, talking to @aaronjmate,
Izzy Award winner, all because it's hosted on RT. Both have more journalistic achievements
then she. https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1122552675445420032
1 week ago (Edited)
Jesus Christ.....rather than let the Bush era neocon/rightwing nonsense peter out or
self-destruct, the so-called liberal corporate MIC/Wall Street-captured MSM and establishment
insiders have decided to fully discredit themselves too by doubling down on the Fox News
model. I doubt they or their followers really grasp the magnitude of the implications. And
they've been silent on the gubmint's big data approach to warehousing all of our
communications in any format which they've been illegally intercepting for at least two
decades. The Intercept is now silent on this, perhaps in part because of Omidyar's
conflicting financial interests.
Sadly, or perhaps mercifully, we will be put out of our collective misery by the AI
killer-bot army that will begin to exert its control within the next 10 years.
1 week ago
Watch Aaron Maté Destroy Russiagate Propagandist and "Collusion" Author Luke
Harding
What Risen is really proposing is that Obama ignored all this even while spying on
everyone
Thats called logic
1 week ago
Yes and No.
Risen, like a lot people I believe, is simply unable to accept the hard, cold reality that
his neighbors, friends, countrymen ~ Americans ~ actually, truly voted for the creature from
the black lagoon. It's too painful. The mind reels.
*therefore, in Risen's mind, Putin did it.
1 week ago
"The mind reels. *therefore, in Risen's mind, Putin did it."
This is true for a great many. I had my own rather severe emotional crisis in the weeks
after the 2016 election -- and a close friend who is a therapist reported that this was
virtually all that most of her clients wanted to discuss.
Fear and shock do odd things to the mind. None of us is immune, some just got particularly
afflicted and along came Russiagate into which to direct their distorted and distressed
minds.
1 week ago
If regurgitating the same theme over and over again is the game for Mr. Risen, well, we
can all play at that game, can't we? Here, however, is a fact-based narrative that nobody on
any side of Russiagate seems to want to discuss, not the RT-sector, not the
billionaire-foundation neoliberal sector (Intercept fits in here), the corporate
shareholder-military-industrial sectors (MSNBC, Fox, etc.). It's really very strange.
One of the more fundamental flaws in the Russiagate story that's important to understand
is that Trump really hasnʼt changed direction on the core US policy towards Russia - the
evidence for that is Trumpʼs assault on the Nordstream 2 pipeline deal that would bring
Russian gas to Germany via an undersea pipeline across the Baltic, bypassing Ukraine (which
is basically now a US client state, since the 2014 coup). That's been US policy on Russia
since about 2003, unchanged under Bush, Obama, and Trump - it's about who gets to sell gas to
Europe and oil to the world, basically, and where the money from those sales is parked.
What the likes of Risen will not go into is how the US and Wall Street had a positive view
of Putin up till about 2003. Steve Collʼs Private Empire: ExxonMobil and American Power
outlines the break point in US-Russian relations, when ExxonMobil tried to acquire a majority
interest in Russian oil in 2003, and Putin rejected the offer and arrested Mikhail
Khodorkovsky on tax evasion charges; thatʼs officially when Russia became the bad guy,
as he was clearly not going to become a Saudi-like partner in the global petrodollar
recycling scheme.
This opened the door to the pipeline wars over who was going to deliver oil and gas to
European markets; this was a central story in Georgia, Ukraine, Syria, and continues to this
day with the US trying to sell LNG shipments to Europe while Russia tries to build Nordstream
2 to Germany, bringing us up to today. Clearly, US fossil fuel corporations want to ship LNG
to Europe, and Nordstream 2 is competition, and Trump, like Obama is a tool of US corporate
interests who really want that market:
However, there is a confounding factor - and also, one of the main reasons to distrust the
corporate media narrative on this story - i.e. the refusal to bring ExxonMobil into the
picture. ExxonMobil has lost several billion dollars over the Russia sanctions (over oil
deals more than gas), and as a private company, really wants a piece of the Russian oil
production:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/19/business/energy-environment/exxon-mobil-russia-sanctions-waiveroil.html
The PR monkeys in the corporate media (including Risen & Co.) and the "humanitarians"
in the State Department wonʼt touch this story, because it reveals too much about
whatʼs really going on - i.e. that this kind of oil/gas policy by Trump is largely what
Clinton would have done (i.e. opposed Nordstream), and that the whole Russiagate story is
merely political theater run on behalf of war profiteers and the diehard Hilllary Clinton
camp in the Democratic Party. Everything else - Manfort in the Ukraine, Trump Tower in
Moscow, etc. - is just business as usual in the American Empire, as seen in the Clinton
Foundation, Viktor Pinchuk, Uranium One, Frank Giustra, come on...
Leaving nothing but this hysterical spy game nonsense ... utter garbage, just like the
KGB-CIA private meeting rules story that Risen hyped recently - pure neocon propaganda
"President Reagan and Mikhail S. Gorbachev held three more private meetings today and
agreed to conclude their conference here with a joint appearance on Thursday morning, Larry
Speakes, the White House spokesman, announced tonight. . . Mr. Reagan and Mr. Gorbachev
began their second day of talks with a private meeting that had been scheduled to last 15
minutes but ran for nearly 70 minutes, with only interpreters present. They met in a small
room in the Soviet Mission, with the Soviet leader seated in a small armchair and Mr.
Reagan on a sofa. In the afternoon, they meet alone for a little over 20 minutes and then
again for 90 minutes. All told, the two leaders have spent 4 hours and 51 minutes alone,
except for interpreters, over the two days here."
These kind of private meetings at diplomatic events are entirely not unusual. In
fact anything that gets world leaders to talk to one another is a good idea, that can lead
to, for example, talks on nuclear weapons reductions.
Risen, turned into a PR monkey for the National Security State... that's just sad. Why
don't you parachute him into Yemen so he can see up close the results of what he's
cheerleading for?
1 week ago
Not a single American voter was influenced by Russian bots. No American voter was
strong-armed in the voting booth when they voted for Trump. Hillary lost after she ignored
great swathes of ordinary working class folks and called them 'irredeemable deplorables'....
because they voted for Trump.
She didn't even have the insight to understand that they voted for him over her because
she had a smug, condescending 'tude and it rankled.
The Democrats will have to unseat Trump under a strong economy. The average American
working class stiff is not spending sleepless nights worried about climate change. They are
worried about how they will pay their bills.
All the other issues are secondary to this. Democrats will have to get up at home base and
bat it out of the ballpark. Or they will lose again. Mocking religious people, particularly
Christians, is not a good idea, unless you think denigrating voters are going to make them
want to vote for you. The contempt for these white, Christian, Catholic, Jewish voters is
wide and long within the Democrat party.
Not wise.
1 week ago
The Democrats will have to unseat Trump under a strong economy. The average American
working class stiff is not spending sleepless nights worried about climate change. They are
worried about how they will pay their bills.
Partly true, but the economy is not actually very strong. The corporate media
won't tell you this - and that is proof that they're not "liberal" in any meaningful fashion,
but the indicators are being skewed and lied about.
But keep believing your "black unemployment" at a record low propaganda as such. At least
you might be retired and the inevitable crash that is coming after Trump's re-election won't
hurt you much. In any case, if it does you can bet that Trump will attack Iran, as he is a
complete stooge to Israel and Saudi Arabia at this point - just like his swamp neocon
cabinet.
1 week ago
I think Trump is pragmatic...financially. He ran on "no more wars' that leave our economy
in shreds and killing millions of innocents and thousands of our soldiers. He was explicit
about this, so if he turn now to attacking Iran, he will have lost his head completely.
Everyone knows a war in the ME will ignite another Holocaust, Armageddon if you will. It
will be certainly, WWIII.
No, I have no idea, nor anyone else, if the economy improve or plummets, but I still
believe it is the bread and butter issues that cause the American voter to push that lever.
And they one they trust most; that they feel understand them best.
1 week ago
Borrowing one from Tom Drake though he agrees with your conclusions more than I do,
Jim.
I'm old enough to remember when Jim Risen wrote about the sprawling American spy
game.
1 week ago
Fer chrissake, Jim, give it up! You are becoming like the Japanese soldier who didn't know
World War 2 ended 20 years earlier and his side LOST!
1 week ago
Butina was "not a spy in the traditional sense," the Justice Department now says.
This is true .. . traditional spies rarely "infiltrate the NRA (National Rifle
Association)" and various associated "right wing groups".
*what could the NRA possibly have of value?
1 week ago
She wanted to sell guns and make money.....You do know the USA is the biggest arms dealer
on the planet right ?......bar none?
1 week ago
Maybe I misunderstood? Did I miss the irony? I thought he was saying that Butina was a
Russian spy? And her association with the NRA was a link to that? Putin is vociferously
against gun rights and she was under constant surveillance from Putin.
1 week ago
Heres another unanswered question....
Why did the FBI allow a private company with proved Bias against Russia and worked for the
DNC to investigate the servers?......Wasnt this a crime scene and then hacking was blamed on
Russia based on this bogus and biased investigation?
"Both the DNC and the security firm Crowdstrike, hired to respond to the breach, have said
repeatedly over the years that they gave the FBI a "COPY"of all the DNC images back in 2016."
"The FBI was given" IMAGES" of servers, forensic "COPIES", as well as a host of other
forensic information we collected from our systems," said Adrienne Watson, the DNC's deputy
communications director.
"We were in close contact and worked cooperatively with the FBI and were always responsive
to their requests. Any suggestion that they were denied access to what they wanted for their
investigation is completely incorrect." The FBI declined comment for this story, but in
testimony before the House Intelligence Committee last year, then-director James Comey said
that Crowdstrike "ultimately shared with us their forensics.
"At that same hearing, Comey complained that the DNC didn't give the FBI direct access to
the DNC's servers" Comey: DNC denied FBI's requests for access to hacked servers
By Joe Lauria The two sources that originated the allegations claiming that Russia meddled
in the 2016 election -- without providing convincing evidence -- were both paid for by the
Democratic National Committee, and in one instance also by the Clinton campaign: the Steele
dossier and the CrowdStrike analysis of the DNC servers.
They always forget the disclaimer: "No animals were harmed in the writing of this story,
only humans."
1 week ago
You know what they are still pushing this right?.......to get Assange and criminalize real
journalism.
They have already tried to tie Assange to Stone....who is a liar and fraud
And they need this ruse to tie Assange to Russia and Trumps election....its about
criminalizing journalism and overturning a USA election.
1 week ago (Edited)
"Manafort and Butina may have been on two sides of a complex new kind of spy game that few
outsiders understand." - Risen
If that's so, why aren't you busting the chops of Mueller and our "intelligence"
agencies for not doing their job? Hell, the Mueller report cost more than the Russians
allegedly spent to influene both our election and Trump.
Also, specifically regarding Butina, who was actually quite overt in her activities during
the years preceding this imbroglio, the only "conspiracy" seems to be the "conspiracy" to act
as an agent for a foreign government (which is not being a "spy") and which has never
garnered this type of charge or sentencing based on the evidence that existed or what was
actually presented at trial.
It's this ongoing Russiagate hysteria that The Intercept, via Risen, Reed, Schwarz, et al
keep promoting for all the wrong reasons that gives us a world where journalists and
publishers like Assange are facing jail time in a foreign country; where Chelsea Manning is
in jail right now for refusing to cooperate with charades like this; and where harmless
foreigners like Butina are tortured in solitary confinement, then sentenced to prison by
misusing the law in order to punish them.
How in the world can the article here even approach the Intercepts own standards
of: "holding the powerful accountable...[with] in-depth investigations and unflinching
analysis..." when it starts with an unverified premise that hasn't been corroborated
independently and ends with the exact same theme?
"[Russiagate is] a complex new kind of spy game that few outsiders understand." - Risen
& The Intercept editors
Again - this type of "journalism" is what prevents me and many others from donating to
The Intercept. We simply won't pay for elaborate and unqualified hearsay.
1 week ago
Real journalism... The Spy who Wasnt
The U.S. government went looking for someone to blame for Russia's interference in the
2016 election -- and found Maria Butina, the perfect scapegoat. By James Bamford
But internally, some employees say Greenwald's presence undermines the site's work.
"People assume Glenn's tweets reflect some sort of internal consensus, but the truth is I
don't think there's a single other person here who agreed with him on Trump/Russia," says
one Intercept staffer. "I'd hope people don't view us as less legitimate just because of
one guy."
No they view TI as less legit because of James Risen, Mehdi Hasan, Juan
Thompson, Betsy Reed, and Beto Mackey.
Exactly...
1 week ago
The last sentence mentioning Manafort and Butina is unsettling.
Already Manafort, an acknowledged operative for hire, got the shaft.
Risen bringing in Butina, who already spent a good time in solitary confinement smells really
bad.
She got no justice.
She is the new symbol of mind-boggling Russophobia.
1 week ago
"Risen bringing in Butina, who already spent a good time in solitary confinement smells
really bad. She got no justice."
It really is a travesty of justice. James Bamford published this in The New Republic:
"The Russian Spy Who Wasn't: The U.S. government went looking for someone to blame for
Russia's interference in the 2016 election -- and found Maria Butina, the perfect
scapegoat."https://newrepublic.com/article/153036/maria-butina-profile-wasnt-russian-spy
Prosecutors were hoping to get her to plead guilty rather than go to trial, and had even
agreed to drop the major charge against her: acting as an unregistered foreign agent of
Russia. Born and raised in Siberia, she is terrified of solitary confinement. Fifteen days
later, still in solitary, she signed the agreement, pleading guilty to the lesser charge,
one count of conspiracy. During our interviews before her arrest, Butina told me
that she was "a huge fan" of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. "I love the story," she
said. "For some reason it fascinates me. It seems to be simple, but it's so complicated a
story." Stepping off the plane to begin grad school at the start of the Trump-Russia
maelstrom, she, like Alice, began her tumble down the rabbit hole.
1 week ago
It is mind boggling. I would expect a man of Risen' s experience to have the nous to start
rowing back now. Instead he's doubling down, getting wilder, allowing the very last vestiges
of his credibility to circle the drain. Very sad to witness.
1 week ago
Maybe he is crying for help....his hysteria and hyperbole are almost comical.
the deep state seems to have gotten him and good
1 week ago
It's reminiscent of what Risen did to Mr Wen Ho Lee who also served time in solitary and
did so because Risen had singled him out to be the spy of the century.
Ultimately Risen's former employer, The New York Times, apologized for their coverage of
Lee but that may have had something to do with Lee's lawsuit against the Times and other
major outlets in which he ultimately won.
But having a 1.3 million in legal fees, loss of his job, 9 months in solitary, reputation
obliterated does make the 1.6 million award seem merely symbolic. Risen's career continued
and now he's doing the same thing to others here. In this country, scoundrels are rewarded
while their victims suffer more under the system.
Butina's treatment under our "justice" system is even worse than Lee's and being a non
citizen, she may have fewer recourse available to her to address this injustice.
1 week ago
Democrats didnt protest when Obama tortured Manning to try to get her to lie about
Assange....this is the new normal
Washington Has Destroyed Western Liberty: The Era of Tyranny Has Begun
"The entire Western world is adopting Washington's approach to Assange and criminalizing
the practice of journalism, thus protecting governments' criminality. If you reveal a
government crime, as Wikileaks did, you will be prosecuted by the criminal government for
doing so. It is like permitting a criminal to prosecute the police and prosecutor who want
him arrested."
The "war on terror" was a disguise for an attack on the US Constitution, an attack that
has succeeded. The worst act of treason in history is the US government's destruction of the
US Constitution. The era of tyranny has begun. Elections cannot stop it. "
Risen is desperately trying to revive his career by reanimating this Russia zombie.
His sprawling narrative has gone from "Trump committed treason" to "Trump conspired" to
"Trump and co made illicit contacts". At each step, what has motivated the change in
narrative is cold hard reality.
He's a grifter. We can all see this.
1 week ago
Risen is right that there are plenty of unanswered questions. Just not the ones he is
asking
Special Counsel Mueller: Disingenuous and Dishonest Larry C. Johnson "The impetus, the
encouragement for the Moscow project came from one man -- Felix Sater. This produced nothing.
No deal, no trip. But Sater persisted, targeting Michael Cohen, Trump's personal lawyer and
an executive in the Trump Organization To reiterate -- if the Steele Dossier were based on
truthful intelligence then the Trump Organization only had to sit back, stretch out its hands
and seize the moment. Instead, little Felix Sater keeps coming back to the well. "Why was
Felix Sater the one repeatedly identified pushing to arrange deals with the Russians and yet
did not face any subsequent charges by the Mueller team? Sater had been working as part of
the Trump team since 2003. Why is it that the proposed deals and travel to Moscow came
predominantly from Felix Sater? As I noted in my previous piece -- The FBI Tried and Failed
to Entrap Trump -- Sater was an active FBI undercover informant. He had been working with the
FBI since 1998. When he agreed to start working as an undercover informant aka cooperator in
December 1998 guess who signed off on the deal? Andrew Weissman, a member of Mueller's
special counsel team.You can see the deal here.
It was signed Dec. 10, 1998." "An honest prosecutor would have and should have disclosed this
fact. He, Sater, was the one encouraging the Trump team to cozy up to Russia. Mueller does
not disclose one single instance of Trump or Cohen or any of the Trump kids calling Sater on
the carpet and chewing his ass for not bringing them deals and not opening doors in Russia.
Omitting this key fact goes beyond simple disingenuity. It is a conscious lie. The
circumstantial evidence indicates that Sater was doing this at the behest of FBI handlers. We
do not yet know who they are."
Larry C. Johnson is a former CIA analyst and counterterrorism official at the State
Department.
1 week ago
Stefan Halper was also an FBI 'player' who was feeding information to Papadopoulos, and
Joseph Midsuf, Alexander Downer and Christopher Steele were also working for the Brits and
American intelligence groups (although the FBI cut off paying Steele for lying to them).
Natalya Veselnitskaya was the Russian lawyer who met with the Trump people. She had meetings
with Fusion GPS both before and after her meetings with Trump's campaign, and since Fusion
GPS was also working with the Ohrs and FBI/Justice department with the Kremlin dossier, it
seems Russiagate was an elaborate entrapment scheme by the DNC/ Obama administration that
failed. Once Hillary stated that Trump was a Putin puppet, that made it official and the
wheels started turning.
Moreover as Risen notes Manafort and Kelly went to jail for lying under oath. Mueller lied
under oath about WMD in Iraq, and Clapper and Brennan also lied under oath about illegally
surveilling Americans. Hopefully they'll also be in jail soon.
1 week ago
Dont hold your breath.....Criminals are now in complete control.No matter how much "evidence" is provided there is no
consequence for them.
ask Bush and Cheney who lied the world into war.....and worse.....
Clapper and Brennan and Haden and Haskel were all promoted FOR LYING....{As was
Mueller.}.. and even given jobs on MSNBC and CNN........!!
Apparently the more heinous the crime the higher you get in the USA government.Isnt that
the only lesson here?And democrats are the cheerleader for the Bush criminals?
I afraid the only people who will see the inside of a jail cell are the ones who go
against them....and they are being purged from the internet left and right!!
1 week ago
The real sprawling Russian spy games were on the democrats side.
The bogus Steele Dossier was compiled from top Russian government officials and used to
illegally spy on the Trump campaign.
Halper a FBI Informant in the U.K. pushed Trump advisors to seek out dirt on Hillary as
did FBI Informant Felix Sater
The Russian lawyer who met with Trump jr worked for Fusion GPS and had nothing.
The FBI never saw the servers but used the company that worked for the DNC and has proved
anti Russia bias to do the "investigation "
Wasnt this a crime scene?
Now all the "evidence " of Russian "hacking " is tainted and can't be used in any trials
or court.
Both Assange and Ambassador Craig Murray say that it was a leak and not a hack and neither
of them have ever been interviewed by the FBI even though they both offered to.
Worse than Watergate and it went to the very Top!
FBI texts: Obama 'wants to know everything we're doing'
Thats the only spy games and Russian collusion that can be proved.
1 week ago
So, Mike5000, why do you think millions of Democratic-leaning and Democratic voters
didn't turn out to vote for Hillary Clinton? Was it all the "Buff Bernie" coloring books St.
Petersberg trolls were pitching on FB?
1 week ago
Mueller is a bush criminal who hates Trump
FBI texts: Obama 'wants to know everything we're doing'
A rather significant "unanswered question" that predates Trump slightly is why Obama
didn't initiate both investigation and counter measures to attempts he claimed had been going
on for years .... (because the internet is porous and hackers will hack, regardless of
"motive" (like the bear and the mountain**) or even reward.
** The bear went over the mountain to see what he could see.
1 week ago
Risen omitting the fact that Manafort was working with the Podesta Group seems quite the
oversight.
Obama and Biden were well aware of Manaforts efforts in the Ukraine. Manafort was working
against Russian interests. Remember that the USA backed a coup in the Ukraine with Nazis with
PNAC Victoria " F the EU" Nuland support. Manafort's pro-Ukraine lobbying campaign reached
Obama, Biden
"Alan Friedman, a former journalist based in Europe who helped Manafort launch the group,
told Manafort after the meeting that the member of the Hapsburg Group "delivered the message
of not letting 'Russians steal Ukraine from the West,'" prosecutors say."
What the USA did in the Ukraine was the real crime.
1 week ago
yes, Trump in a crook, a conman, a liar and a racist and is oddly "collateral damage", a
bit part, in this passion play that began when Putin took office and eventually took the
reins to the Russian economy back from the wanna-be American rulers of the universe. I
saw/heard a day or so ago a brilliant Max Blumental 3 minute oral summary of this ongoing
vendetta against Putin for thwarting American interests in gutting Russia.
There probably is a real scandal here ... just not the one the media is interested in
...
1 week ago
Exactly!!
Putin dares to fight back against the looting and starvation of the Russian people.
Start here
The usual suspects
Can We Blame Larry Summers for the Collapse of Russia?
Man, this Risen guy sure has a serious case of TDS.
GIVE IT UP, RISEN; THERE'S NO GOOD REASON TO TREAT RUSSIA AS AN ENEMY, and LOTS of good
reasons NOT to!
It's called THERMONUCLEAR WAR, silly.
Don't beat the drum of war with them, you just might get it!
1 week ago
Trump couldn't even get the tower project through and never talked to anyone above a
secretary and asked Stone to connect with Wikileaks
If he was at all colluding with Putin he wouldn't have needed Wikileaks
All Logic has disappeared from these people.
1 week ago
Russian ruling class oligarchs colluding with American ruling class oligarchs? Oh so
unbelievable! Ties and lies --- shocking, just shocking. I'm sure we will have the
oligarchy-owned mainstream media to black this rumor out and telling us it just ain't so.
1 week ago
Much of this is being pushed by the olygarchs Putin kicked out!
They went to the UK and USA and are working to depose Putin.
1 week ago
The problem with your thinking is that the American oligarchs hate Trump, and loved
Hillary, while the Russian oligarchs hate the American oligarchs because the American
oligarchs want to crush them.
And the best way for AMERICAN oligarchs to keep the American public from voting in an
antiTrump (not a pseudoliberal of the Clinton and Obama type, but an ACTUAL liberal of the
MLK type, whose antioligarch stances have been almost edited away) is to divert attention
away from the flaws in the American system he lays bare (the cheating, thieving, and racism
endemic amongst the oligarchs) is to create a 'hidden enemy of the people' (The same tactic
that a certain short Austrian used in Germany)
1 week ago
Like the one Israeli govt has been doing, especially as uncovered in the Al Jazeera
documentary?
In the end, Mueller's investigators could not find evidence that Manafort coordinated his
actions with the sophisticated Russian cybercampaign to help Trump win. But the report
makes clear that there were many instances in which Mueller wasn't able to get to the
bottom of things and often couldn't determine the whole story behind the Trump-Russia
contacts.
For whatever reason, the pro-Trump narrative leaves out the fact that Mueller
was repeatedly stonewalled or lied to by members of the Trump team.
I think they leave out this crucial bit of information because they think it's fine for
their side to lie, dissemble and stonewall investigations, but not for the
other side. It's hypocritical and a double standard, but it's worse than that because it
makes clear that lying, stonewalling and all the rest is OK and getting away with it is
admirable -- depending of course on who gets away with it. If it's Trump,
whoo-hoo! If it's Hillary or Obama, booooooooo! These are examples of pure
partisanship but the process extends well beyond political calculations.
Risen, of all people, should be all too familiar with the process, as he was very deeply
involved as a reporter and conduit of misinformation and scapegoating in the Wen Ho Lee
debacle. A reporter is in a tough position when s/he is lied to and stonewalled, but as I
often say, "skepticism is a virtue," regardless of who is doing the lying and
stonewalling.
Instead of normalizing this behavior, we should be refusing to accept the lack of
accountability by our leaders, whoever they are, and we should reject a double standard that
encourages impunity and immunity depending on one's status.
1 week ago
"Manafort coordinated his actions with the sophisticated Russian cybercampaign to
help Trump win."
Yes, we know your pro-Trump narrative is one of denial about what was going on during the
2016 campaign and what is documented in the Mueller Report -- which itself is incomplete.
Yes, it's objectively "pro-Trump" to have panic attacks about Facebook ads advising that
Jesus will help masturbating young lads "beat it together." pfffft
Oh, I'm sure Kellyanne is deeply concerned about the dread scourge of masturbating
American youth. Just so long as she doesn't also support the dire Russian threats Risen
alludes to, the ones that seek to exploit those poor suffering, self-abusing children of god.
Lured to the Kremlin's lair by Yosemite Sam!
1 week ago
If you ever bother to read the report -- or even if you have more than superficial
memories of what was going on during the 2016 election campaign -- you'll find out that your
continued denials are simply stupid. You really should be skeptical of the White House's
spin, Greenwald's triumphalism, Maté's authority, and yes, Mueller's incomplete
report.
Laugh while you can. Blowback is a bitch.
1 week ago
A wee-tad over the top, Felix
phase two of the Kubler Ross "Five Stages of Grief".
Sadly, there is no one in the Cult of Mueller who can help you.
You need to understand that many good progressives contend that Russiagate actually served
Trump; so, please chill it.
1 week ago
Whut? You're really out of your depth.
Reread:
You really should be skeptical of the White House's spin, Greenwald's triumphalism,
Maté's authority, and yes, Mueller's incomplete report.
Then tell me again about the Cult of Mueller.
Mona, Glenn, Barr, Trump and many others like to mischaracterize what's in the Mueller
Report in order to keep their "exoneration" narrative going. They would be delighted if Trump
were kept in the White House after the 2020 election. If they can celebrate his
invincibility, so much the better.
Whether or not the myriad investigations into Trump's corruption and criminality are
helping him is beside the point.
If he didn't have the kind of help he needs from the right people who matter, whether
media, politicians, billionaires or the smartest people in the room, he wouldn't be in
office. So long as those people are happy enough with Trump, he stays, no matter what the
Dems do or don't do.
"Progressives" have no say in the matter.
Well, maybe except for that "progressive" named "Pierre."
Have a nice day.
1 week ago
Now see, Felix, this is no the product of a temperate mind with a capacity for sound
reasoning:
Mona, Glenn, Barr, Trump and many others like to mischaracterize what's in the Mueller
Report in order to keep their "exoneration" narrative going. They would be delighted if
Trump were kept in the White House after the 2020 election.
I've read the Mueller Report -- parts of it multiple times. Nothing therein salvages the
Russian trolls as anything but the silly, financially motivated goofballs my quotes of
their adolescent output show them to be. That you take their childish junk with the
utmost seriousness suggests disturbing things about your emotional health.
1 week ago
Guess what? I don't believe you have read the report. I think you're lying again. If you
think the only thing Mueller describes Russian interests doing is buying a few ads on
Facebook (just as Jared was saying the other day) you couldn't have read it, nor could you
have any memory at all what was taking place during the 2016 campaign.
Losing one's mind to perpetuate a false narrative is a terrible thing. Watching your
deterioration as Mueller's report makes mincemeat of your pathetic revisionism and Glenn's
triumphalism is sad.
1 week ago
This is...like arguing evolution with a creationist fundamentalist:
"Watching your deterioration as Mueller's report makes mincemeat of your pathetic
revisionism and Glenn's triumphalism is sad."
"Mueller describes Russian interests doing is buying a few ads on Facebook"
Like what, and please be specific about the three most serious.
1 week ago
What happened during the campaign was Hillary Clinton picked Trump and cheated Sanders and
conspired with the FBI and DOJ to blackmail and illegally spy on the Trump campaign and put
moles in his campaign and with the help of Fusion GPS and FBI informants Halper I'm the UK
and Felix Sater pushed meetings with Russians.
Not a mention of Fusion GPS and the bogus Steele Dossier that the FBI used to lie to the
FISA court and illegally spy on Trump campaign.
Thats quite the omission.
We need to get Steele and Halper and Fusion GPS CEO under oath to testify.
1 week ago
None of the " lies" had anything to do with Russia collusion.Most of the "Lies" didn't
even have an underlying crime.
Gen Flynn didn't lie but they did bankrupt him and blackmail him and destroy his life.And
got him to plea guilty to make it stop.
Comey Told Congress FBI Agents Didn't Think Flynn Lied
In the end, Mueller's investigators could not find evidence that Manafort coordinated his
actions with the sophisticated Russian cybercampaign to help Trump win.
Narrator: "Risen never mentioned in his piece that Manafort was found in
the investigation to have been working with the Ukrainian government, trying to get them to
move away from Russia, and embrace the West in economic policies. That the reality of what
Manafort was doing undercut the core Russiagate allegation that Manafort was working as a
go-between for Russia and Trump didn't seem to perturb Risen one bit."
The report doesn't offer any other explanation for the release of the Podesta emails on
what turned out to be one of the most important days of the 2016 campaign.
Narrator: "Risen seems to argue that, in the absence of any evidence that
his conspiracy theory is true, the absence of any counter-explanation is nonetheless evidence
in favor of his conspiracy theory."
1 week ago
"In the end, Mueller's investigators could not find evidence [of] the sophisticated Russian
cybercampaign to help Trump win."
It's garbage journalism that allows this uncorroborated assertion to take
what has always been the first step in the downward spiral of hysteria that is Russiagate.
Everything that follows this argument is based on this claim being true. Without this
claim there would be no Russiagate.
Again, it's journalistic malpractice to allow this claim to remain unchallenged - yet Jim
Risen, Jon Schwarz, and the Intercept editorial staff just continue the ruse.
I'm not saying it didn't happen; I'm saying there's not enough independent
corroboration to allow for the amount of coverage here (of all places) and elsewhere
based on the single-source- consensus (our intelligence agencies) that this continues to
receive.
Is The Intercept is buying into the gateway drug of "Russia Attacks!" because they either
want to be "fair and balanced" or they want the traffic generated by the articles to attract
readership?
Creating content that, whatever the subject, 1) assumes an allegation to be true, 2)
posits further possible outcomes based on that assumption is not journalism, it's reading tea
leaves.
Aaron reports he's been blackballed from this site since his one piece (on Rachel Maddow
and Russigate) in 2017. (Scahill had Aaron on a podcast, but the site refused to publish
anything Aaron submitted.) Instead we get the dreck above, notwithstanding that Aaron won
an Izzy Award for his Russigate reporting.
1 week ago
Greenwald extensively addresses the dynamics with his Intercept colleagues -- and with the
world of journalism more broadly -- in this podcast with Michael Tracey from a few days ago:
"Glenn Greenwald on Mueller Report fallout and media corruption - Glennzilla shares his
insights on the horrendous conduct of the American media in relation to the spellbindingly
deluded fallout from the Mueller Report."https://www.patreon.com/posts/26365124
1. RUSSIAGATE WITHOUT RUSSIA
2. RUSSIAGATE'S PREDICATE LED NOWHERE
3. SERGEY KISLYAK HAD "BRIEF AND NON-SUBSTANTIVE" INTERACTIONS WITH THE TRUMP CAMP
4. TRUMP TOWER MOSCOW HAD NO HELP FROM MOSCOW
5. AND TRUMP DIDN'T ASK COHEN TO LIE ABOUT IT
6. THE TRUMP TOWER MEETING REALLY WAS JUST A "WASTE OF TIME"
7. MANAFORT DID NOT SHARE POLLING DATA TO MEDDLE IN THE US ELECTION
8. THE STEELE DOSSIER WAS FICTION
9. THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN HAD NO SECRET CHANNEL TO WIKILEAKS
10. THERE WAS NO COVER-UP
About Point 1, Aaron writes:
The report contains no evidence that anyone from the Trump campaign spoke to a Kremlin
representative during the election, aside from conversations with the Russian ambassador
and a press-office assistant, both of whom were ruled out as having participated in a
conspiracy (more on them later).
It should be no surprise, then, to learn from Mueller that, when "Russian government
officials and prominent Russian businessmen began trying to make inroads into the new
administration" after Trump's election victory, they did not know whom to call.
These powerful Russians, Mueller noted, "appeared not to have preexisting contacts and
struggled to connect with senior officials around the President-Elect." If top Russians
did not have "preexisting contacts and struggled to connect with" the people that they
supposedly conspired with, perhaps that is because they did not actually conspire.
There Was Spying: NYT Admits Obama Admin Used 'Honeypot' To Spy Against Trump Campaign In
2016
My response: Why would the MSM want to get out in front of what is coming by issuing this
news story? May be they are implicated as well! Below is the list of MSM career criminals who
are facing the real possibility of jail time.
=== List of MSM Career Criminals Guilty of TREASON, SEDITION and/or SUBVERSIVE
activities!! ===
These reporters and networks have been named in the WikiLeaks to have colluded with the
DNC or Hillary campaign during the 2016 election cycle:
ABC – Cecilia Vega ABC - David Muir ABC – Diane Sawyer ABC – George Stephanoplous ABC – Jon Karl ABC – Liz Kreutz AP – Julie Pace AP – Ken Thomas AP – Lisa Lerer AURN – April Ryan Bloomberg – Jennifer Epstein Bloomberg – John Heillman Bloomberg/MSNBC – Jonathan Alter Bloomberg – Mark Halperin Buzzfeed – Ben Smith Buzzfeed – Ruby Cramer CBS – Gayle King CBS – John Dickerson CBS – Norah O'Donnell CBS – Steve Chagaris CBS – Vicki Gordon CNBC – John Harwood CNN – Brianna Keilar CNN – Dan Merica CNN – David Chailan CNN – Erin Burnett CNN – Gloria Borger CNN – Jake Tapper CNN – Jeff Zeleny CNN - Jeff Zucker CNN – John Berman CNN – Kate Bouldan CNN – Maria Cardona CNN – Mark Preston CNN – Sam Feist Daily Beast – Jackie Kucinich GPG – Mike Feldman HuffPo – Amanda Terkel HuffPo – Arianna Huffington HuffPo – Sam Stein HuffPo – Whitney Snyder LAT – Evan Handler LAT – Mike Memoli McClatchy – Anita Kumar MORE – Betsy Fisher Martin MSNBC – Alex Seitz-Wald MSNBC – Alex Wagner MSNBC – Andrea Mitchell MSNBC - Beth Fouhy MSNBC – Ed Schultz MSNBC – Joe Scarborough MSNBC – Mika Brzezinski MSNBC – Phil Griffin MSNBC – Rachel Maddow MSNBC – Rachel Racusen MSNBC – Thomas Roberts National Journal – Emily Schultheis NBC – Chuck Todd NBC – Mark Murray NBC – Savannah Gutherie New Yorker – David Remnick New Yorker – Ryan Liza NPR – Mike Oreskes NPR – Tamara Keith NY Post – Geofe Earl NYT – Amy Chozik NYT – Carolyn Ryan NYT – Gail Collins NYT – John Harwoodje NYT – Jonathan Martin NYT – Maggie Haberman NYT – Pat Healey PBS – Charlie Rose People – Sandra Sobieraj Westfall Politico – Annie Karni Politico – Gabe Debenedetti Politico – Glenn Thrush Politico – Kenneth Vogel Politico – Mike Allen Reuters – Amanda Becker Tina Brown – Tina Brown The Hill – Amie Parnes Univision – Maria-Elena Salinas Vice – Alyssa Mastramonoco Vox – Jon Allen WaPo – Anne Gearan WaPo – Greg Sargent WSJ – Laura Meckler WSJ – Peter Nicholas WSJ – Colleen McCain Nelson Yahoo – Matt Bai
"... 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
It is not amazing. That's about intelligence agencies control, nothing else.
Notable quotes:
"... 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
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.
Psyops and propaganda have a cumulative effect on the thought processes of the target
populations. After 9/11 it became legal for our intelligence services to turn these insidious
weapons on our own people. The result is a metastasis of political polarization into fear and
loathing in more vulnerable minds. These Dark State practitioners are manipulating the
outcomes and expect cult-like (or occult) spasms of mass murder. The crude scapegoating, the
Orwellian menagerie of enemies, the contamination of public forums with trolls, the false
flags, and constant promotion of political hysteria, has a methodology that we have seen in
the 20th Century. I am always grateful when b reminds us of this danger.
Mediastan: A Wikileaks Road Movie: Due to the extraordinary circumstances surrounding the
arrests of Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning, Sixteen Films and Journeyman Pictures are
providing a time-limited free access to the Wikileaks road movie Mediastan. Mediastan is a
documentary film directed by Johannes Wahlström and co-produced by Julian Assange,
detailing the publication of the very documents for which both Assange and Manning have
been incarcerated.
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.
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.
@UncommonGround Many years ago The Guardian was a left leaning newspaper and reported the news in a fairly unbiased manner.
It was always quite critical of the Zionists and Israel and supported good causes but then suddenly, a few years ago, it became
very defensive of Israel and started to censor readers comments about Israeli news stories, then it stopped publishing any story
criticizing Israel.
There must have a change of ownership or some kind of right wing or Zionist takeover.
Then it started really blocking comments to news articles which didn't agree with the opinion of the Guardian editors.
Then Wikileaks published its leaks through the Guardian, and others, who used the info to sell news.
Then it quite shockingly turned around and stabbed Wikileaks and Assange in the back.
I think now it is operated as a controlled media outlet in favour of the UK security services and the Israelis, it's a real
shame as it has the potential to be an excellent news source but it's reputation is now trashed in my opinion.
"Assange was reduced from one of the few towering figures of our time – a man who will
have a central place in history books, if we as a species live long enough to write those
books "
-- The presstituting crowd of stenographers (MSM) and the zionized X-tian war profiteers
have made everything in their power (inadvertently) to ensure that Assange is and will be a
towering figure of our time.
Even in distress, Assange has been fighting for truth and dignity; the ongoing show of
lawlessness exposes the rot. The moral and creative midgets constituting the core of MSM and
the satanic deciders are upset. Good!
The idiotic Senior District "Judge" Emma Arbuthnot (a wife and beneficiary of a mega-war
profiteer Lord Arbuthnot -- Arbuthnot served as Chairman of the Defence Select Committee from
2005 to 2014) and the no less idiotic District "Judge" Michael Snow have entered the history
books as well. As scoundrels: http://members5.boardhost.com/xxxxx/msg/1555064882.html
Snow does his best to bring the Judiciary into disrepute by playing to the gallery. He
comments on the extradition in the same vein in a totally unprofessional manner. He is of
course in a long line of disreputable members of the judiciary Snow's place in history is
now secured – he chose to abuse the defendant rather than perform his role which was
really quite straightforward. He is the narcissist and guilty of self interest not Julian
Assange.
April 2, 2019 The CIA Takeover of America in the 1960s Is the Story of Our Times. The Killing of the Kennedys and Today's
New Cold War
'We're all puppets,' the suspect [Sirhan Sirhan] replied, with more truth than he could have understood at that moment."
– Lisa Pease, quoting from the LAPD questioning of Sirhan
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).
Caitlin nailed it This part
goes for all those who cheer what is happening to Assange. You all are short sighted fools. you
are cheering for your own demise. I have posted something similar in the past over at the other
place and have watched the idiots over there tie themselves into knots defending their blood
thristy anti-Assange positions. It is unconscionable.
8 -- The precedent set by imprisoning a foreign journalist under the
Espionage Act will enable the US government to arrest leak publishers anywhere in the world
who expose its crimes. This will cripple our ability to hold the most powerful institution on
the planet to account in any way. There is no excuse for any journalist anywhere not to
oppose this tooth and claw. If you see anyone calling themselves a journalist but
failing to oppose Assange's extradition, you should call them out for the frauds that they
are.
I would add to Caitlin's point above. There is no excuse for any free thinking human
being to oppose this tooth and claw. Without freedom of speech and freedom to share
information, we are no longer a free people.
People scream about protecting the second amendment, but for me without the first amendment,
there is nothing left to protect. up 11 users have voted. --
"I don't want to run the empire, I want to bring it down!" ~Dr. Cornel West
"There is no instance of a nation benefitting from prolonged warfare." Sun Tzu
Since the dawn of civilization, powerful individuals have controlled the stories people tell
themselves about who they are, who's in charge, how a good citizen behaves, what groups should
be loved, what groups should be hated, and what's really going on in the world.
When you
study what we call history, you're mostly just reading the ancient proto-propaganda of whatever
kingdom happened to win the last war during that period of time.
When you study what we
call religion, you're mostly reading stories that were advanced by ancient governments
explaining why the people should be meek, forgiving taxpayers instead of rising up and killing
their wealthy exploiters.
This continues to this day.
We fill our children's heads
with lies about how the world works, how the government works, how the media works, and, on a
deeper level,
how their
own consciousness works
, and the entire process is shaped to funnel power toward the people
who control our stories.
The modern schooling system was
largely
formed by John D Rockefeller
, widely considered
the
wealthiest person in modern history
, in order to create generations of docile gear-turners
for the industrial plutocratic machine.
Modern schooling is essentially mainstream
media in a building; it promotes authorized narratives day in and day out to ensure that
children will have a reaction of cognitive dissonance and rejection when confronted with
information which contradicts those narratives.
This funnels the populace seamlessly into the narrative control matrix of adulthood,
where childhood indoctrination into mainstream narratives lubricates the way for continual
programming of credulous minds with mass media propaganda.
All the print, TV and online
media they are presented with supports the status quo-supporting agendas of the same plutocratic
class that John D Rockefeller dominated all those years ago.
This ensures that no matter
how bad things get, no matter how severely our spirits are crushed by end-stage metastatic
neoliberalism, no matter how many stupid, pointless wars we're duped into, no matter how much
further we are drawn along
the
path toward extinction
via climate chaos or nuclear war, we will never revolt to overthrow
our rulers.
That's three paragraphs. Our predicament is simple to describe and easy to understand.
But that doesn't mean it's easy to solve.
Everyone has at some point known someone in some kind of an abusive relationship, whether it be
with a partner, a family member, or a job, and we all know that helpless feeling of being unable to
help someone who refuses to walk away from the source of their abuse.
"Just leave him!" we say in exasperation. "The door's right there! It's not locked!"
But it's never that simple. It's never that simple because, although the abusee is
indeed physically capable of walking out the door, the thoughts that are in their head keep them
from choosing that option.
This is because no abuser is simply violent or cruel: they are also necessarily
manipulative.
If they weren't manipulative, there wouldn't be any "abusive relationship";
there'd just be someone doing something horrible one time, followed by a hasty exit out the door.
There can't be an ongoing relationship that is abusive unless there's some glue holding the abusee
in place, and that glue always consists primarily of believed narrative.
"I didn't mean it. I love you. I just get frustrated sometimes because of your
stupidity."
"You can't leave; you'll never make it out there on your own. You need me."
"I'm the only one who'll ever be there for you. Nobody else will ever love you because
you're so disgusting."
"Your children need their father. You have to stay."
"I need you! I'll die without you!"
"I'm not doing that. You're paranoid and crazy."
"Your inability to forgive me means something is wrong with you."
They seldom say it so overtly, because if they did its malignancy would be easy to spot, but
those are the ideas which get subtly implanted into the abusee's head day after day after day by
way of skillful manipulation.
"It's her own fault for staying,"
someone will inevitably say.
No it isn't. Not really. The abuser is at fault for the overt abuse, and the abuser is also at
fault for the psychological manipulations which keep the abusee in place in spite of terrible
cruelty. It's all one thing, and it's entirely the abuser's fault.
Humanity's predicament is the same. I often hear revolutionary-minded thinkers voicing
frustration at the mainstream public for choosing to stay within this transparently abusive dynamic
instead of rising up and forcing change, and yes, it is self-evident that the citizenry could
easily use its vastly superior numbers to do that if it collectively chose to. The door is right
there. It's not even locked.
But the people aren't failing to choose the door because they love being abused, they're
failing to choose the door because they've been manipulated into not choosing it.
From
cradle to grave they're pummeled with stories telling them that this is the only way things can be,
in exactly the same way a battered wife or a cult member are pummeled with stories about how
leaving is impossible.
The difficulty of our times is not that we are locked up; we aren't. The
difficulty is that far too many of us are manipulated into choosing a prison cell over freedom.
The fact of the matter is that a populace will never rise up against its oppressors as long as
it is being successfully propagandized not to. It will never, ever happen. The majority will choose
the prison cell every time.
You'd expect that more dissident thinking would be pouring into solving this dilemma, but not
much is. People talk about elections and political strategies, they talk about who has the most
correct ideology, they talk about rising up and seizing the means of production due to unacceptable
material conditions, they wax philosophical about the tyranny of the state and the immorality of
coercion, but they rarely address the elephant in the room that you can't get a populace to oust
the status quo when they do not want to.
Nothing will ever be done about our predicament as long as powerful people are controlling the
stories that the majority of the public believe. This is as true today as it was in John D
Rockefeller's time, which was as true as when Rome chose to spread the "render unto Caesar what is
Caesar's" submissiveness of Christianity throughout the Empire. The only difference is that now the
powerful have
a
century of post-Bernays propaganda science
under their belt, and a
whole
lot of research and development
can happen in a hundred years.
So what's the solution? How do you awaken a populace that is not just manipulated
into choosing its prison cell every time, but is also manipulated into believing that any
suggestion that they're in a prison cell is a crazy conspiracy theory?
Well, what do you do when a loved one is in an abusive relationship? It never works to shake
them and scream "You're being abused!"; that just causes them to tighten up and dig in deeper with
their abuser's narratives about how this is the only way things can be and anyone who says
otherwise is crazy. What works is to lovingly help that sovereign spark within them gather evidence
that the narratives they're being fed by their abuser are lies. Point out every time where reality
contradicts the stories they've been told. Weaken their trust in the old stories while
strengthening their confidence in their own perception and their sense of entitlement and
worthiness. Help them to see that they're being lied to, and that they deserve better.
This breaking of trust needs to happen within the respective partisan echo chambers of
those who are being propagandized.
It's useless to increase the distrust of CNN and MSNBC
among Trump's base, for example, but it's very useful to increase their distrust in right-wing
narratives. It's useless to increase Democrats' distrust in Trump and Fox News, but it's very
useful to get them skeptical of the narrative control machine they've been plugged into. Each head
of the two-headed one-party system needs to be attacked in a way that makes sense inside each of
its respective echo chambers.
Mostly, though, what we need is we need is for more thinkers to be more focused on the real
problem. I know some influential minds read this blog; if they can help seed the idea out among the
movers and shakers of dissident thought that propaganda is our first and foremost problem, we just
might get somewhere. We need a major shift of focus onto the narrative control matrix and the
obstacle that it poses to revolution, and everyone can help shift us there in their own way.
The propaganda machine won't be adequately disrupted without intensive effort, and
until it is we're going to keep selecting the prison cell every time.
That is why Q is in play... it makes people complacent so they
don't rebel because they think an insider already has it in
hand... here is a list of some of the Q posts that were wrong:
Drop #1
"claimed that "HRC extradition [was] already in
motion effective yesterday with several countries in case of cross
border run" with
Drop #2
alleging "HRC detained, not
arrested (yet)" and that there would be "massive riots organized
in defiance and others fleeing the US."
After a stretch of posts full of rhetorical questions and vague
claims, Q used
Drop #15
to predict that John Podesta would
be indicted on Nov. 3, and Clinton aide Huma Abedin indicted on
Nov. 6.
Drop #16,
posted the same day, claimed that "Friday &
Saturday will deliver on the MAGA promise" with a thorough
house-cleaning of the government. That Friday, Nov. 3, saw
the president leave
for a tour of Asia, and no firings,
but the predictions continued.
After a series of vague insinuations about the National Guard
being activated in various major cities (which was not true), Q
again claimed in
Drop #25
that proof of his predictions
would "begin 11.3." Again, the only significant event of this day
was the president leaving for Asia.
In
Drop #32,
Q claimed that the "initial wave [of
arrests] will be fast and meaningful," with many members of the
media "jailed as deep cover agents."
Finally,
Drop #34
unveiled a host of predictions for
what Q claimed would happen imminently. He claimed that "over the
course of the next several days you will undoubtedly realize that
we are taking back our great country." He claimed that everything
he'd been talking about in secret "will then be revealed and will
not be openly accepted," resulting in "public riots."
Q claimed that because of the imminent unrest of Nov. 3 and the
announcement of John Podesta's arrest the next day, "a state of
temporary military control will be actioned," and that "we will be
initiating the Emergency Broadcast System (EMS) during this time
in an effort to provide a direct message (avoiding the fake news)
to all citizens."
Drop #38
continued with the conspiracy fantasizing,
predicting "other state actors attempting to harm us during this
transition," along with "increased military movement," "[National
Guard] deployments starting tomorrow, and "false flags."
As part of the "imminent event" of the 3, Q claimed in
Drop
#44
that "before POTUS departs on Friday he will be sending an
important message via Twitter," used
Drop #47
to warn his
readers to "be vigilant today and expect a major false flag," and
claimed in
Drop #55
that President Trump would unleash the
massive military purge (now nicknamed "The Storm") with a tweet
reading "My fellow Americans, the Storm is upon us ."
continued to ratchet up the tension, predicting in
Drop #61:
that there would be "Twitter and other social media blackouts"
that would accompany the massive deep state purge.
Finally, in
Drop #65
, Q claimed "it has begun," with
Drop #67
predicting that news of John Podesta's military plane
being "forced down" "will be leaked" with a prominent "fake news
anchor" being pulled off the air.
Needless to say, none of what Q predicted in his first 60+
posts took place. The National Guard was never called up, mass
arrests never took place, Hillary Clinton and John Podesta weren't
detained, Donald Trump never sent a tweet mentioning "The Storm,"
and the Emergency Alert System wasn't activated.
But that didn't stop the movement.
However, Q seemed to learn from his mistakes and mostly stopped
making specific predictions about events to come, shifting to
vague statements about world events, terror attacks, and political
intrigue.
On Dec. 10, Q predicted in
Drop #326
that "false
flag(s)" would occur, with "POTUS 100% insulated" and to "expect
fireworks." Q believers seized on a partially detonated pipe bomb
at New York's Port Authority Bus Terminal, and Q took credit the
next day for "thwarting" the attack.
In
Drop #647,
Q seemed to predict a major event
involving the Department of Defense for Feb. 1, calling it the
"[D]ay [Of] [D]ays." Nothing of note happened either to that
agency or the federal government in general that day.
A few days after that fizzled, Q insinuated in
Drop #700
that the weekend of Feb. 10 and 1 would be a "suicide weekend" for
individuals targeted by the president. There were no high-profile
suicides by public figures that weekend.
Drop #796
was a post full of quasi-military chatter that
seemed to predict a possible car bombing in London around Feb. 16.
No terrorist attack of any type happened in London at all that
month.
As talk of President Trump's military parade ramped up, Q
predicted in
Drop #856
that "a parade that will never be
forgotten" would take place on 11/11/18. That parade has now been
postponed until next year
due to costs, and likely won't take
place at all.
Then, in
Drop #912,
Q claimed that the intelligence
sharing alliance known as "Five Eyes" "won't be around much
longer." As of August, it is still in effect.
Drop #997
predicted on April 3 that the Pope would "have
a terrible May." The closest to this that happened was the
resignation of several Chilean bishops
in June after Pope
Francis criticized them over their handling of a sex abuse
scandal.
On April 7, Q made a cryptic post in
Drop #1067
that
read simply "China. Chongqing. Tuesday." The next Tuesday was
April 10, and no newsworthy event took place on that day in that
city.
Finally, in
Drop #1302
on April 27, Q claimed a "Mother
of All Bombs" related to negotiations with North Korea would be
"dropped" in the next week.
Some Q believers took this to be the North Korea/United States
summit announcement on the 28, but the negotiations had already
been reported, and only the location and exact date remained to be
set -- neither of which Q provided.
Even as he was seeming to reveal world events that never took
place, Q kept up his hammering of favored foes Hillary Clinton,
Barack Obama, and John McCain.
Even though she wasn't indicted or arrested, Q predicted on
March 5
in Drop #854
that "HRC +++ + +++++(raw vid 5:5)"
[sic] would soon emerge, and that it would be the "nail in many
coffins."
Using Barack Obama's
middle name
, Q predicted in
Drop #1043
that "pics will
surface of Hussein holding AK47 in tribal attire," and insinuated
in two April drops that photos of Obama with a young girl named
"Wendy" would appear and open him up to charges of pedophilia. No
such pictures have ever appeared.
Finally, again using a nickname, Q predicted John McCain's
resignation from the Senate as "imminent" several times, including
Drop #1319
and
Drop #1850
, as well as predicting the
"end near" in
Drop #1555.
Only this week did McCain
announce he would stop seeking treatment for cancer.
Politicians aren't the only suspected deep state members that Q
has made failed predictions about.
On April 4, Q claimed in
Drop #1014
that Mark Zuckerberg
was going to step down as chair of Facebook and flee the United
States. The same day Q predicted this,
Zuckerberg reiterated
that he was NOT going to step down -- and
he still hasn't.
Q has also made some fizzled predictions about Twitter CEO Jack
Dorsey, saying "goodbye" to him in
Drops #525
and
#598
,
insinuating that Dorsey would be removed from Twitter in
Drop
#799
, predicting in
Drop
#1102
that Dorsey was
"next"
It's not surprising that as Q's predictions fizzled, he became
less specific and more generalized with what he claimed would
happen. It's here that QAnon truly began taking on the language of
prosperity scams, substituting vague claims of "next week" or
"soon" in place of anything more specific.
Q's use of the phrase "next week" to denote the occurrence of
something important started with
Drop #243
when Q told his
followers "just wait until next week" without making any kind of
claim as to what was going to happen. It would be the first of
over a dozen times Q would kick the can down the road to "next
week."
In Drop #464:
Q vaguely predicted a "BIG NEXT WEEK" on
Jan. 5, doubling down in
Drop #527,
predicting "Next Week –
BIGGER," repeating the claim three drops later.
If you still belive in Q in the face of all of these failed
predictions you should sterialize yourself... And no... not a
libtard... I put libtards and qtards in the same basket of
stupid../
This crazy bitch is hit or miss for me. She completely misses
on "climate chaos" which is part of the mind control narrative.
Most obvious and discredited government and corporate funded hoax
of our era. Post religious eschatology to tax and control the
serfs to the satisfaction of the powerful.
This lady is an enemy agent. Why do you continue posting her
articles?
Yeah. I don't think nuclear war and fukishima are
good ideas also.
What needs sorely addressing, and why Trump was elected, is the
complete deviousness and near stranglehold, outright, that America
hating marxists wield.
We are possibly a hair's breath away from something so
sobering. That a vicious civil war may sound quite refreshing in
contrast.
But, bring it on crazy. Just don't think I at least, can't see
who you represent. And it isn't tree hugging, American ultra pot
smoking nice boys and girl hippies. Who also sideline as cia
operators and super stealth super agents. Kidding. Interesting
movie. And somewhat funny. Unlike most of this. Sitch.
God is in charge. Jesus is the way. If there be fighting or
calamity. If there be peace and prosperity. Rest, when possible
in the Lord. And fight like lions when, and if called to do so.
It only takes 5% of the population to become sufficiently agitated
in order to affect social and political change. The requisite
force is already in place. All they are waiting for is an
impetus.
What was Trump if not the biggest "**** you" in history. It's
true these haven't gone anywhere, or accomplished anything, but
this is far different thing than "not rebelling". Half the
population is rebelling within the system as much as they can. The
other half the population also feel they are rebelling to, but in
the opposite direction. Cancel 1st and 2nd amendments, ban
conservative voices, impeach Trump. If/when civil war breaks out
you will long for these halcyon days of peaceful rebellion.
I see how they fooled so many with Trump. In no way whatsoever
are elections left up to the citizens. They all have to be
portrayed as being close to hide the fact that those at the top
choose the president and the president has no real power
anyway.
There's a pseudo-everything phenomena occurring, lots of phoney
stuff going on out there.. All you can do really is not believe
everything you read, hear and/or see and be careful what you take
as truth/fact. We have been lied to about our money, our history
and even much of the food we eat is suspect and possibly the
creation(or part) of some laboratory experiment.
If people were
to find out that they were all subjects of the oligarchs and being
preyed on, ripped off, experimented on or were products of their
creations in a world built on lies things might not turn out so
great for the oligarchs.
So, so you think you can tell
Heaven from hell
Blue skies from pain
Can you tell a green field
From a cold steel rail?
A smile from a veil?
Do you think you can tell?
Did they get you to trade
Your heroes for ghosts?
Hot ashes for trees?
Hot air for a cool breeze?
Cold comfort for change?
Did you exchange
A walk on part in the war
For a lead role in a cage?
90% of humanity is basically livestock, 2% are sociopaths enjoying
to control the human livestock, and the remaining few are left to
wonder wtf is wrong with those 2 groups. It has been like this
since the dawn of time. Note that the actual revolutions happen
very rarely, and they only happen when the elites screw up badly.
Most of the time things change simply because the elites have
finally realized they could not continue the status quo.
Not enough suffering going on for there to be enough people
demanding real change. Self policing prisoners will keep the rest
in line. It is what it is. Point of no return has come and gone.
Now we just have to play the hand we've been dealt.
I believe a less violent and more highly effective way of making
change is to stop being a consummate consumer.
Forget Amazon,
cease consumer loans and pay for what you need in cash. Stop
frivolous spending. The effect from deflation would be far more
painful to the 1% than anyone else and core prices would drop like
a rock.
Say we overthrew our respective governments - I give it a year,
nay... A week, and a new batch of psychopaths will be vying for
top job - and we're back to square one again. Two options;
1.
Shoot/hang psychos (the fun/gratifying option)
2. Place four of these assoles in charge instead of one
What does a psycho hate moar than us peasants - competition.
They will fight and kill each other, never agreeing on any new
laws (see where i'm going with this) Basically reversing the
situation we're in now.
Medium is a website that tries to funnel you into google or
facebook. Do we need to say more? I haven't yet done a blog about
the fear factor. All those cell tower pump fear into the masses.
The side effect
s
of wireless technology will never be
officially admitted to.
In fact, this is surprisingly simple to counter - don't tell lies.
The difficulties experienced with this choice, this exercise of
will, lend a contempt in the assessment of the mouthings of the
liars - system wide (i.e. at the societal level) it is a
self-reinforcing behaviour because not many people are prepared to
embrace the social status associated with open displays of
contempt for their person. Of course, if you are not conditioned
to exercising your will you have no reason to be upset with the
outcome, you are in some sense as worthy as my coffee cup and have
as much influence on the world as any other unconsciousness - why
worry?
And yet, when the Obama Administration "legalized" Domestic Use of
Propaganda,it went by the MSM without so much as a ******* sound
(but that was to be expected, as we knew who would be delivering
it).
There is a new series on Netflix called Dirty Money, the First
Episode is on the VW scandal. In it VW decided to counter with a
scientific study where they use MONKEYS TRAINED TO WATCH TV while
they breath car exhaust. And I thought...OMG I've allowed myself
to become a trained monkey, presented with information to believe.
You need to take out the media and Internet, if there's no social
media or brain-numbing "entertainment", people get bored and
restless, an excellent precursor to revolution.
Like many who claim to be totally awake and resistant to the
propaganda dear Caitlin is a true believer in man made climate
change. Also a socialist although lately she is has been trying
distance herself from it. These people spend their career exposing
the lies from government and the compliant press but are all on
board with the we're all gonna die from climate change bunk as if
the government and it's shills are suddenly telling the truth.
Lesson here is even those you trust can fall victim to the
propaganda so it's best to not take everything they say as gospel.
It only takes 5% of the population to become sufficiently agitated
in order to affect social and political change. The requisite
force is already in place. All they are waiting for is an
impetus.
What was Trump if not the biggest "**** you" in history. It's
true these haven't gone anywhere, or accomplished anything, but
this is far different thing than "not rebelling". Half the
population is rebelling within the system as much as they can. The
other half the population also feel they are rebelling to, but in
the opposite direction. Cancel 1st and 2nd amendments, ban
conservative voices, impeach Trump. If/when civil war breaks out
you will long for these halcyon days of peaceful rebellion.
There's a pseudo-everything phenomena occurring, lots of phoney
stuff going on out there.. All you can do really is not believe
everything you read, hear and/or see and be careful what you take
as truth/fact. We have been lied to about our money, our history
and even much of the food we eat is suspect and possibly the
creation(or part) of some laboratory experiment.
If people were
to find out that they were all subjects of the oligarchs and being
preyed on, ripped off, experimented on or were products of their
creations in a world built on lies things might not turn out so
great for the oligarchs.
90% of humanity is basically livestock, 2% are sociopaths enjoying
to control the human livestock, and the remaining few are left to
wonder wtf is wrong with those 2 groups. It has been like this
since the dawn of time. Note that the actual revolutions happen
very rarely, and they only happen when the elites screw up badly.
Most of the time things change simply because the elites have
finally realized they could not continue the status quo.
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.
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 these shorts, Hitler is depicted as waging a mind-control campaign over the German people based on the manipulation of emotions such as anger, love, fear, sympathy, pride, and hate, while also occasionally employing force, regimentation, depravation, and false rewards. ..."
"... Demonizing the enemy, according to Disney historian Leonard Maltin, "relieves aggression." ..."
Aug 23, 2011 | Truthout
At the onset of World War II, Walt Disney was not alone in his belief that film should play a dominant role in the teaching process
or, as he claimed, in "molding opinion."7
He was, however, at the forefront of a movement to recognize a "new aspect of the use of films in war": training industrial workers
and soldiers.8
Some historians try to account for Disney's participation in generating military propaganda by claiming that the studios were "taken
over by the military as part of the war effort"9
on December 8, 1941. But Richard Shale has meticulously documented Disney's much earlier attempts to court contracts with the aircraft
industry, the U.S. Council of National Defense, and Canadian military supporters.10
Indeed, despite a "popular (and frequently quoted) misconception" that the relationship between Disney Studios and the U.S. military
was "unexpected or unsolicited," Shale observes an explicit shift in Disney's focus from "entertainment values to teaching values"
that occurred before Disney acquired his first U.S. military contracts in December 1941.11
For instance, in 1940 Disney approached the Lockheed Aircraft Corporation with the idea of generating a training film on flush
riveting. And in the spring of 1941, with Canada already engaged in war, Disney convinced the commissioner of the National Film Board
of Canada, John Grierson, that animated films were better positioned as teaching tools than documentary films because of their "capacity
for simplifying the presentation of pedagogical problems."12
Grierson then bought the Canadian rights to Four Methods of Flush Riveting and commissioned Disney to produce an instructional
film that taught soldiers how to use an antitank rifle and four short films that encouraged Canadians to purchase war savings certificates.
Then, in the fall of 1941, Walt Disney toured South America at the bequest of the U.S. Office of Inter-American affairs, which
was attempting to establish good relations and "hemispheric unity as explicated in Roosevelt's Good Neighbor policy."13
With material collected on the trip, Disney proceeded to generate two feature films, Saludos Amigos (1943) and The Three
Caballeros (1945), both intended to celebrate Latin American culture while accentuating its similarities with North American
culture (and downplaying or ignoring issues like national politics and poverty).14
Born out of U.S. fear of a Nazi alliance with countries like Argentina, the films aimed to "enhance the Latin American image in the
United States," while also "enhanc[ing] America's appreciation of Latin American Everymen."15
Yet, in making The Three Caballeros palatable to white Middle America and American imperialism less threatening to southerners,
Disney more often than not caricatures Latin American culture as a voluptuous, exotic female who is fleeing the attentions of a libidinous,
but comically ineffectual Donald Duck.16
There is little doubt that a relationship between Disney Studios and the U.S. government had been fully cemented by 1943, when 94
percent of the footage produced by Disney was under government contract.17
From 1941 to 1945, the Disney Studios produced dozens of short educational films, with their subjects ranging from aircraft and
warship identification to dental hygiene to the household conservation of cooking oil for the making of military weapons. The studio
also produced a number of anti-Nazi short films, including Der Fuehrer's Face (1943), Education for Death: The Making
of the Nazi (1943), and Reason and Emotion (1943), two of which were nominated for Academy Awards. In these shorts,
Hitler is depicted as waging a mind-control campaign over the German people based on the manipulation of emotions such as anger,
love, fear, sympathy, pride, and hate, while also occasionally employing force, regimentation, depravation, and false rewards.
Of course, the success of the films' efforts to expose Nazi propaganda overwhelmingly relies on the use of comic devices, caricatures,
and stereotypes to make Hitler, Mussolini, and Hirohito seem irrational and absurd.
Demonizing the enemy, according to Disney historian Leonard Maltin, "relieves aggression."18
This claim, suggesting that the films function to disperse rather than focus emotional energy, clearly sidesteps the multiple ways
in which the films, much like the propaganda they critique, attempt to shape their audience's emotional responses, such as when Donald
Duck, clad in starred-and-striped pajamas, croons to the Statue of Liberty, "Oh, boy, am I glad to be a citizen of the United States
of America!" Most significant about the techniques used by these Disney shorts is how they embody animation's capacity to draw clear,
simple lines and present a selective representation of an otherwise complex reality. Through the use of comedy and comedic violence,
in particular, Disney films are often released from the expectation that they might be attempting to do more than entertain.
Viewers wooed by animation's unique capacity to create novel images through exaggeration, distortion, and aesthetic style are
easily absorbed into an imaginary world that quite deliberately focuses their eyes on a constructed reality to the exclusion of other
possibilities. The value of the anti-Nazi short films for today's audiences lies in their obvious attempt to win the hearts and minds
of American viewers through clever visual and ideological manipulation, while ironically issuing repeated warnings to viewers not
to allow emotion to short-circuit their critical faculties. A historical perspective on the subject matter sets in relief how Disney's
critique of propaganda using the medium of animation inevitably ventures into the realm of propaganda itself.
During the war, a significant number of the studio's resources were devoted to making another feature-length propaganda film,
Victory through Air Power (1943). The film, based in part on a book written by Major Alexander P. De Seversky, advocates
the development of airplane and weapons technology as the means to win the war against the Axis powers. We are told the airplane
will not only "revolutionize warfare" but is "the only weapon of war to develop such usefulness during peacetime." Dramatic music
punctuates scenes that explore new models of airplanes with increased bombing potential. The United States as the "arsenal of democracy"
is represented as a giant heart comprising factories that pump "war supplies" through "the arteries of our transport lines over distances
that actually girdle the globe." This organic, humanizing image of "the great industrial heart of America" contrasts with the mechanical
image of a spoked wheel used to represent the Nazi war industries, which are also vividly portrayed in dark reds and blacks suggestive
of a hellish inferno. Japan is represented as a deadly, black octopus extending its "greedy tentacles" over its "stolen empire."
We are told of the necessity for U.S. long-range bombers to strike at "the heart and vitals of the beast." With the lethal combination
of the "superior" American "science of aviation" and "science of demolition," the "enemy lies hopelessly exposed to systematic destruction."
At the same time, the film announces that "scientific bombing" will enable a "minimum investment in human lives," an oddly ambiguous
use of language suggestive of two possible meanings in the context in which it appears: the assertion that aerial bombing of enemy
territories requires a "minimum investment" of American soldiers and, what is both more sinister and perhaps in need of such coded
language, the claim that bombing the enemy entails such "total destruction" that no human lives requiring "investment" will be left
in its wake. Indeed, the film's climax consists of a montage of exploding bombs among Japanese cities and factories, which begin
curiously unpopulated and end utterly annihilated. At the pinnacle of the climactic violence, the screen resolves into an image of
a bald eagle descending upon and crushing the land-ridden octopus, which then dissolves into a dark cloud of smoke rising above Japan
as "America the Beautiful" plays in the background.
Walt Disney believed that Victory through Air Power convinced President Franklin D. Roosevelt to support to long-range
bombing.19
For a contemporary viewer who has the benefit of hindsight, the unquestioned propaganda offered by Victory through Air Power
leaves one with the eerie feeling that the perspective being shaped by the film would not only fail to question the use of technology
such as the atomic bomb but even wholeheartedly celebrate it as the quickest and most effective way to win the war. Indeed, it is
precisely the film's unflinching support of the development of bigger and better bombing technology, from small hand-dropped bombs
to ten-ton delayed-action bombs and armor-piercing bomb rockets, that might seem most disturbing given the devastating effects of
the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as well as the postwar escalation of arms development during the Cold War and the ongoing
expansion of the military-industrial complex in the United States.20
But Walt Disney did not just support the development of larger weapons; he was a firm supporter of what might be called the atomic
age and made the classic 1956 propaganda film Our Friend the Atom, which was also produced as a book and appeared as an
atomic submarine ride in the Tomorrowland section of Disney's Magic Kingdom. In this instance, as Mark Langer points out, Our
Friend the Atom was designed to "counter opposition to the military use of atomic weaponry."21
The Magic Kingdom became an outpost for leading young people and adults to believe that an "Atomic reactor . . . is like a big furnace.
An atomic chain reaction is likened to what happens when a stray ping-pong ball is thrown at a mass of mousetraps with ping-pong
balls set on each one."22
Disney played a formidable role in convincing every school child that atomic energy was central not merely to winning the Cold War
but also to preparing them for a future that would be dominated by the United States and its use of new energy sources, which incidentally
could be instrumental in elevating the United States to the position of the world's preeminent military power. Mouse power easily
and readily made the shift to celebrating atomic power and militarism while enlarging Disney's role as a major purveyor of propaganda.
The Disney films discussed above alert us to the fact that Disney animators honed their skills and gained widespread popular appeal
in the 1940s by first producing propaganda films for the U.S. government. This often neglected reality underlying Disney's origins
as a cultural entertainment icon should make us all the more careful to heed Janet Wasko's warning that Disney encodes preferred
readings of both its animated films and its own brand image to such an extent that "one of the most amazing aspects of the Disney
phenomenon is the consistently uniform understanding of the essence of 'Disney.'"23
Attuned to Disney's willingness to assume an overt pedagogical role during World War II, several critics of a more recent Disney
film, Aladdin (1992), noted that the timing of the film's production and release coincided with U.S. military efforts in
the Persian Gulf war. According to Christiane Staninger, Aladdin is "a propaganda movie for Western imperialism" that "shows
the supposed unworkability of Middle Eastern traditions and the need for American intervention."24
Dianne Sachko Macleod takes this critique a step further, suggesting a link between Disney's "revival of British and French colonial
stereotypes of Arab traders, fanatics, and beauties" and the "storehouse of racial and cultural images" used by the Pentagon to justify
the war.25
Macleod notes that regardless of the filmmakers' intentions, the film had the general effect of "privileging the American myths of
freedom and innocence at a time of nationalist fervor."26
Other connections between the film and the first Iraq war are not especially subtle: in addition to locating Aladdin in the fictional
city of "Agrabah," it makes the villainous Grand Vizier Jafar look like a combination of Saddam Hussein and the Ayatollah Khomeini,
while the two young heroes, Aladdin and Jasmine, not only look American-Disney animators made it publicly known that Aladdin
was modeled after Tom Cruise27-but also, as Brenda Ayres suggests, display their heroism by "contesting (and changing) Arabian law
and Islamic religious tradition."28
While it is impossible to discern the actual motives of the Disney animators, it is equally impossible to ignore the cultural context
in which the American public viewed Aladdin. At the time of the film's release, the dominant media were aggressively promoting similar
images of liberation from barbaric traditions in order to justify the United States' "right to intervene in Middle Eastern politics."29
Disney's Conservative Path
Despite the well-documented history of collaboration between the Walt Disney Company and U.S. military and state institutions,
Disney has more recently claimed to have no interest in politics. How Disney's decision in May 2004 to block its Miramax division
from distributing Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 might qualify as a nonpolitical gesture is uncertain. At the time, a senior
executive stated that "it's not in the interest of any major corporation to be dragged into a highly charged partisan political battle."30
Not only were a number of Disney's top executives known to be campaign contributors to the George W. Bush administration,31
but then CEO Michael Eisner was reported to have said that any criticism of the Bush administration might "endanger tax breaks Disney
receives for its theme park, hotels and other ventures in Florida, where Mr. Bush's brother, Jeb, is governor."32
Miramax arranged privately to buy Moore's film and distribute it independently, and in 2005, the founders of Miramax, Harvey and
Bob Weinstein, did not renew their contracts with Disney.33
As suggested above, the company's alleged desire to remain outside politics contradicts the reality of Disney's historical pattern
of intervening in political matters. It is hardly surprising, then, that in the wake of the unprecedented success of Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 documentary, Disney/ABC decided to produce its own account of the events leading up to the terrorist attacks
on September 11, 2001. A $40 million miniseries titled The Path to 9/11, originally touted as a docudrama "based on the
9/11 Commission Report" and later as the "official true story," constituted a blatant political move on the part of Disney/ABC.34
In addition, Scholastic, Inc., the educational distribution partner for Disney/ABC, sent one hundred thousand letters to high school
teachers across the United States encouraging them to use The Path to 9/11 in the classroom curriculum and directing them
to online study guides.35
The miniseries was billed by its self-labeled conservative writer Cyrus Nowrasteh as an "objective telling of the events of 9/11"36
but faced severe criticism for its partisan depiction of events and actors. The Path to 9/11, directed by evangelical Christian
filmmaker David Cunningham,37
depicted members of the Bill Clinton administration as totally incompetent, having repeatedly ignored opportunities to capture Osama
bin Laden and overlooked warnings of an incipient attack before September 11, 2001. When prescreened to a select number of film reviewers
before it aired on television, the miniseries was received with skepticism and outrage, not merely from Democrats and Clinton supporters.
Robert Cressey, a top counterterrorism official to both the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations, argued that a scene depicting
the Clinton administration's refusal to pursue bin Laden was "something straight out of Disney and fantasyland. It's factually wrong.
And that's shameful."38
Nearly one hundred thousand readers of the online journal Think Progress sent protest letters to Robert Iger, president
and CEO of the Walt Disney Company, stating that the film inaccurately "places primary responsibility for the attacks of 9/11 on
the Clinton administration while whitewashing the failures of the Bush administration."39
According to Tom Shales, writing for the Washington Post, the miniseries qualified as an "assault on truth."40
Shales added, "Blunderingly, ABC executives cast doubt on their own film's veracity when they made advance copies available to such
political conservatives as Rush Limbaugh but not to Democrats who reportedly requested the same treatment. . . . Democrats have a
right to be suspicious of any product of the conservative-minded Walt Disney Co."41
A group of academic historians led by Arthur M. Schlesinger sent a letter to ABC calling for the network to "halt the show's broadcast
and prevent misinforming Americans about their history."42
The film presents a number of clichéd stereotypes of "big government" and bureaucratic incompetence, depicting paper-pushing officials
as woefully indecisive at crucial moments, primarily because they are too self-interested to put their necks on the line. Clinton,
for example, is represented as not wanting to issue orders for military action against al-Qaeda because he's too worried about the
effect such decisions might have on the polls, that is, when he is not caught up in dealing with the fallout from the Monica Lewinsky
scandal. In one scene, General Ahmad Shah Massoud, leader of the Afghan Northern Alliance, which waits for U.S. approval to go after
bin Laden, asks in a scornful tone, "Are there any men left in Washington?" Individuals working on the ground who buck procedure
and orders from their superiors are, by contrast, willing to "take the heat." So, apparently, is George W. Bush, whose decisiveness
in giving a strike-down order to the military after the 9/11 attacks really functions as the climax of the whole miniseries. One
could imagine Bush political supporters cheering as this scene unfolded: finally, they could rest assured that there was a real man
in Washington. Meanwhile, several FBI and U.S. customs agents recognize the nature of the "new kind of war" being waged against America,
and their appeals to racial profiling and domestic spying appear justified in the film. For example, in a brief dialogue, one FBI
agent states, "Americans have the right to be protected from domestic spying," and the central protagonist of the film, FBI counterterrorism
agent John O'Neil (portrayed by Harvey Keitel), replies, "Do they have the right to be killed by terrorists?" Heroic individuals
such as O'Neil are willing to bypass "red tape" and stand in stark contrast to (1) politicians who are too worried about public opinion
not to bow to the pressures of "political correctness," (2) uncooperative CIA officials who jealously guard intelligence when they
are not mindlessly adhering to obsolete federal legislation that protects individuals' rights, and (3) various utterly casual security
officials and workers who would rather appease suspicious-looking members of the public than be confronted with a situation that
might embroil them in conflict. And that is not all. The film contrasts the coolness of John O'Neil's astute judgments with the irrationality
of emotionally overwrought women, such as the ambassador to Yemen, Barbara Bodine (Patricia Heaton), and the fanatic zeal of the
terrorists. In fact, many of the characters who represent terrorists such as Mohamed Atta (Martin Brody) and Ramzi Yousef (Nabil
Elouahabi) share the same intense stare, bristly mustache, and swarthy skin exhibited by Hitler in Disney's World War II propaganda
films. While it might be possible for a viewer to overlook insipid dialogue, fallacious logic, melodrama, and weak narrative structure,
it is virtually impossible to ignore the film's use of racist and sexist stereotypes to lend legitimacy to all the standard bogeys
of extreme right-wing ideology. And, most importantly, there remains the film's utterly deceptive self-presentation as a historically
accurate depiction of events. Even lead actor Harvey Keitel told a CNN interviewer prior to the airing of the miniseries,
I had questions about certain events-material I was given in The Path to 9/11 that I did raise questions about. .
. . Not all the facts were correct. . . . You cannot cross the line from a conflation of events to a distortion of the event.
No. Where we have distorted something, we made a mistake, and that should be corrected. It can be corrected, by the people getting
involved in the story that they are going to see.43
In response to the controversy surrounding The Path to 9/11, Scholastic, Inc., announced that its online study guide
did not meet the company's "high standards for dealing with controversial issues" and would be replaced with new materials that would
focus more on media literacy and critical thinking.44
ABC also responded to protests by broadcasting disclaimers about the miniseries's "fictionalized" representation while airing a minimally
reedited version on September 10 and 11, 2006. But ABC's rather inexplicable decision to air the broadcast without commercials-entailing
a loss of $40 million45-fostered
an illusion of the film's closer proximity to real life, if not also conveying the impression that it was a public service announcement.
Most significantly, the broadcast that aired on the second night was framed by a strategic interruption-George W. Bush's Address
to the Nation-prompting one journalist to note the "thematic synchronicity," as the president's speech called for ongoing support
for the war on terror.46
It is difficult to deny the political synergy suggested by the combination of the rightwing The Path to 9/11 and
Bush's speech-synergy being a profitdriven marketing strategy by no means unfamiliar to a megacorporation like Disney47-as
Bush appealed to Americans to recognize the ongoing threat of terrorism and the necessity of preemptive action as the only way to
safeguard "advancing freedom and democracy as the great alternatives to repression and radicalism."48
When placed in the context of the film, Bush's success could be measured in terms of how the post9/11 decisions made by his government
succeeded where Clinton's administration apparently had failed. Furthermore, the timely juxtaposition allowed the film to gain a
greater veneer of authenticity from the speech's presentation of topical and really existing political concerns, while the film in
turn provided credible images and points of reference for listeners trying to engage the highly rhetorical, often self-referential
use of language characteristic of Bush's speech. Additionally, the blurring of fact and fiction embodied by the film lent to the
speech the mythic or symbolic power generated by extended narrative, and the grandeur of the presidential address added authority
to the film.
As a context for Bush's speech, The Path to 9/11 made an effort to point out some of the problems in law enforcement
and governance that preceded the terrorist attacks of 9/11, but the nature of the critique-although presented as objective and all
encompassing-never rises above criticizing particular individuals for their character failings. The film was cleverer, however, in
the way it indicated the supposed gaps in the system and advocated taking a hard line, but offered no concrete alternatives. In doing
so, the film left it to Bush to emerge as the ultimate hero, opening up a space for a timely description of the measures instituted
since 9/11:
We've created the Department of Homeland Security. We have torn down the wall that kept law enforcement and intelligence from
sharing information. We've tightened security at our airports and seaports and borders, and we've created new programs to monitor
enemy bank records and phone calls. Thanks to the hard work of our law enforcement and intelligence professionals, we have broken
up terrorist cells in our midst and saved American lives.49
If The Path to 9/11 presented a single narrative perspective (the "path" taken) as the infallible "truth," then Bush's
speech, with a similar kind of religious confidence, also took for granted that only one predetermined course could secure the nation
from the terrorist threat. At no point did the film or Bush's speech suggest that the situation was complex enough to necessitate
the consideration of several possible paths; indeed, both narratives closed off the possibility of questioning the effectiveness
of the security measures endorsed and instituted. Difficult questions-such as the extent to which freedom should be limited in order
to be secured or the kinds of sacrifices entailed by "national security"-were simply ignored in favor of the message that Americans
must do whatever it takes to defeat the "enemy." It is hard to believe that the gross trivializations of the complex issues surrounding
terrorism and the war in Iraq in The Path to 9/11 and Bush's address could almost escape public protest only five years
after the horrifying events of September 11, 2001.
One notable exception to the general complaisance with which the public received The Path to 9/11 involved a group of
students at Ithaca College who protested the college's acceptance of a private donation from Robert Iger on the grounds that The Path to 9/11, touted as a docudrama, was actually an egregious display of media bias. Students argued that "accepting Disney
money would send the wrong message about the importance of objectivity to the school's journalism and communications students."50
Although a Disney spokesperson responded to the student protesters by calling them "people who can't distinguish between fact and
fiction," Ithaca College president Peggy R. Williams lent credence to the students' concerns by reassuring them that Iger's donation
"does not buy Disney any influence on campus. . . . Our curriculum decisions are our own."51
Although certainly admitting no wrongdoing, Disney has uncharacteristically and tellingly opted not to sell The Path to 9/11 on DVD-defying
the expectations of both those who assumed the company would try to recover the costs of making the miniseries and vociferous right-wing
groups who continue to support the film's representation of the events leading to 9/11.52
The National Security-Family: Meet The Incredibles
As films like Aladdin and The Path to 9/11 suggest, the Walt Disney Company has an impressive ability to revise more
or less familiar stories, updating the issues to make them resonate in people's lives at the current moment. It is how Disney offers
audiences not simply escape but also a mode of relating to the real conditions of their existence that makes Disney films such a
long-lived and potent force in U.S. and global popular culture. As Louis Marin suggests regarding the powerful cultural role of Disney
theme parks, Disney represents both "what is estranged and what is familiar: comfort, welfare, consumption, scientific and technological
progress, superpower, and morality." Importantly, Marin adds, "These are values obtained by violence and exploitation; [in Disney
culture] they are projected under the auspices of law and order."53
Marin's framework is especially useful for understanding a film such as The Incredibles as mediating the "imaginary relationship
that the dominant groups of American society maintain with their real conditions of existence, with the real history of the United
States, and with the space outside of its border."54
In a post-9/11 world, Academy Award winner The Incredibles brings home the need not only to reclaim "superpower" identity
as a quintessential American quality but also to recognize that American soil is not immune to the threat of violent attacks. In
response to the forces threatening America-internally, the weakening of superhero resolve in the face of excessive bureaucracy, public
cynicism, and unthinking adherence to the law; externally, enemies whose infantile resentment at being "not super" results in a genocidal
campaign against everything "super," even to the extent of terrorizing an innocent public-the PG-rated film sanctions violence as
a means to establish a new brand of "law and order." Although hearkening back to the nuclear family as the source of America's security
and strength, the film diverges from past narratives in its emphasis on a natural order in which authority and power belong in the
hands of the few strong leaders left in America, while the rest of us must duly recognize our inevitable "mediocrity." This overall
message is especially disturbing in light of the events following 9/11, when the United States witnessed a growing authoritarianism
throughout the larger culture.55
Some consequences of the American response to the tragic terrorist attacks have been a general tolerance for the use of preemptive
violence and coercion, control of the media, the rise of repressive state power, an expanding militarization, and a thriving surveillance
and security industry that is now even welcomed in public schools. And these are only some of the known consequences: many of the
effects of the Bush administration's policies are still coming to light. In 2009, President Barack Obama ordered the release of top-secret
Bush administration memos that sanctioned the CIA's use of torture on terror suspects. A year previous, New York Times reporter
David Barstow wrote an exposé of "independent" military analysts who appeared on television networks to inform the public with their
expert and objective impressions of the war in Iraq (many were retired army generals and had direct ties to corporations that were
courting government military contracts). It turned out the Pentagon was coaching the military analysts behind the scenes to put a
favorable spin on the Bush administration's "wartime performance," with the apparent collusion of U.S. media networks, including
ABC, which failed to check for, or simply ignored, evident conflicts of interest.56
In addition to calling into question the journalistic integrity of the media, the scandal made it seem as if the Bush administration's
public relations machine was taking its cues from corporations such as Disney by not only launching a marketing campaign carefully
tailored to uphold its public image but also secretly controlling access to information and limiting public discourse, all in order
to sell a sense of security to the American people.
An emphasis on controlling public speech and public spaces-not to mention autocratic rule, secrecy, and the appeal to security-is
nothing new to Disney, whose theme parks, according to Steven Watts, "blur the line between fantasy and reality by immersing visitors
in a totally controlled environment."57
Disneyland is a useful space, apparently, to undertake surveillance, and Walt Disney offered the FBI "complete access" to Disneyland
facilities in the 1950s for "use in connection with official matters and for recreational purposes."58
Indeed, the development of a cordial relationship between Walt Disney and FBI director J. Edgar Hoover is now better understood not
only in relation to Walt Disney's fervent anticommunism but also in light of revelations that he may have served as "a secret informer
for the Los Angeles office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation."59
Certainly, as Watts indicates, it is known that Disney was appointed a special FBI agent in part because of his desire to root out
so-called communist agitators from the film industry.60
More recently, Eric Smoodin notes that the Disney corporation remains "interested in constructing surveillance as entertainment,"
as suggested by the marketing of products such as a Mickey Mouse doll with glow-in-the-dark eyes that illuminate sleeping children
for the benefit of parental scrutiny.61
The Incredibles, with its complex appeal to several levels of audience, received overwhelming praise from film critics,
who admired not only its retromodern aesthetic and detailed animation but also its "stinging wit."62
However, most reviewers who observed an "edge of intellectual indignation"63
focused on the first thirty minutes of the film in which the main character, Mr. Incredible (voiced by Craig T. Nelson), is forced
to conceal his superhero identity as a consequence of public disaffection and a string of lawsuits (he is sued after rescuing a suicidal
man named Sansweet who claimed Mr. Incredible had "ruined [his] death"). With "average citizens" now proclaiming they want "average
heroes," Mr. Incredible; his superhero wife, Elastigirl/Helen (Holly Hunter); and their children become the middle-of-the-road Parr
family, trying to maintain a normal suburban lifestyle by suppressing their superpowers in what one reviewer suggests is a "suspicious
society that's decidedly below-Parr."64
As suggested by a Boston Globe film review, Bob Parr's cubicle office job as a claims adjuster at Insuricare is designed
to evoke identification with the "middle-age blues felt by audience members."65
But many reviewers, in choosing to highlight the film's critique of suburban conformity and corporate greed, misread or overlook
the film's central message, which does not elicit identification on the part of a mere newspaper journalist or academician: in fact,
normal people who wrongly identify with superheroes and devalue their worth are society's worst threat. The film's villain, Buddy
aka Syndrome (Jason Lee), begins as Mr. Incredible's "number one fan" but then transgresses the boundary between admiration and emulation.
Conflict arises when Buddy asserts that his rocket boot technology enables him "to be super" without being born with superpowers.
When rejected by Mr. Incredible, who prefers to "work alone," Buddy turns the pathological injury into villainy with an ideological
goal: to provide the technology "so that everyone can be superheroes. . . . And when everyone's super, no one will be." The connections
between Buddy and the dominant media's portrayal of international terrorists are multiple: his fixation on demolishing a superpower,
his development of hightech weaponry, his narcissistic rage, his ideological purpose, and, what resonates most clearly, his plan
to gain power over a fearful public by launching a plane at Manhattan. At one point, Buddy even tells Mr. Incredible, "Now you respect
me, because I'm a threat. . . . It turns out there's a lot of people, whole countries, who want respect. And they will pay through
the nose to get it." Given the film's resounding judgment of Buddy/Syndrome-he is shredded by a jet turbine while attempting to kidnap
the Parr baby-it is difficult to understand how the film's message could be interpreted, as one reviewer suggests, as empowering
viewers to recognize the "secret identities we all keep tucked away in our hearts."66
Even if one were to extend an allegorical reading of The Incredibles to argue that all Americans are super, it would not
be possible to elide the film's clear validation of a social hierarchy along primordial lines.
Throughout the film, the plight of the super family is closely linked to their superiority. The Incredibles' son Dash
(Spencer Fox), frustrated by not being able to demonstrate his speed in school sports competi-tions, acts out in his fourth-grade
class by playing pranks on his teacher. Dash wins his father's admiration, but the thought of a graduation ceremony for fourth-graders
leads Mr. Incredible to burst out, "It's psychotic! They keep creating new ways to celebrate mediocrity, but if someone is genuinely
exceptional . . . " Later in the film, Elastigirl reassures daughter Violet (Sarah Vowell), "Your identity is your most valuable
possession. . . . Doubt is a luxury we can't afford anymore. You have more power than you realize. Don't think. Don't worry. If the
time comes, you'll know what to do. It's in your blood." As A. O. Scott astutely recognizes in a New York Times review,
the movie argues, "Some people have powers that others do not, and to deny them the right to exercise those powers, or the privileges
that accompany them, is misguided, cruel and socially destructive."67
Being "super" in such a framework does not mean being smart or being virtuous; it simply means possessing innate power. The highly
advanced modern society produces mediocrity because its ethics (a belief in social justice and equality) counter the effects of natural
selection by nullifying Darwinian fitness as the condition for survival.
If the film indeed offers up "the philosophy of Ayn Rand"-who opposed collectivism, altruism, and the welfare state in favor of
egoistic individualism-then it turns to violence as the means to achieve supremacy.68
At no point during The Incredibles' "eardrum-bashing, metal-crunching action sludge" and its self-referential mockery of
"monologuing" does the film suggest that reasoning, discussion, or any other form of peaceful resolution might be pursued instead
of violence. More in keeping, however, with Disney conventions than Rand's philosophy is the film's conflation of the pursuit of
individualism with the protection of the nuclear family. One reviewer cleverly summarizes the film's main theme as "the family that
slays together stays together."69
In this way, the white, nuclear, middle-class family becomes the ethical referent for a bombproof collectivity: only a muscular protection
of one's own will ensure stability, identity, and agency, not to mention consumerism, heterosexuality, clearly defined gender roles,
parenthood, and class chivalry. The result is that the film brings "individuals and their families to the centers of national life,
offering the audience an image of itself and of the nation as a knowable community, a wider public world beyond the routines of a
narrow existence."70
But the American nation drawn by the film is imaged as one that neither shies away from use of force nor requires any justification
for its display of blatant chauvinism when confronted by others.
The Incredibles further contrasts the banality of suburban life with the glamour and excitement of "hero work." The elaborate
security compounds of Syndrome's island and the home of fashion designer Edna Mode (Brad Bird) are suped up with the latest high-tech
gadgetry, the exhilarating navigation of which bears a close resemblance to video game playing, particularly in the medium of computer-generated
animation. And even if the filmmakers' intended to parody gated homes à la Hollywood Hills in their representation of Edna Mode's
mansion, the cumulative message makes security and surveillance systems seem not only unthreatening but also quite normal-at least
as familiar as, say, the presence of gates and cameras at Walt Disney World. In fact, Syndrome's island has a developed monorail
system, which implies a double reference both to the James Bond movie Dr. No (1962) and to Disney World itself. Referentiality seems
to come full circle as The Incredibles' island imitates Bond films that likely drew on the model of Disney theme parks in
portraying the villain's lair. For instance, Bond's antagonist in The Man with the Golden Gun (1974) "inhabits a politically
autonomous island that features an amusement park funhouse,"71
an allusion that betrays cultural anxiety about a rigidly controlled theme park environment governed by an autocrat who deliberately
toys with defenseless people's perceptions and plays upon their fears. The Bond films were tapping into a darker side of the Disney-designed
spaces, also noted by M. Keith Booker, who writes, "The fictional utopias portrayed in the [Disney] parks have a definite dystopian
side, as anyone who has ever been bothered by the efficiency with which the parks are able to control and manipulate the vast populations
who visit them has noticed."72
Yet, the lush tropical island in The Incredibles works less to expose the dark side of a totally regulated world than to
associate it with exotic thrills and gamelike suspense as the superheroes infiltrate Syndrome's compound-a brilliant advertisement
for a family adventure at Walt Disney World, if there ever was one. More disturbing is the recognition that as dominant culture in
the United States accepts the expansion of a security-military-surveillance-intelligence complex, negotiating such altered environments
can be reduced to slapstick comedy (when, for instance, Elastigirl finds herself stretched between two security doors and must fight
against a number of armed guards). Not rendered entirely harmless, the island environment also represents the ideal locale for the
Incredible children to rise to the challenge of a real danger-their mother tells them that unlike "the bad guys" on "Saturday morning
cartoons . . . these guys will kill you"-and to engage the enemy in a display of family loyalty and heroic exceptionalism.
Because "calls to action litter the film," critics such as David Hastings Dunn have suggested that The Incredibles is
"an allegorical tale justifying U.S. foreign policy under George W. Bush."73
Indeed, the only imaginable way the "slightly fascist" Incredibles could be labeled a "family-friendly film,"74
as one critic claims, is if one assumes the "super" refrain throughout the film is an oblique reference to American superiority and
supremacy, such that viewers are included as part of one big national family, a family that has recently demonstrated its mettle
on the world stage by waging wars against Afghanistan and Iraq. Indeed, Mr. Incredible repeatedly argues for an ethic of intervention
and pushes aside anyone who poses an obstacle to action. Those individuals who wish to prevent superheroes from acting are fundamentally
weak: people who claim their right to noninterference, politicians who cravenly seek public approval, lawyers who succumb to financial
pressures, teachers who suppress any challenges to their authority, and employers who expect blind obedience to corporate policy.
Interventionism is legitimated when Bob/Mr. Incredible helps an elderly woman with her insurance claim, only to face his irate boss,
who indicates that Bob's loyalties must be redirected to one specific purpose: "Help our people! Starting with our stockholders."
While the diminutive Mr. Huph (Wallace Shawn) launches into a speech about the necessity for the "little cogs" in the company machine
to "mesh together," Mr. Incredible is prevented from saving a man in the street who is being mugged. The film deserves credit for
extending a clichéd critique of office work as crushing of individual creativity to a representation of greed and corruption plaguing
private corporations charged with providing public services. Unfortunately, the only solution to the social ills of exploitation
and dehumanization proffered by the film is to put one's faith in the individuals who have the power to subjugate a clear and unambiguous
enemy, in other words, a militaristic version of the old adage "Father knows best." Before we join the throngs of enthusiastic reviewers
who laud the film for its exposure of corporate abuses of power, it should be understood that the film is as much invested in showing
how postindustrial capitalism-and liberal democracy even more so-elevates the weak manipulators above the authentic strongmen. Instead
of presenting a viable solution to the ravages of neoliberal economics on social democracy, The Incredibles offers only
one reactionary alternative devised in the realm of fantasy: superheroes will save us as long as we recognize our natural inferiority
and give them our unqualified vote of confidence. The huge, hard-bodied Mr. Incredible is ready to rescue America from the city slicker,
ladies' man softness of the postwar era. (Admittedly, this superhero for a "postfeminist" generation has an exceedingly competent
female sidekick/wife, but one who tellingly possesses the complementary superhero power of extreme malleability).
When considered alongside the blockbuster success of The Incredibles and its overarching message in 2004, it probably
should not surprise us that George W. Bush was reelected the same year-in part because his public relations team managed to convince
voters that, in an insecure world rife with terrorist threats, they should depend on his uncompromising judgments of good and evil,
his impervious cowboylike manner, and his "strong, stable personality." What makes The Incredibles appear to be superheroes
is the same quality that apparently made George W. Bush seem presidential: the ability to act free from the paralyzing effects of
thoughtful consideration. This orientation toward decisive action in the film becomes an end in itself since, as Jeremy Heilman points
out, "There are no scenes in which characters learn to use their power responsibly (except for those that extol conformity), and
no moments in which loss of life is felt."75
According to George Soros, the events of 9/11 renewed a "distorted view" of American supremacy that "postulates that because we
are stronger than others, we must know better and we must have right on our side."76
If American patriotism reached a fever pitch in the aftermath of 9/11, then The Incredibles clearly tapped into a desire
to assert U.S. preeminence on the world stage. Indeed, all the superheroes are American, and the only non-American with any power
is a villainous French mime named Bomb Voyage. The overall message of the film, as Hastings Dunn points out, is a perennial neoconservative
theme: "America's failure to spread its values can lead to 'blowback' from former clients and protégés."77
The only response offered by the film to a society supposedly weakened by a misguided egalitarianism and the post–Cold War softening
of American resolve is to minimize in-stitutional and legal controls while letting unrestrained power achieve its deserved place
of domination. For "supers" to dictate the common good once again, The Incredibles concludes, "it's up to the politicians."
It is difficult to imagine a more resounding dismissal of democratic processes than this final assertion, suggesting less the need
for political accountability and public participation than the need for emboldened leaders whose decisive action should be divorced
from the values and constraints imposed by the mediocre masses.
Disney and the Rhetoric of Innocence
The bizarre way in which The Incredibles marries two dangerous social ideals-a Darwinist notion of survival of the fittest
and a retrograde identity politics based on biological superiority-can verge on acceptability when it is packaged as a Disney animated
film that carries the overarching association with childhood innocence. Audiences are meant to appreciate the fact that if in a fit
of rage Mr. Incredible destroys a car, or another human being for that matter, then it is simply a natural expression of his innate
"super" identity and not something that requires moral assessment. Or, worse yet, it is something that can only be considered as
intrinsically good. By appealing to the view that "might is right," the film fails to open up the possibility that values and ethics
are constituted by various social mechanisms and material relations of power. Instead, the tautological rationale suggests that being
"right" is simply entailed by being "super," such that the imperative to conquer the enemy who threatens one's way of life remains
not only above question but also without any negative consequences (after all, the enemy is not "super" like us). The presumption
of innate American benevolence is implied by a reading of The Incredibles as a national allegory. At stake in this concept
of America as a superpower is the belief that its leaders and the entire populace are incorruptible and therefore exemplify absolute
goodness.78
As we have seen in previous chapters, this notion of a benign, incorruptible nature is nothing new to Disney, whose cultural productions
rely on innocence as a rhetorical tool to legitimate dominant relations of power. The Incredibles slightly modifies the
concept of childhood innocence by linking it to a citizenry in need of a blameless and absolute paternalistic authority to safeguard
its interests. The appeal to innocence often enables animated Disney films to fly below a critical radar. The Incredibles
probably does so, despite its authoritarian overtones, because of the historical and cultural context in which it was received. After
the tragic events of 9/11, Americans sought an opportunity to envision themselves as proactive agents of history rather than its
passive victims and as part of a community with strong leadership that could instill hope for security and redemption in a world
that seemed hostile to such desires.
However, when politics is cloaked in the guise of innocence, more is at stake than a simple affirmation of desire. At stake is
the way in which Disney films garner the cultural power to influence how people think not simply through their particular mode of
representation but also through shaping the knowledge and subjectivities of their viewers in order to valorize some identities while
disabling others. Film watching involves more than entertainment; it is an experience that reproduces the basic conditions of learning.
To understand Disney films, we need to understand how Disney culture influences public understandings of history, national coherence,
and popular values in ways that often conceal injustice, dissent, and the possibility of democratic renewal. While the retro style
and clever allusiveness of The Incredibles appeal to what is aesthetically pleasing about America's past, there is no acknowledgment
of an underlying totalitarian ethos driving, for instance, U.S. military and imperial expansion during the Cold War. Although weakling
institutions and individuals hinder all things "super," Mr. Incredible, as an exemplary cultural icon, enables the reconstruction
of American history purged of its seamy side, not least of all through an appeal to nostalgia, stylized consumption, and a reinvigorated
patriotism. Moreover, The Incredibles' comic representation of 1950s suburban mediocrity does little to challenge the prevailing
discourses of patriarchy, class, and sexism. In fact, the film pays tribute to the consumerism, patriarchy, and family values associated
with 1950s sitcoms by suggesting that the failing of such a family orientation lies not in its oppressive control but in how settling
into a mundane reality and accepting the onset of complacency sap its inherent magisterial vitality. Taking what it considers best
from that era, the film revitalizes conservative ideology for a new generation of video-gaming kids, sexing up the suburban doldrums
with designer superhero garb and high-tech stunts that substitute spectacle for critical engagement.
The Incredibles and The Path to 9/11 are films produced at a particular historical moment that share the theme
of defending U.S. hegemony and values against the insidious forces of a weak-willed political correctness at home and envious terrorists
determined to destroy the American way of life abroad. One interesting outcome of the comparison can be seen in the way the different
film genres elicited much different responses from the public despite their thematic similarities. The Path to 9/11's claim
to portray historical events objectively in the form of a documentary-style ABC miniseries drew some public resistance, whereas the
animated Disney film whose very representation defies objectivity drew virtually none. But the messages of The Incredibles
are no less persuasive for being more fantastic.
Clearly, The Incredibles' inscription of biological supremacy represents not only an assertion of dominant family values
but an ideological justification for genderand race-based conceptions of U.S. global imperialism and national identity. The Path
to 9/11 is less clever in concealing its affirmation of racist and sexist attitudes and its legitimation of violence, but The Incredibles is far more dangerous in that it has been viewed in a generally unfiltered manner by millions of children
and adults worldwide. Recognizing the conservative influence of Disney films-a conservatism that manifests with unprecedented boldness
in The Incredibles-should not entail avoiding them, suppressing them, or complacently accepting their cultural ascendancy.
It should involve making explicit how and what we learn from the very political messages being taught by Disney films, rather than
accepting them at face value or dismissing their existence altogether.
Consuming culture even as a form of entertainment is fundamentally a pedagogical experience, and the more educators, parents,
students, and other cultural workers become active in their attempts to decode the complex representations being offered by Disney,
the more rich and rewarding our experiences with popular culture will become. For this reason, a nuanced criticism of Disney films
would not assume that they inherently disempower the audience but would instead view such cultural encounters as opportunities that
can empower children and adults by creating the conditions that give people control over the production and types of knowledge and
values arising from their experiences as cultural consumers. Being resisted here is the attitude that turns Disney's native utopianism
into an excuse to adopt a stance that willfully overlooks the risks incurred by allowing a multinational corporation to escape any
critical scrutiny as it reproduces dominant forms of identity, authorizes particular forms of history, and validates "hierarchies
of value as universally valid, ecumenical, and effectively consensual."79
Nothing could be more dystopian in its consequences than the abdication of our responsibility to be critical and thoughtful of the
ways the U.S. media represents America to itself and others. Disney should not be allowed to dictate, limit, and monopolize the only
current and future possibilities imaginable for an increasingly global culture that must be able to imagine a better life-a life
built upon the precepts of compassion and justice rather than American-centered images of power, nostalgia, insularity, and world
domination.
"... 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.
Wouldn't surprise me one bit if Kristol and Boot work for the CIA and MI6. They tend to lead
with placed stories, either before or after events, helping to persuade those who have yet to
make up their minds or those looking to have someone else do their thinking for them.
With the ongoing internet reformation we are experiencing, its a lot easier for the masses
to see the bigger picture, the parties involved and the corrupt characters playing the puppet
strings for the media.
Glad to see these shysters exposed for what they are propagandists.
What "pretzelattack" does not understand is for whom Luke Harding actually works. Intelligence agencies
control The Guardian and shape forums in the direction they consider beneficial.
Notable quotes:
"... As far as upholding our Community Standards is concerned, The Guardian has decided to stand by the article and thus The Guardian views comments such as yours as misrepresentation. ..."
When you take issue with Editorial decisions of the Guardian, the Moderation team is the
wrong place to address it. You would have better luck following the procedures outlined on
https://www.theguardian.com/info/complaints-and-corrections.
As far as upholding our Community Standards is concerned, The Guardian has decided
to stand by the article and thus The Guardian views comments such as yours as
misrepresentation.
There is also the matter that most of your removed comments are Off Topic for the
discussions on which you post them, which breaches point 8 of our Community Standards.
8. Keep it relevant. We know that some conversations can be wide-ranging, but if you
post something which is unrelated to the original topic ("off-topic") then it may be
removed, in order to keep the thread on track. This also applies to queries or comments
about moderation, which should not be posted as comments.
Premoderation is usually only a temporary measure. Post consistently in line with the
community standards you agreed to abide by when creating your account and the sanction will
be lifted and full commenting privileges restored to your account. Post consistently
against the spirit of the community standards and you risk a permanent ban.
Best wishes
Meg,
Community Moderator
Links: The Guardian's Community Standards & FAQs
This was about the blatant bullshit, by Luke Harding, about Assange and manning meeting at
the Ecuadorian embassy in London.
"The guardian stands by the story" by censoring critical comments, while never bothering
to try to defend the actual reporting.
Of course, that would be difficult since there is no evidence that Manafort somehow
whisked himself (maybe a dr. who tardis) in and out of one of the most heavily surveilled
sites in the world.
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).
JANUARY 18, 2017 CIA Publishes About 13 Million Pages of Declassified Files Online
The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) published nearly 13 million pages of declassified
files on its official website for the first time in its history. The declassified files were
previously publicly available only at the National Archives in Maryland.
Intelligence agencies like CIA is a threat to "normal" societies as they tend to acquire
power with time and tail start wagging the dog. Mechanism of control are usually subverted and
considerable part of their activities is dome without informing "supervisory" structures.
In the USA sometimes CIA monitor Congress communications and tries to coerce them like was the case when the torture program was revealed. In other words intelligence agencies are the core
neofascist structures in modern society and as such represent a distinct danger.
Notable quotes:
"... Organizations like the CIA are obviously fallible and have made many mistakes and failed to anticipate world events. But they are also very powerful, having great financial backing, and do the bidding of their masters in banking, Wall St., finance, etc. They are the action arm of these financial elites, and are, as Douglass Valentine has written, organized criminals. ..."
"... The corporate mass media take their orders, orders that need not be direct, but sometimes are, because these media are structured to do the bidding of the same elites that formed the CIA and own the media. And while their ostensible raison d'ȇtre is to provide intelligence to the nation's civilian leaders, this is essentially a cover story for their real work that is propaganda, killing, and conducting coups d'états at home and abroad. ..."
"... Because they have deep pockets, they can afford to buy all sorts of people, people who pimp for the elites. Some of these people do work that is usually done by honest academics and independent intellectuals, a dying breed, once called free-floating intellectuals. These pimps analyze political, economic, technological, and cultural trends. They come from different fields: history, anthropology, psychology, sociology, political science, cultural studies, linguistics, etc. They populate the think tanks and universities. They are often intelligent but live in bad faith, knowing they are working for those who are doing the devil's work. But they collect their pay and go their way straight to the bank, the devil's bank. They often belong to the Council of Foreign Relations or the Heritage Foundation. They are esteemed and esteem themselves. But they are pimps. ..."
"... Infecting minds with such symbols and stories must be done directly and indirectly, as well as short-term and long-term. Long term propaganda is like a slowly leaking water pipe that you are vaguely aware of but that rots the metal from within until the pipe can no longer resist the pressure. Drip drop, drip drop, drip drop -- and the inattentive recipients of the propaganda gradually lose their mettle to resist and don't know it, and then when an event bursts into the news -- e.g. the attacks of September 11, 2001 or Russia-gate -- they have been so softened that their assent is automatically given. They know without hesitation who the devil is and that he must be fought. ..."
"... The purpose of the long-term propaganda is to create certain predispositions and weaknesses that can be exploited when needed. Certain events can be the triggers to induce the victims to react to suggestions. When the time is ripe, all that is needed is a slight suggestion, like a touch on the shoulder, and the hypnotized one acts in a trance. ..."
"... Very entertaining. Now tell us how all this works. And what the CIA gets out of it. I mean they surely don't do it for nothing do they? Does the CIA Director get rich for working for 'masters in banking, Wall St., finance, etc'? Or is everyone under a giant Satanic Cult in the sky and the CIA is their headquarters on earth? ..."
...The Nazis had a name for their propaganda and mind-control operations:
weltanschauungskrieg -- "world view warfare." As good students, they had learned many
tricks of the trade from their American teachers, including Sigmund Freud's nephew, Edward
Bernays, who had honed his propagandistic skills for the United States during World War I and
had subsequently started the public relations industry in New York City, an industry whose
raison d'etre from the start was to serve the interests of the elites in manipulating the
public mind.
In 1941, U.S. Intelligence translated weltanschauungskrieg as "psychological
warfare," a phrase that fails to grasp the full dimensions of the growing power and penetration
of U.S. propaganda, then and now. Of course, the American propaganda apparatus was just then
getting started on an enterprise that has become the epitome of successful world view warfare
programs, a colossal beast whose tentacles have spread to every corner of the globe and whose
fabrications have nestled deep within the psyches of many hundreds of millions of Americans and
people around the world. And true to form in this circle game of friends helping friends, this
propaganda program was ably assisted after WW II by all the Nazis secreted into the U.S.
("Operation Paperclip") by Allen Dulles and his henchmen in the OSS and then the CIA to make
sure the U.S. had operatives to carry on the Nazi legacy (see David Talbot's The Devil's
Chessboard: Allen Dulles, The CIA, and The Rise of America's Secret Government , an
extraordinary book that will make your skin crawl with disgust).
This went along quite smoothly until some people started to question the Warren Commission's
JFK assassination story. The CIA then went on the offensive in 1967 and put out the word to all
its people in the agency and throughout the media and academia to use the phrase "conspiracy
theory" to ridicule these skeptics, which they have done up until the present day. This secret
document -- CIA Dispatch
1035-960 -- was a propaganda success for many decades, marginalizing those researchers and
writers who were uncovering the truth about not just President Kennedy's murder by the national
security state, but those of Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, and Robert Kennedy. Today, the tide
is turning on this score, as recently more and more Americans are fed up with the lies and are
demanding that the truth be told. Even the
Washington Post is noting this, and it is a wave of opposition that will only grow.
The CIA Exposed -- Partially
But back in the mid-1960s to the mid-1970s, some covert propaganda programs run by the CIA
were "exposed." First, the Agency's sponsorship of the Congress of Cultural Freedom, through
which it used magazines, prominent writers, academics, et al. to spread propaganda during the
Cold War, was uncovered. This was an era when Americans read serious literary books, writers
and intellectuals had a certain cachet, and popular culture had not yet stupefied Americans.
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 of the CIA and the famous literary journal The Paris
Review.
Then in 1975 the Church Committee hearings resulted in the exposure of abuses by the CIA,
NSA, FBI, etc. In 1977 Carl Bernstein wrote a long piece for Esquire -- "The CIA and the
Media" -- naming names of journalists and publications ( TheNew York Times, CBS
, etc.) that worked with and for the CIA in propagandizing the American people and the rest of
the world. (Conveniently, this article can be read on the CIA's website since presumably the
agency has come clean, or, if you are the suspicious type, or maybe a conspiracy theorist, it
is covering its deeper tracks with a "limited hangout," defined by former CIA agent Victor
Marchetti, who went rogue, as "spy jargon for a favorite and frequently used gimmick of the
clandestine professionals. When their veil of secrecy is shredded and they can no longer rely
on a phony cover story to misinform the public, they resort to admitting -- sometimes even
volunteering -- some of the truth while still managing to withhold the key and damaging facts
in the case. The public, however, is usually so intrigued by the new information that it never
thinks to pursue the matter further.")
Confess and Move On
By the late 1970s, it seemed as if the CIA had been caught in flagrante delicto and
disgraced, had confessed its sins, done penance, and resolved to go and sin no more. Seeming,
however, is the nature of the CIA's game. Organized criminals learn to adapt to the changing
times, and that is exactly what the intelligence operatives did. Since the major revelations of
the late sixties and seventies -- MKUltra, engineered coups all around the world,
assassinations of foreign leaders, spying on Americans, etc. -- no major program of propaganda
has been exposed in the mainstream media. Revealing books about certain CIA programs have been
written -- e.g. Douglas Valentine's important The Phoenix Program being one -- and
dissenting writers, journalists, researchers, and whistleblowers (Robert Parry, Gary Webb,
Julian Assange, James W. Douglass, David Ray Griffin, Edward Snowden, et al.) have connected
the U.S. intelligence services to dirty deeds and specific actions, such as the American
engineered coup d'état in Ukraine in 2013-14, electronic spying, and the attacks of
September 11, 2001.
But the propaganda has for the most part continued unabated at a powerful and esoteric
cultural level, while illegal and criminal actions are carried out throughout the world in the
most blatant manner imaginable, as if to say fuck you openly while insidiously infecting the
general population through the mass electronic screen culture that has relegated intellectual
and literary culture to a tiny minority.
Planning Ahead
Let me explain what I think has been happening.
Organizations like the CIA are obviously fallible and have made many mistakes and failed
to anticipate world events. But they are also very powerful, having great financial backing,
and do the bidding of their masters in banking, Wall St., finance, etc. They are the action arm
of these financial elites, and are, as Douglass Valentine has written, organized
criminals. They have their own military, are joined to all the armed forces, and are
deeply involved in the drug trade. They control the politicians. They operate their own
propaganda network in conjunction with the private mercenaries they hire for their operations.
The corporate mass media take their orders, orders that need not be direct, but sometimes
are, because these media are structured to do the bidding of the same elites that formed the
CIA and own the media. And while their ostensible raison d'ȇtre is to provide intelligence
to the nation's civilian leaders, this is essentially a cover story for their real work that is
propaganda, killing, and conducting coups d'états at home and abroad.
Because they have deep pockets, they can afford to buy all sorts of people, people who
pimp for the elites. Some of these people do work that is usually done by honest academics and
independent intellectuals, a dying breed, once called free-floating intellectuals. These pimps
analyze political, economic, technological, and cultural trends. They come from different
fields: history, anthropology, psychology, sociology, political science, cultural studies,
linguistics, etc. They populate the think tanks and universities. They are often intelligent
but live in bad faith, knowing they are working for those who are doing the devil's work. But
they collect their pay and go their way straight to the bank, the devil's bank. They often
belong to the Council of Foreign Relations or the Heritage Foundation. They are esteemed and
esteem themselves. But they are pimps.
... ... ...
Methods of Propaganda
Infecting minds with such symbols and stories must be done directly and indirectly, as
well as short-term and long-term. Long term propaganda is like a slowly leaking water pipe that
you are vaguely aware of but that rots the metal from within until the pipe can no longer
resist the pressure. Drip drop, drip drop, drip drop -- and the inattentive recipients of the
propaganda gradually lose their mettle to resist and don't know it, and then when an event
bursts into the news -- e.g. the attacks of September 11, 2001 or Russia-gate -- they have been
so softened that their assent is automatically given. They know without hesitation who the
devil is and that he must be fought.
The purpose of the long-term propaganda is to create certain predispositions and
weaknesses that can be exploited when needed. Certain events can be the triggers to induce the
victims to react to suggestions. When the time is ripe, all that is needed is a slight
suggestion, like a touch on the shoulder, and the hypnotized one acts in a trance. The gun
goes off, and the entranced one can't remember why (see: Sirhan Sirhan). This is the goal of
mass hypnotization through long-term propaganda: confusion, memory loss, and automatic reaction
to suggestion.
Intelligence Pimps and Liquid Screen Culture
When the CIA's dirty tricks were made public in the 1970s, it is not hard to imagine that
the intellectual pimps who do their long-range thinking were asked to go back to the drawing
board and paint a picture of the coming decades and how business as usual could be conducted
without further embarrassment. By that time it had become clear that intellectual or high
culture was being swallowed by mass culture and the future belonged to electronic screen
culture and images, not words. What has come to be called "postmodernity" ensued, or what the
sociologist Zygmunt Bauman calls "liquid modernity" and Guy Debord "the society of the
spectacle." Such developments, rooted in what Frederic Jameson has termed "the cultural logic
of late capitalism," have resulted in the fragmentation of social and personal life into
pointillistic moving pictures whose dots form incoherent images that sow mass confusion and do
not cohere.
... ... ...
Edward Curtin is a writer whose work has appeared widely. He teaches sociology at
Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts. His website is http://edwardcurtin.com/
But they are also very powerful, having great financial backing, and do the bidding of
their masters in banking, Wall St., finance, etc. They are the action arm of these
financial elites, and are, as Douglass Valentine has written, organized criminals. They
have their own military, are joined to all the armed forces, and are deeply involved in the
drug trade. They control the politicians. They operate their own propaganda network in
conjunction with the private mercenaries they hire for their operations. The corporate mass
media take their orders, orders that need not be direct, but sometimes are, because these
media are structured to do the bidding of the same elites that formed the CIA and own the
media. And while their ostensible raison d'ȇtre is to provide intelligence to the
nation's civilian leaders, this is essentially a cover story for their real work that is
propaganda, killing, and conducting coups d'états at home and abroad.
Very entertaining. Now tell us how all this works. And what the CIA gets out of it. I
mean they surely don't do it for nothing do they? Does the CIA Director get rich for working
for 'masters in banking, Wall St., finance, etc'? Or is everyone under a giant Satanic Cult
in the sky and the CIA is their headquarters on earth?
Under "The CIA Exposed" could have mentioned Philip Agee's "Inside the Company" as he was the
Edward Snowden of his day.
Interestingly, CIA agent Miles Copeland, Jr., the father of the drummer of the British
band "The Police", said the book was "as complete an account of spy work as is likely to be
published anywhere" and that it is "an authentic account of how an ordinary American or
British 'case officer' operates
" Sigmund Freud's nephew, Edward Bernays, who had honed his propagandistic skills for
the United States during World War I and had subsequently started the public relations
industry in New York City, an industry whose raison d'etre from the start was to serve the
interests of the elites in manipulating the public mind.
In 1941, U.S. Intelligence translated weltanschauungskrieg as "psychological warfare," a
phrase that fails to grasp the full dimensions of the growing power and penetration of U.S.
propaganda, then and now."
The Yank propaganda machine always was an alliance between WASP Elites and Jews. Always.
The Yank WASPs knew that Brit and British Commonwealth WASPs had done the same thing: make
alliance to rule the world, which featured – not a bug but a feature – new ways
to use psy ops to pervert the vast majority of white Christians they ruled.
Until that is understood, which means accepting that WASP culture itself is a problem as
big as Jews and Jewish culture, all that is done in opposition to all that is horrendously
wrong today is wasted time and energy.
@DESERT
FOX The CIA is a British creation, just like Israel's Mossad and Saudi Arabia's General
Intelligence Presidency.
The CIA is a pure WASP Elite creation. It always has served the interests of the WASP
Elite, in the UK and the rest of the Anglosphere as well the US. And the CIA always has
served the interests of Jews and Israel, because that makes perfect sense for WASP culture,
which was formed fully, completed, by the Judaizing heresy Anglo-Saxon Puritanism.
Judaizing heresy guarantees pro-Jewish politics and culture.
Sean, Who else, is here first with the CIA line, "CIA works for the president!" CIA
shoehorned that into the Pike Committee report right after Don Gregg visited the committees
and gave them an ultimatum: back off or it's martial law.
Then Sean mouths a bit of bureaucratic bafflegab about feasibility.
The feasibility of CIA crime is a product of CIA impunity. So next Sean feeds you more CIA
boilerplate by trying to pathologize anyone who's aware of CIA impunity through formal legal
pretexts in municipal law. John Bolton, Trump's CIA ventriloquist, had one prime directive as
unauthorized UN ambassador: remove any reference to impunity from the Summit Outcome
Document. To that end he submitted 600+ NeoSoviet amendments to paralyze the drafting
process.
That's how touchy CIA is about its impunity. CIA is the state, with illegal absolute
sovereignty because they can kill you or torture you and get away with it.
If you're John Kennedy, if you're Robert Kennedy, if you're Dag Hammarskjöld, if
you're Judge Robert Vance. No matter who you are.
From comments: "Miller also admits that the dossier's broad claims are more closely aligned with reality, but that the document
breaks down once you focus on individual claims. " What?!?
Notable quotes:
"... FBI and CIA sources told a Pulitzer Prize-winning Washington Post reporter that they didn't believe a key claim contained in the "Steele Dossier ..."
"... The Post 's Greg Miller told an audience at an October event that the FBI and CIA did not believe that former longtime Trump attorney Michael Cohen visited Prague during the 2016 election to pay off Russia-linked hackers who stole emails from key Democrats, reports the Daily Caller 's Chuck Ross. ..."
"... Miller also admits that the dossier's broad claims are more closely aligned with reality, but that the document breaks down once you focus on individual claims. ..."
"... Steele, using Kremlin sources, claimed in his dossier that Cohen and three associates went to Prague in August 2016 to meet with Kremlin officials for the purpose of discussing "deniable cash payments" made in secret so as to cover up "Moscow's secret liaison with the TRUMP team." ..."
FBI and CIA sources told a Pulitzer Prize-winning Washington Post reporter that they didn't believe a key claim contained in the
"Steele Dossier," the document the Obama FBI relied on to obtain a surveillance warrant on a member of the Trump campaign.
The Post 's Greg Miller told an audience at an October event that the FBI and CIA did not believe that former longtime Trump
attorney Michael Cohen visited Prague during the 2016 election to pay off Russia-linked hackers who stole emails from key Democrats,
reports the Daily Caller 's Chuck Ross.
"We've talked to sources at the FBI and the CIA and elsewhere -- they don't believe that ever happened," said Miller during the
October event which aired Saturday on C-SPAN.
We literally spent weeks and months trying to run down... there's an assertion in there that Michael Cohen went to Prague to
settle payments that were needed at the end of the campaign. We sent reporters to every hotel in Prague, to all over the place
trying to - just to try to figure out if he was ever there, and came away empty . -Greg Miller
Ross notes that WaPo somehow failed to report this information, nor did Miller include this tidbit of narrative-killing information
in his recent book, "The Apprentice: Trump, Russia, and the Subversion of American Democracy."
Miller also admits that the dossier's broad claims are more closely aligned with reality, but that the document breaks down
once you focus on individual claims.
Steele, using Kremlin sources, claimed in his dossier that Cohen and three associates went to Prague in August 2016 to meet
with Kremlin officials for the purpose of discussing "deniable cash payments" made in secret so as to cover up "Moscow's secret liaison
with the TRUMP team."
Cohen's alleged Prague visit captured attention largely because the former Trump fixer has vehemently denied it, and also
because it would seem to be one of the easier claims in Steele's 35-page report to validate or invalidate.
Debate over the salacious document was reignited when
McClatchy reported April 15 that
special counsel Robert Mueller had evidence Cohen visited Prague. No other news outlets have verified the reporting, and Cohen
denied it at the time.
Cohen last denied the dossier's allegations in late June, a period of time when he was gearing up to cooperate with prosecutors
against President Donald Trump . Cohen served as a cooperating witness for prosecutors in both New York and the special counsel's
office. - Daily Caller
Cohen's attorney and longtime Clinton pal Lanny Davis vehemently denied on August 22, one day after Cohen pleaded guilty in his
New York case - that Cohen had never been to Prague, telling Bloomberg " Thirteen references to Mr. Cohen are false in the dossier,
but he has never been to Prague in his life ."
Trump never ceases to crack me up. While his (terrible) current lawyer, declares on TV that there was collusion but it just
didn't last long, Trump calls his former lawyer/fixer at "Rat".
This is just too funny, I mean this is the President of the United States calling his former personal lawyer a "Rat" which
of course is a common mob term for a witness testifying against you.
monkeyshine
Of course it never happened, just like Manafort didn't make 3 trips to London to meet Julian Assange. These fictions were just
used as a pretext for diving into the backgrounds of Trump's political supporters and find crimes to charge them with.
The Cohen raid was particularly egregious, a likely violation of attorney-client privilege. Not suprisingly the American Bar Association
is silent.
brewing_it
So here is a WaPo reporter saying they sent reporters to every hotel in Prague to find out if Cohen had been there, they spent
weeks and weeks researching, interviewing, and nothing. What they are not saying is that they also spent shitloads of Bezo's money
exploring all the other fake dossier claims.
And nothing.....all you hillarytards have been completely scammed by, your pulses sent aflutter with clickbait and page views
and thats it. So sorry you losers.
Demologos
Yeah, like rubles are worth anything outside of Russia. Gold on the other hand ...
But seriously, you two should get a room. If you can't see the conspiracy in the Strzok/Page texts, the setup of Papadapoulous
by the Brits, the phony FISA warrant using the FBI informant, the setup of General Flynn, and the seedy cast of characters in
the DOJ breaking laws right and left, you should be checked for brain wave activity. You probably think the Russians paid for
all of the above too. Go suck a bag of Russian dicks.
January
08, 2018Joel Whitney is a co-founder of the magazine Guernica, a magazine of global
arts and politics, and has written for many publications, including the New York Times and Wall
Street Journal. His book Finks: How the C.I.A.
Tricked the World's Best Writers describes how the CIA contributed funds to numerous
respected magazines during the Cold War, including the Paris Review, to subtly promote
anti-communist views. In their conversation, Whitney tells Robert Scheer about the ties the
CIA's Congress for Cultural Freedom had with literary magazines. He talks about the CIA's
attempt during the Cold War to have at least one agent in every major news organization in
order to get stories killed if they were too critical or get them to run if they were favorable
to the agency. And they discuss the overstatement of the immediate risks and dangers of
communist regimes during the Cold War, which, initially, led many people to support the Vietnam
War.
James Jesus
Angleton was part of this post-OSS group that understood how important spying and
covert ops had been in World War II. And from there, he makes all kinds of terrible mistakes.
He and his group believed essentially that they needed to do better propaganda than the Soviets
did, and one of the ways that they thought they could do it better was to do it subtly and, you
could say, secretly.
So, when this
program is threatened with exposure in '64, '65, '66 and '67 through various sources like
Ramparts and The New York Times, this privilege of secrecy that they enjoyed was not something
that they were willing to give up. So you have something that is described as relatively
benign, this funding of culture through the Congress for Cultural Freedom, a funding of student
movements through the National Student Association, the funding of labor unions that would be
less communist-influenced than the communist-dominated ones that they presumed were out there.
These were seen as benign answers. They were reactions to Soviet penetration. So, secrecy is a
key to making them work.
So, even if you want to make the argument that, for instance, the Congress for Cultural Freedom
never censored its magazines–which I think has been severely disproved; they did censor.
Even if you wanted to say that they published all sorts of great writers–which clearly
they did; that was part of the subtlety of it and part of the brilliance of it, and part of the
soft-power charm of it. Even if you wanted to say all that, when the secrecy is exposed by
honest accounting in the media, the fourth estate, the adversarial media of American bragging
around the world, they are so attached to their secrecy, and so upset, the CIA group led by
people like Angleton, that they commit something that is about as anti-American as anything in
our system. Which is: more secrecy, more media penetration to the point of penetrating, first,
the anti-Vietnam War press; second, the student, the college student newspapers and press; the
alternative, so-called, press. Which essentially is a license to do what they did later. So,
where Ramparts was penetrated, leads to Operation Chaos, presumably; that leads to Operation
Mockingbird in the seventies.
By the time we have Carl Bernstein reporting on Operation Mockingbird, and John Crewdson
reporting on its international equivalent in the New York Times–Bernstein in Rolling
Stone–you essentially see the CIA trying to have at least one agent at every major news
and media organization it can do in the world.
And Crewdson reporting in the Times at the end of 1977 essentially says that they had one agent
or contract agent at a newspaper in every world capital on Earth. They could get stories killed
or get stories to run that portrayed the CIA's views in a favorable way, or kill them if they
did not.
I challenge anyone to name a modern war prosecuted by the US government and its allies that
did not involve at its root the direct fabrication of blatant lies on enormous levels, both
as a casus belli and also to manipulate public opinion in favor of hostilities.
The clandestine activity represented by these *provocations* isn't even good spycraft. The
Skripal case and the latest use of chlorine gas in Syria are risible, clumsy, amateur
attempts to wangle the empire into war that the callowest rube could see through. And yet,
it's working its magic on the media. The politicians, suborned by the war machine, give
unanimous bipartisan assent.
@Giuseppe
Saddam's WMD, Gulf of Tonkin, etc., etc. And now a ridiculous false flag attack in Syria. Did
it take place at all? But the narrative is all. The press in the USA is more effectively
controlled and conformist than in Germany in the late 1930s and nobody goes around beating up
journalists or sending them to a KZ. The Syrian Gov't is winning the civil war, things are
going well but what Assad really needs is to have the crap bombed out of his military by
Uncle Sam. What transparent bullshit.
The press in the USA is more effectively controlled and conformist than in Germany in
the late 1930s
Who controlled the press there and then?
What can be said about the control and conformity of the Soviet, British and American
press of the time?
and nobody goes around beating up journalists or sending them to a KZ.
That's probably because the usual thugs don't need to do that any longer since they
control virtually everything.
A couple of anecdotes to illustrate my point.:
2 of the reasons we don't hear much about mobsters these days are that the press and
judiciary are owned by them and if you do get something published, you run the risk of
getting snuffed. They probably don't stop at mere blinding anymore.
Victor Riesel was an American newspaper journalist and columnist who specialized in
news related to labor unions. In 1956 a mobster threw sulfuric acid in his face on a
public street in Chicago causing his permanent blindness.
"Treason is a strong word, but not too strong to characterize the situation in which the
Senate is the eager, resourceful, and indefatigable agent of interests as hostile to
the American people as any invading army could be." This indictment launched a
nine-part series of articles entitled "Treason of the Senate."
-David Graham Phillips, Cosmopolitan magazine, February 1906
In 1911 Phillips was shot multiple t imes by Fitzhugh Coyle Goldsborough, a
Harvard-educated scion of a prominent Maryland family ,at Gramercy Park in New York
City.
Still, you authors need to start digging deeper. Trump and his Allies are putting on an
amazing show / act to distract their ( and Humanities going back generations) hidden
enemies.
The Bad Guys have for millennia weoponized information, convincing the public, reporters,
and journalists that the rabbit hole ends here, that they don't need to dig any deeper, to
just accept this slightly deeper layer of the onion. That warm and fuzzy feeling from
scratching just a little deeper into to information matrix, isn't enough anymore. You guys
have the intelligence, experience, and ability just do it please!
"... Their fundamental problem is, Aspen Institute is CIA. Their first and only instinct is to use people like toilet paper. They don't want popular support. They want agents in complete control. ..."
@Cagey
Beast Aspen Institute does make attempts at outreach, but they invariably cock it up by
eliciting, recruiting, or suborning every single person they bring in. The shitheads even
tried to do it to me. You would think they'd have a dossier saying I hate those cobags.
Their fundamental problem is, Aspen Institute is CIA. Their first and only instinct is
to use people like toilet paper. They don't want popular support. They want agents in
complete control.
Yes, the Aspen Institute is the CIA and the CIA is the Aspen Institute. Or, to be more
precise, the CIA is the armed wing of Washington's permanently governing technocratic party,
in the same way the KGB was the armed wing of the Soviet Communist Party.
Poor Julian Assange is likely going to be in their hands not too long from now. The
citizen of one Five Eyes country will be arrested by another and then sent off to the
imperial metropole, to be kicked around like a political football. The rest of us
Anglosphericals are expected to cheer or remain silent. Either is acceptable.
there is nothing at all mindless or demented about them
Me: Oh yes there is; by *them* I don't mean "Zuckerberg, others" but the actual
rulers of 'the West,' then see this:
Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of
thistles?
Consider also:
Aspen Institute is CIA
and [perhaps most critically] this:
may depend on support for Trump from Israel and the Pentagon!
Now, I term the actual rulers of 'the West' the ccc = covert criminal cabal. Of course
they are in hiding -- acting from 'behind the curtain,' as some have it -- it has to be that
*dishonest* way -- for them. Among their most notable 'fruits' are the JFK murder, USS
Liberty outrage, inside-job 9/11 psyop and the utterly wicked destruction of Libya/Gaddafi,
just 4 of many. The extended list is looong, and note that the 1st 3 in my list demonstrate
the ccc 'murdering their own' -- except that to the ccc, anybody not actually in the ccc
itself is not 'their own' but only exploitable/disposable objects. Of course the ccc causes
lies to be promulgated, hence the Lügenpresse . Neoliberalism/austerity must also
come from the ccc, causing misery wherever it's forced upon us, we the people. One of the
spivs in suits who 'sold' neoliberalism to the Aus people called it 'economic rationalism'
and jeered: 'What would you rather -- irrational economics?' Another ccc modus
operandi item is coercion as demonstrated by the downstream effects of Downer's "Get a
briefing!" -- which shows us that the CIA et al. is a 'command conduit' if not a command
originator. What I'm trying to illustrate here is that the ccc does not merely operate like a
mafia, it *is* a mafia, and one of the author's "may depend on" items suggests a name for
this mafia, namely: Khazar. That's our miserable world, deliberately made that way by that
mafia; if that's not 'mindless and demented' what is? rgds
@MK-DELTABURKE
The Aspen Institute is CIA, but the CIA is an organization created and controlled by the
globalist conspirators at the Council on Foreign Relations, mostly the Rockefellers and other
banksters.
"... Neoliberal media has always embraced boundary transgression, always embraced invasiveness, always embraced adventurism, always embraced war. ..."
"... Fox is a racist bully. MSNBC is poison, & CNN is a joke. If nothing else, Trump is right about one thing. The American media is the enemy of the people. ..."
"... That an entire generation of Democrats paying attention to politics for the first time is being instilled with formerly right-wing Cold Warrior values of jingoism, über-pat riotism, reverence for security state agencies and prosecutors, a reckless use of the "traitor" accusation to smear one's enemies, and a belief that neoconservatives embody moral rectitude and foreign policy expertise has long been obvious and deeply disturbing. ..."
"... Years ago, whilst this reactionary putsch was still in it's infancy, my mom would listen to the "news" on the local CBS affiliate, and many times I heard her gasp and say, referring to the "reporters" jabbering, "My God, they're a bunch of dopes!" The dopes are ascendant; stupid, scared, violent-minded, and very well-paid. ..."
"... We, The People, Are Fed Up With Neo-Cons and Neo-Libs! ..."
"... Democratic Party leadership has basically always been neoconservative supporters of the national security state, but there has been some resistance within the rank and file. ..."
"... But the democrats will help republicans squeeze the peons with excessive education costs, unaffordable health care premiums and copays, expensive housing,.... ..."
"... We've known for a long time that NBC & MSNBC "have become ground zero for these political pathologies of militarism and servitude to security state agencies." ..."
"... The US military presence in the Middle East has nothing to do with national security (i.e protecting American citizens from military attack by foreign nations, or even with disrupting the activities and funding of terrorist groups like ISIS or Al Qaeda, groups we financed and armed as part of the overthrow Assad strategy). ..."
"... It has everything to do with controlling the region's oil flow and propping up regimes like Saudi Arabia who agree to invest the majority of their oil money in Wall Street banks. This is called petrodollar recycling, a strategy devised in the 1970s. Here is a foundational document discussing the plan, from 1974: https://search.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/1974LONDON16506_b.html ..."
"... Real News vs "fake news" is almost impossible to find and dissect. Even looking for real reporting beyond echoing is hard to find. The real problems are ignored or misstated to the extent real solutions are impossible. Not just security and endless wars but every aspect of civil existence, education, healthcare, you name it. We exist in an echo-chamber where real knowledge and understanding have been all but banished. ..."
"... Gotta hand it to the neocons, soon after the Vietnam debacle (I served 3 tours there), and Watergate, they quickly licked their wounds and devised a new playbook that, over time, would become a 'Project for the New American Century'. First things first, get rid of the draft. Go professional, and then only a very minuscule percentage of Americans have skin in the game, meaning their own sons and daughters at risk, while the rest of America can focus on the more important things, like watching the Housewives of New Jersey, New York, Beverly Hills, etc. etc., or sports, or the newest fashions, or the current fad diets, or the newest Trump tweet, bla bla bla. ..."
"... Next, and this is genius because it incorporates that great American pastime, greed, spread all of that endless supply of taxpayer money around to each and every State, County, and municipality in the form of jobs tied to the military industrial complex. ..."
"... And finally, silence and denigrate any meaningful opposition. As Kierkegaard stated, "Once you label me you negate me." Hence the long, ongoing labeling of opposition with terms like traitor, anti-American, unpatriotic, (insert name or country here) sympathizer. The sad part of all of this, too many Americans are gullible enough to swallow this crap, hook, line and sinker, as long as they get their daily ration of manna. ..."
"... What's the central reason MSNBC is so pro-war? Because the shareholders in its parent corporation, Comcas, have a deep vested interest in militarism, arms sales, and the capture of natural resources around the word ..."
"... Maddow long ago described herself as a "national security liberal." ..."
"... Still, that a network insider has blown the whistle on how all this works, and how MSNBC and NBC have become ground zero for these political pathologies of militarism and servitude to security state agencies, while not surprising, is nonetheless momentous given how detailed and emphatic he is in his condemnations. ..."
"... . . if they mean by the word partisan that it is New Yorkers and Washingtonians against the rest of the country then they are right. ..."
"... This essay is critical for every American to read. No exaggeration. NBC/MSNBC has become the proverbial spear tip in the march toward nuclear war with Russia. ..."
"... Perhaps, but I would suggest that Iran has become the most desired target for a war, and due in no small part to the aggressive advocacy for such a war by Israel and Saudi Arabia, and their subservient boot-licking, ass kissing American politicians. ..."
"... Project Mockingbird was publicly revealed years ago, but pretty much totally ignored by the audiences who lap contentedly from the MSM koolaid bowl. ..."
"... It's ironic that these politicians who have gorged themselves on literally millions of dollars in campaign funding from Big Pharma, Defense Contractors, Energy, Big Banking, and even insider stock trading now feel compelled to warn us of graft and corruption they all fostered. These politicians get elected as nobodies, sell their votes, retire as millionaires, then have the nerve to tell us how corrupted our government has become as they check out to become Lobbyist' ..."
"... I am so glad to see this man speak out. For the longest time, war and the military budget has been a third rail in politics ..."
"... State Department has become another branch of the MIC, not a diplomatic corps. And I am not saying this is all because of Trump. Probably started when we "won" the Cold War. ..."
Veteran NBC/MSNBC Journalist Blasts the Network for Being Captive to the National Security State and Reflexively Pro-War to Stop
Trump
A VETERAN national security journalist with NBC News and MSNBC blasted the networks in
a Monday
email for becoming captive and subservient to the national security state, reflexively pro-war in the name of stopping President
Donald Trump, and now the prime propaganda instrument of the War Machine's promotion of militarism and imperialism.
As a result of NBC/MSNBC's all-consuming militarism, he said, "the national security establishment not only hasn't missed a beat
but indeed has gained dangerous strength" and "is ever more autonomous and practically impervious to criticism."
The NBC/MSNBC reporter, William Arkin, is a longtime prominent war and military reporter, perhaps best known for his
groundbreaking,
three-part Washington Post series in 2010, co-reported with two-time Pulitzer winner Dana Priest, on how sprawling, unaccountable,
and omnipotent the national security state has become in the post-9/11 era. When that three-part investigative series, titled "Top
Secret America," was published, I hailed it as one of the most
important pieces of reporting of the war on terror, because while "we chirp endlessly about the Congress, the White House, the
Supreme Court, the Democrats and Republicans, this is the Real U.S. Government: functioning in total darkness, beyond elections and
parties, so secret, vast and powerful that it evades the control or knowledge of any one person or even any organization."
Arkin has worked with NBC and MSNBC over the years and continuously since 2016. But yesterday, he announced that he was leaving
the network in a long, emphatic email denouncing the networks for their superficial and reactionary coverage of national security,
for becoming fixated on trivial Trump outbursts of the day to chase profit and ratings, and -- most incriminating of all -- for becoming
the central propaganda arm of the CIA, the Pentagon, and the FBI in the name of #Resistance, thus inculcating an entire new generation
of liberals, paying attention to politics for the first time in the Trump era, to "lionize" those agencies and their policies of
imperialism and militarism.
That MSNBC and NBC have become Security State Central has been obvious for quite some time. The network
consists of little more than former CIA, NSA, and Pentagon officials as news "analysts"; ex-Bush-Cheney national security and
communications officials as hosts and commentators; and the most extremists pro-war neocons constantly bashing Trump (and critics
of Democrats generally) from the right, using the Cheney-Rove playbook on which they built their careers to accuse Democratic Party
critics and enemies of being insufficiently patriotic,
traitors for America's official enemies , and abandoning America's hegemonic role in the world.
Some of the most beloved and frequently featured MSNBC commentators are the most bloodthirsty pro-war militarists from the war
on terror: David Frum, Jennifer Rubin, Ralph Peters, and Bill Kristol (who was just giddily and affectionately celebrated with a
playful nickname bestowed on him: "Lil Bill"). In early 2018,
NBC hired former
CIA chief John Brennan to serve as a "senior national security and intelligence analyst," where
the rendition and torture advocate joined -- as
Politico's Jack Shafer noted -- a long litany of former security state officials at the network, including "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."
As Shafer noted, filling your news and analyst slots with former security state officials as MSNBC and NBC have done is tantamount
to becoming state TV, since "their first loyalty -- and this is no slam -- is to the agency from which they hail." As he put it:
"Imagine a TV network covering the auto industry through the eyes of dozens of paid former auto executives and you begin to appreciate
the current peculiarities."
All of this led Arkin to publish a remarkable denunciation of NBC and MSNBC in the form of an email he sent to various outlets,
including The Intercept. Its key passages are scathing and unflinching in their depiction of those networks as pro-war propaganda
outlets that exist to do little more than amplify and serve the security state agencies most devoted to opposing Trump, including
their mindless opposition to Trump's attempts (with whatever motives) to roll back some of the excesses of imperialism, aggression,
and U.S. involvement in endless war, as well as to sacrifice all journalistic standards and skepticism about generals and the U.S
war machine if doing so advances their monomaniacal mission of denouncing Trump. As Arkin wrote (emphasis added):
My expertise, though seeming to be all the more central to the challenges and dangers we face, also seems to be less valued
at the moment. And I find myself completely out of synch with the network, being neither a day-to-day reporter nor interested
in the Trump circus.
To me there is also a larger problem: though they produce nothing that resembles actual safety and security, the national security
leaders and generals we have are allowed to do their thing unmolested . Despite being at "war," no great wartime leaders or visionaries
are emerging. There is not a soul in Washington who can say that they have won or stopped any conflict. And though there might
be the beloved perfumed princes in the form of the Petraeus' and Wes Clarks', or the so-called warrior monks like Mattis and McMaster,
we've had more than a generation of national security leaders who sadly and fraudulently have done little of consequence. And
yet we (and others) embrace them, even the highly partisan formers who masquerade as "analysts". We do so ignoring the empirical
truth of what they have wrought: There is not one county in the Middle East that is safer today than it was 18 years ago. Indeed
the world becomes ever more polarized and dangerous.
Windrem again convinced me to return to NBC to join the new investigative unit in the early days of the 2016 presidential campaign.
I thought that the mission was to break through the machine of perpetual war acceptance and conventional wisdom to challenge Hillary
Clinton's hawkishness. It was also an interesting moment at NBC because everyone was looking over their shoulder at Vice and other
upstarts creeping up on the mainstream. But then Trump got elected and Investigations got sucked into the tweeting vortex, increasingly
lost in a directionless adrenaline rush, the national security and political version of leading the broadcast with every snow
storm. And I would assert that in many ways NBC just began emulating the national security state itself – busy and profitable.
No wars won but the ball is kept in play.
I'd argue that under Trump, the national security establishment not only hasn't missed a beat but indeed has gained dangerous
strength. Now it is ever more autonomous and practically impervious to criticism. I'd also argue, ever so gingerly, that NBC has
become somewhat lost in its own verve, proxies of boring moderation and conventional wisdom, defender of the government against
Trump, cheerleader for open and subtle threat mongering, in love with procedure and protocol over all else (including results).
I accept that there's a lot to report here, but I'm more worried about how much we are missing. Hence my desire to take a step
back and think why so little changes with regard to America's wars.
In our day-to-day whirlwind and hostage status as prisoners of Donald Trump, I think – like everyone else does – that we miss
so much. People who don't understand the medium, or the pressures, loudly opine that it's corporate control or even worse, that
it's partisan. Sometimes I quip in response to friends on the outside (and to government sources) that if they mean by the word
partisan that it is New Yorkers and Washingtonians against the rest of the country then they are right.
For me I realized how out of step I was when I looked at Trump's various bumbling intuitions: his desire to improve relations
with Russia, to denuclearize North Korea, to get out of the Middle East, to question why we are fighting in Africa, even in his
attacks on the intelligence community and the FBI. Of course he is an ignorant and incompetent impostor. And yet I'm alarmed at
how quick NBC is to mechanically argue the contrary, to be in favor of policies that just spell more conflict and more war. Really?
We shouldn't get out Syria? We shouldn't go for the bold move of denuclearizing the Korean peninsula? Even on Russia, though we
should be concerned about the brittleness of our democracy that it is so vulnerable to manipulation, do we really yearn for the
Cold War? And don't even get me started with the FBI: What? We now lionize this historically destructive institution?
That an entire generation of Democrats paying attention to politics for the first time is being instilled with formerly right-wing
Cold Warrior values of jingoism, über-patriotism, reverence for security state agencies and prosecutors, a
reckless use of the "traitor" accusation to smear one's enemies, and a belief that neoconservatives embody moral rectitude and
foreign policy expertise has long been obvious and deeply disturbing. These toxins will endure far beyond Trump, particularly given
the
now full-scale unity between the Democratic establishment and neocons .
photosymbiosis1 hour ago
Just remembered something about Arkin. This book: Code Names: Deciphering U.S. Military Plans, Programs and Operations in the
9/11 World January 25, 2005 by William M. Arkin
https://books.google.com/books/about/Code_Names.html?id=KXLfAAAAMAAJ
In particular there was this one exercise called Vigilant Guardian, run by NORAD, simulating terrorist attacks by hijackers which,
curiously enough, happened to be in operation on the very day the Saudi hijackers were actually conducting such attacks:
NORAD's next Vigilant Guardian exercise, in 2001, will actually be several days underway on 9/11 (see (6:30 a.m.) September
11, 2001). It will include a number of scenarios based around plane hijackings, with the fictitious hijackers targeting New
York in at least one of those scenarios (see September 6, 2001, September 9, 2001, September 10, 2001, and (9:40 a.m.) September
11, 2001). [9/11 COMMISSION, 2004; VANITY FAIR, 8/1/2006]
http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=vigilant_guardian
However, what's interesting from Arkin's book, as I recall, is that this operation name was then reused in Afghanistan (a very
rare practice, apparently, to reuse an operation name, but perhaps if you wanted to hide the original program, etc...), in 2003
or so - here's a NYT article about Vigilant Guardian in Afghanistan:
https://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/20/magazine/where-the-enemy-is-everywhere-and-nowhere.html
It's just one of many stories that makes one wonder exactly how much pre-warning the Bush Administration had about the 9/11 attacks,
and whether there was a deliberate decision to allow the hijackers to seize control of the planes without any interference. It
did save the Bush presidency, it did open the door to the Iraq invasion, and the Saudi intelligence services were involved with
helping the hijackers. All very suspicious, really. Point being, Arkin's book is one of the few sources that lay out all those
covert/overt program names, and is a real treasure for anyone interested in the history of that era.
bobhope1: 2 hours ago
This has been clearly obvious for several years. Goebbels would be proud.
Dysnomia 3 hours ago
If there were some kind of political realignment (similar to the realignment that took place in the 60s and 70s where racist
white Democrats became racist white Republicans) where neoconservatives and warmongers become Democrats, and the Republican Party
becomes the party of, surely not peace, but at least moderation in foreign military intervention, that might not be too bad, or
at least not too much worse than the earlier post-9/11 status quo.
But I'm afraid this shift in discourse heralds something worse than that. So-called "liberal" media's embrace of neoconservatism
and imperialism is likely to have the effect of narrowing the Overton window on issues of war and peace, making genuine anti-war
positions even more unthinkable and beyond the pale. There will increasingly be no place for public anti-war discourse.
The single greatest threat to human freedom in the world today is the U.S. national security state. Inculcating public reverence
for the state is perhaps the most dangerous thing that a media organization could do.
open_hearted_jade 2 hours ago
Neoliberal media has always embraced boundary transgression, always embraced invasiveness, always embraced adventurism,
always embraced war.
Fox is a racist bully. MSNBC is poison, & CNN is a joke. If nothing else, Trump is right about one thing. The American
media is the enemy of the people.
Lawrence_Hill 4 hours ago ( Edited )
Do we remember way back in the 80's/Reagan admin war involvement in the El Salvador civil war when NBC anchor Tom Brokaw openly
questioned the US's support for death squad leader D' Auboissan's terror regime on the air? Shocking! A Walter Cronkite-Vietnam
War moment Brokaw supposed, maybe?
I remember that in all the hullabaloo that followed one of our ruling class commented that Brokaw was being $5 million a year
not to say such subversive things. Lesson learned, Brokaw nor any other gainfully employed MSM tool has made the same mistake
again, and now Brokaw has emeritus status in the NBC "News" hierarchy.
That comment opened my eyes for the first time to the reality of American MSM...
Michael_Wilk 4 hours ago
That an entire generation of Democrats paying attention to politics for the first time is being instilled with formerly
right-wing Cold Warrior values of jingoism, über-pat riotism, reverence for security state agencies and prosecutors, a reckless
use of the "traitor" accusation to smear one's enemies, and a belief that neoconservatives embody moral rectitude and foreign
policy expertise has long been obvious and deeply disturbing.
I have to take issue with your use of the word 'formerly' in describing Cold War values. They are still very much right-wing.
They never stopped being right-wing, nor did the current and former government and security state apparatchiks polluting the airwaves
with their lies.
TimN 5 hours ago
The neo-con and neo-lib argument against this unfortunate reveal of things present, and things to come: "But Trump! Trump!"
I didn't think I'd see things unravel so quickly, but Goddamn. Years ago, whilst this reactionary putsch was still in it's
infancy, my mom would listen to the "news" on the local CBS affiliate, and many times I heard her gasp and say, referring to the
"reporters" jabbering, "My God, they're a bunch of dopes!" The dopes are ascendant; stupid, scared, violent-minded, and very well-paid.
haugeneder 6 hours ago
Great piece. America is on the precipice and there are few who care -- very few. Time for an great economic depression -- not
recession -- to shift the ground or open it to swallow us whole.
Tlaloc 7 hours ago
Interesting that we might be seeing a shift on both parties, the republicans finally embracing their libertarian side (long
being a part of the republican party) and the neocons trying to find a new home on the democratic party. I wonder where the progressive
side of the DNC will go, they might be the ones pushed out of any national party :(
Art 6 hours ago
[...] the progressive side of the DNC [...] might be the ones pushed out of any national party
Fuck that! They're headed for permanent electoral failure on every occasion they put forward neocons on any ballot.
We, The People, Are Fed Up With Neo-Cons and Neo-Libs!
Dysnomia 3 hours ago
Unfortunately, I think it's more likely that we'll see a shift only on the Democratic side. Democratic Party leadership
has basically always been neoconservative supporters of the national security state, but there has been some resistance within
the rank and file. The narrowing of the Overton window we're seeing will make such resistance increasingly beyond the pale.
But I don't think the Republican Party, in terms of leadership or rank and file, will become more "libertarian" (in the American
sense of that word) or less pro-war. I think there's likely to be greater consensus among the political class in favor of U.S.
imperialism generally, and Trump, to the extent he occasionally makes moves in the opposite direction, is a convenient foil to
bring that about.
johnanderson 7 hours ago ( Edited )
There is no "means test" for the empire military spending supports energy supplies supports international banking supports
global corporatism but the democrats will help republicans squeeze the peons with excessive education costs, unaffordable health
care premiums and copays, expensive housing, and social security cutbacks because they are playing the same elite economic game
against the majority true the democratic leadership has a better stance on abortion and a generally more rainbow-flavored social
agenda. Because they want this stuff for their own social class however economic policy will be at our expense ... just watch
Pelosi and Company
open_hearted_jade 2 hours ago
But the democrats will help republicans squeeze the peons with excessive education costs, unaffordable health care premiums
and copays, expensive housing,....
Those costs rise for one reason...
Mona 7 hours ago
...And here's Joe Biden: ""Paul Ryan was correct when he did the tax code, what was the first thing we have to go after, Social
Security and Medicare. Now we need to do something about Social Security and Medicare. It's the only way to find room to pay for
it." Biden is after means testing and other "adjustments" slashing SS, as endorsed by his pal. Paul Ryan. (This is called Republican
Lite.)
Thanks for publishing this story, Glenn, and putting your perspective on it. We've known for a long time that NBC & MSNBC
"have become ground zero for these political pathologies of militarism and servitude to security state agencies." Before
Comcast purchased them, General Electric owned these networks for many years. The public's interests are the last thing on their
minds when they do "news reporting."
Have you watched when MSNBC's "prime time" talk shows are doing live sports-like camera angles, moves, and shots in their studio,
trying to make it look all-the-more sensational on your TV screen? I mean, they're doing these intricate camera shots, rapid switching
between cameras, zooming, panning, trying to make it look like a high-production-value shoot, and it looks like they've hired
some live sports producers and technical directors to make this pathetic illusion on the air. All this shit for talking heads.
Rotf-lmao.
What's next? Slow-motion HDTV instant replays of Rachel Maddow, utilizing zoomed-in camera shots of her mouth, when she's spraying
spittle into her guests' faces? That's what happens when she launches into her infamous hissy fits.
The round table MSNBC uses in their cheap studio is only 4 feet in diameter. In other words, they're shooting these live action
shots of people talking around an itty-bitty little table, and they're doing all this intricate camera work with approximately
8 cameras to make it look 'sensational', action-packed, and thrilling. Instead, it's extremely ugly, stupid, idiotic, disgusting,
and ridiculous. It's not sensational. It's a disgusting cocktail of vomit, puss, and diarrhea.
I need reliable sources of news and weather so I can live my life sustainably with dignity while I maintain my values. My pride
and dignity are invaluable to me. All these a-holes are doing for me is raising my blood pressure and pissing me off. That's why
I read The Intercept. I'd like to have the option to just sit back and watch TI's reporting on a news channel someday SOON, if
possible.
Again, what's our msm network news alternatives, besides Fox news, and why are they so pathetic? CBS news: Les Moonves in particular
has cheered the Trump phenomenon, telling investors in 2016 that the Trump campaign "may not be good for America, but it's damn
good for CBS." -- https://theintercept.com/2017/02/24/cbs-fcc-trump/
-- Moonves got fired and lost his pension -- The longtime chairman-CEO was forced out Sept. 9, 2018 amid a cascade of sexual assault
and misconduct allegations. "The CBS board of directors has denied former chairman-CEO Leslie Moonves any of the $120 million
severance he was due under his employment contract after conducting a five-month internal probe of his conduct and the corporate
culture at CBS Corp." --
https://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/tv/ct-ent-les-moonves-denied-severance-20181217-story.html ABC news: Who owns
ABC? Walt Disney bought ABC 22 years ago. Exactly, we're in Disneyland.
photosymbiosis 8 hours ago ( Edited )
Some basic facts:
The US military presence in the Middle East has nothing to do with national security (i.e protecting American citizens
from military attack by foreign nations, or even with disrupting the activities and funding of terrorist groups like ISIS or Al
Qaeda, groups we financed and armed as part of the overthrow Assad strategy).
It has everything to do with controlling the region's oil flow and propping up regimes like Saudi Arabia who agree to invest
the majority of their oil money in Wall Street banks. This is called petrodollar recycling, a strategy devised in the 1970s. Here
is a foundational document discussing the plan, from 1974:
https://search.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/1974LONDON16506_b.html
"CENTRAL THESIS, BASED ON BELIEF THAT THERE IS NO EARLY PROSPECT OF BREAKING OIL CARTEL, IS THAT WE SHOULD SEEK EARLY DIALOGUE
WITH PRODUCERS TO WORK OUT ARRANGEMENTS WITH ALL OR SOME OF THEM TO (A) INDEX PRICE OF OIL AND (B) BRING THEM INTO RECYCLING MECHANISM
IN ORDER TO SHARE THE RISK. SECOND PAPER LARGELY DUPLICATES FIRST, THOUGH IT DOES ADD SOME STRESS ON LONGER RANGE PROBLEM OF MASSIVE
SURPLUS OF OPEC COUNTRIES, ESTIMATED AT $400 BILLION BY 1980, FOR WHICH NO SOLUTION IS PROPOSED OTHER THAN NEW INTERNATIONAL RECYCLING
AGENCY PROPOSED IN BOTH PAPERS."
One key point is that the proponents of this scheme in the United States, be they Democrats or Republicans, have zero interest
in replacing fossil fuels with wind and solar and battery storage. That would sour the whole deal; nobody would buy Saudi oil.
Of course the Russkies, the stated enemy, don't want to see Europe go 100% renewable either, any more than the Clinton-Bush-Obama-Trump
Administrations did. The Russia-US conflict is mostly over who gets to sell gas to Europe, and neither dealer wants the addict
to kick the habit, right?
This is a very consistent policy, year-to-year.
Now, why can't the corporate media honestly discuss this? Because they are the corporate establishment's propaganda monkeys,
little more, regardless of whether they work at MSNBC or at FOX.
Oh, and this is why #Resist Trump is so nonsensical, when those supporting that them want to install a Joe Biden or Kamela
Harris, who would continue right on with this status quo, i.e. blocking the development of renewable energy and continuing the
idiotic military entanglements in the Middle East.
Fred_Cowan 8 hours ago
Real News vs "fake news" is almost impossible to find and dissect. Even looking for real reporting beyond echoing is hard
to find. The real problems are ignored or misstated to the extent real solutions are impossible. Not just security and endless
wars but every aspect of civil existence, education, healthcare, you name it. We exist in an echo-chamber where real knowledge
and understanding have been all but banished.
Mona 8 hours ago
@Tom Collins & Art
"Yeah one wonders if [Snowden's] cover would have been blown so decisively had he done it anonymously through Wikileaks"
No need to wonder! Snowden made clear -- explicitly stated-- he wanted Greenwald and Poitras, and not Wikileaks. He deeply
desired journalists to exercise judgment over what should be released to the public and did not want a data dump.
Further, he insisted on outing himself , and did so several days after the first document was published. At his behest,
Poitras videotaped a 20-minute video of him taking responsibility, which was then posted at The Guardian. He did this, among other
reasons, to spare his co-workers from suspicion and investigation.
Mona 1 hour ago
Citizen 4 won the Oscar for best documentary in 2013 or '14. It's all Snowden, Greenwald, Poitras, and other real players.
DC_Reade 8 hours ago
If the only way someone can manage to frame any of these issues is as "Fox vs. MSNBC" or "Trump Corruption vs. Washington Establishment
Defenders of Democracy", they've assented to a two-valued action-reaction Pavlovian conditioned response loop.
No way should that be confused with a process of independent thought.
Unsurprisingly, I don't read one mention in the above post to any of the specifics of the content in Glenn Greenwald's remarks,
or to any of the observations made by Arkin in his email resignation.
You're too busy fitting everyone with Team Jerseys tailored to your preconceived ideas.
Mona 6 hours ago
"This article does not inform."
Oh, it does lots of informing, you just don't like what it informs us of, to wit, the first paragraph:
A VETERAN national security journalist with NBC News and MSNBC blasted the networks in a Monday email for becoming captive
and subservient to the national security state, reflexively pro-war in the name of stopping President Donald Trump, and now
the prime propaganda instrument of the War Machine's promotion of militarism and imperialism . As a result of NBC/MSNBC's all-consuming
militarism, he said, "the national security establishment not only hasn't missed a beat but indeed has gained dangerous strength"
and "is ever more autonomous and practically impervious to criticism."
Any substantive response, Milton?
MiltonWiltmellow 6 hours ago ( Edited )
Any substantive response, Milton?
As always, Mr. Greenwald's description is hyperbolic and bordering on unhinged. As DC_Reade suggested, I read Arkin's
email. You should too. It seemed more like a Montaigne Essaiy or a reflective note for posterity than a thundering repudiation
of MSNBC.
Mr. Greenwald turns it into a typical Greenwald crie du guerre™ against the evil Deep State (a term which he appears to have
mercifully discarded. Too Foxy I suppose.) Here's his problem. Crying "wolf" only works for awhile. Eventually it becomes part
of the information flood drowning everyone. Any bit of flotsam is as good as another.
Tom_Collins 5 hours ago
What's your point again? Do you even know?
DC_Reade 4 hours ago ( Edited )
Excerpts from Arkin's email:
"Seeking refuge in its political horse race roots, NBC (and others) meanwhile report the story of war as one of Rumsfeld vs.
the Generals, as Wolfowitz vs. Shinseki, as the CIA vs. Cheney, as the bad torturers vs. the more refined, about numbers of troops
and number of deaths, and even then Obama vs. the Congress, poor Obama who couldn't close Guantanamo or reduce nuclear weapons
or stand up to Putin because it was just so difficult. We have contributed to turning the world of national security into this
sort of political story. I find it disheartening that we do not report the failures of the generals and national security leaders.
I find it shocking that we essentially condone continued American bumbling in the Middle East and now Africa through our ho-hum
reporting..."
"...I argued endlessly with MSNBC about all things national security for years, doing the daily blah, blah, blah in Secaucus,
but also poking at the conventional wisdom of everyone from Matthews to Hockenberry. And yet I feel like I've failed to convey
this larger truth about the hopelessness of our way of doing things, especially disheartened to watch NBC and much of the rest
of the news media somehow become a defender of Washington and the system..."
"...For me I realized how out of step I was when I looked at Trump's various bumbling intuitions: his desire to improve relations
with Russia, to denuclearize North Korea, to get out of the Middle East, to question why we are fighting in Africa, even in his
attacks on the intelligence community and the FBI. Of course he is an ignorant and incompetent impostor. And yet I'm alarmed at
how quick NBC is to mechanically argue the contrary, to be in favor of policies that just spell more conflict and more war. Really?
We shouldn't get out Syria? We shouldn't go for the bold move of denuclearizing the Korean peninsula? Even on Russia, though we
should be concerned about the brittleness of our democracy that it is so vulnerable to manipulation, do we really yearn for the
Cold War? And don't even get me started with the FBI: What? We now lionize this historically destructive institution?..."
Yes, William Arkin does go on to be gracious and complimentary of some of his (former) colleagues at NBC. Arkin mantains his
professional composure. His critique of the focus and practices of NBC/MSNBC News is tempered and reasoned. But the critique is
scathing, nonetheless.
Tom_Collins 4 hours ago ( Edited )
You are missing Milton's point altogether. Like "Craig Summers", MW expects that his word alone is enough to dismiss the editorial/investigative/analytical
work put in by Greenwald, Arkin or anyone else on the topics considered most important by the U.S. State Department.
When MW or CS weigh in on these things to dismiss or diminish these stories/opinions/facts with the wave of a hand or incorrect
reading (and absolutely nothing of substance), we are supposed to defer to them respectfully and re-consider the respect we have
developed for the professionalism, dedication and personal/career risks taken on by the people who bring us these stories that
are inconvenient to the establishment government and media actors.
Mona 3 hours ago
"As DC_Reade suggested, I read Arkin's email. "
Cool, Milton, and what are your substantive comments on this part:
My expertise, though seeming to be all the more central to the challenges and dangers we face, also seems to be less valued
at the moment. And I find myself completely out of synch with the network, being neither a day-to-day reporter nor interested
in the Trump circus. To me there is also a larger problem: though they produce nothing that resembles actual safety and security,
the national security leaders and generals we have are allowed to do their thing unmolested. Despite being at "war," no great
wartime leaders or visionaries are emerging. There is not a soul in Washington who can say that they have won or stopped any
conflict. And though there might be the beloved perfumed princes in the form of the Petraeus' and Wes Clarks', or the so-called
warrior monks like Mattis and McMaster, we've had more than a generation of national security leaders who sadly and fraudulently
have done little of consequence. And yet we (and others) embrace them, even the highly partisan formers who masquerade as "analysts".
We do so ignoring the empirical truth of what they have wrought: There is not one county in the Middle East that is safer today
than it was 18 years ago. Indeed the world becomes ever more polarized and dangerous. Windrem again convinced me to return
to NBC to join the new investigative unit in the early days of the 2016 presidential campaign. I thought that the mission was
to break through the machine of perpetual war acceptance and conventional wisdom to challenge Hillary Clinton's hawkishness.
It was also an interesting moment at NBC because everyone was looking over their shoulder at Vice and other upstarts creeping
up on the mainstream. But then Trump got elected and Investigations got sucked into the tweeting vortex, increasingly lost
in a directionless adrenaline rush, the national security and political version of leading the broadcast with every snow storm.
And I would assert that in many ways NBC just began emulating the national security state itself – busy and profitable. No
wars won but the ball is kept in play. I'd argue that under Trump, the national security establishment not only hasn't missed
a beat but indeed has gained dangerous strength. Now it is ever more autonomous and practically impervious to criticism. I'd
also argue, ever so gingerly, that NBC has become somewhat lost in its own verve, proxies of boring moderation and conventional
wisdom, defender of the government against Trump, cheerleader for open and subtle threat mongering, in love with procedure
and protocol over all else (including results). I accept that there's a lot to report here, but I'm more worried about how
much we are missing. Hence my desire to take a step back and think why so little changes with regard to America's wars. In
our day-to-day whirlwind and hostage status as prisoners of Donald Trump, I think – like everyone else does – that we miss
so much. People who don't understand the medium, or the pressures, loudly opine that it's corporate control or even worse,
that it's partisan. Sometimes I quip in response to friends on the outside (and to government sources) that if they mean by
the word partisan that it is New Yorkers and Washingtonians against the rest of the country then they are right. For me I realized
how out of step I was when I looked at Trump's various bumbling intuitions: his desire to improve relations with Russia, to
denuclearize North Korea, to get out of the Middle East, to question why we are fighting in Africa, even in his attacks on
the intelligence community and the FBI. Of course he is an ignorant and incompetent impostor. And yet I'm alarmed at how quick
NBC is to mechanically argue the contrary, to be in favor of policies that just spell more conflict and more war. Really? We
shouldn't get out Syria? We shouldn't go for the bold move of denuclearizing the Korean peninsula? Even on Russia, though we
should be concerned about the brittleness of our democracy that it is so vulnerable to manipulation, do we really yearn for
the Cold War? And don't even get me started with the FBI: What? We now lionize this historically destructive institution?
OftenWrongSeldomInDoubt 9 hours ago
This is SO validating to read! Surely no other ruler in history with a cute butt and polite voice ordered killings in 56 countries
in one year. I want someone to discuss this without accusing me of being pro-Rump. I guess, the Rachel Maddows of the world cannot
criticize Hillary/Obama for expanding every awful thing for which the good people of the world hated Bush.
There are two giant problems in the world today-
1. the scale of people who lost their homes and countries because of the good guy's wars and
2. climate change which the good guy's 27,600 odd bombs of 2016 might or might not have exacerbated. After all, each bomb costs
upward of $10,000,000. Who is measuring the greenhouse gases released by them?
The media needs to be equally adversarial to 'liberal' governments as they are to 'conservative' ones, so that majority parties
cannot take credit for granting me bathroom and bedroom permissions that are surely my personal domain! The media must shed light
on whether it is bad to tell 'aliens' not to cross a border or it is bad to win a Nobel Peace prize before raining bombs on brown
people in other countries, never separating children from families, when blowing up ten civilians for every 'target' we extra-judicially
decided to label as militant.
So thank you for this article!!
bluecurl3 9 hours ago
Gotta hand it to the neocons, soon after the Vietnam debacle (I served 3 tours there), and Watergate, they quickly licked
their wounds and devised a new playbook that, over time, would become a 'Project for the New American Century'. First things first,
get rid of the draft. Go professional, and then only a very minuscule percentage of Americans have skin in the game, meaning their
own sons and daughters at risk, while the rest of America can focus on the more important things, like watching the Housewives
of New Jersey, New York, Beverly Hills, etc. etc., or sports, or the newest fashions, or the current fad diets, or the newest
Trump tweet, bla bla bla.
Next, and this is genius because it incorporates that great American pastime, greed, spread all of that endless supply
of taxpayer money around to each and every State, County, and municipality in the form of jobs tied to the military industrial
complex. Now, lots of Americans have skin in the game, as long as the lobbyists, politicians, government and the military
can provide a pipeline of endless wars and conflicts. Of course, in order to provide and maintain the patina of morality and righteousness,
a subservient and corporate controlled media is vital.
And finally, silence and denigrate any meaningful opposition. As Kierkegaard stated, "Once you label me you negate me."
Hence the long, ongoing labeling of opposition with terms like traitor, anti-American, unpatriotic, (insert name or country here)
sympathizer. The sad part of all of this, too many Americans are gullible enough to swallow this crap, hook, line and sinker,
as long as they get their daily ration of manna.
Xavi 8 hours ago
Orwellian times.
firstpersoninfinite 9 hours ago
No, it's not rocket science. Otherwise you couldn't have proven Greenwald's point with your own views about "supporting" the
security state so easily. You missed the entire point of the article, which is that the neocons and the neoliberals support the
same cast of nefarious personalities that got us into the Middle East, over and over again. Why is NBC/MSNBC normalizing right-wing
radicalism? Because they've joined hands with neocons and neoliberals to support the military/industrial complex. Your argument
is akin to someone claiming that their Communion wafer is more holy than anyone else's because it has the Pope's imprint on it.
firstpersoninfinite 8 hours ago
Neocons, like Irving Kristol, Bill Kristol's father, were leftists in the 1930's. It's not a difficult term to come to terms
with, historically. I don't wonder why anyone questions what Trump is doing. I never said such a thing.
What Trump has done during his first two years in office has not been questioned by the mainstream press at all. Only the imbecile
tweets and the gaffes are of any interest to the citizens of such a redoubtable empire as our own. A friend of mine who fights
anti-wolf and anti-bear laws in Montana, laws sent down by the Trump administration, says that these are the same laws they fought
during 8 years of Obama. The mainstream of both parties are the two sides of the same coin. So I agree with the "role reversal."
Dysnomia 2 hours ago
I think the problem is not that supporting the "deep state" is becoming a convenient excuse to oppose Trump, but that opposing
Trump is becoming a convenient excuse to support the deep state.
DC_Reade 10 hours ago
Bravo, William Arkin. I only wish that you could have found some way for you to resign on the air in the middle of a broadcast.
(I've been wishing such a scenario for decades. Preferably featuring one or more news anchors.)
Incredible that the USA has spent trillions of dollars in a game of whack-a-mole that's been extended over the entire globe
with no time limitations, occasionally interspersed with declarations of surprise that the nation faces more emergent terror threats
than ever. We spend more money on the military and warfare than we spent during the Cold War. And all that was required to trigger
this spiral into perpetual militarism was a single special operation carried out 17 years ago by a small team of not-particularly-elite
commandos who hijacked four airliners, thereby obtaining the one-time ability to repurpose three of them into cruise missiles.
By now, it should be no surprise that other large nations have taken notice of the American assumption of entitlement to police
the world and begun their own rearmament campaigns. Also worth noting that the focus on the Terror Threat has served as the rationale
for massive investment in a level of surveillance technology that's unknown in human history. As for the norms and values that
international law was supposedly intended to provide for governments everywhere, all of that went out the window in 2003, with
the unprovoked invasion of Iraq by the Benevolent Hegemon Hyperpower. American scolding of other nations for their armed territorial
incursions and imperial designs has rung awfully hollow, ever since.
The emphasis on massive military escalation to deal with terrorism outbreaks is reminiscent of the War on Drugs- which, it
should be noted, also remains largely in effect, notwithstanding occasional feints toward de-escalation. And we all know what
the War on Drugs did in terms of empowering the criminal elite that it was supposed to eliminate.
What's that all about? The leaders of this country- and for that matter, the supposed leaders of the rest of the world- aren't
leading. To me, almost all of them look like they're running from something: they're running from fossil fuels addiction and its
toxic blowback, looming climate catastrophe, natural resource depletion, maldistribution of wealth and neglect of the commons.
photosymbiosis 11 hours ago
What's the central reason MSNBC is so pro-war? Because the shareholders in its parent corporation, Comcas, have a deep
vested interest in militarism, arms sales, and the capture of natural resources around the word:
Comcast, a large cable operator, completed its purchase of a majority stake in NBCUniversal from General Electric in January
2011. The cable giant bought the rest of NBCUniversal in February 2013. NBCUniversal is the parent company of MSNBC, as well
as NBC, Bravo, USA and other channels.
State Street Corporation 13,394,660,471 Vanguard Group, Inc. (The) 6,210,096,924
Capital World Investors 5,098,130,465
Blackrock Inc. 5,084,573,828
Bank of America Corporation 2,826,426,091
ExxonMobil major holders, $US:
Vanguard Group, Inc. (The) 26,661,034,588
Blackrock Inc. 21,669,998,686
State Street Corporation 16,964,902,104
Northern Trust Corporation 4,566,789,988
Bank Of New York Mellon Corporation 4,420,622,076
It pretty obvious once you look at the value of an outfit like Blackrock's investments in media, arms, and oil - they don't
want any stories told on MSNBC that would threaten the profit margins of Exxon, Lockheed or Comcast.
The only real solution is government enforcement of anti-trust legisation which would require the likes of Comcast, TimeWarner(CNN)
and NewsCorp(FOX) to divest their media holdings, creating dozens of independently owned outfits not beholden to some corporate
master who won't let them discuss important topics like, say NAFTA....
Benito_Mussolini 10 hours ago
The only real solution is government enforcement of anti-trust legislation
Hopefully, MSNBC will be smart enough to provide a friendly platform for ex-government officials. It means a great deal to
government officials to know their influence, public visibility (and associated appearance fees) will continue into their retirement.
I don't watch MSNBC, so I don't know if they have implemented this strategy, but the pictures in the article seem encouraging.
johnnyred 11 hours ago
War is touted exclusively by those who've never experienced it. Get rid of the generals, put in some infantry casualties, those
who've lost a limb or two.
Then we can have some informed comment.
Somewherearoundtikrit 11 hours ago
Meanwhile, over at The Guardian, "In these critical times..." their "editorial independence" is in sincere need of your donation.
They're just 80K away from their million dollar goal! Pardon me while I retch. Julian Assange is still being robbed of his freedom.
In these critical times indeed. Thank you Glenn.
Tom_Collins 11 hours ago
The Guardian can get its funding from the organizations for whom they carry water. Not a damn cent from me. After they caved
in on the Snowden files, I was done with them for good.
Yeah one wonders if his cover would have been blown so decisively had he done it anonymously through Wikileaks, but I think
they were onto him anyway. Ultimately the information got out, and media orgs like The Guardian were exposed for their fealty
to the national security state(s).
Cryptome wouldn't have censored the releases, as WikiLeaks has. Still WikiLeaks continues to be one of the world's premier
journalistic outlets.
MyInnocuousUsernameWasBanned 9 hours ago
Was anyone else surprised by how long it took them to get to a million? I've seen Kickstarters for video games that got to
a million faster. The slow pace of the fundraising seemed like a rebuke. I was hoping they'd never hit a million.
And I say all of that as someone who has recurring donations set up for about a dozen podcasts and blogs. The nonprofit/fundraiser
model is the way to go, but I also think that publicly owned media outlets, or privately owned but public-interest-minded news
organizations, while editorially independent, can't be totally contemptuous of their reader/donors.
I would never donate to the Guardian for a million reasons, but to pick just one: they have played the lead role in smearing
Jeremy Corbyn and his supporters as dangerous radicals and anti-Semites.
And I would never donate to The Intercept, for instance, because of the crucial role it has played in promoting Russiagate
and amplifying voices like Mattathias Schwartz's. (I'll never stop reminding people that Schwartz non-jokingly advocated here
for what would essentially be a coup -- Obama "putting a hold on the transfer of power" -- after the most recent presidential
election. The Intercept published that. Amazing.) And the face of the Intercept, arguably, is no longer Greenwald but Mehdi Hasan,
who publishes rank propaganda smearing peace activists as "Bashar al-Assad Apologists" who revere human rights abusers as "heroes."
(Again: the Intercept published that. Amazing.)
My favorite line from that Arkin email is the one about the tension between worship of "officialdom" and respect for "public
yearnings." To political elites and reporters (including the experts at the Intercept who spent a week running PR for Nancy Pelosi's
speaker bid, and who constantly write off the 2016 election as a consequence either of sinister foreign interference or of the
squalid bigotry, stupidity and ugliness of non-coastal Americans), officialdom always wins, and "public yearnings" are just the
bleatings of deplorables.
If Glenn's excellent reporting was removed from this site, The Intercept would be as deserving of Arkin's critique as NBC and
the Guardian are.
tigertiger 8 hours ago
They didn't hit their million, which they wanted before the end of the year, but they're still begging. Not for lack of trying,
that 'give us money!' pop up has to be about the loudest, most intrusive of it's kind I've ever seen.
And yes, TI is only marginally less repulsive (thanks to Glenn, Lee Fang, and Jon Schwartz). It amazes me that an outlet owned
by a bajillionaire constantly begs for money. I guess they think it makes them more 'populist' or something- 'look, the peons
are sacrificing their pennies to help us!'.
TravisTea 11 hours ago
As an American author (and journalist) once wrote:
"Man is the only Patriot. He sets himself apart in his own country, under his own flag, and sneers at the other nations, and
keeps multitudinous uniformed assassins on hand at heavy expense to grab slices of other people's countries, and keep them
from grabbing slices of his . And in the intervals between campaigns he washes the blood off his hands and works for the
'universal brotherhood of man' -- with his mouth."
-- Mark Twain, Man's Place in the Animal World (1896)
P.S. As always, thank you very much, Mr. Greenwald (and thank you, Mr. Arkin).
Carlaly 11 hours ago
Just vindicates what you have been saying all along. Although I expect the denialists will dismiss Arkin as some anti-American,
anti-troop stooge of Putin.
Mona 11 hours ago
"The cable network's key anchor, Rachel Maddow, once wrote a book on the evils of endless wars without congressional authorization,
but now routinely depicts anyone who wants to end those illegal wars as reckless weaklings and traitors."
She's just coming home. Liberals have long been dominated by hawks (after all, Vietnam was a Democrats' war, albeit Nixon/Kissinger
took the war crimes up to 11.)
Maddow long ago described herself as a "national security liberal."
Which leads to yet another element of Ms. Maddow's portfolio: the daughter of an Air Force captain who served stateside during
the Vietnam War, she is an admitted defense-policy wonk. "I'm a national security liberal, which I tell people because it's
meant to sound absurd," she said. "I'm all about counterterrorism. I'm all about the G.I. Bill."
Madcow would like nothing more than to see open war with Russia.
brer_rabbit 11 hours ago ( Edited )
maddcow . . my laugh of the day.
Tom_Collins 11 hours ago
It's a common refrain in far-right reaches of the Internet. I almost felt bad for saying it, but that's what she's become on
the topic of Russia.
brer_rabbit 11 hours ago
Yes, whenever is see her, or Anderson Cooper, or any of these guys for that matter (which is rare . . usually for a few minutes
to catch a glimpse of the latest environmental disaster, mass shooting, or whatever) my first thought always goes to question
the kind of upbringing that could have produced such vapid people, who enthusiastically shame themselves on a daily basis for
money. What must they think of their audience?
open_hearted_jade 11 hours ago
Maddow is less respected by an awakening public -- therefore she must be a conservative right winger. Didn't you learn anything
after 1945?
Tom_Collins 11 hours ago
You've made made totally missing the point into a trolling form of art. Bravo.
endlesswar 11 hours ago
Attacking an extreme right wing president from the right, while lauding unrepentant war criminals like Bush and McCain. Just
about sums up what it means to be a liberal in this day and age.
PatrickShaw 6 hours ago
MSNBC and their national security contributors do not speak for liberals. They never invite liberal voices on who are anti-war/pro
diplomacy.
xochtl 12 hours ago
Still, that a network insider has blown the whistle on how all this works, and how MSNBC and NBC have become ground zero
for these political pathologies of militarism and servitude to security state agencies, while not surprising, is nonetheless
momentous given how detailed and emphatic he is in his condemnations.
perfect summary
brer_rabbit 12 hours ago ( Edited )
. . if they mean by the word partisan that it is New Yorkers and Washingtonians against the rest of the country then they
are right.
bingo
clawhammerjake 13 hours ago
War is a business decision.
Steeeve 13 hours ago ( Edited )
I've been consistently surprised that anyone is still watching these things. Personally, I've already divested from special-interest
funded media outlets and the DNC for that matter. It's always interesting when I run across someone parrotting their viewpoints
though.
TheManj 13 hours ago ( Edited )
The greatest scam of the millennium, after cruptocurrency, was the use of Trump Derangement Syndrome to pervert "progressives"
into acolytes of the security establishment.
pedinska2 13 hours ago
Actually, TDS wasn't used in the original perversion so much as it was used as the cement to keep it firmly in place.
I lay blame for much of the greatest scam of the millenium on Obama with his drone policies, expansion of our involvement
in the ME, retention of the same Smartest Guys in the Room who tanked our economy and wholesale conversion of liberals into acceptance
of further erosion of our Constitutional rights with his warm embrace of the same criminals running the security state when torture
became de rigueur. He was just so darn pretty and eloquent they had no choice but to believe all the lies dripping from those
sexy lips. And have you seen Michelle's arms???!? /s
Benito_Mussolini 13 hours ago
To herd people, it's more effective to use both the carrot (Obama) and the stick (TDS). The fact that progressives needed to
be herded is a testament to their numbers and success.
Erelis 13 hours ago
This essay is critical for every American to read. No exaggeration. NBC/MSNBC has become the proverbial spear tip in the
march toward nuclear war with Russia. Every day, step by step, brick by brick, they are laying the foundation for the justification
of war--in fact, for needing and demanding war, almost any war, but more particularly with Russia. Let's remember that when Bush
ordered the invasion of Iraq, 72% of Americans supported it to according to Gallup. That didn't happen overnight with some big
propaganda event.
bluecurl3 4 hours ago
Perhaps, but I would suggest that Iran has become the most desired target for a war, and due in no small part to the aggressive
advocacy for such a war by Israel and Saudi Arabia, and their subservient boot-licking, ass kissing American politicians.
I'm all for pulling our troops out of Syria, but mark my word, Bibi and his zionist war-hawks will seize the opportunity to bomb
the hell out of Syria, and use it as a pretext to launch attacks against Iran.
Mike5000 13 hours ago
Maddow is not really pro-war or anti-war. She is just pro whatever Clinton and Pelosi happen to be pushing this week. It's
a shame. She's a good presenter but hopelessly biased.
PresumptuousInsect 13 hours ago
I think she is more enthralled to the people who are paying her.
Erelis 13 hours ago
Maddows rhetoric and reporting is pro-war regardless of her motivations. She uses the language of aggression and conspiracy
and accusation in describing the Russians and other Americans such as Jill Stein. She without exception imputes malevolent motives
on "the enemy" which is Russia leading to a truly a bizarre clip telling Americans in somber and concerned tones that Russia and
N. Korea share a border. The conspiracy has been exposed.
Bill_Owen 10 hours ago
What is it, exactly, about Hillary Clinton that enthralls Rachel Maddow so much that she now pretty much spends her days building
a case (in-the-sky) for war on Russia? Seems pathological somehow.
MyInnocuousUsernameWasBanned 9 hours ago
Look at how her ratings and salary have been affected by her transformation. She's gone from "cable news anchor" to "superstar."
The Russiagate scam has also given dozens of mediocrities like Seth Abramson a chance to be noticed and to feel important. Even
the writers on the Intercept's "intelligence" beat have been doing some sort of Tom Clancy cosplay for the last two years. It's
profitable and fun to be one of these people, as long as you don't have a nagging sense of shame.
William 13 hours ago
Indeed, none of this is new. I read Norman Solomon's and Martin Lee's UNRELIABLE SOURCES: A GUIDE TO DETECTING BIAS IN NEWS
MEDIA back when I was in college in the late 80s and they cite General Electric's ownership of NBC (before there was an "MSNBC")
uncritically:
General Electric's Influence on NBC GE is by no means a hands off owner of NBC. Lee and Solomon in their book Unreliable Sources
have detailed how GE insisted on the removal of references to itself in an NBC programme on substandard products. They also point
out that NBC journalists have not been particularly keen to expose GE's environmental record and that TV commercials by a group
called INFACT, urging a boycott of GE products, were banned by NBC as well as other television stations. NBC did however briefly
report GE's indictment for cheating the Department of Defense which was reported more extensively in other media outlets. (Lee
and Solomon 1990, pp. 77-81) Former NBC News Chief, Lawrence Grossman, claims that the head of GE, Jack Welch made it clear to
him that he worked for GE and told him not to use terms such as 'Black Monday' to describe the stock market crash in 1987 because
it depressed share prices such as GE's (Cited in Naureckas 1995). Todd Putnam, editor of National Boycott News, tells of how he
was approached by the NBC's Today Show to do an interview about consumer boycotts. Their biggest boycott at the time was against
General Electric and its nuclear defense contracts but the show wouldn't let him talk about that and was reluctant to have him
mention boycotts against any large corporation preferring him to talk about "a boycott that was 'small,' 'local' and 'sexy'."
(1991) Mark Gunther writing in American Journalism Review claims that references to General Electric's use of the bolts in an
NBC Today Show on defective bolts in planes, bridges and nuclear plants, were edited out and only mentioned in a follow-up segment
after criticism of the omission (1995, p. 40). In 1990 NBC Nightly News ran 14 minutes of coverage over three days of a breast
cancer detection machine produced by GE, without mentioning that it was made by NBC's owners. The other two major television networks
didn't bother to cover it at all. (FAIR 1991) Helen Caldicott who had been featured on the Today Show previously found that when
she wrote her book If You Love This Planet, which used GE as a case study of an environmentally damaging company, her scheduled
appearance was mysteriously cancelled (Anon. 1992). In 1987, one year after GE took over NBC, NBC broadcast a special documentary
promoting nuclear power using France as a model. The promotion for the programme proclaimed that "French townspeople welcome each
new reactor with open arms". The documentary won a Westinghouse sponsored prize for science journalism. (Westinghouse Electric
Company also builds nuclear power stations.) Shortly after the documentary was screened, when there were a couple of accidents
at French power stations and there was significant opposition to nuclear power amongst the French population (polls showed about
one third opposed it), NBC did not report the story although some US newspapers did. (Lee and Solomon 1990, p. 78) Karl Grossman
documents in Extra! (1993) how the programme What Happened? broadcast on NBC in 1993 gave a one sided account of the Three Mile
Island nuclear accident and its aftermath. It showed local resident Debbie Baker saying that she was not as afraid of the nuclear
plant as she used to be. However, according to Grossman, Baker, whose son was born with Down's syndrome 9 months after the accident
and who has received $1.1 million in a settlement arising from the accident, was shocked at how the programme had been edited
to imply her acceptance of the plant. She said she was still extremely uncomfortable with the plant and that what she had said
was she felt safer since her groups set up a network of radiation monitors around the plant. Neither Baker's settlement nor the
200 or so others "made to families who have suffered injury, birth defects and death because of the 1979 accident" were mentioned.
Instead a nuclear power industry expert was featured who said the plant's back-up safety systems worked successfully. When EXTRA!
pointed out that no scientists critical of nuclear power appeared in the program, Jaffe [executive producer of the show] responded,
'That is correct. Maybe there is some misunderstanding. That show is not a journalistic show but an entertainment show to look
into and to find out the reason and cause of various accidents and incidents.' (Grossman 1993, p. 6) NBC has not been alone in
putting a positive spin on the Three Mile Island nuclear accident. On the tenth anniversary of the accident, the New York Times
ran an anniversary article opposite the editorial page headlined "Three Mile Island: The Good News" which argued that the accident
had been good for the nuclear power industry prompting better management and emergency planning. The paper did not report the
fact that 2000 residents living near the plant had filed claims for cancer and other health problems they blamed on the accident,
nor the 280 personal-injury settlements paid out to such claimants, nor the unusual clusters of leukemia, birth defects and hypothyroidism
around the plant. (Lee and Solomon 1990, p. 210) This was not the first time Times reporting had fitted with General Electric's
views. In 1986 the Times reported on the use of humans as subjects in tritium absorption experiments. Tritium is routinely handled
by nuclear power plant workers. An early edition of the paper said: "The tritium study was financed by the Atomic Energy Commission
and conducted by the General Electric Company at Richland, which abuts the Hanford [nuclear weapons] reservation." In the late
edition the sentence ended after Commission and no longer named General Electric. (Tenenbaum 1990)
Tom_Collins 11 hours ago
Sure, but the question then becomes: Why didn't the corporate networks and newspapers with whom NBC competed point these things
out?
Art 11 hours ago
That's what my father always said about media - that it was self-correcting. But he was wrong. They're all influenced by the
same thing, namely the ultra-rich and their money.
Tom_Collins 11 hours ago
But wouldn't another network stand to gain more clout from the ultra-rich, corporations, and their money from NBC's losing
viewers/ratings due to exposure for their corrupt unwillingness to report negatively on their parent corporation's actions?
Art 11 hours ago
They share a huge fraction of investors, that's the problem.
Midwest 14 hours ago
Nothing has changed except that there is an outsider independent president. NBC was just as bad 20 years ago.
TheManj 13 hours ago
Project Mockingbird was publicly revealed years ago, but pretty much totally ignored by the audiences who lap contentedly
from the MSM koolaid bowl.
Phil 14 hours ago
William Arkin is right on point with his email to MSNBC, especially when he says:
"And yet we (and others) embrace them, even the highly partisan formers who masquerade as "analysts". We do so ignoring
the empirical truth of what they have wrought: There is not one county in the Middle East that is safer today than it was 18
years ago. "
In that same vein I have problems with MSNBC et al also covering the farewell speeches of outgoing Senators and Representatives
which are full of warnings as to how the current system is "broken" [Paul Ryan, ClaireMcCaskill, Orrin Hatch, Jeff Flake, among
many] and not calling them out.
It's ironic that these politicians who have gorged themselves on literally millions of dollars in campaign funding from
Big Pharma, Defense Contractors, Energy, Big Banking, and even insider stock trading now feel compelled to warn us of graft and
corruption they all fostered. These politicians get elected as nobodies, sell their votes, retire as millionaires, then have the
nerve to tell us how corrupted our government has become as they check out to become Lobbyist's.
Orrin Hatch was a Senator for 42 years but last week he woke up one morning to find the Senate needs fixing? Paul Ryan was
Speaker of the House and fiercely defended Trump but now as he leaves he's suddenly discovers that things aren't right in Washington?
And what about all those who are still in office now – where are their warnings and concern? The answer is it's difficult to talk
while you're in office stuffing your mouths at the trough.
Sadly, MSNBC and the media carry these farewell speeches with no comment except that they are all great public servants and
their viewers soak it all up because to do otherwise would be unpatriotic. And the march of the lemmings to the voting booths
continues.
PresumptuousInsect 14 hours ago
I am so glad to see this man speak out. For the longest time, war and the military budget has been a third rail in politics,
and "support the troops!"--however hypocritical that slogan might be--has been a rallying cry as well as an accusation of treason/unAmericanism/communism,
etc., for those who have had doubts. But finally we are starting to see signs of dissatisfaction with the status quo among the
political class, and even antiwar bullet points listed on some platforms. There are even calls for diplomacy, a word that seemed
to have been deleted from all U.S. dictionaries. I hope that Arkin's outcry serves to move this agitation forward.
shenebraskan 14 hours ago
Dunno if you noticed (I did because I watch State Department briefings), but when Brett McGurk resigned as Syria envoy, in
a similar huff to McMaster, he bemoaned the loss of his colleagues at State and Pentagon. State Department has become another
branch of the MIC, not a diplomatic corps. And I am not saying this is all because of Trump. Probably started when we "won" the
Cold War.
This article is excellent and well overdue. All we need to do now is to wrench control of our
mainstream media out of the hands of Corporate (foreign) control. We are being told to vote
against ourselves in order for the few corporate elite to accrue massive wealth and
power over us.
MEDIA laws need to be very strict with very, very severe financial penalties for bias and
propaganda. Certainly remove this concept of self regulation whereby they sit on their own
disciplinary boards. Raise the standards of our media and allow us to retrieve some semblance
of our democracy.
Without media control, how would corporations be able to manipulate and propagandise the
populace with their own vested interests.
That is why governments are doing corporate bidding and getting fascist style surveillance
of its people, in order to counteract the ability of the people to gain knowledge through the
internet and vote against corporate control of our democracy.... nothing to do with terrorism
which was caused mostly by corporate foreign extraction of wealth through weapon sales;
resource acquisition, etc.
It is back to control of our mainstream media by the very (foreign) corporations that are
sucking out our wealth and putting nothing back.
Corporate media ia all powerful. They insidiously permeate the populace with corporate
views of Australia's financial and economy; infrastructure and every aspect of social
life from birth to euthanasia with racism and religion thrown in for good measure.
Should a politician have the audacity to act against their corporate interests, they do
not last long, without exclusions - PMs Whitlam and Rudd being prime examples.
This current mob of gutless underachieving dinosaur neo con nutters in govt, are
completely turning over Australia to these Corporate (foreign) parasites and our prospect is
not looking good.
Within no time we will be a Corporatocracy (as is the USA) and along with that comes 1%
owning 99% of the wealth; third world poverty; crime through the roof; drugs out of control;
public health and education a joke; public services non existent; legal system in disarray
and entrenched with bias and inequity.
"... Craig Murray today publishes accounts from the "Integrity Initiative" showing that journalists in Scotland are receiving retainers of 2500 a month Sterling, plus expenses and payment for actual articles published. ..."
"... We can be actually confident not just that the journalists in the MSM are on the payroll but that the invoices and accounts for their bribes are carefully preserved. ..."
"... What we are witnessing is the complete incompetence of those running the Empire. While malicious, indeed deadly, they simply cannot keep up with the critics of imperialism. Their power rests entirely on their ability to use force, both physical and financial. ..."
Craig Murray today publishes accounts from the "Integrity Initiative" showing that
journalists in Scotland are receiving retainers of 2500 a month Sterling, plus expenses and
payment for actual articles published.
And if this is going on in Scotland we can be quite sure that it is actually happening in
North America and Europe, generally, and, of course, in the less prosperous parts of the
world where standards of integrity are just as low as they are hereabouts.
We can be actually confident not just that the journalists in the MSM are on the
payroll but that the invoices and accounts for their bribes are carefully preserved.
Murray's blog is almost always worth following, just as 'b's is. Yesterday more news about
the Skripal case emerged: it seems that the British government was prepared well in advance
for the sudden attack on Skripal.
What we are witnessing is the complete incompetence of those running the Empire. While
malicious, indeed deadly, they simply cannot keep up with the critics of imperialism. Their
power rests entirely on their ability to use force, both physical and financial. Their
attempts to use social medias to their advantage are lame and ineffective. It seems clear to
me that they will soon be reduced to using their power not just to hobble but to cripple
critics- net neutrality is already finished.
Craig Murray is right that "As the Establishment feels its grip slipping, as people wake up to the appalling economic exploitation by the few that underlies
the very foundations of modern western society, expect the methods used by the security services to become even dirtier."
Collapse of neoliberal ideology and rise of tentions in neoliberal sociarties resulted in unprecedented increase of covert and false
flag operations by British intelligence services, especially against Russia, which had been chosen as a convenient scapegoat.
With Steele dossier and Skripal affair as two most well known.
New Lady Macbeth (Theresa May) Russophobia is so extreme that her cabinet derailed the election of a Russian to head
Interpol.
Looks like neoliberalism cannot be defeated by and faction of the existing elite. Only when shepp oil end mant people will
have a chance. The US , GB and EU are part of the wider hegemonic neoliberal system. In fact rejection of neoliberal
globalization probably will lead to "national neoliberals" regime which would be a flavor of neo-fascism, no more no less.
Notable quotes:
"... The British state can maintain its spies' cover stories for centuries. ..."
"... I learnt how highly improbable left wing firebrand Simon Bracey-Lane just happened to be on holiday in the United States with available cash to fund himself, when he stumbled into the Bernie Sanders campaign. ..."
"... It is, to say the least, very interesting indeed that just a year later the left wing, "Corbyn and Sanders supporting" Bracey-Lane is hosting a very right wing event, "Cold War Then and Now", for the shadowy neo-con Institute for Statecraft, at which an entirely unbalanced panel of British military, NATO and Ukrainian nationalists extolled the virtues of re-arming against Russia. ..."
"... the MOD-sponsored Institute for Statecraft has been given millions of pounds of taxpayers' money by the FCO to spread covert disinformation and propaganda, particularly against Russia and the anti-war movement. Activities include twitter and facebook trolling and secretly paying journalists in "clusters of influence" around Europe. Anonymous helpfully leaked the Institute's internal documents. Some of the Integrity Initiative's thus exposed alleged covert agents, like David Aaronovitch, have denied any involvement despite their appearance in the documents, and others like Dan Kaszeta the US "novichok expert", have cheerfully admitted it. ..."
"... By sleuthing the company records of this "Scottish charity", and a couple of phone calls, I discovered that the actual location of the Institute for Statecraft is the basement of 2 Temple Place, London. This is not just any basement – it is the basement of the former London mansion of William Waldorf Astor, an astonishing building . It is, in short, possibly the most expensive basement in London. ..."
"... Which is interesting because the accounts of the Institute for Statecraft claim it has no permanent staff and show nothing for rent, utilities or office expenses. In fact, I understand the rent is paid by the Ministry of Defence. ..."
"... I have a great deal more to tell you about Mr Edney and his organisation next week, and the extraordinary covert disinformation war the British government wages online, attacking British citizens using British taxpayers' money. Please note in the interim I am not even a smidgeon suicidal, and going to be very, very careful crossing the road and am not intending any walks in the hills. ..."
"... I am not alleging Mr Bracey-Lane is an intelligence service operative who previously infiltrated the Labour Party and the Sanders campaign. He may just be a young man of unusually heterodox and vacillating political opinions. He may be an undercover reporter for the Canary infiltrating the Institute for Statecraft. All these things are possible, and I have no firm information. ..."
"... one of the activities the Integrity Initiative sponsors happens to be the use of online trolls to ridicule the idea that the British security services ever carry out any kind of infiltration, false flag or agent provocateur operations, despite the fact that we even have repeated court judgements against undercover infiltration officers getting female activists pregnant. The Integrity Initiative offers us a glimpse into the very dirty world of surveillance and official disinformation. If we actually had a free media, it would be the biggest story of the day ..."
"... As the Establishment feels its grip slipping, as people wake up to the appalling economic exploitation by the few that underlies the very foundations of modern western society, expect the methods used by the security services to become even dirtier. ..."
"... You can bank on continued ramping up of Russophobia to supply "the enemy". ..."
The British state can maintain its spies' cover stories for centuries. Look up Eldred Pottinger, who for 180 years appears
in scores of British history books – right up to and including William Dalrymple's Return of the King – as a British officer who
chanced to be passing Herat on holiday when it came under siege from a partly Russian-officered Persian army, and helped to organise
the defences. In researching
Sikunder Burnes, I discovered and published from the British Library incontrovertible and detailed documentary evidence that
Pottinger's entire journey was under the direct instructions of, and reporting to, British spymaster Alexander Burnes. The first
historian to publish the untrue "holiday" cover story, Sir John Kaye, knew both Burnes and Pottinger and undoubtedly knew he was
publishing lying propaganda. Every other British historian of the First Afghan War (except me and latterly
Farrukh Husain) has just followed Kaye's official propaganda.
Some things don't change. I was irresistibly reminded of Eldred Pottinger just passing Herat on holiday, when I learnt how
highly improbable left wing firebrand Simon Bracey-Lane
just happened to be on holiday in the
United States with available cash to fund himself, when he stumbled into the Bernie Sanders campaign.
Recent university graduate Simon Bracey-Lane took it even further. Originally from Wimbledon in London, he was inspired to
rejoin the Labour party in September when Corbyn was elected leader. But by that point, he was already in the US on holiday. So
he joined the Sanders campaign, and never left.
"I had two weeks left and some money left, so I thought, Fuck it, I'll make some calls for Bernie Sanders," he explains. "I just
sort of knew Des Moines was the place, so I just turned up at their HQ, started making phone calls, and then became a fully fledged
field organiser."
It is, to say the least, very interesting indeed that just a year later the left wing, "Corbyn and Sanders supporting" Bracey-Lane
is hosting a very right wing event, "Cold War Then and Now", for the shadowy neo-con Institute for Statecraft, at which an entirely
unbalanced panel of British
military, NATO and Ukrainian nationalists extolled the virtues of re-arming against Russia.
Nor would it seem likely that Bracey-Lane would be involved with the Integrity Initiative. Even the mainstream media has been
forced to give a few paragraphs to the outrageous Integrity Initiative, under which the MOD-sponsored Institute for Statecraft
has been given millions of pounds of taxpayers' money by the FCO to spread covert disinformation and propaganda, particularly against
Russia and the anti-war movement. Activities include twitter and facebook trolling and secretly paying journalists in "clusters of
influence" around Europe. Anonymous helpfully leaked the Institute's internal documents. Some of the Integrity Initiative's thus
exposed alleged covert agents, like David Aaronovitch, have denied any involvement despite their appearance in the documents, and
others like Dan Kaszeta the US "novichok expert", have cheerfully admitted it.
The mainstream media have
tracked down
the HQ of the "Institute for Statecraft" to a derelict mill near Auchtermuchty. It is owned by one of the company directors, Daniel
Lafayeedney, formerly of D Squadron 23rd SAS Regiment and later of Military Intelligence (and incidentally born the rather more prosaic
Daniel Edney).
By sleuthing the company records of this "Scottish charity", and a couple of phone calls, I discovered that the actual location
of the Institute for Statecraft is the basement of 2 Temple Place, London. This is not just any basement – it is the basement of
the former London mansion of William Waldorf Astor, an astonishing building.
It is, in short, possibly the most expensive basement in London.
Which is interesting because the accounts of the Institute for Statecraft claim it has no permanent staff and show nothing
for rent, utilities or office expenses. In fact, I understand the rent is paid by the Ministry of Defence.
Having been told where the Institute for Statecraft skulk, I tipped off journalist Kit Klarenberg of Sputnik Radio to go and physically
check it out. Kit did so and was
aggressively
ejected by that well-known Corbyn and Sanders supporter, Simon Bracey-Lane. It does seem somewhat strange that our left wing
hero is deeply embedded in an organisation that
launches troll attacks on Jeremy Corbyn.
I have a great deal more to tell you about Mr Edney and his organisation next week, and the extraordinary covert disinformation
war the British government wages online, attacking British citizens using British taxpayers' money. Please note in the interim I
am not even a smidgeon suicidal, and going to be very, very careful crossing the road and am not intending any walks in the hills.
I am not alleging Mr Bracey-Lane is an intelligence service operative who previously infiltrated the Labour Party and the
Sanders campaign. He may just be a young man of unusually heterodox and vacillating political opinions. He may be an undercover reporter
for the Canary infiltrating the Institute for Statecraft. All these things are possible, and I have no firm information.
But one of the activities the Integrity Initiative sponsors happens to be the use of online trolls to ridicule the idea that the
British security services ever carry out any kind of infiltration, false flag or agent provocateur operations, despite the fact that
we even have repeated court judgements against undercover infiltration officers getting female activists pregnant. The Integrity
Initiative offers us a glimpse into the very dirty world of surveillance and official disinformation. If we actually had a free media,
it would be the biggest story of the day.
As the Establishment feels its grip slipping, as people wake up to the appalling economic exploitation by the few that underlies
the very foundations of modern western society, expect the methods used by the security services to become even dirtier.
You can
bank on continued ramping up of Russophobia to supply "the enemy".
As both Scottish Independence and Jeremy Corbyn are viewed as
real threats by the British Establishment, you can anticipate every possible kind of dirty trick in the next couple of years, with
increasing frequency and audacity
"... Non-elite members of the Party -- functionaries -- mistake their "secret" knowledge as professional courtesy rather than as perquisite and status marker. (I don't suppose it's a secret to anyone that the US CIA regularly plants stories in the NYTimes and elsewhere... unless you weren't paying attention in the strident disinfo campaign prior to the Iraq invasion.) ..."
Howard Zinn said, in a speech given shortly after the 2008 Presidential election, "If you don't know history, it's like you were
born yesterday. The government can tell you anything." (Speech was played on DemocracyNow www.democracynow.org about Jan. 4, 2009
and is archived, free on the website.)
Being older (18 on my last Leap Year birthday - 72), I recall the NYTimes and CIA have had relationship with, and was caught
having "planted CIA workers" as NYTimes writers. Within my adult lifetime, in fact.
This is what the CIA reflexively does: insists that [...] it is an "intelligence matter".
In a sense the CIA is always going to be right on this one - "Central Intelligence Agency" - but only as a matter of nomenclature,
rather than of any other dictionary definition of the word "intelligence".
Actually the collusion between the CIA and big business is far more damaging. The first US company I worked for in Brussels (it
was my first job) was constantly being targeted by the US media for having connections to corrupt South American and Third World
regimes. On what seemed like an almost monthly basis our personnel department would send round memos saying that we were strictly
forbidden to talk to journalists about the latest exposé.
It was great fun - even the telex operators knew who the spies were.
The line "'The optics aren't what they look like,' is truly an instant classic. It reminds me of one of my favorite Yogi Berra
quotes (which, unlike many attributed to him, is real, I think). Yogi once said about a restaurant in New York "Nobody goes there
anymore. It's too crowded." Perhaps Yogi should become an editor for the Times.
British readers will no doubt be shocked -- shocked! -- to learn of cozy relations between a major news organization and a national
intelligence agency.
"'I know the circumstances, and if you knew everything that's going on, you'd know it's much ado about nothing,' Baquet
said. 'I can't go into in detail. But I'm confident after talking to Mark that it's much ado about nothing.'
"'The optics aren't what they look like,' he went on. 'I've talked to Mark, I know the circumstance, and given what I know,
it's much ado about nothing.'"
How can you have a Party if you don't have Party elites?
And how can a self-respecting member of the Party claim their individual status within the Party without secret knowledge designed
to identify one another as members of the Party elite?
[Proles are] natural inferiors who must be kept in subjection, like animals ... Life, if you looked about you, bore no resemblance
not only to the lies that streamed out of the telescreens, but even to the ideals the Party was trying to achieve. ... The
ideal set up by the Party was something huge, terrible, and glittering -- a world of of steel and concrete, of monstrous machines
and terrifying weapons -- a nation of warriors and fanatics, marching forward in perfect unity, all thinking the same thoughts
and shouting the same slogans, perpetually working, fighting, triumphing, persecuting -- 300 million people all with the same
face. The reality was decaying, dingy cities, where underfed people shuffled to and fro in leaky shoes... [
1984 ,pp 73-74]
It makes no difference if an imagined socialist England, a collapsing Roman city-state empire, an actual Soviet Union, or a
modern American oligarchy.
Party members thrive while those wretched proles flail in confused and hungry desperation for something authentic (like a George
Bush) or even simply reassuring (like a Barack Obama.)
Non-elite members of the Party -- functionaries -- mistake their "secret" knowledge as professional courtesy rather than
as perquisite and status marker. (I don't suppose it's a secret to anyone that the US CIA regularly plants stories in the NYTimes
and elsewhere... unless you weren't paying attention in the strident disinfo campaign prior to the Iraq invasion.)
Manzetti has "no bad intent" because he is loyal to the Party.
Like all loyal (and very well compensated) Party members, he would never do anything as subversive as reveal Party secrets.
Guardian is just a propaganda outlet. That sad fact does not exclude the possibility of publishing really good articles,
thouth. That still happens occasionally.
The fact that they follow MI6 and Foreign Office talking points in all foreign events coverage a is just a testament the GB is
a "national security state". Nothing more, nothing less.
Notable quotes:
"... I'm not going to debunk the Guardian article here. It has been debunked by better debunkers than I (e.g., Jonathan Cook , Craig Murray , Glenn Greenwald , Moon of Alabama , and many others). ..."
"... The short version is, The Guardian 's Luke Harding, a shameless hack who will affix his name to any propaganda an intelligence agency feeds him, alleged that Paul Manafort, Trump's former campaign manager, secretly met with Julian Assange (and unnamed "Russians") on numerous occasions from 2013 to 2016, presumably to conspire to collude to brainwash Americans into not voting for Clinton. Harding's earth-shaking allegations, which The Guardian prominently featured and flogged, were based on well, absolutely nothing, except the usual anonymous "intelligence sources." After actual journalists pointed this out, The Guardian quietly revised the piece ( employing the subjunctive mood rather liberally ), buried it in the back pages of its website, and otherwise pretended like they had never published it. ..."
"... By that time, of course, its purpose had been served. The story had been picked up and disseminated by other "respectable," "authoritative" outlets, and it was making the rounds on social media. Nonetheless, out of an abundance of caution, in an attempt to counter the above-mentioned debunkers (and dispel the doubts of anyone else still capable of any kind of critical thinking), Politico posted this ass-covering piece speculating that, if it somehow turned out The Guardian 's story was just propaganda designed to tarnish Assange and Trump well, probably, it had been planted by the Russians to make Luke Harding look like a moron. This ass-covering piece of speculative fiction, which was written by a former CIA agent, was immediately disseminated by liberals and "leftists" who are eagerly looking forward to the arrest, rendition, and public crucifixion of Assange. ..."
"... And this is why The Guardian will not be punished for publishing a blatantly fabricated story. Nor will Luke Harding be penalized for writing it. Luke Harding will be rewarded for writing it, as he has been handsomely rewarded throughout his career for loyally serving the ruling classes. Greenwald, on the other hand, is on thin ice. It will be instructive to see how far he pushes his confrontation with The Guardian regarding this story. ..."
"... It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. ..."
"... Those who are conforming to [official truth] are doing so, not because they are deceived, but because it is safer and more rewarding to do so. ..."
"... The powerless are either servants of power or they are heretics. There is no third alternative. ..."
"... It is important to realize that "the truth" is not going to "rouse the masses from their slumber" and inspire them to throw off their chains. People are not going to suddenly "wake up," "see the truth" and start "the revolution." ..."
"... The distinction is simple. We can't know the truth about distant and complex events like 9/11 or JFK unless we were directly involved, and those people are all dead. For big events we have to rely on, or ignore, the official accounts. ..."
"... Given all this, still, we can approach an approximation of truth that some can agree on. Here is where the trouble starts . ..."
The short version is, The Guardian 's Luke
Harding, a shameless hack who will affix his name to any propaganda an intelligence agency
feeds him, alleged that Paul Manafort, Trump's former campaign manager, secretly met with
Julian Assange (and unnamed "Russians") on numerous occasions from 2013 to 2016, presumably to
conspire to collude to brainwash Americans into not voting for Clinton. Harding's earth-shaking
allegations, which The Guardian prominently featured and flogged, were based on well,
absolutely nothing, except the usual anonymous "intelligence sources." After actual journalists
pointed this out, The Guardian quietly revised the piece ( employing the subjunctive mood
rather liberally ), buried it in the back pages of its website, and otherwise pretended
like they had never published it.
By that time, of course, its purpose had been served. The story had been picked up and
disseminated by other "respectable," "authoritative" outlets, and it was making the rounds on
social media. Nonetheless, out of an abundance of caution, in an attempt to counter the
above-mentioned debunkers (and dispel the doubts of anyone else still capable of any kind of
critical thinking), Politico posted this
ass-covering piece speculating that, if it somehow turned out The Guardian 's story
was just propaganda designed to tarnish Assange and Trump well, probably, it had been planted
by the Russians to make Luke Harding look like a moron. This ass-covering piece of speculative
fiction, which was written by a former CIA agent, was immediately disseminated by liberals and
"leftists" who are eagerly looking forward to the arrest, rendition, and public crucifixion
of Assange.
At this point, I imagine you're probably wondering what this has to do with manufacturing
"truth." Because, clearly, this Guardian story was a lie a lie The Guardian got
caught telling. I wish the "truth" thing was as simple as that (i.e., exposing and debunking
the ruling classes' lies). Unfortunately, it isn't. Here is why.
Much as most people would like there to be one (and behave and speak as if there were one),
there is no Transcendental Arbiter of Truth. The truth is what whoever has the power to say it
is says it is. If we do not agree that that "truth" is the truth, there is no higher court to
appeal to. We can argue until we are blue in the face. It will not make the slightest
difference. No evidence we produce will make the slightest difference. The truth will remain
whatever those with the power to say it is say it is.
Nor are there many "truths" (i.e., your truth and my truth). There is only one "truth" the
"official truth". The "truth" according to those in power. This is the whole purpose of the concept
of truth. It is the reason the concept of "truth" was invented (i.e., to render any other
"truths" lies). It is how those in power control reality and impose their ideology on the
masses (or their employees, or their students, or their children). Yes, I know, we very badly
want there to be some "objective truth" (i.e., what actually happened, when whatever happened,
JFK, 9-11, the resurrection of Jesus Christ, Schrödinger's dead cat, the Big Bang, or
whatever). There isn't. The truth is just a story a story that is never our story.
The "truth" is a story that power gets to tell, and that the powerless do not get to tell,
unless they tell the story of those in power, which is always someone else's story. The
powerless are either servants of power or they are heretics. There is no third alternative.
They either parrot the "truth" of the ruling classes or they utter heresies of one type or
another. Naturally, the powerless do not regard themselves as heretics. They do not regard
their "truth" as heresy. They regard their "truth" as the truth, which is heresy. The truth of
the powerless is always heresy.
For example, while it may be personally comforting for some of us to tell ourselves that we
know the truth about certain subjects (e.g., Russiagate, 9-11, et cetera), and to share our
knowledge with others who agree with us, and even to expose the lies of the corporate media on
Twitter, Facebook, and our blogs, or in some leftist webzine (or "fearless adversarial" outlet
bankrolled by a beneficent oligarch), the ruling classes do not give a shit, because ours is
merely the raving of heretics, and does not warrant a serious response.
Or all right, they give a bit of a shit, enough to try to cover their asses when a
journalist of the stature of Glenn Greenwald (who won a Pulitzer and is frequently on
television) very carefully and very respectfully almost directly accuses them of lying. But
they give enough of a shit to do this because Greenwald has the power to hurt them, not because
of any regard for the truth. This is also why Greenwald has to be so careful and respectful
when directly confronting The Guardian , or any other corporate media outlet, and state
that their blatantly fabricated stories could, theoretically, turn out to be true. He can't
afford to cross the line and end up getting branded a heretic and consigned to Outer Mainstream
Darkness, like Robert Fisk, Sy Hersh, Jonathan Cook, John Pilger, Assange, and other such
heretics.
Look, I'm not trying to argue that it isn't important to expose the fabrications of the
corporate media and the ruling classes. It is terribly important. It is mostly what I do
(albeit usually in a more satirical fashion). At the same time, it is important to realize that
"the truth" is not going to "rouse the masses from their slumber" and inspire them to throw off
their chains. People are not going to suddenly "wake up," "see the truth" and start "the
revolution." People already know the truth the official truth, which is the only truth there
is. Those who are conforming to it are doing so, not because they are deceived, but because it
is safer and more rewarding to do so.
And this is why The Guardian will not be punished for publishing a blatantly
fabricated story. Nor will Luke Harding be penalized for writing it. Luke Harding will be
rewarded for writing it, as he has been handsomely rewarded throughout his career for loyally
serving the ruling classes. Greenwald, on the other hand, is on thin ice. It will be
instructive to see how far he pushes his confrontation with The Guardian regarding this
story.
As for Julian Assange, I'm afraid he is done for. The ruling classes really have no choice
but to go ahead and do him at this point. He hasn't left them any other option. Much as they
are loathe to create another martyr, they can't have heretics of Assange's notoriety running
around punching holes in their "truth" and brazenly defying their authority. That kind of stuff
unsettles the normals, and it sets a bad example for the rest of us heretics.
#
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. He can be reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org .
Good piece. I think there's another layer, though.
The truth or falsehood of individual facts about the physical world can often be
determined with near-certainty. But when it comes to history, or "news" about current events/
politics, reality is much too complex to address directly. Too many individual facts to be
comprehensible, let alone useful.
We must pick, choose, emphasize, or ignore particular elements, and arrange them into some
kind of structure, in order to form a useful narrative. Or in the case of "news," the legacy
media oligarchy largely performs this function for us -- we simply passively accept/ adopt
their narrative. Or, in many cases, "choose" between the closely-related variants of that
narrative offered by the "liberal" vs. "conservative" press.
This process of abstraction, simplification, and organization inevitably involves data
loss. So no narrative is "true" in the same sense that individual facts about the real world
are true. But some narratives incorporate large amounts of "facts" that are demonstrably
false, and some are more useful/ descriptive/ predictive than others. No one engaged in this
process is "objective." They -- or we -- are all in some way part of the story. It should be
self-evident that some narratives are more useful to the perceived interests of owners of
major media outlets than others, and that these will assume a much more prominent place in
their coverage than ones that are deleterious to those interests.
Ideally, most people would take these factors into account when evaluating the "news," and
maintain a much more skeptical attitude than they typically do. But there are several factors
that prevent this.
One is simply time/ efficiency. These individual narratives, taken together, support --
and are supported by -- our overall worldview. There aren't enough hours in the day to be
constantly skeptical about everything, especially since the major tools of distortion
involved in constructing mainstream narratives tend to be selection bias/ memory-holing, with
obvious lies about known facts (like the Guardian story referenced here) used only sparingly.
It's simply not practical to to constantly consider potentially "better" narratives, and to
reevaluate one's worldview based on these.
And which narrative we believe often has more to do with perceived social pressure/ social
acceptability than with "truth." As you put it,
Those who are conforming to it are doing so, not because they are deceived, but because
it is safer and more rewarding to do so.
Mass media pushing a common narrative creates an artificial perception of social
consensus. Creating, or even finding, alternative narratives means fighting the inertia of
this perceived consensus, and potentially suffering social costs for believing in the "wrong"
one. The social role of narratives is largely independent of their "truth" -- if what you're
"supposed" to believe is highly implausible, that actually gives it higher value as a signal
of loyalty to the establishment.
It's probably best to maintain a resolutely agnostic attitude toward most "news" items,
unless one is particularly interested in that particular event. " Why are they pushing
this particular story?" "Why now ?" and " What are they trying to accomplish
here?" are often more useful questions than "Is it true?"
It's not a new issue -- only exacerbated by the advent of mass visual media:
"Propaganda" -- Edward Bernays (1928)
"The Free Press"– Hilaire Belloc (1918)
I get what Hopkins is trying to do here, but redefining terms (i.e., "truth") doesn't do what
he thinks it does.
The truth is not ' what most people think '; it's not ' what we are told to
believe '; it's not ' the official narrative '.
There is a useful cautionary tale embedded in Hopkins' piece, but he doesn't tease it out
properly.
Take this excerpt:
The truth is what whoever has the power to say it is says it is. If we do not agree that
that "truth" is the truth, there is no higher court to appeal to. We can argue until we are
blue in the face. It will not make the slightest difference. No evidence we produce will
make the slightest difference. The truth will remain whatever those with the power to say
it is say it is.
With significant caveats, it is a reasonable description of the way the political world
works: if the political class decides that its interests are best served by declaring that a
specific narrative X is 'true', it will obtain immediate compliance from about half
the livestock, and can then rely on force (peer pressure; subsidy or taxation; state
coercion) to get an absolute majority of the herd to declare that they accept the 'truth' of
X .
If X is objectively false, too bad.
Try to run a legal argument based on the objective falsity of a thing that the political
class has deemed to be true: you'll be shit outta luck.
This is highly relevant where I am sitting: here are two examples – one really
obvious, one a bit less so (but far more important because of its radical implications).
Obvious Example: Drug Dogs
Recent research has shown that drug sniffing dogs give false positive signals between 60%
and 80% of the time – i.e., in terms of identifying people who are in actual
physical possession of drugs at any point in time, drug sniffing dogs perform worse than
a coin toss.
Note that this is before considering that the dog's handler is often pointing the dog at a
target that the handler thinks is likely to be carrying drugs. (Although in reality, drug
dogs are paraded around at concerts and in public spaces, sniffing every passer-by).
However there is an Act of Parliament (capitalise all the magic words) that asserts that a
signal from a drug sniffing dog is sufficient to qualify as what Americans call "probable
cause" – i.e., reasonable suspicion for a search.
Does anyone think that evidence should be admissible if it results from a search conducted
based on 'probable cause' derived from a method that produces worse outcomes than tossing a
coin?
Judges will tie themselves into absolute epistemological knots to get that evidence
admitted – and they will refuse to permit defence Counsel from adducing evidence about
drug dog inaccuracy because since the defendant actually did have drugs in their
possession, the dog didn't signal falsely.
In other words, the judge conflates posterior probability with prior
probability; the prior probability that the dog is correct, is 10%-40%; this should not
suffice to generate probable cause (or 'reasonable suspicion).
More Interesting Example: 'Representative' Democracy
In general, Western governments assert that their legitimacy stems from two primary
sources: some founding set of principles (usually a constitution – written or
otherwise), and 'representativeness' (including ratification of the constitution by a
representative mechanism, for those places with written foundational documents).
The Arrow Impossibility Theorem [1,2] and the Gibbard-Satterthwaite Theorem
[3,4], both show that there is no way of accurately determining group preferences using an
ordinal voting mechanism.
What this boils down to, is that representativeness is a lie – and it's a lie before
any consideration of voting outcomes ; it's a meta -problem (the problem that
ordinal voting cannot do what it is claimed to do – viz ., accurately identify
the 'will of the people'/'social preferences'/'what the people want').
Beyond the meta-problem, there is also the actual counting problem: no government has ever
been elected having obtained the votes of an outright bare majority, i.e., 50%-plus-1
of the entire eligible franchise. (It's more like 25-35% for most parliamentary systems
– for US presidential elections in the full-franchise period, the winner is voted for
by 29% of the eligible population; you would be horrified to look at US Senate
results).
So when the new unhappy lords (and their Little Eichmann bureaucrat enablers)
promulgate laws based on assertions of legitimacy because of a constitutional
Grundnorm and/or the representative nature of government both of those things are
pretty obvious furphies; they are objectively not 'truth' and no amount of heel-clicking and
wishing will make it so.
Which brings us to a key legal aphorism that has a jurisprudential history going back four
centuries: Ratio legis est anima legis, et mutata legis ratione, mutatur ex lex
– which dates from Milborn's case ( Coke 7a KB [1609]).
The reason for a law is the soul of the law, and if the reason for a law has changed,
the law is changed .
What this means – explicitly – is that " no law can survive the
[extinction of the] reasons on which it is founded ".
American courts re-expressed this as " cessante ratione legis, cessat ipsa lex "
(the reason for a law having ceased, the law itself ceases) – e.g., in Funk v. United
States , 290 US 371 (1933) in which Justice Sutherland opined –
This means that no law can survive the reasons on which it is founded. It needs no
statute to change it; it abrogates itself . If the reasons on which a law rests are
overborne by opposing reasons, which in the progress of society gain a controlling force,
the old law, though still good as an abstract principle, and good in its application to
some circumstances, must cease to apply as a controlling principle to the new
circumstances.
(Emphasis mine)
Again: try running this argument in a court: " The asserted basis for all laws
promulgated by the government, is provably false. Under a doctrine with a 4-century
jurisprudential provenance, the law itself is void ."
See how far you get.
So Hopkins makes a good-but-obvious point – power does not respect either rights
or truth; as such it does you no good whatsoever to have the actual truth on your side.
He should have made the point better.
C J Hopkins, despite some good quotes and insights above, regrettably falls into the trap of
peddling Derrida-tier relativistic nonsense, playing a word game about 'truth', as if 'truth'
was not real merely because most people have strong incentives to avoid being devoted to it
Where you stand depends upon where you sit, etc., Karl Marx's dictums about economic and
power positions shaping consciousness, and of course the century-old classic:
It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not
understanding it.
from Upton Sinclair (1878-1968). Hopkins more or less repeats Sinclair when he says
Those who are conforming to [official truth] are doing so, not because they are
deceived, but because it is safer and more rewarding to do so.
Despite selling-out truth to the relativism devil in some passages, Hopkins nevertheless
creates some quotable, including the particularly insightful:
The powerless are either servants of power or they are heretics. There is no third
alternative.
The following notion of Hopkins is seen now and then in the alt-sphere, but always bears
repeating
It is important to realize that "the truth" is not going to "rouse the masses from their
slumber" and inspire them to throw off their chains. People are not going to suddenly "wake
up," "see the truth" and start "the revolution."
Iron and blood are the tools used to force people to accept what isn't true.
(Another way to tell: it was uttered by a fucking politician – a cunt who wanted to
live in palaces paid for by the sweat of other people's brows).
Truth does not need violence to propagate itself: in a completely-peaceful system of free
exchange, bad ideas (of which lies are a subset) will get driven out of the market place
because they will fail to conform to ground truth.
Falsehood requires violence (arguably it is a form of violence: fraud is 'violent'
because it causes its victims to misallocate their resources or to deform their preferences
and expectations).
In a very real sense, truth does not need friends: all it requires is an absence of
powerful enemies.
The distinction is simple. We can't know the truth about distant and complex events like 9/11
or JFK unless we were directly involved, and those people are all dead. For big events we
have to rely on, or ignore, the official accounts.
But we CAN know the truth about our own situation, our own neighborhood, and our own
families. The current riots in France are a concrete ASSERTION of local truth against the
blatant and condescending official lies. The majority of France is getting poorer and
suffering more from migrant crime. Macron insists that starvation is necessary to serve Gaia,
and crime is necessary to serve Juncker. The people would prefer to have a leader that serves
France.
@FB Scientific truth
is limited by two factors – assumptions, and hidden variables. For example,
we might drop a brick in a vacuum and believe that it falls at 9.8 m/s squared. Here, we make
the assumption that the force of gravity is constant. And for most of history we were unaware
of the hidden variable of relativity to the speed of light.
So, assuming (LOL) that we are able to eliminate all assumptions and account for all
hidden variables, there is a scientific truth. That is ASSUMING we are not just a simulation
in someone elses computer!
Given all this, still, we can approach an approximation of truth that some can agree on.
Here is where the trouble starts .
@The scalpel LOL and
then there is the 'observer effect' also especially in good old quantum mechanics in the end
scientific truth does boil down to what 'some can agree on'
@Kratoklastes Strength
is the production of force over distance. That is to say, force is a quantifiable, physical
phenomenon that, deconstruct it as much as you want, will hit you like a tsunami whether you
believe it or not.
Force only works because there is a real world that transcends philosophical bullshit and
marketing.
The subjective piece is will: victory is attained when the enemies will to resist is
crushed. Through the repeated use of physical force, eventually any enemy can be worn down
and vanquished.
The world is finite, desire is infinite, and for every desire and appetite, there is a
will. As multiple wills will that they attain their infinite desires in a finite world, there
will always be a conflict of will, which will always ultimately be resolved by force. Which
means ultimately, despite the rich imaginations and appetites of humans, and their related
striving, physical force will ultimately rule the day, and conquer, condition, and constrain
the mental life of mankind.
Of course, desire and appetite will not take no for an answer, and in their frustration,
they will imagine, fantasize, and conceptualize rationales for why this is not so. This is
the nature of our desires, and in good times of prosperity and peace, they may even bend our
reason in the direction of these appetites and fantasies, until the instincts for self
preservation and endurance rust, and are even forgotten. But like the moon revealed by a
passing cloud, the perpetual war of human existence will inevitably reassert itself, and
those that have prepared for the inevitable will vanquish those who were content to daydream
when they should have been preparing.
After reading the article and the aggregate comments, I am strengthened in my belief that
the physics analogy of Schrödinger's cat is among the most useful (and
notwithstanding the otherwise valid criticism of it in the comments). In the same way that
the Oxford English Dictionary, for example, does not purport to define a given word,
per se , but rather gives a detailed description of how the word has in fact been used
over the years and centuries.
I refer to my version of Schrödinger's cat as counter-sense words or
oscillating-contradictions .
Oscillating contradictions and cogno-linguistic manipulation
The primary means by which corporate supremacy, for example, is achieved and maintained in
practice is via the maintenance and use of a small arsenal of about two dozen critical
counter-sense or yo-yo -like words/terms that are asserted or claimed to mean
either "X" or "Minus-X" at the option of the decision-maker.
Among the most important and sui generis (in a class of its own) is the word
person which is held to mean a living, breathing being of conscience (literally
a being of equity) with the rights, powers and privileges of such being ("X"), or else it can
mean a corporate entity which is a notional/inanimate item of property to be bought
and sold and otherwise traded for profit in the stock and financial markets ("Minus-X").
By way of example/demonstration of the ongoing cognitive manipulation process, if someone
had managed to hit the judges of the U.S. Supreme Court with a blast of truth-ray just
before they announced their decision in Citizens United, here is what we may have got
instead:
[MORE]
We here at the Supreme Court are part of what can be fairly and broadly referred to as
an arm of the entrenched-money-power.
At certain times and under certain circumstances it is to our enormous advantage over
you the masses that corporations be natural-persons-in-law with the rights, powers and
privileges of a natural person or living being of conscience.
At other times and other circumstances it is to our enormous advantage over you the
masses that corporations be items of property that can be actively bought and sold and
traded for profit in the stock and financial markets.
Your laughable naiveté is manifest in your expectation that you are going to
receive a definitive answer from this Court, or even that it is possible for us to give you
one. Among the foundational purposes of this Court is to actively prevent that question
from being answered definitively at all. The instant we give a definitive answer, the game
is over.
Whatever answer we give you must perpetuate the systematized delusion that the same
concept (corporate personhood) can mean either X (a living being of conscience), or minus-X
(an item of property), depending on the ever-changing needs of the decider.
So our current answer is that a corporation is a natural-person-in-law with the rights,
powers and privileges of a natural person, except when it isn't. We'll let you know next
time whether that situation has changed in the meantime.
Essentially all counter-sense words/terms follow that same template .
Notwithstanding that the respective concepts are logically and objectively mutually
exclusive , the judges of the Courts (and the broadly-defined
financial-world/social-control-structure) maintain that it can be either or both , and
we'll let you know if and when it becomes important.
So a corporate person has a right of free speech when giving money to
influence political parties, but not to object to itself being sold as a piece of property in
the stock and financial markets or when it is acquired in a merger or takeover financed by
its own assets. If a corporation has the legal capacity and rights of a natural person, then
how can it be owned as the legal property of another? The purpose of the Courts is to ensure
that that question is never presented in that way.
After person , the remaining most significant counter-sense or yo-yo
-like words are (surprise surprise) essentially all money-and-finance-based, and the most
important among these is the word principal and its role in facilitating illegal
front-loading or ex-temporal fraud (interest illegally and unlawfully compounded in
advance).
Is the amount of principal the actual or net amount advanced by the creditor and
received by the debtor for their own use and control?
Or is it the amount that the debtor agrees that they owe regardless of the amount
received?
Is the amount of principal a question of fact ? Or of the agreement of
parties ?
[Here is the premise / offer that is referenced immediately below:]
Lender (e.g., typical second-mortgage lender): "I will loan you $10,000 at 20%
per annum provided that you sign and give to me a marketable security that claims or
otherwise purports to evidence that I have loaned you $15,000 at 10% per annum, plus an
undisclosed and unregistered side-agreement and cheque (check) back to me for a bonus or
loan fee of $5,000 as a payment from the nominal proceeds."
In the process example used above, what is the principal amount of the loan? Is it
$10,000 because that is the factual net amount invested by the creditor and received by the
debtor for their own use? Or is it $15,000 because that is the amount that the debtor is
required to falsely agree that they have received and owe as a condition of the loan? Or is
it $20,000 because that is the total cash-equivalent/money assets ($15,000 mortgage + $5,000
cheque) that the debtor has to give to the creditor?
Is it a noun/fact ? Or is it an adjective/opinion merely pretending to be a
noun? All debt and therefore money in the world today depends on the answer to that question
that theoretically cannot exist.
Principal is a special type (and most significant form) of counter-sense
word or oscillating contradiction where dictionaries normally only give one sense,
while commercial practice defines the contrary. It would be very difficult to put the
Whatever-the-debtor-agrees-that-they-owe sense into a dictionary, because the fraud against
meaning (as well as the criminal law) is manifest in spelling it out, and ever more so in
more specialized financial dictionaries.
So virtually every legal, financial, accounting, and ordinary English dictionary and/or
regulation defines it to the effect "The actual amount invested, loaned or advanced to the
debtor/borrower net of any interest, discount, premium or fees", while virtually every
financial security in the real world at least implicitly incorporates the fraudulent
alternative/contrary meaning.
This in turn allows the academic world to function on the rational/factual
definition, while the markets maintain a wholly contradictory deemed or pretended
reality, while both remain oblivious to the contradiction.
Thus principal means the nominal creditor's actual and net investment, unless it
doesn't .
With this class of counter-sense word where there is a necessary and definitive
answer, the real job of the judges of the Courts becomes to make certain that the question is
never officially asked, and under no circumstances is it to be definitively answered.
With just one of these words you can theoretically steal the Earth . With a
financial system that is relatively saturated with them, such becomes child's play .
With these rules a group of competently-trained chimpanzees otherwise pulling
levers at random could do as well as the so-called wizards of Wall Street .
And significantly, these oscillating contradictions enable the judges to be self-righteous
in the extreme on behalf of the entrenched-money-power, while looting the little
people of the product of their labour.
As in: You have received the principal amount ($10,000) and you are going to pay
back the principal amount ($15,000) plus the ever-accumulating (and super-leveraged)
interest upon it according to your contract, while the meaning of the word oscillates
between fact and opinion – between a noun and an adjective
– according to what the judge needs it to mean (or accommodate) at any given instant in
time.
It seems impossibly obvious in this simple example, but with several of them orchestrated
simultaneously or sequentially, anything can truly be made to mean anything
.
A partial list of the most critical oscillating-contradicitions includes: loan, credit,
discount, interest, rate-of-interest, agreement, contract, security, repay, restitution,
etc., all of which mean either "X" or its conceptual opposite "Minus-X" at the option of the
entrenched-money-power whose vast financial fortunes are founded on such cogno-linguistic
arbitrage .
Here are what I believe to be four essential tools needed to triangulate
reality via congo-linguistic parallax . The first two are mine, and the last two
are from the American and English Courts, respectively.
1. Humans are highly cogno-linguistic . We perceive reality very largely as a
function of the language that we use to describe it. Most everyone inherently believes
and presumes that you have to be able to think something before you can say it.
The greater reality is that, above a certain base level of perception and communication, you
have to have the words and language by which to say something before you can think
it .
2. The world is ever-increasingly controlled and administered by people who genuinely
believe whatever is necessary for the answer they need. Administrative agents of the
entrenched-money-power have solved the criminal-law enigma of mens rea or guilty
mind by evolving or devolving (take your pick) into professional schizophrenics
who genuinely believe whatever they need to believe for the answer they need, and who
communicate among themselves subconsciously by how they name things. They suffer a
cogno-linguistically-induced diminished capacity that renders them incapable of
perceiving reality beyond labels .
3. Their core business model or modus operandi is the systematized delusion
:
"A "systematized delusion" is one based on a false premise, pursued by a logical process
of reasoning to an insane conclusion ; there being one central delusion, around which other
aberrations of the mind converge." Taylor v. McClintock, 112 S.W. 405, 412, 87 Ark. 243.
(West's Judicial Words and Phrases (1914)).
4.
One must not confuse the object of a conspiracy [to defraud] with the
means by which it is intended to be carried out. Scott v. Metropolitan Police
Commissioner [1974] 60 Cr. App. R. 124 H.L.
I have long since abandoned my search for truth, per se, since I came to realize that the
best I can ever do is to constantly strive to move closer to it. With apologies to the
physicists, Truth is the Limit of Infinite Good Faith .
@Tulip " which will
always ultimately be resolved by force."
Right there is where you lost the plot. That statement is just your opinion and it cannot
be proven true. The rest of your argument falls victim to this logical error.
" and those that have prepared for the inevitable will vanquish those who were content to
daydream when they should have been preparing."
Also, just your opinion. For example, the "dreamer" might die still comforted by his/her
dreams, while the "prepper" might waste his life witing for the "inevitable' that never
arrives.
In what can be described as a monumental step forward in the relentless pursuit of 9/11
truth, a United States Attorney has agreed to comply with federal law requiring submission to
a Special Grand Jury of evidence that explosives were used to bring down the World Trade
Centers.
The Lawyers' Committee for 9/11 Inquiry successfully submitted a petition to the federal
government demanding that the U.S. Attorney present to a Special Grand Jury extensive
evidence of yet-to-be-prosecuted federal crimes relating to the destruction of three World
Trade Center Towers on 9/11 (WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7).
After waiting months for the reply, the U.S. Attorney responded in a letter, noting that
they will comply with the law.
Some good documentary films here to watch for free:
My question/quibble relates to your objection to the use of sniffer dogs to establish
probable cause for search because it is no better than a coin toss. That seems fallacious
if, according to your figures, the dogs sniff 500 people and get excited by 10 of them of
which 3 are correctly identified and 7 are false positives.
Yeah. The concepts of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative
predictive value might be very helpful in assessing this.
"... Here's a wonderful example of the NYT's propensity for re-writing history: http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2012/08/30/ny-times-scrubs-mention-cia-arming-syrian-rebels-177311/ Long live the memory hole. ..."
The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence Victor Marchetti
"It is the first book the federal government of the United States ever went to court to
censor before its publication. The CIA demanded the authors remove 399 passages but they
stood firm and only 168 passages were censored. The publisher, Alfred A. Knopf, chose to
publish the book with blanks for censored passages and with boldface type for passages that
were challenged but later uncensored."
There exists in our nation today a powerful and dangerous secret cult -- the cult of
intelligence. Its holy men are the clandestine professionals of the Central Intelligence
Agency.
Its patrons and protectors are the highest officials of the federal government.
Its membership, extending far beyond governmental circles, reaches into the power centers
of industry, commerce, finance, and labor. Its friends are many in the areas of important
public influence -- the academic world and the communications media.
The cult of
intelligence is a secret fraternity of the American political aristocracy.
The purpose of
the cult is to further the foreign policies of the U.S. government by covert and usually
illegal means, while at the same time containing the spread of its avowed enemy, communism.
Traditionally, the cult's hope has been to foster a world order in which America would
reign supreme, the unchallenged international leader.
Today, however, that dream stands
tarnished by time and frequent failures. Thus, the cult's objectives are now less
grandiose, but no less disturbing. It seeks largely to advance America's self-appointed
role as the dominant arbiter of social, economic, and political change in the awakening
regions of Asia, Africa, and Latin America. And its worldwide war against communism has to
some extent been reduced to a covert struggle to maintain a self-serving stability in the
Third World, using whatever clandestine methods are available.
In Homage to
Catalonia (1938), his memoir of the Spanish Civil War, George Orwell describes how his
wife was rudely woken by a police-raid on the hotel room she was occupying in Barcelona:
In the small hours of the morning there was a pounding on the door, and six men marched
in, switched on the light, and immediately took up various positions about the room,
obviously agreed upon beforehand. They then searched both rooms (there was a bathroom
attached) with inconceivable thoroughness. They sounded the walls, took up the mats, examined
the floor, felt the curtains, probed under the bath and the radiator, emptied every drawer
and suitcase and felt every garment and held it up to the light. ( Homage to Catalonia , ch.
14)
The police conducted this search "in the recognized OGPU [then the Russian
communist secret-police] or Gestapo style for nearly two hours," Orwell says. He then notes
that in "all this time they never searched the bed." His wife was still in it, you see, and
although the police "were probably Communist Party members they were also Spaniards, and to
turn a woman out of bed was a little too much for them. This part of the job was silently
dropped, making the whole search meaningless."
Orwell's story suggests a new word to me: typhlophthalmism , meaning "the practice
of turning a blind eye to essential but inconvenient facts" (from Greek typhlos
, "blind," + ophthalmos
, "eye"). But it's a long word, so let's call it typhlism for short. Shorter is
better, because the term could be used so often today. Orwell's story is an allegory of modern
Western politics and social commentary, where so many essential but inconvenient facts are
"silently dropped" from analysis.
"... A 2000 article reveals Coughlin was fed material by MI6 for years, which he then turned into Telegraph news articles ..."
"... There is - or has been until recently - a very active programme by the secret agencies to colour what appears in the British press, called, if publications by various defectors can be believed, information operations, or 'I/Ops'. ..."
"... A colourful example of the way these techniques expanded to meet the exigencies of the hour came in the early 70s, when the readers of the News of the World were treated to a front-page splash, "Russian sub in IRA plot sensation", complete with aerial photograph of the conning tower of a Soviet sub awash off the coast of Donegal ..."
"... Read more British intelligence now officially a by-word for organized crime ..."
"... he [Coughlin] regaled [the newspaper's] readers with the dramatic story of the son of Libya's Colonel Gadafy (sic) and his alleged connection to a currency counterfeiting plan. The story [implicating Saif Gaddafi] was falsely attributed to a 'British banking official.' In fact, it had been given to him by officers of MI6, who, it transpired, had been supplying Coughlin with material for years. ..."
"... It could well be, therefore, that the unfortunate Mr Khashoggi has become the victim of the region's dangerous and conflicting currents. ..."
"... The incestuous relationship between the intelligence services and sections of the [British] media is, of course, nothing new. The connection is notoriously close in the case of foreign correspondents Sandy Gall, the ITN reporter and newsreader, boasted of his work for MI6 in Afghanistan during the 1980s ..."
"... After US Senate hearings in 1975 revealed the extent of CIA recruitment of both American and British journalists, 'sources' let it be known that half the foreign staff of a British daily [newspaper] were on the MI6 payroll. ..."
John Wight has written for
a variety of newspapers and websites, including the Independent, Morning Star, Huffington Post,
Counterpunch, London Progressive Journal, and Foreign Policy Journal. Published time: 18 Oct,
2018 13:16 Edited time: 18 Oct, 2018 14:44
That a free press underpins British democracy is an enduring myth that has been
allowed to go unchallenged, up there with unicorns and the Loch Ness Monster. Because if a
clutch of right-wing reactionary billionaires owning the bulk of a nation's major newspaper
titles and media constitutes a free press, the word 'free' has been stripped and shorn of all
meaning.
Yet, while the aforementioned – let's be kind here – 'anomaly' has long been
understood by anyone of adult years with the ability to put their underpants on the right way
round in the morning, the extent to which the British establishment press and media has been
penetrated by intelligence services and acts as a conduit for their agenda is less well
known.
That it is less well known remains one of life's great mysteries nonetheless. Scratch your
average British journalist and you have yourself a frustrated spook; someone who would be on
their toes at the sound of a car door slamming shut in the street, while harbouring fantasies
of coming across Vladimir Putin in a dark alley one night and scoring one for the Empire.
Take Con Coughlin, for example, Defence Editor at The Daily Telegraph (more colloquially and
accurately known as The Daily Torygraph). Coughlin is a product of a private school production
line that has unleashed more knaves on the world than spittle on a dentist's chair. While his
outing as an MI6 asset may have been a long time coming, now that it has, it marks yet another
nail in the coffin of a media class whose relationship to truth and objectivity belongs in the
box marked non-existent.
Though I hold no candle for Guardian columnist, Owen Jones, it remains a truism that even a
blind chicken gets a piece of corn sometimes; and on this basis Jones has rendered us a service
in outing Coughlin in a recent series of devastating tweets. Also providing an invaluable
service in helping join the dots of the story is The Canary , independent left-wing news and views web journal
that currently boasts a larger readership than a growing section of the mainstream media.
As it turns out, Mr Coughlin's links to MI6 (Britain's foreign intelligence agency) go back
some time. As Jones writes: " A 2000 article reveals Coughlin was fed material by MI6 for
years, which he then turned into Telegraph news articles ."
The Guardian article Jones is
referring to was published at a time when the centre-left newspaper was a worthy source of
information and analysis, home to the likes of Seumas Milne, one of Britain's finest-ever
columnists currently plying his trade as chief press adviser to Labour Party leader Jeremy
Corbyn. It just goes to show that whoever said evolution only moves in one direction had never
taken the time to follow the trajectory of The Guardian in recent years.
But that's another story.
We are informed in the aforesaid 2000 Guardian article that " There is - or has been
until recently - a very active programme by the secret agencies to colour what appears in the
British press, called, if publications by various defectors can be believed, information
operations, or 'I/Ops'. "
Further on: " A colourful example of the way these techniques expanded to meet the
exigencies of the hour came in the early 70s, when the readers of the News of the World were
treated to a front-page splash, "Russian sub in IRA plot sensation", complete with aerial
photograph of the conning tower of a Soviet sub awash off the coast of Donegal ."
This story was of course entirely bogus, as was one published in the Sunday Telegraph,
sister paper of the aforementioned Daily Telegraph, over two decades later, written by –
you guessed it – Con Coughlin.
From the article: " he [Coughlin] regaled [the newspaper's] readers with the dramatic
story of the son of Libya's Colonel Gadafy (sic) and his alleged connection to a currency
counterfeiting plan. The story [implicating Saif Gaddafi] was falsely attributed to a 'British
banking official.' In fact, it had been given to him by officers of MI6, who, it transpired,
had been supplying Coughlin with material for years. "
Coughlin, by the way, is also revealed, according to Jones, to have been an eager shill for
the Saudis.
In the wake of the disappearance of Saudi dissident journalist Jamal Khashoggi at the Saudi
consulate in Istanbul, whom
according to Turkish authorities was brutally murdered and dismembered by a group of
Saudis, who, equipped with a bone saw, flew in to the country from the Kingdom to carry out the
deed especially, Coughlin went to
work shrouding matters in a fog of benign uncertainty. Consider: " It could well be,
therefore, that the unfortunate Mr Khashoggi has become the victim of the region's dangerous
and conflicting currents. " Ahem indeed.
Coughlin also saw fit to describe current Saudi tyrant - sorry Crown Prince - Muhammad Bin
Salman (affectionately known as MbS) as a " human dynamo ," after he was afforded the
privilege of a sit down interview.
At the risk of focusing too much on Mr Coughlin and his work, however, we are obliged to
make the point that he is merely one among many British establishment journalists who have
eagerly embraced the role of conduit of the nation's intelligence services over the years.
In his classic work on the 1984-85 miners' strike, The Enemy Within, Seumas Milne writes: "
The incestuous relationship between the intelligence services and sections of the [British]
media is, of course, nothing new. The connection is notoriously close in the case of foreign
correspondents Sandy Gall, the ITN reporter and newsreader, boasted of his work for MI6 in
Afghanistan during the 1980s ."
Milne, in the same passage, goes on to reveal how " After US Senate hearings in 1975
revealed the extent of CIA recruitment of both American and British journalists, 'sources' let
it be known that half the foreign staff of a British daily [newspaper] were on the MI6
payroll. "
So there you have it, the murky relationship between British intelligence and the country's
establishment journalists is one that reaches far back in time and continues in the present, as
redoubtable and reliable as Big Ben itself.
In fact considering where we are, the indefensible positions taken by prominent newspaper
journalists and columnists at not only The Telegraph but also The Times and, yes, The Guardian
over Russia, Ukraine, Syria, Venezuela et al. – in other words, the way that almost to a
man and woman they have fallen into line behind their own government when it comes to who the
officially designated enemies of the moment should be – the question we need to ask
ourselves is not how many of them might be in the pay of MI6 and MI5, but how many of them
might not?
In fact considering where we are, the indefensible positions taken by prominent newspaper
journalists and columnists at not only The Telegraph but also The Times and, yes, The Guardian
over Russia, Ukraine, Syria, Venezuela et al. – in other words, the way in which they
have fallen into line behind their own government when it comes to who the officially
designated enemies of the moment should be – the question we need to ask ourselves is not
how many of them might be in the pay of MI6 and MI5, but how many of them might not?
Like this story? Share it with a friend! The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
"... But strangely most of us are much readier to concede the corrupting influence of the relatively small power of individuals than we are the rottenness of vastly more powerful institutions and structures. We blame the school teacher or the politician for abusing his or her power, while showing a reluctance to do the same about either the education or political systems in which they have to operate. ..."
"... It is relatively easy to understand that your line manager is abusing his power, because he has so little of it. His power is visible to you because it relates only to you and the small group of people around you ..."
"... It is a little harder, but not too difficult, to identify the abusive policies of your firm – the low pay, cuts in overtime, attacks on union representation ..."
"... It is more difficult to see the corrupt power of large institutions, aside occasionally from the corruption of senior figures within those institutions, such as a Robert Maxwell or a Richard Nixon ..."
"... But it is all but impossible to appreciate the corrupt nature of the entire system. And the reason is right there in those aphorisms: absolute power depends on absolute control over knowledge, which in turn necessitates absolute corruption. If that were not the case, we wouldn't be dealing with serious power – as should be obvious, if we pause to think about it ..."
"... The current neoliberal elite who effectively rule the planet have reached as close to absolute power as any elite in human history. And because they have near-absolute power, they have a near-absolute control of the official narratives about our societies and our "enemies", those who stand in their way to global domination ..."
"... What is clear, however, is that the British intelligence services have been feeding the British corporate media a self-serving, drip-drip narrative from the outset – and that the media have shown precisely no interest at any point in testing any part of this narrative or even questioning it. They have been entirely passive, which means that we their readers have been entirely passive too ..."
"... Journalists typically have a passive relationship to power, in stark contrast to their image as tenacious watchdog. But more fundamental than control over narrative is the ideology that guides these narratives. Ideology ensures the power-system is invisible not only to us, those who are abused and exploited by it, but also to those who benefit from it. ..."
"... It is precisely because power resides in structures and ideology, rather than individuals, that it is so hard to see. And the power-structures themselves are made yet more difficult to identify because the narratives created about our societies are designed to conceal those structures and ideology – where real power resides – by focusing instead on individuals ..."
"... Before neoliberalism there were other systems of rule. There was, for example, feudalism that appropriated a communal resource – land – exclusively for an aristocracy. It exploited the masses by forcing them to toil on the land for a pittance to generate the wealth that supported castles, a clergy, manor houses, art collections and armies. For several centuries the power of this tiny elite went largely unquestioned ..."
"... Neoliberalism, late-stage capitalism, plutocratic rule by corporations – whatever you wish to call it – has allowed a tiny elite to stash away more wealth and accrue more power than any feudal monarch could ever have dreamt of. And because of the global reach of this elite, its corruption is more endemic, more complete, more destructive than any ever known to mankind ..."
"... A foreign policy elite can destroy the world several times over with nuclear weapons. A globalised corporate elite is filling the oceans with the debris from our consumption, and chopping down the forest-lungs of our planet for palm-oil plantations so we can satisfy our craving for biscuits and cake. And our media and intelligence services are jointly crafting a narrative of bogeymen and James Bond villains – both in Hollywood movies, and in our news programmes – to make us fearful and pliable ..."
"... The system – whether feudalism, capitalism, neoliberalism – emerges out of the real-world circumstances of those seeking power most ruthlessly. In a time when the key resource was land, a class emerged justifying why it should have exclusive rights to control that land and the labour needed to make it productive. When industrial processes developed, a class emerged demanding that it had proprietary rights to those processes and to the labour needed to make them productive. ..."
"... In these situations, we need to draw on something like Darwin's evolutionary "survival of the fittest" principle. Those few who are most hungry for power, those with least empathy, will rise to the top of the pyramid, finding themselves best-placed to exploit the people below. They will rationalise this exploitation as a divine right, or as evidence of their inherently superior skills, or as proof of the efficiency of the market. ..."
"... And below them, like the layers of ball bearings, will be those who can help them maintain and expand their power: those who have the skills, education and socialisation to increase profits and sell brands. ..."
"... None of this should surprise us either. Because power – not just the people in the system, but the system itself – will use whatever tools it has to protect itself. It is easier to deride critics as unhinged, especially when you control the media, the politicians and the education system, than it is to provide a counter-argument. ..."
"... so neoliberalism is driven not by ethics but the pursuit of power and wealth through the control of the planet. ..."
"... The only truth we can know is that the western power-elite is determined to finish the task of making its power fully global, expanding it from near-absolute to absolute. It cares nothing for you or your grand-children. It is a cold-calculating system, not a friend or neighbour. It lives for the instant gratification of wealth accumulation, not concern about the planet's fate tomorrow. ..."
I rarely tell readers what to believe. Rather I try to indicate why it might be wise to
distrust, at least without very good evidence, what those in power tell us we should
believe.
We have well-known sayings about power: "Knowledge is power", and "Power tends to corrupt,
while absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely." These aphorisms resonate because they say
something true about how we experience the world. People who have power – even very
limited power they hold on licence from someone else – tend to abuse it, sometimes subtly
and unconsciously, and sometimes overtly and wilfully.
If we are reasonably self-aware, we can sense the tendency in ourselves to exploit to our
advantage whatever power we enjoy, whether it is in our dealings with a spouse, our children, a
friend, an employee, or just by the general use of our status to get ahead.
This isn't usually done maliciously or even consciously. By definition, the hardest thing to
recognise are our own psychological, emotional and mental blind spots – and the biggest,
at least for those born with class, gender or race privileges, is realising that these too are
forms of power.
Nonetheless, they are all minor forms of power compared to the power wielded collectively by
the structures that dominate our societies: the financial sector, the corporations, the media,
the political class, and the security services.
But strangely most of us are much readier to concede the corrupting influence of the
relatively small power of individuals than we are the rottenness of vastly more powerful
institutions and structures. We blame the school teacher or the politician for abusing his or
her power, while showing a reluctance to do the same about either the education or political
systems in which they have to operate.
Similarly, we are happier identifying the excessive personal power of a Rupert Murdoch than
we are the immense power of the corporate empire behind him and on which his personal wealth
and success depend.
And beyond this, we struggle most of all to detect the structural and ideological framework
underpinning or cohering all these discrete examples of power.
Narrative control
It is relatively easy to understand that your line manager is abusing his power, because he
has so little of it. His power is visible to you because it relates only to you and the small
group of people around you.
It is a little harder, but not too difficult, to identify the abusive policies of your firm
– the low pay, cuts in overtime, attacks on union representation.
It is more difficult to see the corrupt power of large institutions, aside occasionally from
the corruption of senior figures within those institutions, such as a Robert Maxwell or a
Richard Nixon.
But it is all but impossible to appreciate the corrupt nature of the entire system. And the
reason is right there in those aphorisms: absolute power depends on absolute control over
knowledge, which in turn necessitates absolute corruption. If that were not the case, we
wouldn't be dealing with serious power – as should be obvious, if we pause to think about
it.
Real power in our societies derives from that which is necessarily hard to see –
structures, ideology and narratives – not individuals. Any Murdoch or Trump can be
felled, though being loyal acolytes of the power-system they rarely are, should they threaten
the necessary maintenance of power by these interconnected institutions, these structures.
The current neoliberal elite who effectively rule the planet have reached as close to
absolute power as any elite in human history. And because they have near-absolute power, they
have a near-absolute control of the official narratives about our societies and our "enemies",
those who stand in their way to global domination.
No questions about Skripals
One needs only to look at the narrative about the two men, caught on CCTV cameras, who have
recently been accused by our political and media class of using a chemical agent to try to
murder Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia back in March.
I don't claim to know whether Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov work for the Russian
security services, or whether they were dispatched by Vladimir Putin on a mission to Salisbury
to kill the Skripals.
What is clear, however, is that the British intelligence services have been feeding the
British corporate media a self-serving, drip-drip narrative from the outset – and that
the media have shown precisely no interest at any point in testing any part of this narrative
or even questioning it. They have been entirely passive, which means that we their readers have
been entirely passive too.
That there are questions about the narrative to be raised is obvious if you turn away from
the compliant corporate media and seek out the views of an independent-minded, one-time insider
such as Craig Murray.
A former British ambassador, Murray is asking questions
that may prove to be pertinent or not. At this stage, when all we have to rely on is what the
intelligence services are selectively providing, these kinds of doubts should be driving the
inquiries of any serious journalist covering the story. But as is so often the case, not only
are these questions not being raised or investigated, but anyone like Murray who thinks
critically – who assumes that the powerful will seek to promote their interests and avoid
accountability – is instantly dismissed as a conspiracy theorist or in Putin's
pocket.
That is no meaningful kind of critique. Many of the questions that have been raised –
like why there are so many gaps in the CCTV record of the movements of both the Skripals and
the two assumed assassins – could be answered if there was an interest in doing so. The
evasion and the smears simply suggest that power intends to remain unaccountable, that it is
keeping itself concealed, that the narrative is more important than the truth.
And that is reason enough to move from questioning the narrative to distrusting it.
Ripples on a lake
Journalists typically have a passive relationship to power, in stark contrast to their image
as tenacious watchdog. But more fundamental than control over narrative is the ideology that
guides these narratives. Ideology ensures the power-system is invisible not only to us, those
who are abused and exploited by it, but also to those who benefit from it.
It is precisely because power resides in structures and ideology, rather than individuals,
that it is so hard to see. And the power-structures themselves are made yet more difficult to
identify because the narratives created about our societies are designed to conceal those
structures and ideology – where real power resides – by focusing instead on
individuals.
That is why our newspapers and TV shows are full of stories about personalities –
celebrities, royalty, criminals, politicians. They are made visible so we fail to notice the
ideological structures we live inside, which are supposed to remain invisible.
News and entertainment are the ripples on a lake, not the lake itself. But the ripples could
not exist without the lake that forms and shapes them.
Up against the screen
If this sounds like hyperbole, let's stand back from our particular ideological system
– neoliberalism – and consider earlier ideological systems in the hope that they
offer some perspective. At the moment, we are like someone standing right up against an IMAX
screen, so close that we cannot see that there is a screen or even guess that there is a
complete picture. All we see are moving colours and pixels. Maybe we can briefly infer a mouth,
the wheel of a vehicle, a gun.
Before neoliberalism there were other systems of rule. There was, for example, feudalism
that appropriated a communal resource – land – exclusively for an aristocracy. It
exploited the masses by forcing them to toil on the land for a pittance to generate the wealth
that supported castles, a clergy, manor houses, art collections and armies. For several
centuries the power of this tiny elite went largely unquestioned.
But then a class of entrepreneurs emerged, challenging the landed artistocracy with a new
means of industrialised production. They built factories and took advantage of scales of
economy that slightly widened the circle of privilege, creating a middle class. That elite, and
the middle-class that enjoyed crumbs from their master's table, lived off the exploitation of
children in work houses and the labour of a new urban poor in slum housing.
These eras were systematically corrupt, enabling the elites of those times to extend and
entrench their power. Each elite produced justifications to placate the masses who were being
exploited, to brainwash them into believing the system existed as part of a natural order or
even for their benefit. The aristocracy relied on a divine right of kings, the capitalist class
on the guiding hand of the free market and bogus claims of equality of opportunity.
In another hundred years, if we still exist as a species, our system will look no less
corrupt – probably more so – than its predecessors.
Neoliberalism, late-stage capitalism, plutocratic rule by corporations – whatever you
wish to call it – has allowed a tiny elite to stash away more wealth and accrue more
power than any feudal monarch could ever have dreamt of. And because of the global reach of
this elite, its corruption is more endemic, more complete, more destructive than any ever known
to mankind.
A foreign policy elite can destroy the world several times over with nuclear weapons. A
globalised corporate elite is filling the oceans with the debris from our consumption, and
chopping down the forest-lungs of our planet for palm-oil plantations so we can satisfy our
craving for biscuits and cake. And our media and intelligence services are jointly crafting a
narrative of bogeymen and James Bond villains – both in Hollywood movies, and in our news
programmes – to make us fearful and pliable.
Assumptions of inevitability
Most of us abuse our own small-power thoughtlessly, even self-righteously. We tell ourselves
that we gave the kids a "good spanking" because they were naughty, rather than because we
established with them early on a power relationship that confusingly taught them that the use
of force and coercion came with a parental stamp of approval.
Those in greater power, from minions in the media to executives of major corporations, are
no different. They are as incapable of questioning the ideology and the narrative – how
inevitable and "right" our neoliberal system is – as the rest of us. But they play a
vital part in maintaining and entrenching that system nonetheless.
David Cromwell and David Edwards of Media Lens have provided two analogies – in the
context of the media – that help explain how it is possible for individuals and groups to
assist and enforce systems of power without having any conscious intention to do so, and
without being aware that they are contributing to something harmful. Without, in short, being
aware that they are conspiring in the system.
When a shoal of fish instantly changes direction, it looks for all the world as though the
movement was synchronised by some guiding hand. Journalists – all trained and selected
for obedience by media all seeking to maximise profits within state-capitalist society
– tend to respond to events in the same way.
Place a square wooden framework on a flat surface and pour into it a stream of ball
bearings, marbles, or other round objects. Some of the balls may bounce out, but many will
form a layer within the wooden framework; others will then find a place atop this first
layer. In this way, the flow of ball bearings steadily builds new layers that inevitably
produce a pyramid-style shape. This experiment is used to demonstrate how near-perfect
crystalline structures such as snowflakes arise in nature without conscious design.
The system – whether feudalism, capitalism, neoliberalism – emerges out of the
real-world circumstances of those seeking power most ruthlessly. In a time when the key
resource was land, a class emerged justifying why it should have exclusive rights to control
that land and the labour needed to make it productive. When industrial processes developed, a
class emerged demanding that it had proprietary rights to those processes and to the labour
needed to make them productive.
Our place in the pyramid
In these situations, we need to draw on something like Darwin's evolutionary "survival of
the fittest" principle. Those few who are most hungry for power, those with least empathy, will
rise to the top of the pyramid, finding themselves best-placed to exploit the people below.
They will rationalise this exploitation as a divine right, or as evidence of their inherently
superior skills, or as proof of the efficiency of the market.
And below them, like the layers of ball bearings, will be those who can help them maintain
and expand their power: those who have the skills, education and socialisation to increase
profits and sell brands.
All of this should be obvious, even non-controversial. It fits what we experience of our
small-power lives. Does bigger power operate differently? After all, if those at the top of the
power-pyramid were not hungry for power, even psychopathic in its pursuit, if they were caring
and humane, worried primarily about the wellbeing of their workforce and the planet, they would
be social workers and environmental activists, not CEOs of media empires and arms
manufacturers.
And yet, base your political thinking on what should be truisms, articulate a worldview that
distrusts those with the most power because they are the most capable of – and committed
to – misusing it, and you will be derided. You will be called a conspiracy theorist,
dismissed as deluded. You will be accused of wearing a tinfoil hat, of sour grapes, of being
anti-American, a social warrior, paranoid, an Israel-hater or anti-semitic, pro-Putin,
pro-Assad, a Marxist.
None of this should surprise us either. Because power – not just the people in the
system, but the system itself – will use whatever tools it has to protect itself. It is
easier to deride critics as unhinged, especially when you control the media, the politicians
and the education system, than it is to provide a counter-argument.
In fact, it is vital to prevent any argument or real debate from taking place. Because the
moment we think about the arguments, weigh them, use our critical faculties, there is a real
danger that the scales will fall from our eyes. There is a real threat that we will move back
from the screen, and see the whole picture.
Can we see the complete picture of the Skripal poisoning in Salisbury; or the US election
that led to Trump being declared president; or the revolution in Ukraine; or the causes and
trajectory of fighting in Syria, and before it Libya and Iraq; or the campaign to discredit
Jeremy Corbyn as leader of the Labour party; or the true implications of the banking crisis a
decade ago?
Profit, not ethics
Just as a feudal elite was driven not by ethics but by the pursuit of power and wealth
through the control of land; just as early capitalists were driven not by ethics but by the
pursuit of power and wealth through the control of mechanisation; so neoliberalism is driven
not by ethics but the pursuit of power and wealth through the control of the planet.
The only truth we can know is that the western power-elite is determined to finish the task
of making its power fully global, expanding it from near-absolute to absolute. It cares nothing
for you or your grand-children. It is a cold-calculating system, not a friend or neighbour. It
lives for the instant gratification of wealth accumulation, not concern about the planet's fate
tomorrow.
And because of that it is structurally bound to undermine or discredit anyone, any group,
any state that stands in the way of achieving its absolute dominion.
If that is not the thought we hold uppermost in our minds as we listen to a politician, read
a newspaper, watch a film or TV show, absorb an ad, or engage on social media, then we are
sleepwalking into a future the most powerful, the most ruthless, the least caring have designed
for us.
Step back, and take a look at the whole screen. And decide whether this is really the future
you wish for your grand-children.
"... Robinson talks like he has given up on impeachment by what he calls a powerless and spineless Congress. Maybe he's thinking of something quicker and cleaner than a coup, something that could be carried out by a small group of conspirators within an agency trained in removing uncooperative heads of state? ..."
"... Since deep state conspirators routinely smear all those who demand evidence as "Russian agents," maybe non-conspirators should use the same tactic on them, e.g.: Is Robinson on the CIA payroll? Because anyone who agrees with anything the CIA says is obviously working for the CIA, right? ..."
From the WaPo op-ed "God Bless the Deep State," by Eugene Robinson:
Democrats in Congress are powerless; the Republican leadership, spineless. Experienced
government officials know that their job is to serve the president. But what if the president
does not serve the best interests of the nation?
In this emergency [emphasis mine], the loyal and honorable deep state has a higher
duty. It's called patriotism.
Is Robinson really suggesting a military coup? That would take a lot of planning and
organization and would be almost impossible to keep secret. Some honest military officer might
find out and put the kibosh on it, like Kirk Douglas did in Frankenheimers's classic political
thriller, Seven Days in May .
Robinson talks like he has given up on impeachment by what he calls a powerless and
spineless Congress. Maybe he's thinking of something quicker and cleaner than a coup, something
that could be carried out by a small group of conspirators within an agency trained in
removing uncooperative heads of state?
Since deep state conspirators routinely smear all those who demand evidence as "Russian
agents," maybe non-conspirators should use the same tactic on them, e.g.: Is Robinson on
the CIA payroll? Because anyone who agrees with anything the CIA says is obviously working for
the CIA, right?
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
I'm still looking for an English copy of Journalists for Hire by Udo
Ufkotte.
There is only one article that is translated into English: "The world upside down"
2006, http://www.ulfkotte.de/18.html
Journalists for Hire is available in German only. (I was able to buy a copy last year.)
"... The US media has send journalists to Salisbury very early. For example Ellen Barry, NYT. These journalists have influenced the official narrative to a decisive extent. ..."
"... Paul Craig Roberts: The CIA Owns the US and European Media ..."
"... One of the best books I have ever read is "Bought Journalists" : https://www.globalresearch.ca/english-translation-of-udo-ulfkottes-bought-journalists-suppressed/5601857 ..."
"... I recommend everyone to watch the video on Liane's link: https://youtu.be/sGqi-k213eE 15 minutes well worth watching. ..."
The US media has send journalists to Salisbury very early. For example Ellen Barry, NYT.
These journalists have influenced the official narrative to a decisive extent.
He used the Snap Fitness CCTV to establish the „fact" that the Skripals went from
Zizzis through Market Walk to the bench.
Rob, just another false translation of what Putin said about traitors. Listen to
Moran´s interpretation at 2:00 in the video. Quote : Vladimir Putin's held a town hall
session and he was asked about this five's that had been traded and he said, and this is
almost a direct quote : „They will kick the bucket. Trust me. They betrayed their
colleagues, their brothers in arms. And they took thirty pieces of silver and are gonna choke
on all that." [End quote]
At 3:00 Terry Moran shows the CCTV of Snap Fitness. It´s outside at the right side
of the entrance.
Noone & Liane:
Excellent articles, thanks. I recommend everyone to watch the video on Liane's link: https://youtu.be/sGqi-k213eE
15 minutes well worth watching.
"... OPERATION MOCKINGBIRD - Operation Mockingbird was (IS) a secret campaign by the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to influence media. Begun in the 1950s, it was initially organized by Cord Meyer and Allen W. Dulles, and was later led by Frank Wisner after Dulles became the head of the CIA. The organization recruited leading American journalists into a network to help present the CIA's views, and funded some student and cultural organizations, and magazines as fronts. As it developed, it also worked to influence foreign media and political campaigns, in addition to activities by other operating units of the CIA. In addition to earlier exposés of CIA activities in foreign affairs, in 1966 Ramparts magazine published an article revealing that the National Student Association was funded by the CIA. The United States Congress investigated, and published its report in 1976. Other accounts were also published. The media operation was first called Mockingbird in Deborah Davis's 1979 book, Katharine the Great: Katharine Graham and her Washington Post Empire. ..."
"... the secret societies, the banks, the oil families and other super rich powerful groups of people all call the shots in secret, doesn't matter who the "elected" president is, they are going to do what they want to do, unless, people know the truth... ..."
"... It wouldn't surprise me if this also applied on Swedish media. For decades our journalism was very neutral showing two sides of the story, but nowdays, last 7-8 years, things have changed. Swedish media has to a high degree become incredible one-sided in the writing of world politics... I started to notice the change some 7-8 years ago. Of course I find expectations like the municipal Television station SVT that still seems two-sided, but most written press in Sweden have become rotten, very rotten. ..."
"... The US's MIC has to find other ways to make money. This MIC could spend money on developing outer space programs, go the depths of the oceans, and study the fauna and flora on the earth. This nonsense of creating and making enemies on earth has to stop. The world is too small for this NONSENSE. ..."
"... Who has built the first concentration camp? It was the British Empire during the war against the Boers. The British put women, children and old people in these camps to make the Boers surrender. ..."
German journalist and editor Udo Ulfkotte says he was forced to publish the works of intelligence agents under his own name, adding
that noncompliance ran the risk of being fired. Ulfkotte made the revelations during interviews with RT and Russia Insider.
OPERATION MOCKINGBIRD - Operation Mockingbird was (IS) a secret campaign by the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
to influence media. Begun in the 1950s, it was initially organized by Cord Meyer and Allen W. Dulles, and was later led by Frank
Wisner after Dulles became the head of the CIA. The organization recruited leading American journalists into a network to help
present the CIA's views, and funded some student and cultural organizations, and magazines as fronts. As it developed, it also
worked to influence foreign media and political campaigns, in addition to activities by other operating units of the CIA. In addition
to earlier exposés of CIA activities in foreign affairs, in 1966 Ramparts magazine published an article revealing that the National
Student Association was funded by the CIA. The United States Congress investigated, and published its report in 1976. Other accounts
were also published. The media operation was first called Mockingbird in Deborah Davis's 1979 book, Katharine the Great: Katharine
Graham and her Washington Post Empire.
the secret societies, the banks, the oil families and other super rich powerful groups of people all call the shots in secret,
doesn't matter who the "elected" president is, they are going to do what they want to do, unless, people know the truth...
Being of German decent my sympathies are with the people of Germany. Not to say that the Russian people haven't had a bad deal, of
course they have under the Bolshevik Jews who nearly destroyed Russia for the sake of Zionist ideology.
The people of Germany
deserve better than this. They need to overthrow American control of their government and their media and replace it with pro
German people who will serve the interests of Germany, not that of the vicious prostitute Washington and their pimps. Not that
of the corrupt child molesting swine in Belgium who control the E.U.
They need to do something about it now and decisively take
back control of their own country. Germany must stop being a puppet controlled by the worst criminal element in the world....
the CIA. Freedom for Germany!
The EU pawns are ruled by the US lords! and The EU has Imposed the sanctions on Russia and thanks to that destroys the European
economies because it is good for the US economy!
The US has weaken the EU companies so the Americans have weak competitors in
Europe and on the agreement between the European Union and the United States the American companies and economy will gain but
European companies and farms will lost and many Europeans will lost their jobs for the sake of US welfare!
The US manufacturers
will earning and developing but the Europeans will go bankrupt and lost their jobs!
It wouldn't surprise me if this also applied on Swedish media. For decades our journalism was very neutral showing two sides
of the story, but nowdays, last 7-8 years, things have changed. Swedish media has to a high degree become incredible one-sided
in the writing of world politics... I started to notice the change some 7-8 years ago. Of course I find expectations like the
municipal
Television station SVT that still seems two-sided, but most written press in Sweden have become rotten, very rotten.
Good for you, coming clean about Germany's role in all this. Germany pretending to be innocent since WW2 but they're just as
involved as any of the other usual suspects. And when I say Germany, I don't mean ordinary citizens but the intelligence media
and political establishment.
I wouldn't mind if America was controlling the world if they had any moral integrity. The country was born through the genocide
of the natives and the re population of the country with slaves. Covertly funding and supporting dictators tyrants and terrorists
since the end of the second world war as part of their foreign policy. Training illiterate Afghan farmers in terrorist tactics
to fight the Russians in a proxy war encouraging Jihad to get more Muslims to fight the Russians creating what we call today modern
radical extremism. Funny how it became immoral when American blood was shed. Funny how all of Saddam's transgressions were ignored
while he was at war with Iran and how stopping the war with Iran suddenly made these actions unacceptable to America(how did Saddam
gain power again?).
The really astounding thing to me is how the American public seem to have this idea of being the bastion of freedom and democracy.
But then Again everyone in my country seems to be similarly ignorant about our own foreign policy and atrocities committed in
the name of Empire.
We killed more than Hitler did and were a lot worse. Just most of our victims were brown or black so don't seem to matter.
You are only really evil if you commit Genocide against white European Jews. Non whites don't seem to matter.
Brave man. Corporate news is what we get in the western world. I did not know Europe did not have a free press also. Russia
has government news, which is more free than our military industrial complex and corporate news. The big military industries want
wars and endless wars. Our government is a puppet on their strings. I would rather have a government in control rather than a
government under the control of military industries which creates endless wars to feed this military corporate monster.
This is
a small planet. We are all inter connected. This nonsense of creating and making enemies on this little planet has to stop. We
have to learn to get all along.
The US's MIC has to find other ways to make money. This MIC could spend money on developing outer
space programs, go the depths of the oceans, and study the fauna and flora on the earth. This nonsense of creating and making
enemies on earth has to stop. The world is too small for this NONSENSE.
Herr Ulfkotte is a man of courage, but when he says that the BND was formed by the CIA, he doesn't mention that the CIA has
roots in the Gehlen Spy network of the 3rd Reich after WW2.
Who has built the first concentration camp? It was the British Empire during the war against the Boers. The British put women,
children and old people in these camps to make the Boers surrender.
The same is true for the Americans in WW2 in regard to German
and Japanese civilians. (Just two examples of many!) These f*** Anglo-Saxons killed millions of people just for the heck of it
-- in Dresden, Hiroshima, many smaller places all around the world... -- and they keep doing it in several Arabian countries these
days. Of course, other empires, like the Russian, or the German, did evil deeds in their history but they took the responsibility.
I hope that the Anglo-Saxons once will have their own 'Nuremberg'.
"... My guess is that this book is just too dangerous to allow it to become part of the debate on "fake news" and "Russiagate." Of course now the CIA doesn't even have to exclusively – "own"- journalists as fronts when ex-CIA heads are being hired outright by MSM as pundits. I just wish someone with access would post an English language PDF version online. It would be a real contribution to free thought and free speech to do so. ..."
"... Western elites realize what they could have, what they could do and what they could get away with, but only if they reinvent the political system Hitler created. If they defeat every enemy abroad who might stop them, next they'll do to their own people what the Nazis did to those they didn't want alive ..."
"... Journos have long been pliant enablers for Intel agencies. It's strange how Dr. Ulfkotte's revelations have been taken as some signifier of further Western moral decay/decadence. ..."
"... The real story here, which the media pretends not to notice, is that if Intelligence services and corporations did not finance newspapers they would cease to exist. The old business model whereby newspapers covered their costs by selling advertising and paid circulation is finished. Under that model there were, to an extent, incentives for the publisher to preserve a modicum of credibility in order to keep readership, as well as reasons to publish sensational stories to beat competition. ..."
"... The days that Ulfkotte recalled were times when it took lots of money and careful preparation to put spooks into the newsroom, nowadays the papers are only too happy to publish the CIA's PR and very grateful if the government pays their journalists' salaries. ..."
"... To understand how journalism is bought, go analyze the output of the Uk's Daily Telegraph. They literally sell space to lobbyists and for several years outraged BTL comment would tear the articles to shreds. The whole UK Press prostitutes itself whenever there is a US war on i.e. all the time. It really is about time the CIA were unmasked – they do not serve our interests, they serve only their own . ..."
The rather obvious suppression of the English version of what was a "best seller" in Germany suggests that the Western system
of thought manipulation and consent manufacture sees itself as weaker and more vulnerable than one might at first imagine.
We can see from a year+ of "Russiagate" that Western media is a clown-show, much of so called "alternative media" included.
My guess is that this book is just too dangerous to allow it to become part of the debate on "fake news" and "Russiagate."
Of course now the CIA doesn't even have to exclusively – "own"- journalists as fronts when ex-CIA heads are being hired outright
by MSM as pundits. I just wish someone with access would post an English language PDF version online. It would be a real contribution
to free thought and free speech to do so.
Just like "200 years together" by Solzhenitsyn which was never officially published in English despite Andrei having authored
many works which were big sellers. Just an example of other private business and corporations are often fully responsible
for pro-establishment censorship.
The treatment of the book aroused suspicion because of its content – ie supine news outlets forever dancing to the tune of western
military imperatives.
Ongoing support for illegal wars tell us that the MSM has hardly been at the forefront of informing readers why war criminals
like Hilary and Obama keep getting away with it. In fact Obama, just like Kissinger was awarded a peace prize – so obviously something
has gone very wrong somewhere.
It may be, although it seems unlikely that the mis-handling of an important theme like this is simply due to oversight by the
publisher (as Matt claims) but neither is it beyond the realms of possibility that somebody has had a word with someone in the
publishing world, perhaps because they are not overly keen on the fact Udo Ulfkotte has deviated from the media's mono-narrative
about why it is necessary for the US to destabilise countries and kill so many of their citizens.
Lets face it – it would be harder for the pattern to be maintained if the MSM was not so afraid of telling the truth, or at
least be more willing to hold to account politicians as the consequences of their disastrous policies unfold for all to see.
Maybe you want to have a go at answering the obvious question begged by such self evident truths – why are the MSM usually
lying?
Somebody said banning books is the modern form of book burning, and like Heinrich Heine said two centuries ago, "Where they burn
books, in the end, they start burning people."
Western elites realize what they could have, what they could do and what they could get away with, but only if they reinvent
the political system Hitler created. If they defeat every enemy abroad who might stop them, next they'll do to their own people
what the Nazis did to those they didn't want alive. If enough water sources are lost to fracking, and enough food sources
lost through poisoned seas and forest fires, many people will go to their camps as refuge but few will survive them. This ecological
destruction is for future population reduction.
In the US they use newspeak to say what the Nazis described with more honesty. Their master race became the indispensable nation,
their world domination became full spectrum dominance, and Totalerkrieg became the global war on terror. There will be others.
Farzad Basoft anyone ? Journos have long been pliant enablers for Intel agencies. It's strange how Dr. Ulfkotte's revelations
have been taken as some signifier of further Western moral decay/decadence.
Maybe I am taking what you wrote out of context but I don't find it strange at all .It is just that someone, Udo, on the inside
has become a whistle blower , and confirmed what most suspected .The establishment can't have that.
As the economy growth has this so-called invisible hand, journalism also has an 'invisible pen'. One of the questions that
need an answer: how come feminists are so anti-Putin and anti-Russia? Easy to connect to dots?
The real story here, which the media pretends not to notice, is that if Intelligence services and corporations did not finance
newspapers they would cease to exist. The old business model whereby newspapers covered their costs by selling advertising and
paid circulation is finished. Under that model there were, to an extent, incentives for the publisher to preserve a modicum of
credibility in order to keep readership, as well as reasons to publish sensational stories to beat competition.
Those days
are gone: none of the newspapers make financial profits, they now exist because they have patrons. They always did, of course,
but now they have nothing else- the advertisers have left and circulation is diminishing rapidly.
The days that Ulfkotte recalled were times when it took lots of money and careful preparation to put spooks into the newsroom,
nowadays the papers are only too happy to publish the CIA's PR and very grateful if the government pays their journalists' salaries.
As to competition that is restricted to publishers competing to demonstrate their loyalty to the government and their ingenuity
in candy coating its propaganda.
Anyone doubt that Luke Harding will be in the running for a Pulitzer? Or perhaps even the Nobel Prize for Literature?
For what it's worth, I skimmed through this very long link by Matt, and could find no mention of poison gas -- certainly no denunciation
-- just horrific conventional arms : Der Spiegel 1984:
http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-13508659.html
Also for what it's worth, the German publisher's blurb which I got Google to translate above, says there is much more to the
book than old Soddem: the author names names and points to organizations.
Now, without any evidence, based only on my faulty memory and highly biased interpretation of events strung together on a timeline,
here is my conspiracy story about a very nice country called Iraq and a very nasty Iraqi called Saddam who came to a very nasty
end at the hands of his much more nasty friends, who first gave him a boost and then put in the boot.
1914 Great Britain invades Iraq and BP takes over the Iraqi oilfields.
1968 Iraqi govt member under Yaya wants to nationalize the oil. CIA coup replaces Yaya with Saddam as a safe pair of hands.
1970 Saddam the dirty dog does the dirty on the friends who put him in power; he nationalizes Iraqi oil. And nationalizes Iraqi
banks. From now on Saddam is a dead man walking. Like Mossadeq in Iran whom the US-UK replaced with the Shah
1978 But in Iran the Shah is replaced by the Islamic Socialist Republic -- who again nationalize Iranian oil. Saddam's
friends now face a dilemma: kill him first, or kill the Ayatollah's first? They decide to first go for the Ayatollahs -- with
Saddam's help.
1980 Saddam invades Iran with help from US and Germany -- including, strangely enough, generous supplies of poison gas.
1984-1989 Saddam's invasion of Iran flops. Reports about use of poison gas by Saddam begin to emerge, first in German newspapers
then even debated US govt.
1990 Saddam thinks he has restored credit with the US & Germany by using their weapons against Iran, and now has the green
light to invade another country. Finds out his mistake in the Gulf War. He is once again, a dead man walking. So is his country.
2001 Saddam is accused of harbouring Islamic terrorists who knocked down 3 skyscrapers by flying 2 passenger planes into
them. The idea of Secular Baathist Saddam in league with religious fanatics is ridiculous, but what the heck it's a story.
2003 Saddam hanged for, inter alia, use of chemical weapons; likewise his minister whom the MSM have a field day comically
calling "Chemical" Ali.
2017 Who's next? The Ayatollahs, of course. And anyone else who dares to nationalize "our" oil. Or "our" banks.
That is more than plausible. Unfortunately. Hard not to sympathize with the Iraqis and feel shame for what has been done in the
name of the US and UK. Rotten to the core, and sanctimonious to boot.
To understand how journalism is bought, go analyze the output of the Uk's Daily Telegraph. They literally sell space to lobbyists
and for several years outraged BTL comment would tear the articles to shreds. The whole UK Press prostitutes itself whenever
there is a US war on i.e. all the time. It really is about time the CIA were unmasked – they do not serve our interests, they
serve only their own .
The Guardian sells space to lobbyists too. Not ad space – article space. It's literally hiring itself out to whomever wants to
buy the right to publish an article under its name.
Well one things stands out in bold and that is the fear that such a revelation is associated with. 'Broad spectrum dominance'
of a central intelligent agency is a reversal of the wholeness of being expressing through all its parts.
Fake intelligence
is basically made up to serve a believed goal. The terrorism of fear generates the goal of a self-protection that sells true relationship
to 'save itself'.
This goes deep into what we take to be our mind. The mind that thinks it is in control by controlling what it thinks.
If I can observe this in myself at will, is it any surprise I can see it in our world?
What is the fear that most deeply motivates or drives the human agenda?
I do not ask this of our superficial thinking, but of a core self-honesty that cannot be 'killed' but only covered over with a
thinking-complex.
And is it insane or unreal to be moved by love?
We are creatures of choice and beneath all masking, we are also the creator of choice.
But the true creative is not framed into a choosing between, but feeling one call as the movement of it.
When the 'intelligence' of a masking narrative no longer serves, be the willingness for what you no longer claim to have, and
open to being moved from within.
I am so tired of the simmering fury that lives inside me. This bubbling cauldron brim full of egregious truths, images and accounts
accumulated over nearly 40 years of looking behind the headlines. I disagree that the usurpation of journalists and media organisations
is in any way a recent phenomena. It certainly predates my emergent mind. And even the most lauded of anti-establishment hacks
and film makers self-censored to some degree. True, the blatant in your face propaganda and thought control agenda has accelerated,
but it was always there. I do not believe Chomsky, Oliver Stone, Pilger and their like could have done much more than they have,
that is to guide us in a direction counter to the official narrative. And to insinuate they are gatekeepers, when our heads never
stretch above the parapet, is really just a reflection of our own frustration that despite their work the only change remains
for the worse.
Yet I fear worse is to come. Our safe bitching in glorious anonymity has been all that we have had as solace to the angst that
pervades us, the other 1%. But the the thumbscrew is tightening. We may be as little as months away from any dissent being entirely
removed from the internet by AI algorithms. I have already been receiving warnings on several sites anyone here would call legitimate
that have had their security certificates removed and the statement that the site may contain malicious code etc. How prepared
are we for blackout?
A foundation should be set up in remembrance of Udo and sponsored by all true journalists and truth seekers. Maybe some day there
will be a Udo Ulfkotte award to the bravest journalist of the year .Wouldn't that be something .Udo's work would not have been
in vain . That would throw a monkey wrench into orgs like the Guardian and their ilk .Just dreaming out loud maybe , but with
good intentions.
Thank you Alun for the link to the German edition, which I have managed to download (naughty me!) I think the suggestion of retranslating
important sections and dressing these in some commentary for (presumably legitimate) publication on e.g. Off-G would be a good
idea. I'm quite fluent in German and would be glad to help.
Mods: do you see any legal pitfalls?
That depends on who holds the rights to the English language version and the original and whether they would want to take issue.
If it's Ulfkotte's family they may be happy to see his work get some sort of airing in English. If it's his publishers we can
imagine they will see things differently – as indeed would whoever it is that seems to want the book buried.
I heard it is blocked in many western countries, as the site is well known for its disregard for copyright. Fortunately not the
case where I am (NZ). If you're technically inclined, a VPN or anonymising application may help, although a VPN that 'exits' in
a western area won't get you any further ahead.
One hopes. I also hold out hope for F. William Engdahl's "Geheimakte NGOs." Here's a Dissident Voice article in which Engdahl
discusses the role of NGOs in aiding and abetting the US regime change program:
Yes, it has also been interesting to note that in 2015 the Guardian published a review of Richard Sakwa's book 'Frontline Ukraine'
in which the author was critical of both NATO and the EU, in fomenting this crisis. The 2014 'coup' which was carried out in February
2014 was, according to the independent geopolitical publication, Strator, 'the most blatant in history.' The appraisal which was
carried out by Guardian journalist Jonathon Steele was generally favourably disposed to Sakwa's record of events; however, Mr
Steele now rarely publishes anything in the Guardian. Read into this what you like.
As to Sakwa's latest book,'' Russia Against the Rest'', – nothing, not a peep, it doesn't exist, it never existed, it never
will exist. It would appear to be the case that the Guardian is now fully integrated into the military/surveillance/media-propaganda
apparatus. The liberal gatekeeper as to what is and what isn't acceptable. Its function is pure to serve the interests of the
powerful, in much the same way as the church did in the middle ages. The media doesn't just serve the interests power it is also
part of the same structure of dominance, albeit the liberal wing of the ruling coalition.
During the British war against the Boers in South Africa, at the turn of the 19/20 century, the then Manchester Guardian took
a brave and critical stand against the UK government. This lead to its offices in Manchester being attacked by jingoistic mobs,
as was the home of the then editor C.P.Scott, whose family needed police protection. In those days 'Facts were Sacred', unlike
the present where opposing views are increasingly ignored or suppressed.
Having just watched the documentary film tribute to I.F. Stone, "All Governments Lie", I was struck by the fact that no-one mentioned
Michael Hastings, the Rolling Stone journalist (who outed General McChrystal, but whose Mercedes went mysteriously out of control,
hit a tree and exploded, throwing the engine 200 yards clear of the wreck ). Here was a film about control and self-censorship,
yet no-one even breathed the acronyms C.I.A. or FBI. Matt Taibbi referred to a silent coup, but none dared to mention the assassinations
of JFK, MLK and RFK. These doyens of Truth included the thoroughly dodgy Noam Chomsky. Finally, the Spartacus website suggests
that the saintly I.F. Stone was in the pay of the CIA. Other terms unspoken were CIA Operation Mockingbird or Operation Northwoods.
There was a clip of 9/11, but zero attempt to join up all the dots.
RIP Udo Ulfkotte. CIA long ago developed a dart to induce all the signs of a heart attack, so one is naturally somewhat suspicious.
Lies and assassinations are two sides of the same coin.
The only thing harder to find than Udo Ulfkotte's book is a Guardian review of it.
I daresay any mention of this book, BTL, would immediately be moderated (i.e censored) followed by a yellow or red card for
the cheeky commentator.
The level of pretence on this forum has now reached epic proportions, and seems to cuts both ways, ie. commentators pretending
that there are not several subjects which are virtually impossible to discuss in any depth (such as media censorship), and moderators
pretending that 'community standards' is not simply a crude device to control conversational discourse, especially when a commentators
point of view stray beyond narrow, Guardian approved borders.
Books, such as 'Bought Journalists' (which expose the corruption at the heart of western media) are especially inconvenient
for the risible 'fake news' agenda currently being rammed down the readerships throat – some of these people at the Guardian have
either absolutely no insight, or no shame.
Ulfkotte and Ganser in their ways are both telling a similar story – NATO, i.e an arm of the US military industrial complex
are mass murderers and sufficiently intimidating to have most western journalists singing from the same hymn sheet.
Since the Guardian follows the party line it is only possible to send coded or cryptic messages (BTL) should commentators wish
to deviate from the approved narrative.
For example, I was 'pre-moderated' for having doubts about the veracity of the so called 'Parsons Green tube bomb', especially
the nature of the injuries inflicted on a young model who looked like she was suffering from toothache.
https://www.thenational.ae/image/policy:1.628812:1505494262/wo16-web-parsons-green.JPG?f=16×9&w=1024&$p$f$w=e135eda
Been there, done that. What ordinarily happens if the submission is proper and cannot be censored on the basis of impropriety
or foulmouthedness or any other good reason, but exposes a Guardian sacred cow in an embarrassing light, is that it is said to
be off topic. Now this is really unaccountable, and truly subjective.
The community in community standards is "them" and has close ties to the 1%, if I hazard a guess.
"... Anyone who claims there are no conspiracies, that there are no behind-the-scenes efforts by powerful people to suppress information that would expose their efforts at global domination, is full of crap. ..."
"... How many CIA-paid journalists do you have on staff at the Washington Post? ..."
"... The author who was a deputy editor of the Frankfurter Allgemeine and worked there for 17 years turns whistleblower and spills the beans on the corruption of German media by US lobby agencies which have CIA backing. ..."
"... The news is always given a pro American slant and journalists can look forward to rewards for their efforts. Should they not collude then their career is over. Corrupted German journalists are named and shamed. The EU is also revealed to be equally corrupt . ..."
"... German journalists assigned to EU reporting have to sign a document stating that they will never write anything negative about the EU. The level of manipulation by the EU is also frightening. ..."
"... This situation reeks of Stasi or Asian plutocratic realms. We want our freedom back! What are you people (including colluding Amazon) trying to cover up? Shame on you! ..."
"... The collusion of corporate media and Western intelligence is a taboo subject one must surmise. It suggests that our power structure realizes it has a rather fragile hold on the popular mind when the CIA morphs into the former KGB to simply suppress and disappear unacceptable reporting. ..."
"... I would suggest that the absolute silence by MSM about this book and its censorship validates the authors contentions that much of MSM reporting is right out of the Western intelligence agencies and has nothing whatsoever to do with reality on the ground. ..."
No, I haven't read the book, because it is priced completely out of my reach. I am giving
it five stars anyway because of what I've read *about* it, as I've followed its author's saga
-- the blackout by German media of the original German edition Gekaufte Journalisten (Bought
Journalists) for a couple of years now, raids by German police on the author's house, his
noting how he feared for his life, and his finally being found dead on January 13 of this
year "from a heart attack" (he was only 56, and because it is possible to kill someone in
ways that look like a heart attack, some people believe he was murdered).
The fate of a whistleblower against one of the world's most powerful organizations in a
controlled society being passed off as a democracy?
Two things are abundantly clear:
(1) The English translation of this book has been
"privished." There are a couple of good recent discussions of what it means to "privish" a
book, but Amazon will not allow me to link to them. So let's just say: the purpose of
"privishing" is make a book with an unwanted message disappear without a trace by limiting
information about it, destroying its marketability by printing too few copies, and refusing
reprint rights, so that the copies available are too expensive for readers of ordinary means
(which is nearly all of us).
(2) Anyone who claims there are no conspiracies, that there are
no behind-the-scenes efforts by powerful people to suppress information that would expose
their efforts at global domination, is full of crap.
XXX, September 30, 2017 Format: Paperback
Sell this book so we can buy it!
Amazon, you are a tool of the State. This book is available in English at a market
competitive price. Why do you refuse to make it available to your customers?
How many
CIA-paid journalists do you have on staff at the Washington Post? To the reviewer who asked
how much money the author will see from the exhorbotant price of the book, he won't see any
because he is dead.
He died of hearth issues shortly after the publication of the book. He
did have a history of heart ailments so I am not implying a sinister act. You can find an
good interview with him on YouTube if they haven't removed it.
XXX, November 11, 2017 Format: Paperback
Dynamite
Have read this book in German but as far as I know it is no longer available in bookshops
in Germany either. The author who was a deputy editor of the Frankfurter Allgemeine and
worked there for 17 years turns whistleblower and spills the beans on the corruption of
German media by US lobby agencies which have CIA backing.
The news is always given a pro
American slant and journalists can look forward to rewards for their efforts. Should they not
collude then their career is over. Corrupted German journalists are named and shamed. The EU
is also revealed to be equally corrupt .
German journalists assigned to EU reporting have to
sign a document stating that they will never write anything negative about the EU. The level
of manipulation by the EU is also frightening. The author himself was part of the set up and
even received a prestigious reward for his pro America efforts but eventually became
disgusted by the system and his collusion in it.
I pre ordered the book last year in English
on Amazon as my son wanted to read it but I kept receiving emails from Amazon changing
publication dates and eventually they informed me that they were unable to access the book.
There is no doubt that the book is dynamite and has been suppressed because of this.
XXX, July 31, 2017 Format: Hardcover
Tyranny in America Writ Large In A Super-Large Price
Somebody has set the price of this book -- available in English though it is -- so high as
to make it unavailable. I wonder, if some rich or extremely extravagant person were to bye
this book at the $1300 price it's offered at, would the author ever see a dime of that?
This
situation reeks of Stasi or Asian plutocratic realms. We want our freedom back! What are you
people (including colluding Amazon) trying to cover up? Shame on you!
XXX, August 16, 2017 Format: Paperback
Second book I've wanted that's been banned
Second book I've wanted that's been banned by Amazon. Shame on you, Mr. Bezos.
Unfortunately for you, more people are waking up to this. The cracks are starting to
show.
The suppression of the English language version of this book is censorship of the most
Orwellian kind.
I have been awaiting the English version of this book for several years now, watching with
interest while the publishing date was delayed multiple times. As a best seller in Germany
one had to wonder why it would take years to translate the book to English unless there were
forces working against publication. Well, low and behold it is finally set to publish in May
2017 when it again doesn't and finally disappears from sight. The obvious suppression of this
book is censorship of the press and of course speaks volumes about Western "freedom of the
press" as a fantasy.
The collusion of corporate media and Western intelligence is a taboo
subject one must surmise. It suggests that our power structure realizes it has a rather
fragile hold on the popular mind when the CIA morphs into the former KGB to simply suppress
and disappear unacceptable reporting.
I would suggest that the absolute silence by MSM about
this book and its censorship validates the authors contentions that much of MSM reporting is
right out of the Western intelligence agencies and has nothing whatsoever to do with reality
on the ground.
Somewhere in the great beyond Orwell is smiling and thinking "I told you
so."
"... What is definitely conclusive is the Gucci 2 entity forged the inclusion of Russian fingerprints in the leaked version of the documents by pasting it into a Russian language Word template. With 70 years of experience in espionage, there is no way Russian spy agencies are that sloppy and moreover, and if they were it would be absolutely unprecedented. ..."
"... the central conclusion of William Binnery's forensic analysis: that Gucifer 2.0 was a fabrication, and that the DNC emails were downloaded, not hacked by Russia. ..."
"... Were Assange be allowed to testify before the Senate Intelligence Committee later this month, the lid could be blown off the entire sordid operation. ..."
"... From before the CIA's formation the US intelligence activities have been the province of the Republican Party (there are plenty of exceptions, but please follow). Allen Dulles and his ilk were friends with and shared goals with German industrialists long before World War II. These relationships continued through WWII and afterwards. The CIA has functioned as an international coal and iron police, overthrowing governments around the world that have stood in the way of corporate profits. ..."
"... This edition of Covert Action Information Bulletin, in 1990, happened just before a shift in Washington. Almost all of the operations run by our government to destabilize Eastern Europe and the USSR in 1990 were organized by the political right and run by people such as Paul Weyrich. But the nineties showed a rise in Democratic activity in these settings. I would guess that a mental image of this would be our then-First Lady lying about dodging bullets on an airstrip during the destruction of Yugoslavia. It marked the successful CIA takeover of the Democratic Party. ..."
"... The 2016 Russiagate hysteria has been an intelligence operation which has been by all measures successful. I presumed initially that the scam was done to put Hillary into the White House, but now wonder if having Trump as President was part of the long-term strategy. ..."
"... Please note that the DNC backed over fifty new candidates for Congress who have intelligence backgrounds. How do you think they will vote for the coming war resolution against Russia? ..."
"... Not sure about the theory of installing Trump in the WH is part of a long term strategy of the deep state, but the latter seems to be adapting to the disruption quite well. ..."
"... Additional info: Stephen Kinzer's "The Brothers" which documents the Dulles brother's creation of the Cold War mentality and activities. Shouldn't we add Carter and Zbigniew Brzezinski. ..."
"... Citing a book from almost 30 years ago that implicated ONLY the Republicans in the CIAs machinations ignores LBJ and the CIA's involvement in Vietnam and possibly in the JFK assassination. ..."
"... One suspects that the President has revealed far less than he knows, perhaps wary of being accused of "obstruction" by Mueller in concert with the controlled media. He actually requested that William Binney present his analysis to then CIA Director Pompeo, who has since sat on it. ..."
"... But actually, to your point, the reverse is true. If the DNC and Podesta were hacked by Russians, the NSA would have been able to demonstrate that fact through evidentiary proof, a point made repeatedly by Binney. ..."
"... No such proof was or has ever been offered. Instead the main document presented to the American public was the January 6, 2017 "assessment" by analysts hand-picked by John Brennan, who has played a key role in the illegal operation against President Trump. ..."
"... I was struck by one comment particularly, why not ask Assange about the leak. ..."
"... Keeping him incommunicado certainly serves the leaders of the lynch mob and thanks goes to the new Ecuadorian President. He was asked to shut the guy up and he did. ..."
"... Herman, Assange has been asked about the identity of the leaker and replied that he couldn't comment because Wikileaks has a strict policy of maintaining sources' confidentiality. No potential source would ever trust Assange if he violated that policy. Instead, Assange offered a $20,000 reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of Seth Richards' murderer. So this was his way of answering the question indirectly. ..."
I don't believe the Russians did this. I think there are
perhaps millions of people in the US capable of carrying out this action and many more with
motive. Furthermore, if they did, I am happy that the information was made available so I can't
see why I would care.
That said, I am unconvinced by this evidence. I am quite familiar with file systems on
different operating systems and I would at least need to know what device we are talking about
here. Did it come from Assange? Why doesn't somebody say so? What sort of device is it? The
simple fact that it was copied from a computer doesn't prove that the computer was the DNC
server. It might have been copied from Putin's iMac. I believe in one reading the writer
acknowledged that the dates on the drive could be manipulated and I am certain that this is
true. While this may still leave it above the level of evidence that the FBI or "intelligence"
agencies have presented (or even claimed to have) it is not conclusive.
Reply
GM , August 14, 2018 at 5:10 pm
What is definitely conclusive is the Gucci 2 entity forged the inclusion of Russian
fingerprints in the leaked version of the documents by pasting it into a Russian language
Word template. With 70 years of experience in espionage, there is no way Russian spy agencies
are that sloppy and moreover, and if they were it would be absolutely unprecedented.
Furthermore, I have no reason to disbelieve Craig Murray that the docs were handed to him
directly and transferred by him to Wikileaks. Quite the contrary, in fact, since his
reputation would undoubtedly be irreconcilably demolished for all time if the Russiagaters
ever came up with hard proof to support their conspiracy theory.
GM , August 14, 2018 at 5:12 pm
Please forgive all the typos, posted on my little bitty phone :)
j. D. D. , August 14, 2018 at 2:21 pm
The crucial premise of the ongoing British-instigated coup against President Trump and the
chief legal ground for Robert Mueller's operation against the President, is the claim that
the Russians hacked the emails of the DNC and, John Podesta, and provided the results to
WikiLeaks which published them. The authenticity of such emails showing Hillary Clinton to be
a craven puppet of Wall Street who had cheated Bernie Sanders of the nomination were never
disputed, by Clinton, or anyone else.
Nor has the central conclusion of William Binnery's forensic analysis: that Gucifer
2.0 was a fabrication, and that the DNC emails were downloaded, not hacked by
Russia.
Furthermore, the only people who really know where and by whom the download occurred are
Julian Assange, whose life is now in peril, and former British Ambassador Craig Murray.
Were Assange be allowed to testify before the Senate Intelligence Committee later this
month, the lid could be blown off the entire sordid operation.
paul g. , August 14, 2018 at 3:03 pm
Craig stated he was merely a go between, who was given the data in the woods by American
University by probably another go between. Lots of cut outs here but the data was transferred
physically by thumb drive(s).
David G , August 15, 2018 at 8:27 am
"The crucial premise is the claim that the Russians hacked the emails of the DNC and, John
Podesta, and provided the results to WikiLeaks which published them."
I would like to call attention to a little slice of history of US the destabilization of
Eastern Europe and the USSR that would help to explain what is happening today.
From before the CIA's formation the US intelligence activities have been the province
of the Republican Party (there are plenty of exceptions, but please follow). Allen Dulles and
his ilk were friends with and shared goals with German industrialists long before World War
II. These relationships continued through WWII and afterwards. The CIA has functioned as an
international coal and iron police, overthrowing governments around the world that have stood
in the way of corporate profits.
This edition of Covert Action Information Bulletin, in 1990, happened just before a
shift in Washington. Almost all of the operations run by our government to destabilize
Eastern Europe and the USSR in 1990 were organized by the political right and run by people
such as Paul Weyrich. But the nineties showed a rise in Democratic activity in these
settings. I would guess that a mental image of this would be our then-First Lady lying about
dodging bullets on an airstrip during the destruction of Yugoslavia. It marked the successful
CIA takeover of the Democratic Party.
The 2016 Russiagate hysteria has been an intelligence operation which has been by all
measures successful. I presumed initially that the scam was done to put Hillary into the
White House, but now wonder if having Trump as President was part of the long-term
strategy.
Please note that the DNC backed over fifty new candidates for Congress who have
intelligence backgrounds. How do you think they will vote for the coming war resolution
against Russia?
GM , August 14, 2018 at 5:16 pm
Not sure about the theory of installing Trump in the WH is part of a long term
strategy of the deep state, but the latter seems to be adapting to the disruption quite
well.
Additional info: Stephen Kinzer's "The Brothers" which documents the Dulles brother's
creation of the Cold War mentality and activities.
Shouldn't we add Carter and Zbigniew Brzezinski.
michael , August 15, 2018 at 6:33 am
Citing a book from almost 30 years ago that implicated ONLY the Republicans in the
CIAs machinations ignores LBJ and the CIA's involvement in Vietnam and possibly in the JFK
assassination. Later, Carter was the only Democrat President who may or may not have
been heavily involved with the CIA. The Clintons were likely involved with the CIA early on
in their Mena, Arkansas drug-smuggling schemes, and the CIA was definitely closely involved
in their presidential anti-Slavic foreign policy. The Clintons' neoliberal agenda fit well
with the older neocons and consolidated the Duopoly support for the crazed think tank ideas
in DC.
jeff montanye , August 17, 2018 at 7:45 am
all perhaps true, but the cia, etc. have terribly neglected their republican base (ftr:
registered democrat, sanders and trump voter) and it is baying at their heels, drool swinging
from gnashing fangs. that is a political change as profound and radical as anything i
observed around the tear gas and batons of the sixties.
"They have passed the point of no return; there is no walking it back now. If it fails
heads will roll, but most importantly these trusted institutions will have flushed their last
vestiges of credibility down the drain. Then what?"
Then nothing. It puts one mind of the comment made by one of the Robber Barons when they
were caught with their hands in the cookie jar. His comment " All that was lost was honour"
In the present mess even if eventually it all comes to light no one is going to be held
answerable. No one is going to jail. Truth does not matter. The propaganda is what matters.
if it is proven wrong it is merely swept under the rug. With the short attention spans of
Americans it would be forgotten in a New York Minute.
GM , August 14, 2018 at 5:19 pm
Perhaps this explains the need for the likely false flag poison attack in Britain and the
fake Douma nerve gas attack. Russiagate hasn't really been panning out so well and too much
info has been emerging to challenge the narrative.
David G , August 15, 2018 at 8:29 am
I fully agree.
Peter de Klerk , August 14, 2018 at 1:06 pm
If Russian hacking is a hoax, why has it not been exposed by all the Trump appointed
intelligence and FBI heads? Trump's people could shut it down with a public single statement.
Y'all are deep into a conspiracy theory that makes no sense.
AnthraxSleuth , August 14, 2018 at 1:27 pm
Pffft!
It was shown to be a hoax by Clinton's own campaign staff in their book released after the
election titled "shattered".
"Within 24 hours of her concession speech, [campaign chair John Podesta and manager Robby
Mook] assembled her communications team at the Brooklyn headquarters to engineer the case
that the election wasn't entirely on the up-and-up. For a couple of hours, with Shake Shack
containers littering the room, they went over the script they would pitch to the press and
the public. Already, Russian hacking was the centerpiece of the argument."
The plan, according to the book, was to push journalists to cover how "Russian hacking was
the major unreported story of the campaign," and it succeeded to a fare-thee-well. After the
election, coverage of the Russian "collusion" story was relentless, and it helped pressure
investigations and hearings on Capitol Hill and even the naming of a special counsel, which
in turn has triggered virtually nonstop coverage.
Guess the only conspiracy theororist here is you.
Goebbels would be so proud.
You drank the kool-aid bruh!
Peter de Klerk , August 14, 2018 at 2:19 pm
My comment applies equally well to your response. Why doesn't Nunes, Pompeo, or Coates,
etc ever say anything about these theories?
AnthraxSleuth , August 14, 2018 at 4:28 pm
It's no longer a theory when the conspirators confess to it in their own writing.
Which I demonstrated to you in the previous post.
Peter de Klerk , August 14, 2018 at 6:18 pm
This very slanted article amplifies a few post-election statements. I'm sure Podesta and
Mook wanted to play this up. Some of that was sour grapes but most people are inclined to
think it was also true. These guys controlling most media outlets and most of the
intelligence community seems absurd to me. But I guess we all believe what we want to believe
now.
jdd , August 14, 2018 at 2:30 pm
One suspects that the President has revealed far less than he knows, perhaps wary of being
accused of "obstruction" by Mueller in concert with the controlled media. He actually
requested that William Binney present his analysis to then CIA Director Pompeo, who has since
sat on it.
But actually, to your point, the reverse is true. If the DNC and Podesta were
hacked by Russians, the NSA would have been able to demonstrate that fact through evidentiary
proof, a point made repeatedly by Binney.
No such proof was or has ever been offered. Instead
the main document presented to the American public was the January 6, 2017 "assessment" by
analysts hand-picked by John Brennan, who has played a key role in the illegal operation
against President Trump.
jeff montanye , August 17, 2018 at 7:54 am
And Donald Trump has more training in show business than most politicians or even internet
commenters. I suspect there is a fall premiere of quite an extravaganza leading up to the
midterm elections.
Read half the most intelligent commentary and had to quick. I was struck by one comment
particularly, why not ask Assange about the leak. Too simple but too much to ask, I guess.
Keeping him incommunicado certainly serves the leaders of the lynch mob and thanks goes to
the new Ecuadorian President. He was asked to shut the guy up and he did.
Modawg , August 14, 2018 at 3:28 pm
I think he has been asked and has politely refused to reveal. But his innuendo is that it
was from inside the US and definitely not the Russkies.
alley cat , August 14, 2018 at 4:44 pm
Herman, Assange has been asked about the identity of the leaker and replied that he
couldn't comment because Wikileaks has a strict policy of maintaining sources'
confidentiality. No potential source would ever trust Assange if he violated that policy. Instead, Assange offered a $20,000 reward for information leading to the arrest and
conviction of Seth Richards' murderer. So this was his way of answering the question
indirectly.
A Solomonic solution that is technically not a violation of confidentiality
Andy Wilcoxson , August 14, 2018 at 12:36 pm
Can I play devil's advocate and ask a question. Can we rule out the possibility that a hacker in Russia, China, or wherever
had remote control of a computer in the United States that they used to hack the DNC?
49.1 megabytes per second is almost 400 mbps, which is a very fast transfer speed, but there were one gigabit (1000 mbps)
connections available in several US markets when these e-mails were stolen. You might not have been able to transfer the files
directly from Washington D.C. to Russia at those speeds, but you certainly could have transferred them between computers
within the United States at those speeds using gigabit internet connections.
Is there something I'm missing? How does the file transfer speed prove this was a USB download and not a hack when gigabit
internet connections existed that could have accommodated those transfer speeds -- maybe not directly to Russia or Europe, but
certainly to another US-based computer that foreign hackers may have have remotely controlled.
Desert Dave , August 14, 2018 at 6:09 pm
Actually a byte is 10 bits total because there is overhead (start and stop bits). So 49.1 MBps is about 491 Mbps. The
question of whether the DNC server was attached to a network that fast would be easy to answer, if the FBI or anybody else
wanted to check.
"... Another new point in the Mayer piece, not in the above list, is an alleged meeting between the head of the British spy service GCHQ and the head of the CIA John Brennan in which GCHQ briefs Brennan about alleged interceptions of communication between Trump campaign associates and Russia. This is curious because the usual contact for such a case should have been the FBI, not the CIA. ..."
"... But some have suggested that the Brennan came up with the idea or at least directed the campaign of smearing Trump over made-up connections with Russia. For legal reasons and deniability the affair the creation of "evidence" was outsourced to the British partners. As Pat Lang, who has led large intelligence spying and counter-intelligence operations, opines : ..."
"... An unnamed, unknown, unvetted "government official" source is reported by, say, WP, which is then reported by the Times (? since when did competing newspapers use each other as confirmation?), so that official government spokespeople now report "as confirmed by multiple newspaper stories..." ..."
"... Use big words to conceal nonsense and say nothing. ..."
"... Robert Hannigan, head of GCHQ, resigned for "personal reasons" on Jan. 23 2017, a week after Trump's inauguration. ..."
Chuck Ross of the Daily Caller (yes, I know it is not deemed reputable) looked into some
claims Mayer makes in her piece which, if true, contain new morsels on the issue. They support
the standpoint that the whole dossier is fake. These points are:
Steele likely knew who funded the dossier
Steele used dozens of paid confidential 'collectors', not unpaid ones
Steele may have earlier worked for a Kremlin-connected oligarch
The salacious claims in the dossier were based on secondhand information
Steele briefed Jane Mayer during the campaign
A John McCain associate wanted to use dossier to force Trump to resign
Another new point in the Mayer piece, not in the above list, is an alleged meeting
between the head of the British spy service GCHQ and the head of the CIA John Brennan in which
GCHQ briefs Brennan about alleged interceptions of communication between Trump campaign
associates and Russia. This is curious because the usual contact for such a case should have
been the FBI, not the CIA.
But some have suggested that the Brennan came up with the idea or at least directed the
campaign of smearing Trump over made-up connections with Russia. For legal reasons and
deniability the affair the creation of "evidence" was outsourced to the British partners. As
Pat Lang, who has led large intelligence spying and counter-intelligence operations,
opines :
IMO there was a criminal conspiracy among various parts of the government, the Clinton
Campaign and the MSM to rig the election against Trump, and it continues. pl
Posted by b on March 6, 2018 at 05:12 AM |
Permalink
Nicely written piece. It just leaves you shaking your head in disbelief sometimes, the brazen
repetition of utter nonsense and total lies in hopes that it will eventually start to stick.
And I had also noticed some time back the rampant circular citations bootstrapped into being
called evidence. An unnamed, unknown, unvetted "government official" source is reported by,
say, WP, which is then reported by the Times (? since when did competing newspapers use each
other as confirmation?), so that official government spokespeople now report "as confirmed by
multiple newspaper stories..."
No wonder the New Yorker and their ilk stick to print rather than video...with AV media,
you would be able to hear the heavy breathing and wiki-wiki-wiki sounds of turd polishing in
the background.
And of course this one assertion by Steele is used by the Hannity's of the world to assert
that Trump was the victim of a Russian misinformation campaign ...
"In the reports Steele had collected, the names of the sources were omitted, but they were
described as "a former top-level Russian intelligence officer still active inside the
Kremlin,""
The beauty of it is that this alleged source never has to be revealed because it would
endanger the source so we have to take this Boy Scouts word for it.
How about the report graun had today; The Russians had poisoned their ex-spy? Another made up
crap.
The NYer is another web of deceit, the web of zionism. All of msm is.
@22
The possible poisoned spy case is now being used by Boris Johnson for a possible boycott of
the Moscow World Cup. It is obvious bullshit and a rerun of the litvinenko affair some years
ago.
Also an Mi6 setup in my opinion. The Russians provided a shipload of LNG to alleviate gas
shortages in Britain. Boris Johnson is an ungrateful sack of S--t
Max Blumenthal has observed that much of what is in the "dossier" was available in the public
sphere. The dossier is touted as being deep revelation totally missed a figure like
Papadopoulos, who only appeared to the public after the dossier was published. Strange that.
What seems strange is that so many people in Russia were willing to divulge what would
have been closely held secrets like the golden showers tape. Putin is described in the
Western press as somebody who would disappear you if you even criticized his shoe laces.
"... So, you and I don't agree on a lot of issues but I think we share the same concern about this story, and that is that American journalists are being manipulated for whatever reason by the intelligence community in the United States, and I'm wondering why after years of having this happen to American journalists, they are allowing this to happen again. ..."
"... Well, that's the thing I would refrain that a little bit. I don't actually think so much that journalists are the victims in the sense of that formulation that they're being manipulated. I think at best what you can say for them is they are willingly and eagerly being manipulated. ..."
"... Because what you see is over and over they publish really inflammatory stories that turn out to be totally false and what happens in those cases? Nothing. They get enormous benefits when they publish recklessly. They get applause on social media from their peers, they get zillions of re-tweets, huge amounts of traffic, they end up on TV. They get applauded across the spectrum because people are so giddy and eager to hear more about this Russia and Trump story. ..."
Tucker
Carlson interviews Green Greenwald of The Intercept about journalists "willingly" being
taken advantage of by the intelligence community on stories about Russia to reap the benefits,
even when they know what they are publishing is "totally false."
From Tuesday's broadcast of Tucker Carlson Tonight on the FOX News Channel:
TUCKER CARLSON: So, Glenn, just to get to the facts of this story, it is conclusively shown
that the story about the 21 voting systems being hacked is untrue, correct?
GLENN GREENWALD, JOURNALIST: It's false in two ways, one is that several of the states
included in the list, such as Wisconsin, California, and Texas, said that the websites that
the Homeland Security Department cited had nothing to do with voting systems, they are
entirely unrelated.
And it's false in a second way, which is a lot of the stories, in fact, most of them said
that Russia tried to hack into the voting systems when in fact even Homeland Security, it can
only show that what they did was scan those computer systems, which is basically casing
something to say for vulnerabilities and made no attempts to actually hack into them. So, it
was false on various levels.
CARLSON: So, you and I don't agree on a lot of issues but I think we share the same
concern about this story, and that is that American journalists are being manipulated for
whatever reason by the intelligence community in the United States, and I'm wondering why
after years of having this happen to American journalists, they are allowing this to happen
again.
GREENWALD: Well, that's the thing I would refrain that a little bit. I don't actually
think so much that journalists are the victims in the sense of that formulation that they're
being manipulated. I think at best what you can say for them is they are willingly and
eagerly being manipulated.
(LAUGHTER)
Because what you see is over and over they publish really inflammatory stories that turn
out to be totally false and what happens in those cases? Nothing. They get enormous benefits
when they publish recklessly. They get applause on social media from their peers, they get
zillions of re-tweets, huge amounts of traffic, they end up on TV. They get applauded across the spectrum
because people are so giddy and eager to hear more about this Russia and Trump story.
And when their stories get completely debunked, it just kind of, everybody agrees to
ignore it and everyone moves on and they pay no price. At the same time, they are feeling and
pleasing their sources by publishing these sources that their sources want them to publish.
And so, there is huge amounts of career benefits and reputational benefits and very little
cost when they publish stories that end up being debunked because the narrative they are
serving is a popular one, at least within their peer circles.
CARLSON: Gosh! That is so dishonest. I mean, I think all of us and journalism have gotten
things wrong, I certainly have. If you feel bad about it, I mean, you really do and there's a
consequence. Do you really think there's that level of dishonesty in the American press?
GREENWALD: I think what it is more than dishonesty is a really warped incentive scheme
bolstered by this very severe groupthink that social media is fostering in ways that we don't
yet fully understand.
CARLSON: Yes.
GREENWALD: Most journalists these days are in Congressional Committees or at zoning board
meetings or using -- they're sitting on Twitter talking to one another and this produces this
extreme groupthink where these orthodoxies arise in deviating from them or questioning them
or challenging, believe me, results in all kinds of recrimination and scorn. And embracing
them produces this sort of in group mentality where you are rewarded, and I think a lot of it
is about that kind of behavior.
CARLSON: That is really deep. I mean, you live in a foreign country, I'm not on social
media, so maybe we have a little bit of distance from this, where do you think the story is
going? What's the next incarnation of it?
GREENWALD: Well, the odd part about it, and about the inpatients that journalists have in
trying to just jump to the finish line is that there are numerous investigations underway in
the city, including by credible investigators, including Senator Burr and Warner and the
Senate Intelligence Committee, which most people seem to trust and certainly Robert Mueller
who is armed with subpoena power, and everyone is really eager to lavish with praise.
So, we are going to find out presumably one way or the other soon enough. I guess that one
thing that is so odd to me Tucker, is that, this has been going on now for a year, this
accusation that the Trump administration or the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians to
hack the DNC and John Podesta's email and we know that there are huge numbers of people
inside the government who are willing to leak, even at the expense of committing crimes in
order to undermine Trump and yet, there has been no leaks so far showing any evidence of that
kind of collusion leading one to wonder why that is.
So, I hope that everybody is willing to wait until the actual investigation reveals
finally the real answers. But it doesn't seem that will be the case.
CARLSON: Bravery is when you disagree in public with your peers. And by that definition,
you are a very brave man. Glenn Greenwald, thanks for joining us tonight. I appreciate
it.
"... Tisdall's weekly spiel about the Evil Empire and its Dark Lord made many CiFers comment that he must report regularly to Chatham House, London, at weekends for briefings, after which he'd knock out some good, blood-curdling copy about Russia in order to please his masters. ..."
"... As a matter of fact, I think many British "journalists" – Tisdall and Harding being prime examples thereof – primarily work for the British not-so-secret secret service, that they were recruited at university and were slotted into journalist employment to do their business of propagandizing. ..."
Tisdall's weekly spiel about the Evil Empire and its Dark Lord made many CiFers comment that he must report regularly to
Chatham House, London, at weekends for briefings, after which he'd knock out some good, blood-curdling copy about Russia in order
to please his masters.
I don't think that's far from the truth actually. As a matter of fact, I think many British "journalists" – Tisdall and
Harding being prime examples thereof – primarily work for the British not-so-secret secret service, that they were recruited at
university and were slotted into journalist employment to do their business of propagandizing. That might explain why Harding
is such a god awful journalist that has had on occasion to take recourse to a spot of cut and paste plagiarism.
Tisdall and Harding being prime examples thereof – primarily work for the British not-so-secret secret service, that they were
recruited at university and were slotted into journalist employment to do their business of propagandizing. That might explain
why Harding is such a god awful journalist that has had on occasion to take recourse to a spot of cut and paste plagiarism.
"... On "Tucker Carlson Tonight," Dana Loesch said the agenda-driven media is focused on negatively portraying Trump, while they're largely giving Democrats a pass. ..."
"... Let's talk for a moment about the California Democrat convention ... where you had a number of Democrats on stage screaming 'expletive Trump' and 'expletive Republicans.'" She said Democrats and the mainstream media then want to turn around and accuse Trump and those on the right of fomenting violence. ..."
Following Montana Republican congressional candidate Greg Gianforte's alleged assault of a reporter, some in the mainstream media
are trying to blame the incident on President Trump. CNN host Don Lemon argued that Trump has culpability because he's said "very
horrible things" about reporters and suggested that they are the enemy of the American people. MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell said that
Trump has helped whip up "hostility" toward the press, while Joe Scarborough said a "straight line" can be drawn between Trump's
anti-media rhetoric and the Gianforte incident.
On "Tucker Carlson Tonight," Dana Loesch said the agenda-driven media is focused on negatively portraying Trump, while they're
largely giving Democrats a pass.
"Let's discuss Tom Perez and his cussing crusade that he's been giving at so many different fundraisers.
Let's talk for a
moment about the California Democrat convention ... where you had a number of Democrats on stage screaming 'expletive Trump' and
'expletive Republicans.'" She said Democrats and the mainstream media then want to turn around and accuse Trump and those on the
right of fomenting violence.
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.
MintPress News | Alexander Rubinstein | Mar 6, 2019 Opposing some dictatorships, supporting others
John Ratcliffe © REUTERS/Loren Elliott 64 3 Follow RT on 
January 20, 2020 © Photo: Wikimedia The New York
Times caused a mini-commotion last week with a front-page 
Telegraph defence
editor savaged by Owen Jones over Saudi-links, deletes Twitter account
