Niet alleen Assange staat terecht, maar ook echte journalistiek en degenen die de klok luiden over oorlogsmisdaden, corruptie en andere smerige zaken

Noam Chomsky en Alica Walker hebben een artikel geschreven over het proces tegen Julian Assange, eerder gepubliceerd op Independent (vanwege mijn adblocker mag ik geen gebruik maken van dit platform……) en door mij overgenomen van Information Clearing House.

In de kop stellen Chomski en Walker dat de VS regering, ofwel de Trump administratie Julian Assanges persoonlijkheid terecht stelt, echter als je het stuk leest zie je dat men weliswaar Assange probeert te besmeuren, maar dat in feite de echte journalistiek terecht staat, dit naast de klokkenluiders die hun ergernissen melden aan onderzoeksjournalisten als Assange….
Iemand te besmeuren is in dit geval voor de VS overheid het middel om een journalist als Assange of klokkenluiders als Chelsea Manning en Edward Snowden totaal ongeloofwaardig te maken voor het grote publiek…… Tevens is dit uiteraard het middel om de zaak waarvoor mensen als Assange en Manning terecht staan/stonden ofwel te bagatelliseren dan wel te stellen dat deze 2 de staatsveiligheid in gevaar hebben gebracht, dat laatste is een leugen van enorme proporties…..
Opinion: How the US government put Julian Assange's personality on trial
Meer dan schunnig dat de reguliere westerse media zich massaal achter de leugens van de opvolgende VS administraties stelden, die van Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, ‘vredesduif’ Obama en nu die van de psychopathische fascist Trump…….Deze media deden dat zonder te onderzoeken of de leugens kloppen, die veelal van de CIA en de NSA kwamen, organisaties die bekend staan om hun leugens en verdraaiingen van feiten, zoals die over Irak, Afghanistan, Libië en Syrië…… Terwijl die media van de eerste 3 op zeker weten dat het leugens waren, door hen herhaalt en daarna nooit gerectificeerd, sterker nog men blijft de leugens gewoon herhalen, hoewel sinds de illegale invallen van de VS in Afghanistan, Irak, Libië en Syrië intussen meer dan 2,5 miljoen mensen zijn vermoord………
Nog veel erger is het dat diezelfde media hun collega, de meer dan eens gelauwerde onderzoeksjournalist* Assange, zo hebben laten vallen, ja zelfs voor verrader hebben uitgemaakt (ook door de reguliere Nederlandse media)……. Al moet ik zeggen dat ze daar wel reden toe hadden, immers als men Assange had verdedigd, had men toe moeten geven dat men volkomen fout zat met de steun voor de illegale oorlogen die de VS met hulp van NAVO-lidstaten als Nederland tegen voornoemde landen begon, terwijl alle bewijzen daarvoor op tafel lagen en liggen…….**
Mensen zien deze waanzinnig leuke video van een paar minuten
Lees het korte artikel van Chomski en Walker en zegt het voort: Julian Assange moet onmiddellijk worden vrijgelaten en de westerse media moeten eindelijk doen wat ze jaren geleden al hadden moeten doen: Assange steunen en daarmee de echte journalistiek verdedigen!! Als die media dit niet doen is het hek van de dam en zal echte journalistiek (ook het kleine beetje dat nog in die reguliere media is te vinden) de nek worden omgedraaid ‘voor het groter goed: een nieuwe orde ofwel een politiestaat als die door George Orwell beschreven in het boek 1984’ (onder het artikel kan je klikken voor een Nederlandse [Dutch] vertaling, dit neemt wel enkele tientallen seconden tijd in beslag)
How the US government put Julian Assange’s personality on trial
By Noam Chomsky and Alice Walker

Opinion: How the US government put Julian Assange’s personality on trial

September 11, 2020 “Information Clearing House” – On Monday Julian Assange was driven to the Old Bailey to continue his fight against extradition to the United States, where the Trump administration has launched the most dangerous attack on press freedom in at least a generation by indicting him for publishing US government documents. Amid coverage of the proceedings, Assange’s critics have inevitably commented on his appearance, rumours of his behaviour while isolated in the Ecuadorian embassy, and other salacious details.

These predictable distractions are emblematic of the sorry state of our political and cultural discourse. If Assange is extradited to face charges for practising journalism and exposing government misconduct, the consequences for press freedom and the public’s right to know will be catastrophic. Still, rather than seriously addressing the important principles at stake in Assange’s unprecedented indictment and the 175 years in prison he faces, many would rather focus on inconsequential personality profiles.

Assange is not on trial for skateboarding in the Ecuadorian embassy, for tweeting, for calling Hillary Clinton a war hawk, or for having an unkempt beard as he was dragged into detention by British police. Assange faces extradition to the United States because he published incontrovertible proof of war crimes and abuses in Iraq and Afghanistan, embarrassing the most powerful nation on Earth. Assange published hard evidence of “the ways in which the first world exploits the third”, according to whistleblower Chelsea Manning, the source of that evidence. Assange is on trial for his journalism, for his principles, not his personality.

You’ve probably heard the refrain from well-meaning pundits: “You don’t have to like him, but you should oppose threats to silence him.” But that refrain misses the point by reinforcing the manipulative tropes deployed against Assange.

When setting a gravely dangerous precedent, governments don’t typically persecute the most beloved individuals in the world. They target those who can be portrayed as subversive, unpatriotic – or simply weird. Then they actively distort public debate by emphasizing those traits.

These techniques are not new. After Daniel Ellsberg leaked the Pentagon Papers to journalists to expose the US government’s lies about Vietnam, the Nixon administration’s “White House Plumbers” broke into Ellsberg’s psychiatrist’s office in search of material that could be used to discredit him. NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden was falsely portrayed as collaborating with the Chinese, then the Russians. Obsession with military intelligence analyst Manning’s mental health and gender identity was ubiquitous. By demonizing the messenger, governments seek to poison the message.
Julian Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy – a timeline

The prosecution will be all too happy when coverage of Assange’s extradition hearing devolves into irrelevant tangents and smears. It matters little that Assange’s beard was the result of his shaving kit having been confiscated, or that reports of Paul Manafort visiting him in the embassy were proven to be fabricated. By the time these petty claims are refuted, the damage will be done. At best, public debate over the real issues will be derailed; at worst, public opinion will be manipulated in favour of the establishment.

By drawing attention away from the principles of the case, the obsession with personality pushes out the significance of WikiLeaks’ revelations and the extent to which governments have concealed misconduct from their own citizens. It pushes out how Assange’s 2010 publications exposed 15,000 previously uncounted civilian casualties in Iraq, casualties that the US Army would have buried. It pushes out the fact that the United States is attempting to accomplish what repressive regimes can only dream of: deciding what journalists around the globe can and cannot write. It pushes out the fact that all whistleblowers and journalism itself, not just Assange, is on trial here.

This piece was written by Noam Chomsky and Alice Walker, co-chairs of AssangeDefense.org Source

See also

Click for Spanish, German, Dutch, Danish, French, translation- Note- Translation may take a moment to load.
====================================
* Wikipedia heeft de informatie verwijderd over de prijzen die Assange won met zijn onderzoeksjournalistiek…….. Schande!!!

** Nogmaals: terwijl alle bewijzen voorhanden zijn dat de VS de westerse wereld heeft voorgelogen om deze oorlogen te rechtvaardigen, sterker nog een aantal landen waaronder Nederland hebben meegeholpen met de fabricage van deze leugens voor één of meer van deze oorlogen, wat betreft Nederland betrof dit de illegale oorlog tegen Irak……)

Wat betreft Assange zie:
Het proces tegen Assange: een verslag van de voormalige Britse ambassadeur Craig Murray

Liveblog: Julian Assange Under Threat – Defend Wikileaks

Het martelen van onderzoeksjournalist Julian Assange: een interview met Andrew Fowler

YouTube verwijdert in aanloop naar presidentsverkiezingen video’s met info verkregen middels hacken, censuur door VS techreuzen‘ (o.a. censuur op info van Wikileaks….)

Labourpolitici in oorlog met elkaar: de antisemitisme leugen tegen Jeremy Corbyn die hem de verkiezingen kostte‘ (met o.a. aandacht voor Assange en zie de links in dat bericht over de verkiezingen in GB)

Internationale Dag van de Persvrijheid: ARD hekelt geheel hypocriet Turkije zonder ook maar één woord te besteden aan Julian Assange‘ (en zie de links in dat bericht naar oudere artikelen over Assange)

Zie terzijde:
9/11 werd mede georganiseerd door Israël‘ (9/11 het sein voor de illegale oorlogen tegen Afghanistan en Irak)

Iran zou de VS ambassadeur voor Zuid-Afrika willen vermoorden: complottheorie van de CIA‘ (en zie de links in dat bericht, o.a. over de westerse demonisering van Iran)

Jeremy Corbyn weggezet als nazi in fake news ‘antisemitisme schandaal’ >> haatzaaien met een ‘groter doel’

De voortdurende demonisering van Corbyn in de Britse reguliere media kent werkelijk geen grenzen meer, dagelijks wordt Corbyn door de stront gesleurd en afgezeken als antisemiet……. Niet dat daar ook maar één direct bewijs voor geleverd kan worden, sterker nog: Corbyn onderhoudt aantoonbaar goede relaties met joodse mensen en niet de minste, neem de intussen overleden van joodse komaf Nederlandse Hajo Meijer, een overlever van de nazi-dodenkampen, met wie hij een goede relatie had……
In het hieronder opgenomen artikel nog veel meer joodse mensen die het opnemen voor Corbyn, de Labour leider die in zijn team zelfs drie mensen van joodse komaf heeft, allen joden die allesbehalve vinden dat Corbyn een antisemiet is…..
Men is dan ook totaal niet bang dat met Corbyn de nazi’s over de Britse straten zullen marcheren, maar dat Corbyn na zoveel decennia neoliberaal wanbeleid gevoerd door opvolgende regeringen, ja zelfs door zijn eigen Labour Partij, een sociaal regeringsbeleid zal voeren……. Corbyn is te populair en dat dit zeker ook veel jongeren aanspreekt, is velen in het verkeerde keelgat geschoten…..

De schrijver van het artikel stelt terecht dat een deel van de Labour politici het beleid van Blair willen doorzetten, van Labour een tweede Tory partij maken* dit t.b.v. het inhumane, ijskoude neoliberalisme en de voortdurende Britse steun voor en deelname aan illegale oorlogen van de VS, waarmee deze Labour politici ook fungeren als lobbyisten van het militair-industrieel complex, een complex waar men vindt dat er niet lang en vaak genoeg oorlog gevoerd kan worden…….

Het sterkste pleidooi in het volgende artikel is wel de vaststelling dat het misbruik van het woord ‘antisemitisme’ in feite een trap na is voor de slachtoffers van de holocaust (een te korte samenvatting, lees het artikel)
De schrijver van het hieronder opgenomen artikel, dat eerder op MediaLens werd gepubliceerd (nam het over van Information Clearing House), neemt ook de opgestapte Labour leden onder de loep en geeft daarbij aan dat deze figuren een allesbehalve fris verleden hebben…….
Lees het volgende uiterst verontrustende, maar prima artikel en geeft het door, ook de Nederlandse media nemen de lulkoek van de Britse media over en stellen dat Labour een probleem heeft met antisemitisme, terwijl een groot aantal Britse joden lid is van Corbyns Labour Partij……. Intussen heeft de eerste aanval op Corbyn, n.a.v. het haatzaaien in de Britse media al plaatsgevonden……
The Fake News Nazi – Corbyn, Williamson And The Anti-Semitism Scandal
By Editor Media Lens

March 08, 2019 “Information Clearing House” – One of us had a discussion with an elderly relative:

‘He can’t be allowed to become Prime Minister.’

‘Why not?’

‘It’s so awful…’

‘What is?’

‘The way he hates the Jews.’

The last comment was spoken with real anguish, the result of continuous exposure to just two main news sources: the Daily Mail and the BBC.

What is astonishing is that, just four years ago, essentially no-one held this view of Jeremy Corbyn.

Corbyn first became an MP in 1983. He stood for the Labour leadership 32 years later, in May 2015. We searched the ProQuest database for UK newspaper articles containing:

‘Jeremy Corbyn’ and ‘anti-semitism’ before 1 May 2015 = 18 hits

‘Jeremy Corbyn’ and ‘anti-semitism’ after 1 May 2015 = 11,251 hits

None of the 18 hits accused Corbyn of anti-semitism. For his first 32 years as an MP, it just wasn’t a theme associated with him.

We also searched the ProQuest database for UK newspaper articles containing:

‘Labour Party’ and ‘anti-semitism’ before 1 May 2015 = 5,347 hits

‘Labour Party’ and ‘anti-semitism’ after 1 May 2015 = 13,921 hits

The archive begins in 1980, which means that more than twice as many articles have included these terms in the last four years than in the 35 years from 1980 until May 2015 when Corbyn stood for the Labour leadership. A standard response to these findings runs along these lines:

‘Irrelevant backbencher gets less Press attention than Leader of The Opposition SHOCKER. What’s your next scoop, Water Wet, Sky Blue?’

But in fact, Corbyn was not an irrelevant backbencher. We found 3,662 hits for articles mentioning Corbyn before May 2015. Many of these are mentions in passing, but he had also long been a high-profile anti-war MP at a time of numerous wars. And he was frequently smeared, only not about his supposed anti-semitism. Consider, for example, an article that appeared in The Sun in 1999, under a typically cruel title:

‘Why did it take you so long to dump him, Mrs Corbyn?’ (Ally Ross, The Sun, 13 May 1999)

The story:

‘EXTREME Left MP Jeremy Corbyn has been dumped by his missus after an amazing bust-up over their son’s education.’

The key issue, according to The Sun:

‘Now the question on everyone’s lips is: Why did it take her so long to leave the loathsome Lefty, and more importantly, why is she only moaning about his choice of schools?’

Because there was, apparently, plenty to moan about. The Sun described Corbyn as ‘class crusader Jeremy – a rabid IRA sympathiser’ who ‘not only looks and dresses like a third-rate Open University lecturer, he thinks like one too. In 1984 the Provo stooge invited twice-convicted terrorist and bomber Linda Quigley to the House of Commons just 13 days after the IRA’s murderous attack on Tories staying at the Grand Hotel in Brighton’.

This was pretty brutal stuff. The Sun added of Corbyn’s ex-wife:

‘Claudia’s saviour of the masses also suffers incredible delusions of grandeur. Communist states may be falling like dominoes, but raving Red Jeremy still believes his outdated views are relevant to modern-day Britain.’

And:

‘Not only is Jeremy a political coward who backs terrorists, he is also a self-confessed big girl’s blouse.’

And:

‘Jeremy’s mis-shapen suits, lumpy jumpers and nylon shirts are not exactly what the well-dressed radical is wearing in 1999… Claudia should be aware her ex is irredeemably, unforgivably, annoyingly stupid.’

Given the no-holds-barred nature of the smear, it is amazing that The Sun made no mention at all of Corbyn’s vile anti-semitism, viewed as his most obvious and dangerous defect now.
The reason is that, as this shows, not even his worst enemies viewed him as an anti-semite. The extreme Tory press aside, the accepted view of Corbyn pre-2015 is indicated by a long, admiring piece in which Jewish journalist Deborah Ross, whose family members were murdered in Polish pogroms even before the Nazi Holocaust was unleashed, interviewed him for the Independent in 2005. Ross commented:

‘He is also, it is generally agreed, an exemplary constituency MP. Even my friend Rebecca, who recently sought his help on a local issue, and never usually has a nice word to say about anybody, which is why I like her, describes him as a “totally genuine mensch”.’

Ross added:

‘As The Sun would have it, Mr Corbyn is a “beardy Bolshevik” and “loathsome lefty” but he does not come across as either. He has strong opinions but does not demand you listen to them, if you don’t want to.

‘He is scandal free, unless you count the hoo-ha a few years back when it was revealed that Jeremy’s oldest son would be attending a grammar school outside the borough.’

Joseph Finlay is a former Deputy Editor of the Jewish Quarterly, who co-founded a range of grassroots Jewish organisations such as Moishe House London, Wandering Jews, Jewdas and The Open Talmud Project. On 2 March 2018, Finlay wrote in his blog under the title, ‘Jeremy Corbyn is an anti-racist, not an anti-Semite’:

‘Firstly we need to restore some perspective. The Labour party has thousands of Jewish members, many Jewish councillors, a number of prominent Jewish MPs and several Jewish members of its ruling council. Many people at the heart of the Corbyn team, such as Jon Lansman, James Schneider and Rhea Wolfson are also Jewish. Ed Miliband, the previous party leader, was Jewish (and suffered antisemitism at the hands of the press and the Conservatives). I have been a member for five years and, as a Jew, have had only positive experiences.’

Finlay added:

‘Jeremy Corbyn has been MP for Islington North since 1983 – a constituency with a significant Jewish population. Given that he has regularly polled over 60% of the vote (73% in 2017) it seems likely that a sizeable number of Jewish constituents voted for him. As a constituency MP he regularly visited synagogues and has appeared at many Jewish religious and cultural events. He is close friends with the leaders of the Jewish Socialist Group, from whom he has gained a rich knowledge of the history of the Jewish Labour Bund, and he has named the defeat of Mosley’s Fascists at the Battle of Cable as a key historical moment for him. His 2017 Holocaust Memorial Day statement talked about Shmuel Zygielboym, the Polish Bund leader exiled to London who committed suicide in an attempt to awaken the world to the Nazi genocide. How many British politicians have that level of knowledge of modern Jewish history?’

Israel-based journalist Jonathan Cook notes that a recent Labour Party report ‘decisively undercut’ the claims of Corbyn’s critics ‘not only of endemic anti-semitism in Labour, but of any significant problem at all’. Cook summarised:

‘Over the previous 10 months, 673 complaints had been filed against Labour members over alleged anti-semitic behaviour, many based on online comments. In a third of those cases, insufficient evidence had been produced.

‘The 453 other allegations represented 0.08 percent of the 540,000-strong Labour membership. Hardly “endemic” or “institutional”, it seems.’

He added:

‘That echoed an earlier report by the Commons home affairs committee, which found there was “no reliable, empirical evidence” that Labour had more of an anti-semitism problem than any other British political party.’

In ‘Antisemitism in contemporary Great Britain: A study of attitudes towards Jews and Israel’ by the Jewish Institute for Policy Research, L. Daniel Staetsky found:

‘Levels of antisemitism among those on the left-wing of the political spectrum, including the far-left, are indistinguishable from those found in the general population. Yet, all parts of those on the left of the political spectrum – including the “slightly left-of-centre,” the “fairly left-wing” and the “very left-wing” – exhibit higher levels of anti-Israelism than average. The most antisemitic group on the political spectrum consists of those who identify as very right-wing: the presence of antisemitic attitudes in this group is 2 to 4 times higher compared to the general population.’

The report notes that ‘the prevalence of antisemitism on the far right is considerably higher than on the left and in the political centre’.

Noam Chomsky has commented:

‘The charges of anti-Semitism against Corbyn are without merit, an underhanded contribution to the disgraceful efforts to fend off the threat that a political party might emerge that is led by an admirable and decent human being, a party that is actually committed to the interests and just demands of its popular constituency and the great majority of the population generally, while also authentically concerned with the rights of suffering and oppressed people throughout the world. Plainly an intolerable threat to order.’ (Noam Chomsky, email to Media Lens, 9 September 2018)

Suspending Chris Williamson

On February 27, a propaganda blitz was launched against anti-war Labour MP Chris Williamson who had been filmed saying that Labour Party responses to claims of anti-semitism had exacerbated the crisis:

‘I’ve got to say, I think our party’s response has been partly responsible… Because, in my opinion, we’ve backed off far too much, we’ve given too much ground, we’ve been too apologetic.’

Williamson added:

‘We’ve done more to address the scourge of anti-semitism than any political party.’

It is clear that Williamson was strongly endorsing the fight against anti-semitism and was proud of the Labour Party’s record. Actual anti-semites talk of ‘the scourge of Judaism’, Williamson talked of ‘the scourge of anti-semitism’. He was suggesting that the party had been too apologetic in responding to a cynical smear campaign attempting to destroy Corbyn by exploiting the issue of anti-semitism.

Others chose to see it differently. Guardian columnist Owen Jones responded to Williamson’s comments:

‘This is utterly out of order. When does the left ever say we’ve been “too apologetic” about fighting racism or bigotry? Why is he, a non-Jew, right and Jon Lansman – a Jewish socialist who founded Momentum and ran Corbyn’s second leadership campaign – wrong about anti-Semitism?’

We replied:

‘”When does the left ever say we’ve been “too apologetic” about fighting racism or bigotry?'”

‘He’s *endorsing* the fight against racism and bigotry. He’s saying Labour has been too apologetic in responding to a cynical smear campaign to destroy Corbyn in the name of anti-racism.’

Ash Sharkar of Novara Media tweeted:

‘Chris Williamson has been had the Labour whip suspended pending investigation, which I think is the right decision. But much more work must be done to proactively confront and dismantle conspiratorial and antisemitic thinking on the left, and it goes much further than expulsions.’

Aaron Bastani, also of Novara Media, wrote:

‘I think media coverage of the “Labour anti-semitism crisis” is completely disproportionate – primarily because it underplays problem more broadly across society.

‘Equally, hearing & reading the things I have in recent days I wouldn’t feel welcome in the party as a Jewish person.’

In our latest book, ‘Propaganda Blitz’, we noted a key factor driving home these smear blitzes:

‘while a demonising propaganda blitz may arise from rightist politics and media, the propaganda coup de grace ending public doubt often comes from the “left-liberal” journalists at the Guardian, the Independent, the BBC and Channel 4; and also from non-corporate journalists who crave acceptance by these media. Again, the logic is clear: if even celebrity progressive journalists – people famous for their principled stands, and colourful socks and ties – join the denunciations, then there must be something to the claims. At this point, it actually becomes difficult to doubt it’. (David Edwards and David Cromwell, ‘Propaganda Blitz’, Pluto Press, 2018, pp.8-9)

Foreign Wars – Racism Versus Speciesism

The truth of the corporate media’s ‘ethical concern’ becomes clearer when we consider Corbyn’s record on foreign wars. While the UK affects to care deeply about racism, Chomsky has noted that the West’s endless ‘interventions’ – all reflexively supported by the same media damning Corbyn now – are manifestations of a prejudice, beyond even racism, that is a kind of speciesism:

‘Namely, knowing that you are massacring them but not doing so intentionally because you don’t regard them as worthy of concern. That is, you don’t even care enough about them to intend to kill them. Thus when I walk down the street, if I stop to think about it I know I’ll probably kill lots of ants, but I don’t intend to kill them, because in my mind they do not even rise to the level where it matters. There are many such examples. To take one of the very minor ones, when Clinton bombed the al-Shifa pharmaceutical facility in Sudan, he and the other perpetrators surely knew that the bombing would kill civilians (tens of thousands, apparently). But Clinton and associates did not intend to kill them, because by the standards of Western liberal humanitarian racism, they are no more significant than ants. Same in the case of tens of millions of others.’ (Chomsky ZNet blog, ‘Samantha Power, Bush & Terrorism,’ 31 July 2007)

Even if Corbyn was an anti-semite, a racist, he would still be a far safer ethical choice than Tory and Blairite speciesists who value human beings on the level of ants. After all, we find that Jeremy Corbyn:

‘Consistently voted against use of UK military forces in combat operations overseas.’

‘Consistently voted against the Iraq war.’

‘… voted to say that the case for war against Iraq has not yet been established’.

‘… voted against a motion stating the Government should use all means necessary to ensure the disarmament of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. Support for the motion by the majority of MPs led to the UK joining the US invasion of Iraq two days later’.

‘Generally voted for investigations into the Iraq war.’

‘… acted as teller for a vote on UK Air Strikes Against ISIL in Iraq’.

‘… voted against the establishment of a no-fly zone in Libya’.

‘… voted against the continued deployment of UK armed forces in Afghanistan’.

‘… voted to decline to authorise UK military action in Syria’.

‘… voted against UK airstrikes against ISIL in Syria’.

‘Generally voted against replacing Trident with a new nuclear weapons system.’

Consider, by contrast, the record of the Labour MPs who have left the Labour Party, supposedly in protest at the rise of anti-semitism, to form The Independent Group:

Chuka Umunna ‘Almost always voted for use of UK military forces in combat operations overseas.’

Angela Smith ‘Almost always voted for use of UK military forces in combat operations overseas.’

Mike Gapes ‘Generally voted for use of UK military forces in combat operations overseas.’

Chris Leslie ‘Almost always voted for use of UK military forces in combat operations overseas.’

Luciana Berger ‘Generally voted for use of UK military forces in combat operations overseas.’

Joan Ryan: ‘Consistently voted for use of UK military forces in combat operations overseas’, ‘Consistently voted for the Iraq war’, ‘Consistently voted against investigations into the Iraq war.’

Ann Coffey ‘Almost always voted for use of UK military forces in combat operations overseas.’

Gavin Shuker ‘Voted a mixture of for and against use of UK military forces in combat operations overseas.’

Not even his most extreme critics are suggesting that Corbyn is offering the kind of threat to Jewish people consistently offered by Tory and Blairite MPs to millions of people in countries like Iraq, Libya, Syria, Venezuela, Iran and Yemen. Even if Corbyn had erred in failing to perceive the ugliness of a mural declared antisemitic by the press; even if had been lax in taking action against party racists, and so on, how do these failings compare to the destruction of whole countries in lie-based wars of aggression?

Why do corporate media never make this moral comparison? Because they are incapable of perceiving US-UK crimes against humanity as crimes; a wilful moral blindness that renders them completely unfit to pass judgement on Corbyn. Especially as they are themselves, of course, complicit in these same war crimes.

Conclusion

The claim that Corbyn is an anti-semite presiding over a surge in Labour Party anti-semitism is fake news; it is a scam of the utmost cynicism and brutality. It should be viewed as the latest in a long line of attempts to destroy Corbyn by all necessary means. He has been smeared for not bowing low enough, for not singing loudly enough, for hating women, for disrespecting gay people, for consorting with terrorists, for refusing to unleash a nuclear holocaust, for being a shambolic leader, for being a shambolic dresser, for leading Labour towards certain electoral disaster, for being a Putinite stooge, for aping Trump, and so on. Now, finally, someone widely admired for thirty years as a decent, socialist MP, has been transformed into an anti-semite; or as game show assistant and political commentator Rachel Riley implies, a ‘Nazi’.

Anti-semitism does exist in the Labour Party, as it exists throughout UK society, and of course these delusions should be resisted and exposed. But the smear campaign against Corbyn is not rooted in concern for the welfare of Jewish people; it is not even about blocking a political leader who cares about Palestinian rights. It is about preventing Corbyn from undoing Tony Blair’s great achievement of transforming the Labour Party into a second Tory Party, thus ensuring voters have no option challenging corporate domination, including the ‘humanitarian interventions’ for oil and other resources. The goal is to stop Corbyn letting democracy out of its box.

Stephen Law of Heythrop College, University of London, warns that cavalier accusations made ‘on the basis of obviously flimsy or nonexistent evidence’ are ‘disrespecting the memory of the millions who were slaughtered by real antisemitism during the Holocaust’. But in fact, it is worse than that. State propagandists and their corporate media allies are exploiting the suffering of these millions as part of an attack on British democracy. This is obscene. But it is not particularly shocking after the campaigns of deceit which, as discussed, knowingly risked and then shattered the lives of millions of innocent human beings in US-UK wars of aggression.

One thing is certain, if Corbyn and his style of socialism can be made to disappear, we’ll hear no more about anti-semitism in the Labour Party, just as we heard no more about Iraqi democracy after Saddam Hussein, or human rights in Libya after Gaddafi; just as we will hear no more about press freedom in Venezuela, if Maduro is overthrown.

As this alert was being written, news emerged that Corbyn had been subjected to a physical assault in London, to muted concern from almost all corporate media and journalists (compare ‘mainstream’ reaction to news that Conservative MP Anna Soubry had been called a ‘Nazi’). Journalists claimed Corbyn had merely had an egg thrown at him. Labour MP Diane Abbott tweeted:

‘I was there. He punched Jeremy very hard. He happened to have an egg in his palm. But it could have been a knife. Horrible’

Perhaps journalists couldn’t bear to express concern for a person they have so completely reviled for almost four years. Or perhaps they knew their smears of a thoroughly decent, well-intentioned man would be thrown back at them. More likely, they just didn’t care. And that, finally, is the truth of their ‘ethical concern’ – they don’t care.


This article was originally published by “Media Lens” –
================================================
* Ook onder de Labour regeringen in het begin van deze eeuw, de regeringen van opperploert Blair en oplichter Brown, gingen miljoenen kinderen met honger naar school……..

Zie ook:
Corbyn als schietschijf voor het Britse leger, reactie Tories: Corbyn is een groot gevaar voor Brittannië……

Antisemitische heksenjacht in GB bedoeld om pro-Palestijnse Labour politici de mond te snoeren

Esther Voet (Nieuw Israëlitisch Weekblad) ‘maakt grap’: ze vertrekt naar Israël vanwege groeiend antisemitisme……

The Guardian weigert brief van meer dan 200 Joodse vrouwen, waar dit medium loog en blijft liegen over ‘antisemitisme’ Corbyn

Anti-Corbyn boek valt door de mand als valse aanklacht >> schrijver duikt onder……

Esther Voet (hoofdredacteur Nieuw Israëlietisch Weekblad) over ‘antisemitisme’

Jeremy Corbyn (Labour en oppositie leider GB) veegt de vloer aan met vertrekkende ‘centrum’ Labour fractieleden







Daar Corbyn vooral voor antisemiet wordt uitgemaakt, nog wat links naar dat onderwerp:

Kritiek op Israël wordt door een leger van Israëlische trollen bevochten

Israël misbruikt de aanslag op de synagoge in Pittsburgh voor demonisering van steun aan de Palestijnen…….

Google Maps veegt Palestijns gebied van de kaart

De film over de pro-Israëlische lobby in de VS, die Israël verboden wil zien………

Israël zet snelle reactiemacht op poten tegen anti-Israëlische kritiek

Israël en VS werken samen in tegenwerken van critici op beleid t.a.v. Palestijnen

Westerse massamedia lopen aan de leiband van plutocraten, de neoliberale politiek en geheime diensten

Caitlin Johnstone heeft zich over de berichtgeving van de massamedia gebogen en zet een aantal feiten wat betreft de reguliere (massa-) media op een rij, waarbij ze tot verrassende inzichten komt.
Als eerste buigt Johnstone zich over de vraag waarom journalisten van de reguliere media in ‘vrije democratieën’ (‘een beetje dubbelop’) zich gedragen als hun collega’s van staatsmedia propagandisten. Waarom gedragen ze zich als betrouwbare vertegenwoordigers van de gevestigde orde en waarom wordt elk idee gemarginaliseerd dat niet past in wat op een bepaald moment als een correcte gedachte wordt gezien? (en dat kan op zeer grove manier gebeuren, zie de smerige en uiterst valse berichtgeving over de Britse Labour leider Jeremy Corbyn door de reguliere media waar ook de BBC deel van uitmaakt, al kan je die ‘onafhankelijke zendgemachtigde’ als staatsomroep onder een dictatuur zien)

Waarom worden mensen die de gevestigde orde bekritiseren altijd door de media veroordeeld? Waarom worden ‘fouten’ in een land dat buiten de invloedssfeer en de macht van de gecentraliseerde VS-alliantie valt, zo kritisch becommentarieerd door de reguliere (westerse) media, terwijl fouten binnen die alliantie worden vergeven, of veelal zelfs niet worden genoemd?
Volgens Johnstone zijn er maar twee verklaringen voor die unanieme instemming van de reguliere media op die onderwerpen:
Die instemming bestaat omdat die media altijd de waarheid zouden vertellen, of die instemming bestaat omdat er een systeem is ontstaan, waarin de journalisten van de reguliere media ons voorliegen en een vals beeld schetsen van wat er gebeurt in de wereld.
Volgens Johnstone zijn dit de enige mogelijkheden, waarbij ze de eerste uiteraard afwijst, immers als deze media altijd de waarheid vertellen, zouden deze media niet de leugens herhalen over bijvoorbeeld de oorlogen in Vietnam en Irak, ofwel dan zou het afslachten van miljoenen op grond van leugens niet zijn verdedigd in die media………

Eén en ander betekent overigens niet dat de grote reguliere media alleen maar liegen, immers dan zou men de klanten snel verliezen, nee men brengt natuurlijk ook echt nieuws, naast halve waarheden, verdraaide feiten en de al genoemde leugens.
Lees het artikel van Johnstone, zij legt deze zaak duidelijk uit, waarna de conclusie wordt getrokken dat de media inderdaad aan de leiband lopen van plutocraten of fondsen van aandeelhouders (oké dat was al bekend, maar Johnstone geeft het geheel handen en voeten). Voorts meldt Johnstone ten overvloede nog eens dat de CIA al sinds de 50er jaren van de vorige eeuw bemoeienis heeft met de reguliere (massa-) media in de VS…….
Nogmaals lees het artikel en oordeel zelf:

How Plutocratic Media Keeps Staff Aligned With Establishment Agendas

Why do mainstream media reporters within ostensibly free democracies act just like state media propagandists? Why are they so reliably pro-establishment, all throughout every mainstream outlet? Why do they so consistently marginalize any idea that doesn’t fit within the extremely narrow Overton window of acceptable opinion? Why does anyone who inconveniences western establishment power always find themselves on the losing end of a trial by media? Why are they so dependably adversarial toward anything that could be perceived as a flaw in any nation outside the US-centralized power alliance, and so dependably forgiving of the flaws of the nations within it?

The way I see it there are only two possible explanations for the unanimous consensus in mass media on these issues:

Explanation 1: The consensus exists because the mass media reporters are all telling the truth all the time.

OR

Explanation 2: The consensus exists because there is some kind of system in place which keeps all mass media reporters lying to us and painting a false picture about what’s going on in the world.
Those are the only two possibilities, and only one can be true, since any mixture of the two would result in the loss of consensus.
Most mainstream westerners harbor an unquestioned assumption that Explanation 1 is the only possibility. The things they see on CNN, the BBC and the ABC are all accurate descriptions of what’s really going on in the world, and the consensus in their descriptions exists because they’re all describing the same objective reality.
But what would that mean exactly? Well, for starters if the mainstream media reporters are telling us the truth all the time it would mean that the same power institutions which slaughtered millions in Vietnam and Iraq for no good reason are actually virtuous and honest. It would mean the positive, uncritical picture that is consistently painted of those same institutions which wage nonstop campaigns of bloodshed and oppression to ensure the profit of economic manipulators and war profiteers is due to those institutions possessing merits which are overall so positive that no criticism of them is needed. It would mean that the status quo of climate destruction, steadily growing wealth inequality, an increasingly Orwellian surveillance system, an increasingly militarized police force, increasing internet censorship, and crushing neoliberal austerity measures are all things people voted for using the excellent democratic political system the mainstream media defends, based on the accurate information the mainstream media gave them about what’s in their best interests.
Explanation 1 sounds improbable in that light. We know that the system is spectacularly screwed up, and we know that the political establishment which these mainstream outlets always defend does unforgivably evil things, so we should expect to see a lot more critical reporting and a lot less protecting of the status quo. But we don’t. We see war crimes ignored, oppression justified, the two-headed one-party system normalized, dissident narratives smeared as fake news conspiracy theories, and unproven assertions by government agencies with a known history of lying reported as unquestionable fact.
But that leaves only Explanation 2. How could that be right?
This part of a 1996 interview between Noam Chomsky and the BBC’s Andrew Marr describes a foundational element of Explanation 2: that there is a system in place which ensures that all the reporters in positions of influence are there not to report factually on the news of the day, but to sell a particular narrative that is friendly to the state and the status quo. Chomsky describes a “filtering system” which ensures that only those loyal to power rise to the top within the plutocrat-owned media, to which Marr objects and insists that his peers are brave truth-tellers who hold power to account. Subsequently, the following exchange takes place:
Chomsky: Well, I know some of the best, and best known investigative reporters in the United States, I won’t mention names, whose attitude towards the media is much more cynical than mine. In fact, they regard the media as a sham. And they know, and they consciously talk about how they try to play it like a violin. If they see a little opening, they’ll try to squeeze something in that ordinarily wouldn’t make it through. And it’s perfectly true that the majority – I’m sure you’re speaking for the majority of journalists who are trained, have it driven into their heads, that this is a crusading profession, adversarial, we stand up against power. A very self-serving view. On the other hand, in my opinion, I hate to make a value judgement but, the better journalists and in fact the ones who are often regarded as the best journalists have quite a different picture. And I think a very realistic one.
Marr: How can you know that I’m self-censoring? How can you know that journalists are..
Chomsky: I’m not saying your self censoring. I’m sure you believe everything you’re saying. But what I’m saying is that if you believed something different, you wouldn’t be sitting where you’re sitting”.
If you believed something different, you wouldn’t be sitting where you’re sitting.”
It is an obvious fact that mainstream media outlets are owned by the extremely wealthy, as has been the case for a very long time. Owning media is in and of itself a profitable investment, “like having a license to print your own money” as Canadian television magnate Roy Thomson once put it. So when it comes to the news media outlets which form people’s perceptions of the world, what incentive would a powerful plutocrat have to platform anti-establishment voices on those outlets and help sow ideas which upset the status quo upon which said plutocrat has built his empire? It certainly wouldn’t make him any more money, and if anti-establishment ideas like socialism, anarchism, non-interventionism or skepticism of government agencies gained popular footing in public consciousness, it could upset the foundation of the plutocrat’s dynasty and cause him to lose everything.
Plutocrats have put a lot of energy into influencing government policy in order to create legislation which ensures the continued growth of their wealth and power. A whole lot of maneuvering has had to happen over the course of many years to create a political system wherein government bribery is legal in the form of campaign finance and corporate lobbying, wherein deregulation of corporations is the norm, wherein tax loopholes are abundant and tax burdens are shifted to the middle class, wherein money hemorrhages upward to the wealthiest of the wealthy while ordinary people grow poorer and poorer. What incentive would these powerful oligarchs have to risk upsetting that delicate balancing act by helping to circulate ideas which challenge the very governmental system they’ve worked so hard to manipulate to their extreme advantage? And how many incentives would they have to keep everyone supporting the status quo?
How hard would it be to simply decline to give anti-establishment voices a platform, and platform establishment loyalists instead? How easy would it be for a wealthy media owner or influential investor to ensure that only establishment loyalists are given the job of hiring and promoting editors and reporters in a mainstream media outlet?
Every blue-checkmark MSM journo on Twitter is auditioning for a job. All they’re actually tweeting is “Look at me, current or future employer! I will smear Julian Assange! I will help sell the Russia narrative! I’ll say Corbyn is an antisemite!” And the MSM bosses pay attention.

If you’ve ever wondered what motivates all those blue-checkmarked corporate media journalists to spend so much time on Twitter defending the powerful and attacking the disempowered, this is your answer. They spend their own free time smearing Jill Stein, calling Jeremy Corbyn an antisemite, attacking Julian Assange, supporting longtime neoconservative war agendas against Russia, Syria and Iran and uncritically reporting intelligence agency assertions as fact not because there’s a CIA officer hovering over their shoulder at all times telling them exactly what to tweet, but because they’re auditioning for a job. They’re creating a public record of their establishment loyalism which current and future employers will look at when weighing hiring and promotion decisions, which is why both journalism schools and journalism employers now encourage journalists to cultivate a social media presence to “build their brand”, i.e. their public resume.
So it’s very easy to fill mass media jobs with minds which are not predisposed toward rocking the boat. A pro-establishment consensus is artificially built, and now you’ve got an environment where someone who stands up and says “Uh, hey, so we still haven’t seen any actual hard evidence that Russia interfered in the US election in any meaningful way” or whatever is instantly greeted by a wall of shunning and shaming (observe Aaron Maté‘s interactions with other journalists on social media for a good example of this), which can be psychologically difficult to deal with.
Every blue-checkmark MSM journo on Twitter is auditioning for a job. All they’re actually tweeting is “Look at me, current or future employer! I will smear Julian Assange! I will help sell the Russia narrative! I’ll say Corbyn is an antisemite!” And the MSM bosses pay attention.


Anyone who’s ever gone to high school can understand how powerful the social pressures to seek peer approval and fit in can be, and anyone who’s ever worked a normal job anywhere can understand the natural incentives that are in place to behave in a way that is pleasing to one’s bosses. In any job with any kind of hierarchy, you quickly learn the written rules, and you pay close attention to social cues to learn the unwritten ones as well. You do this in order to learn how to avoid getting in trouble and how to win the approval of your superiors, to learn which sorts of behaviors can lead to raises and promotions, and which behaviors will lead to a career dead-end. You learn what will earn you a pat on the back from a leader, which can be extremely egoically gratifying and incentivizing in and of itself.

It works exactly the same way in news media. Reporters might not always be consciously aware of all the pro-establishment guidelines they’re expected to follow in order to advance their careers, but they know how the reporters who’ve ascended to the top of the media ladder conduct themselves, and they see how the journalists who win the accolades behave. With the help of editors and peers you quickly learn where all the third rails and sacred cows are, and when to shut your mouth about the elephant in the room. And for those rare times that all these filtration devices fail to adequately filter out dissident ideas, you see the example that gets made of those few who slip between the cracks, like CNN contributor Marc Lamont Hill for his defense of Palestinian human rights or Phil Donahue for his opposition to the Iraq invasion.
Last week, CNN contributor Marc Lamont Hill delivered a speech at the United Nations in support of Palestinian self-determination and equal rights. Less than 24 hours later, CNN was done with him. http://bit.ly/2RTa4La

The six words that got Marc Lamont Hill fired from CNN

Hill’s dismissal highlights how pro-Israel lobbying groups control the US discourse on Palestine and Israel

mg.co.za

So plutocrats own the mass media and platform status quo-friendly voices, which creates an environment full of peer pressure to conform and workplace pressure to advance establishment-friendly narratives. Add to this the phenomenon of access journalism, wherein journalists are incentivized to cozy up to power and pitch softball questions to officials in order to gain access to them, and things get even more slanted. It’s easy to understand how all this can create an environment of consensus which has nothing to do with facts or reality, but rather with what narratives favor the US-centralized empire and the plutocrats who control it. But all those dynamics aren’t the only factors going into making sure a consensus worldview is maintained. Remember that hypothetical CIA officer I mentioned earlier who isn’t actively leaning over every journalist’s shoulder and dictating what they tweet? Well, just because he’s not dictating every word produced by the mass media machine doesn’t mean he’s not involved.

Secretive and unaccountable government agencies have an extensive and well-documented record of involving themselves with news media outlets. It is a known and undisputed fact that the Central Intelligence Agency has been intimately involved in America’s news media since the 1950s, and it remains so to this day. In 2014 it was a scandal when reporter Ken Dilanian was caught collaborating with the CIA in his publications, but now veterans of the US intelligence community like John Brennan and James Clapper openly fill out the line-up of talking heads on MSNBC and CNN. Just recently the Guardian published a lie-filled smear piece on Julian Assange which was almost certainly the resultof the outlet’s collaboration with one or more intelligence and/or defense agencies, and when that article caused an outcry it was defended as the likely result of Russian disinformation in an evidence-free article by a CIA veteran who was permitted to publish anonymously in Politico. The Washington Post is solely owned by Jeff Bezos, who is a CIA contractor, and who we may be certain did not purchase the Post under the illusion that newspapers were about to make a lucrative comeback. Secretive government agencies are deeply involved in the workings of western news media, in many ways we know about, and in far more ways we don’t know about.
Taking all of these factors into consideration and revisiting Explanation 1 and Explanation 2 from the beginning of this article, it should be obvious to you that the most logical explanation for the uniform consensus of support for pro-establishment narratives in the mass media exists because there is indeed a system in place which keeps all mass media reporters lying to us and painting a false picture about what’s going on in the world.
This doesn’t mean that these news media outlets lie about everything all the time, it means they mostly provide half-truths, distortions and lies by omission whenever it benefits the agendas of the powerful, which is functionally the same as lying all the time. I sometimes get people telling me “Caitlin! The MSM lies all the time, and they say global warming is real! That means it’s false!” But it doesn’t work that way; if the TV tells you a celebrity has died then it’s probably true, and if they say it’s about to rain you should probably roll up your car windows. If they lied about everything all the time they would instantly lose all credibility, and their ability to propagandize effectively would be lost. Instead, they advance evidence-free narratives asserted by opaque government agencies, they avoid highlighting inconvenient truths, they ignore third parties and dissident ideas except to dismiss them, they harshly criticize the misdeeds of governments which oppose the US-centralized empire while sweeping the misdeeds of imperial members under the rug, and when there’s an opportunity to sabotage peace or support war, they seize it. They distort only when they have to, and only as much as they need to.
In this way the powerful have succeeded in controlling the people’s narratives about what’s happening in their country and their world. This is the system of narrative manipulation we are up against when we try to sow dissident ideas into public consciousness, and as the old adage goes, it is easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.
And yet we are gaining ground. The manipulators have been losing control of the narrative, which is why the mass media have been acting so weird and desperate since 2016. The unelected power establishment failed to manufacture support for its would-be Syria invasion, it failed to get the publicto buy into the Russia hysteria, trust in the mass media is at an all-time low, and it’s continuing to plummet. More and more people are waking up to the fact that they are being lied to, which is good, because the only thing keeping them from pushing for real change is the fact that there are all these screens in everyone’s lives telling them that real change isn’t needed.
The liars are against the ropes, and they’re starting to look winded. A populist information revolutionis looking more winnable than ever.

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 my website, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My articles are 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 hat on Patreon or Paypal, buying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone, or my previous book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers.
Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2
Zie ook:
VS Navy SEALs werden gewaarschuwd geen oorlogsmisdaden te melden

Jan Kuitenbrouwer (‘journalist’): Assange is een charlatan en WikiLeaks heeft beelden van de moord op 2 journalisten gemanipuleerd

Julian Assanges vervolging is de genadeklap voor klokkenluiders en (echte) journalisten

Chelsea Manning blijft voor onbepaalde tijd in de gevangenis

VN heeft eerder de ‘detentie’ van Assange al als onwettig verklaard

Julian Assange gearresteerd, een flagrante schending van de persvrijheid!

Arrestatie Julian Assange: een aanfluiting voor internationale regels en een enorme aanval op onafhankelijke journalistiek

Russiagate en Assange: The Guardian wordt nu zelfs door collega’s voor zot uitgemaakt

The Guardian: ondanks een enorme misser (fake news) gaat men door met de valse beschuldigingen t.a.v. Assange……

WikiLeaks belooft The Guardian 1 miljoen dollar als het haar leugens i.z. Assange en Russiagate kan bewijzen…….

Julian Assange gedemoniseerd door media die hem zouden moeten steunen, waren ze bevolkt geweest door echte journalisten……..

WikiLeaks toont aan dat VS en GB een gezamenlijke gewelddadige en bedrieglijke buitenlandpolitiek voeren

De prijs op het hoofd van Julian Assange: 1 miljard dollar…..

Assange kan niet voor spionage worden vervolgd, immers hij is journalist >> aldus Daniel Ellsberg (Pentagon Papers) in een video

Westerse bevolkingen worden bespeeld door regeringen, massamedia, grote bedrijven, financiële instellingen en geheime diensten……

Media tonen ware gezicht door weigering Julian Assange te verdedigen

Assange is journalist en zou alleen daarom al niet mogen worden vervolgd, een artikel o.a. voor de huidige ‘journalisten’ van de reguliere media en de gebruikers van die media

WhiteHouse: US, Ecuador Coordinating About Future Of Assange Asylum

Stop de isolatie van Julian Assange!’

JulianAssange (Wikileaks) haalt hypocriete Britse regering onderuit voorwijzen op belang van vrije en onafhankelijke media

Volkskrant en Nieuwsuur Fake News over ‘Russische hacks…..’

VS waarschuwde regering van Zweden voor Wikileaks in aanloop verkiezingen, Assange ‘moest en zou hangen’, ofwel de zoveelste VS manipulatie van verkiezingen elders……

Facebook Removes Page of Ecuador’s Former President on Same Day as Assange’s Arrest

While US Media Play Along, Critics Warn Assange Indictment an ‘Obvious’ Ploy With Deeper Dangers

Stop de isolatie van Julian Assange!

Afgelopen maandag hebben Naom Chomsky, Chris Hedges, John Pilger e.a. Ecuador opgeroepen om de isolatie van Julian Assange op te heffen. Middels zogenaamde jammers heeft Ecuador het Assange onmogelijk gemaakt nog te communiceren met de buitenwereld……

Uiteraard is dit onder druk van de VS gebeurd, die Assange het liefst fiks wil straffen. Met deze isolatie is het verblijf van Assange in de Engelse Ecuadoraanse ambassade veranderd in een volledige gevangenschap……
Lullig dat de ondertekenaars van dit pleidooi niet ook Groot-Brittannië hebben opgeroepen de waanzinnige bewaking van de ambassade in Londen en de dreiging van Assanges arrestatie in te trekken (arrestatie als Assange één been buiten de ambassade zet). Assange is een klokkenluider die met het door hem opgerichte Wikileaks juist de wereldbevolking dient….

Zoals gesteld in het volgende artikel: zelfs de VN vindt de dreiging van arrestatie voor Assange onaanvaardbaar. Assange is in feite een klokkenluider die het opneemt voor de gewone mens tegen de willekeur van overheden en dan m.n. die van de grootste terreurentiteit op aarde, de VS……
Assange wordt het spreken onmogelijk gemaakt, niet in China of Saoedi-Arabië, maar midden in het westen dat boogt op de vrijheid van meningsuiting en waar men keer op keer beweerd klokkenluiders te willen beschermen, terwijl de praktijk het tegenovergestelde laat zien, een praktijk waarvan Assange wel het meest sprekende voorbeeld is……..
Vreemd ook dat men hier niet een internationale petitie van heeft gemaakt, een paar miljoen handtekeningen maken ‘net iets meer indruk…’
Maar geen gezeur, deze oproep is alvast een geweldig begin:
APRIL 2, 2018

The Isolation of Julian Assange Must Stop

Photo by thierry ehrmann | CC BY 2.0
We call on the government of Ecuador to allow Julian Assange his right of freedom of speech.

If it was ever clear that the case of Julian Assange was never just a legal case, but a struggle for the protection of basic human rights, it is now.
Citing his critical tweets about the recent detention of Catalan president Carles Puidgemont in Germany, and following pressure from the US, Spanish and UK governments, the Ecuadorian government has installed an electronic jammer to stop Assange communicating with the outside world via the internet and phone. As if ensuring his total isolation, the Ecuadorian government is also refusing to allow him to receive visitors. Despite two UN rulings describing his detention as unlawful and mandating his immediate release, Assange has been effectively imprisoned since he was first placed in isolation in Wandsworth prison in London in December 2010. He has never been charged with a crime.
The Swedish case against him collapsed and was withdrawn, while the United States has stepped up efforts to prosecute him. His only “crime” is that of a true journalist — telling the world the truths that people have a right to know.
Under its previous president, the Ecuadorian government bravely stood against the bullying might of the United States and granted Assange political asylum as a political refugee. International law and the morality of human rights was on its side.
Today, under extreme pressure from Washington and its collaborators, another government in Ecuador justifies its gagging of Assange by stating that “Assange’s behaviour, through his messages on social media, put at risk good relations which this country has with the UK, the rest of the EU and other nations.”
This censorious attack on free speech is not happening in Turkey, Saudi Arabia or China; it is right in the heart of London. If the Ecuadorian government does not cease its unworthy action, it, too, will become an agent of persecution rather than the valiant nation that stood up for freedom and for free speech. If the EU and the UK continue to participate in the scandalous silencing of a true dissident in their midst, it will mean that free speech is indeed dying in Europe.
This is not just a matter of showing support and solidarity. We are appealing to all who care about basic human rights to call on the government of Ecuador to continue defending the rights of a courageous free speech activist, journalist and whistleblower.
We ask that his basic human rights be respected as an Ecuadorian citizen and internationally protected person and that he not be silenced or expelled.
If there is no freedom of speech for Julian Assange, there is no freedom of speech for any of us — regardless of the disparate opinions we hold.
We call on President Moreno to end the isolation of Julian Assange now.
List of signatories (in alphabetic order):
Pamela Anderson, actress and activist
Jacob Appelbaum, freelance journalist
Renata Avila, International Human Rights Lawyer
Sally Burch, British/Ecuadorian journalist
Alicia Castro, Argentina’s ambassador to the United Kingdom 2012-16
Naomi Colvin, Courage Foundation
Noam Chomsky, linguist and political theorist
Brian Eno, musician
Joseph Farrell, WikiLeaks Ambassador and board member of The Centre for Investigative Journalism
Teresa Forcades, Benedictine nun, Montserrat Monastery
Charles Glass, American-British author, journalist, broadcaster
Chris Hedges, journalist
Srećko Horvat, philosopher, Democracy in Europe Movement (DiEM25)
Jean Michel Jarre, musician
John Kiriakou, former CIA counterterrorism officer and former senior investigator, U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations
Lauri Love, computer scientist and activist
Ray McGovern, former CIA analyst, Presidential advisor
John Pilger, journalist and film-maker
Angela Richter, theater director, Germany
Saskia Sassen, sociologist, Columbia University
Jeffrey St. Clair, journalist
Oliver Stone, film-maker
Vaughan Smith, English journalist
Yanis Varoufakis, economist, former Greek finance minister
Natalia Viana, investigative journalist and co-director of Agencia publica, Brazil
Ai Weiwei, artist
Vivienne Westwood, fashion designer and activist
Slavoj Žižek, philosopher, Birkbeck Institute for Humanities

================================
* ET AL: en anderen (of: e.a.).

Bron: CounterPunch.

Zie ook:
Julian Assange moet onmiddellijk vrijgelaten worden!

Assange in de gevangenis: Zweden laat voor de derde keer de aanklacht wegens verkrachting vallen


Julian Assange: Speciaal VN rapporteur martelen heeft grote twijfels bij onafhankelijkheid rechter

VN rapport: Assange is gedemoniseerd en psychisch gemarteld

1984 het boek van George Orwell: niet langer fictie…….

Het westen vervolgt journalist Assange, Rusland laat journalist vrij na onrust over diens gevangenschap(en nog hadden de reguliere media een grote bek over Rusland, media die niet anders hebben gedaan dan collega Assange besmeuren…..)

Julian Assange gedemoniseerd door media die hem zouden moeten steunen, waren ze bevolkt geweest door echte journalisten……..

WikiLeaks toont aan dat VS en GB een gezamenlijke gewelddadige en bedrieglijke buitenlandpolitiek voeren


WhiteHouse: US, Ecuador Coordinating About Future Of Assange Asylum

De prijs op het hoofd van Julian Assange: 1 miljard dollar…..

Assange kan niet voor spionage worden vervolgd, immers hij is journalist >> aldus Daniel Ellsberg (Pentagon Papers) in een video

Assange is journalist en zou alleen daarom al niet mogen worden vervolgd, een artikel o.a. voor de huidige ‘journalisten’ van de reguliere media en de gebruikers van die media

WhiteHouse: US, Ecuador Coordinating About Future Of Assange Asylum

JulianAssange (Wikileaks) haalt hypocriete Britse regering onderuit voorwijzen op belang van vrije en onafhankelijke media