Team Biden voor meer censuur op het internet

In
de aanloop naar de VS presidentsverkiezingen heeft Joe Biden,
hoogstwaarschijnlijk de nieuwe president van de VS, gepleit voor
censuur van het internet, in de eerste plaats om de twitterberichten
van Trump aangaande stemmen per post te blokkeren……

Bill
Russo, een vooraanstaande medewerker van Joe Biden, heeft vorige week
maandag laten weten dat Facebook aangepakt moet
worden, daar dit platform berichten laat staan die hij misleidend
vindt. Hij postte een twitterbericht met de volgende tekst:
(Facebook, Ap) “is shredding the fabric of our democracy”, ofwel
Facebook vernietigt onze democratie……. Het is duidelijk dat
wanneer figuren als Russo ooit als president aan de macht zouden komen*, het dan afgelopen zal zijn met die democratie, door juist
één van de fundamenten van democratie te vernielen: de vrijheid van
meningsuiting voor iedereen……..

Russo
twitterde verder en stelde dat als je was geschrokken van het
vernietigen van de democratie voor de verkiezingen, je nog veel meer
vernietiging van de democratie staat te wachten na de verkiezingen

Eén
en ander nadat tijdens de verkiezingscampagne bijvoorbeeld
berichtgeving over Hunter Biden, de zoon van de nieuwe president,
werd gecensureerd, berichtgeving over misdadig handelen van die
zoon…… Niemand in het team van Biden vond deze censuur een
bedreiging van de democratie, terwijl dit uiteraard wel zo is…..
Men stelt doodleuk dat het hier gaat om bedrijven en niet om personen
en er daarom geen sprake is van censuur…… ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! Ja
ik lach wel, maar het is natuurlijk in- en intriest dat het team
van de komende president zo over democratie en censuur denkt…….

Russo
stelde dat hij dit probleem al een jaar lang heeft aangekaart bij
Facebook, maar hij geen antwoord krijgt en dat de democratie groot
gevaar loopt…… Wellicht is Russo vergeten dat Facebook begin dit
jaar nog heeft aangegeven dat het misleidende informatie van
presidentskandidaten, dus ook van Joe Biden, niet zal verwijderen van
haar platform…..

Nogmaals:
het zijn de Democraten die een gevaar zijn voor de democratie,
juist door censuur te eisen, een zaak die alleen thuishoort in
dictaturen……

Jonathan
Turley, de schrijver van het hieronder opgenomen artikel stelt dat
hij zichzelf ziet als een Internet ‘originalist’ en internet
‘originalisme’ kan alleen bestaan zonder censuur. De sociale media bedrijven moeten zich
houden aan hun originele taak, het doorgeven van berichten, i.p.v.
zich te begeven op het gladde ijs van politieke vooringenomenheid en
opportunisme, aldus Turley, die vervolgde met te zeggen dat deze bedrijven immers eenzelfde taak hebben als telefoonbedrijven!!
Volgens Turley hebben we geen bedrijven nodig die ons beschermen
tegen schadende of misleidende gedachten. De oplossing voor slechte
informatie is meer informatie en geen door anderen toegestane informatie, aldus
Turley en daarin heeft hij groot gelijk!!

Het
hieronder opgenomen artikel werd eerder gepubliceerd op de site van
Jonathan Turley, ik nam het over van Information Clearing
House
(onder het bericht kan je klikken voor een ‘Dutch vertaling’ dit neemt wel enkele tientallen seconden tijd in beslag):

Shredding
The Fabric Of Our Democracy”: Biden Aide Signals Push For Greater
Censorship On The Internet

By
Jonathan Turley

November
12, 2020 “
Information
Clearing House

– We have been discussing
the calls for top Democrats for increased private censorship
on
social media and the Internet.  President-elect Joe Biden has
himself called for such censorship, including blocking President
Donald Trump’s criticism of mail-in voting. Now, shortly after the
election, one of Biden’s top aides is ramping up calls for a
crackdown on Facebook for allowing Facebook users to read views that
he considers misleading — users who signed up to hear from these
individuals.  Bill Russo, a deputy communications director on
Biden’s campaign press team, tweeted
late Monday that Facebook “is shredding the fabric of our
democracy” by allowing such views to be shared freely.

                                              

Russo tweeted that “If
you thought disinformation on Facebook was a problem during our
election, just wait until you see how it is shredding the fabric of
our democracy in the days after.” Russo objected to the fact that,
unlike Twitter, Facebook did not move against statements that he and
the campaign viewed as “misleading.” He concluded.
“We pleaded with Facebook for over a year to be serious about these
problems. They have not. Our democracy is on the line. We need
answers.”

Steve
Bannon literally called for the beheading of FBI Director Wray and
Dr. Fauci in a video on November 3. It was live on Facebook for 10
hours before it was removed after a journalist inquired about the
video.

Bannon? His page is still live on Facebook.

Bill
Russo (@BillR) November
10, 2020

For those of us in the
free speech community, these threats are chilling. We saw incredible
abuses before the election in Twitter barring access to a true
story in the New York Post
about Hunter Biden and his alleged
global influence peddling scheme. Notably, no one in the Biden camp
(including Biden himself) thought that it was a threat to our
democracy to have Twitter block the story (while later admitting that
it was a mistake).

I have previously
objected to such regulation of speech. What is most disturbing is how
liberals have embraced censorship and even declared that “China
was right”
 on Internet controls. Many Democrats have
fallen back on the false narrative that the First Amendment does not
regulate private companies so this is not an attack on free speech.
Free speech is a human right that is not solely based or exclusively
defined by the First Amendment.  Censorship by Internet
companies is a “Little Brother” threat long discussed by free
speech advocates.  Some may willingly embrace corporate speech
controls but it is still a denial of free speech.

This is why I recently
described
 myself as an Internet Originalist:

The
alternative is “internet originalism” — no censorship. If
social media companies returned to their original roles, there would
be no slippery slope of political bias or opportunism; they would
assume the same status as telephone companies. We do not need
companies to protect us from harmful or “misleading” thoughts.
The solution to bad speech is more speech, not approved speech.

If Pelosi
demanded that Verizon or Sprint interrupt calls to stop people saying
false or misleading things, the public would be outraged. Twitter
serves the same communicative function between consenting parties; it
simply allows thousands of people to participate in such digital
exchanges. Those people do not sign up to exchange thoughts only to
have Dorsey or some other internet overlord monitor their
conversations and “protect” them from errant or harmful thoughts.

Russo’s comments
mirror the comments of other Democrats who are seeking greater
censorship. Indeed, in the recent Senate hearing on Twitter’s
suppression of the Biden story, Democratic senators ignored the
admissions of Big Tech CEOs that they were wrong to bar the story
and, instead, insisted that the CEOs pledge to substantially increase
such censorship. Senator Jacky Rosen warned the CEOS that “you are
not doing enough” to prevent “disinformation, conspiracy theories
and hate speech on your platforms.”

Again, as someone
raised in a deeply liberal and Democratic family in Chicago, I do not
know when the Democratic party became the party for censorship.
However, limiting free speech is now a rallying cry for Democratic
members and activists alike. At risk is the single greatest invention
for free speech since the printing press.  Russo’s comments
reaffirms that the Biden Administration will continue this assault
against Internet free speech.  What is most unnerving is that
Russo is denouncing such free speech as “shredding the fabric of
our democracy.” There was a time when free speech was the very
right that we fought to protect in our democratic system.  It
was one of the defining principles of our Constitution system. It is
now being treated as a threat to that system.

Jonathan
Turley is an American attorney, legal scholar, writer, commentator,
and legal analyst in broadcast and print journalism. He is a
professor at the George Washington University Law School, and has
testified in United States Congressional proceedings about
constitutional and statutory issues. –
Source

Click
for

Spanish,
German,
Dutch,
Danish,
French,
translation- Note-
Translation
may take a moment to load

Hier
een paar reacties:

Mike
Palecek9h
ago

False
Flags & Conspiracies online conference Dec. 5-6 [Fetzer,
Barrett, Tracy, Dammegard, Kollerstrom, others]
https://falseflagconspiracies2020.com

Reply

Godfree
Roberts 2
days ago

“liberals
have embraced censorship and even declared that “China was right”
on Internet controls”. China WAS right on Internet controls,
but right in a way that we cannot be. In other words, what’s right
for China is not necessarily right for us. First, they trust their
government. Always have. Second, their censorship is publicly
affirmed, practiced and constitutionally blessed. Third, their Chief
Censor has been their leading public intellectual for 2,000 years,
as he is today (magine Noam Chomsky as our censor). Everyone knows
him and can challenge his rulings–and his explanations are usually
interesting and educational. Fourth, their censorship works for
them. Youngsters find it constrictive, their parents find it ‘about
right,’ and their grandparents think its far too permissive. NONE of
them find it oppressive. Fifth, they have the most trusted media on
earth. https://i.imgur.com/Xrws2Aq.jpg


========================================

* Hoewel Russo met Biden waarschijnlijk al veel macht zal krijgen, daar velen Biden zien als een figuur die dementerend is en wordt bespeeld door anderen, dus wellicht al heel snel overheidscensuur van de VS op het internet….. De censuur die nu wordt toegepast gebeurt zoals je hierboven kan lezen door de platforms waarop mensen hun boodchappen kwijt kunnen (Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, enz.) en door de grote internetsites als Google en Apple……… 

Zie ook: ‘Coronavirus: hoe paniek wordt gebruikt om dwingende regels door te voeren en burgerrechten buitenspel te zetten

Duitse Verfassungsschutz vor Verschwörungstheorien waarschuwt geheel hypocriet voor Corona samenzweringstheorieën‘ (en zie de links in dat bericht naar meer artikelen over burgerrechten vs. COVID-19 maatregelen)

Amnesty International wil verbod op ‘haatspraak’ tegen (en bedreiging van) vrouwen‘ (ja ja, Amnesty voor censuur……)

Facebook zal hoogstwaarschijnlijk haar definitie van antisemitisme aanpassen (plus die belachelijke definitie)‘ 

Facebook: Emi Palmor, ex-top Israëlische ministerie van Justitie krijgt topfunctie bij Facebooks censuurplatform‘  

Zwangere vrouw in Australië gearresteerd voor het op Facebook posten van protest tegen de COVID-19 maatregelen
(zie ook de links in dat bericht naar artikelen over het Coronavirus en
het misbruik van deze ziekte om burgerrechten in te perken)

YouTube verwijdert in aanloop naar presidentsverkiezingen video’s met info verkregen middels hacken, censuur door VS techreuzen‘ 

Facebook dat zo hoog van de toren blaast over fake news, staat keiharde leugens van Trump toe‘ 

Robert Epstein: Google en Facebook corrumperen de politiek en manipuleren de presidentsverkiezingen‘ (en zie de links in dat bericht over Facebook, censuur en de manipulatie van de verkiezingen in de VS) 

Robert F. Kennedy sprak op anti-Coronamaatregelen demo in Berlijn, gecensureerd door veel van de reguliere westerse mediaorganen

Red het internet van censuur‘  

Fawlty Towers afleveringen van het net gehaald >> omgekeerde discriminatie en belachelijke censuur‘  

Mark Zuckerberg weert nepnieuwsberichten over het Coronavirus van Facebook, terwijl hij politici die echt kwaad aanrichten, de ene na de andere leugen laat vertellen‘ 

YouTube staat leugens toe van klimaat-sceptici‘  

Privacy en vrijheid van meningsuiting slachtoffer van het Coronavirus: neem de verplichte volg-app‘ 

Coronavirus: we worden behandeld als een kind met een tere ziel dat niet te veel mag weten

Warren
(democratisch presidentskandidaat) toont met hulp van Facebook aan dat
dit bedrijf niet hoort te gaan over wat wel en niet is toegestaan

Massamedia VS vallen keihard door de mand met ‘vers’ geschoten Russiagate bok >> publiek wordt om vertrouwen gevraagd

Jacht in VS op alternatief (echt) nieuws in volgend stadium: journalist wordt vastgehouden zonder aanklacht

NewsGuard, het nieuwste wapen van Big Brother VS tegen de alternatieve media

Netflix censureert aflevering van humoristisch programma, ‘na een geldig verzoek’ op grond van Saoedische wetgeving…. 

New York Times te kakken gezet met haar berichtgeving over Russische manipulatie voor midterm verkiezingen

Bedrijf dat voor ‘Russische bots’ waarschuwde, heeft een leger met nep-Russische bots


VS begint ‘troll farm’, alsof Hollywood en de massamedia al niet genoeg VS propaganda maken……….

Waarom de burgers van de VS de illegale oorlogen steunen

Facebook:
uit gelekte documenten worden de steeds veranderende regels voor
censuur op dit platform openbaar gemaakt: Facebook als geheime tak van
de VS overheid

Facebooks departement voor censuur: een hoognodige uitleg over een maatregel die alleen in een dictatuur thuishoort

Two More Spiegel Employees Out After Fake News Scandal Expands‘ Ofwel: het zoveelste ‘gevalletje fake news’, gebracht door de reguliere massamedia……..

Facebook censureert foto’s van verhongerende Jemenitische kinderen als ‘sexual content’

Google manipuleerde VS presidentsverkiezingen van 2016 en censureert niet alleen linkse/alternatieve sociale media

Facebook gebruikte ‘fake news’ beschuldiging om de aandacht voor schandalen af te leiden

Google Maps veegt Palestijns gebied van de kaart

Twitter
weert waarheid: Paul Craig Roberts in de ban, Roberts >> de grote
criticus van de illegale oorlogen die de VS voert

Facebooks zuivering van de alternatieve (nieuws) media staat nog in de kinderschoenen

Politico rapport bevestigt: Russiagate is een hoax‘ (Russiagate, de enorme leugen op basis waaraan we de huidige censuurgolf te danken hebben……)

The US military’s vision for state censorship

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

Facebook censureert de waarheid over Columbus en de verovering van de Amerika’s…….

Facebook censuur gestuurd door het westers militair-industrieel complex en de NAVO in het bijzonder……….

Why the Coordinated Alternative Media Purge Should Terrify Everyone‘ (Tyler Durden op Zero Hedge)

First They Came for Alex Jones — We Told You We Were Next — We Were‘ (Matt Agorist op The Free Thought Project)

CNN, de grote brenger van ‘fake news!!!’

Facebook en Twitter verwijderen nu volledige accounts………

Facebook (en Twitter) onderdrukt meningsvorming door het verwijderen van (echt) onafhankelijke media

Wie het nieuws controleert, controleert de wereld……

Facebook en Twitter verwijderen de eerlijke journalistiek en oprechte opinie >> censuur…..

Facebook verlaat ‘tranding news’ voor ‘brekend nieuws’ van 80 reguliere mediaorganen, ofwel nog meer ‘fake news…..’

Facebook komt met nieuwsshows van betrouwbare media als CNN en Fox News…. ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!

Censuur op het internet met vliegende start in de VS, ‘het land van het vrije woord….’

Facebook en NAVO werken samen in censuur op niet welgevallig nieuws……

Facebook helpt Saoedi-Arabië: doodstraf door onthoofding van vrouw die het waagde kritiek te uiten…..

Aanval op alternatieve media ‘succesvol’: meer en meer sites worden van het net geweerd………

ThinkProgress eiste censuur van Facebook en werd inderdaad gecensureerd…. ha! ha! ha! ha!

VS staatscensuur op Facebook (ook in de EU)

Facebook stelt perstituee van New York Times aan als censuur-agent…… ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!

Het echte Facebook schandaal: manipulatie van de gebruikers en gratis diensten voor eertijds presidentskandidaat Obama…….

Mark
Zuckerberg, Facebook doneerde aan de politici die hem in de VS aan de
tand voelden >> in het EU parlement maakte hij gebruik van
megalomane EU politici…..

Facebook wil samen met door Saoedi-Arabië gesubsidieerde denktank censureren…. ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!

Media Too Busy Defending John McCain to Report the News That Actually Affects You‘ Onder andere aandacht voor PRISM.

Westerse massa misleiding in aanloop naar WOIII……

VS gebruikt sociale media om ‘fake comment’ te verspreiden en de bevolking te hersenspoelen met leugens, ofwel ‘fake news….’

Eis een nee tegen censuur op het internet!‘ 

Facebook e.a. hebben lak aan AVG (GDPR), misbruik persoonsgegevens gaat gewoon door…….

Jeremy Corbyn wordt gedemoniseerd als antisemiet…….

Facebook: verrijking van oliemaatschappijen en andere grote bedrijven, plus wereldwijde corruptie…….

Rusland krijgt alweer de schuld van hacken, nu van oplichters Symantec en Facebook……. ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!

Facebook Purges Independent Media for “Political Disinformation”

Facebook Blocks Links to Free Speech Competitor ‘Minds’

Voor meer berichten over Biden, Trump, of de verkiezingen, klik op het betreffende label, direct onder dit bericht.

Beste bezoeker, ik ondervind trote problemen met de Blogger interface, zal proberen vandaag nog meer berichten te posten, maar mocht dit niet lukken, alvast mijn excuus. (ben verder bezig iemand te zoeken die mij kan helpen met de problemen die ik ondervind)

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 verdedige
n!! 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

Prosecution
of Julian Assange part of Donald Trump’s ‘war on journalism’, court
hears

Assange
hearing adjourned as prosecution lawyer is tested for COVID-19

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)

Epsteins pedoseksuele netwerk was al lang bekend, onder andere ABC hield de berichtgeving tegen

Weer een nieuw hoofdstuk in het drama Epstein, de eerder al veroordeelde kindermisbruiker en beheerder van een pedonetwerk, die op 10 auguistus dood in zijn cel werd aagetroffen. Volgens de autoriteiten suïcide, echter het is meer dan duidelijk dat Epstein is ‘gesuïcideerd’ (lees: vermoord), zodat machtige vip’s buitenschot konden blijven, figuren als Bill Clinton, Donald Trump en prins Andrew (het Britse koningshuis)…… Ongeveer een maand geleden lekte uit dat de reguliere media al langer op de hoogte waren van dit kindermisbruik schandaal…… 

Fairness bracht een artikel over ABC ‘nieuwsanker’ Amy Robach, die al 3 jaar geleden een onderzoek had gedaan naar Epstein en zijn machtige pedovrienden, waar de massamedia in de VS al lang wisten van zijn pedonetwerk….. (vergeet niet dat Epstein daar eerder al voor werd veroordeeld!) Robach had o.a. een interview gedaan met Virginia Roberts, één van de vrouwen die Epstein aanklaagde voor meervoudige verkrachting door hemzelf en vrienden van Epstein…… Robach werd ter verantwoording geroepen en daar gaf men haar te verstaan, dat niemand Epstein kent en dat het een dom verhaal was, kortom niet publiceer waardig. ‘Vreemd genoeg’ bemoeide ook het paleis, ofwel het Britse koningshuis zich met de zaak en was men bij ABC als de dood dat hen een interview met kroonprins William (dus de beoogd Brits troonopvolger) en Kate Middleton zou worden ontzegd…. (‘lekker belangrijk ook, een interview met deze groot-uitkeringstrekkers….’)

Robach is zoals verwacht flink pissig over de gang van zaken, volgens haar hebben zij en haar collega’s Virginia Roberts overgehaald de openbaarheid in te gaan, nadat ze 12 jaar lang ‘ondergedoken’ had gezeten. Volgens Robach had Roberts foto’s en andere bewijzen voor haar aantijgingen aan het adres van Epstein en prins Andrew…. Robach verzuchtte dat ze alles had, zelfs dat Bill Clinton gebruik had gemaakt van het pedoseksnetwerk……

In het boek van Edward Herman en Noam Chomsky, ‘Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media’, stellen zij dat er vijf voorwaarden zijn voor hetr publiceren van artikelen, waarvan er twee in het onderstaande artikel worden genoemd: sourcing en flak. Met sourcing wordt bedoeld de afhankelijkheid van de reguliere (massa) media van bronnen waarover ze als een soort subsidie berichten mogen publiceren, dus over machtige figuren als politici, beroemdheden en (grote) bedrijven, maar wel met een ‘nette berichtgeving…..’ Hetzelfde wat we hier zien met de ‘fotoshoot’ van het koningshuis, een beloning voor het niet ‘journalistiek’ lastigvallen van het meer dan belachelijke koningshuis (dat thuishoort in de middeleeuwen)……  

Met ‘flak’ bedoelen Herman en Chomsky, negatieve reacties op media berichten die bijvooebeeld slecht uitpakken voor beroemdheden en politici. Iets dat kan uitmonden in het boycotten van media, of agressieve telefoontjes, aanklachten bij justitie, smaadcampagnes tegen journalisten of het medium waar ze voor werken, tot zelfs aanvallen van boze bewonderaars van een beroemdheid die de oren (meestal terecht) in het openbaar zijn gewassen….. 

Door deze zaken zullen veel mediaorganen liever geen ruzie krijgen met machtige figuren, daar dit hen geld kan kosten en precies daar draait hem om in medialand, maakt niet uit wat je schrijft als het maar gelezen wordt, zoals het overnemen van alle leugens die de CIA, NSA en andere geheime diensten in de VS en daarbuiten brengen, als de VS weer eens een land illegaal wil binnenvallen…… Je zou zelfs kunnen stellen dat men uit angst deze leugens overneemt, echter dat is pure nonsens, immers de eigenaren van de reguliere (massa-) media, plutoicraten en onvesteringsmaatschappijen hebben belang bij de huidige status quo: zoveel mogelijk oorlogvoeren: goed voor het militair-industrieel complex, waarin  aandelen heeft…. Verder totaal vrijbaan voor grote bedrijven waarin men natuurlijk ook aandelen heeft…. (zoals ons koningshuis grootaandeelhouder is van klimaatverkrachter Shell) Bovendien wenst men alleen de in het westen aangehangen neolibarale politiek te steunen, immers altijd goed voor de portemonnee……

Het voorgaande zet nog eens extra vraagtekens bij de leugens van die media en de westerse poltiek over ‘fake news’ (nepnieuws) en andere desinformatie, waarmee men NB de nog overgebleven echte media op het sociale netwerk de mond wil snoeren….. Terwijl diezelfde media, dus de reguliere westerse media, aantoonbaar vele meters aan nepnieuws en andere desinformatie hebben geproduceerd, waarmee het volk wordt bedrogen, bijvoorbeeld om de illegale oorlogen van de VS mee te ‘legitimeren…..’

Het volgende artikel dat zoals gezegd werd gepubliceerd op Fairness, heb ik overgenomen van Antii-Media:

ABC’s
Epstein Story Didn’t Kill Itself

Afbeeldingsresultaat voor ABC’s Epstein Story Didn’t Kill Itself

December
13, 2019 at 8:32 pm

Written
by 
Fairness
& Accuracy in Reporting

(FAIR) — Multimillionaire
predator Jeffrey Epstein died in suspicious circumstances at a
Manhattan correctional facility on August 10. The wealthy and
powerful New York financier, a convicted sex offender, stands accused
by dozens of women and girls of trafficking, rape and sexual abuse.

He
was an enormously influential and well-connected man who counted as
friends 
billionaire
business owners
Hollywood
stars
British
royals
,
and even top media figures like 
Katie
Couric
 and Charlie
Rose
—with
some of his associates falling under suspicion of condoning or even
participating in a pedophile ring.

I’ve
known Jeff for 15 years. Terrific guy,” said fellow tycoon Donald
Trump (
New
York
10/28/02),
adding: “It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I
do, and many of them are on the younger side.” Former President
Bill Clinton was 
also
close
 with
Epstein.

New
York (
10/28/02)
hyped Jeffrey Epstein as a “relentless brain” with a “keen eye
for the ladies.”

Epstein’s
crimes shocked the public, and his arrest, trial and mysterious death
were major stories for much of 2019. But last month, leaked footage
emerged showing that corporate media knew much about these crimes
years previously. Discussing one of his accusers, 
ABC
News
 anchor
Amy Robach was 
caught
on camera
 lambasting
executives at her network for killing her investigations into the sex
offender because of Epstein’s connections. The clip was originally
leaked to infamous right-wing troll James O’Keefe, who has a long
history of producing bogus stories
(
FAIR.org4/1/103/14/1112/12/1510/21/16),
but 
ABC employees,
including 
Robach
herself
,
have confirmed its authenticity.

Afbeeldingsresultaat voor ABC’s Epstein Story Didn’t Kill Itself

Amy
Robach: “I’ve had the [Epstein] story for three years.”

In
the video, Robach complains:

I’ve
had the story for three years. I’ve had this interview with
[Epstein complainant] Virginia Roberts. We would not put it on the
air. First of all I was told, “Who is Jeffrey Epstein? No one knows
who that is. This is a stupid story.” Then the palace found out
that we had her whole allegations about Prince Andrew, and threatened
us in a million different ways. We were so afraid we wouldn’t be
able to interview Kate and Will that it also quashed the story. And
then Alan Dershowitz was also implicated in it because of the
planes.”

The
planes” is a reference to the celebrity attorney’s frequent trips
on Epstein’s 
infamous
private jet
,
which he used for trafficking. A visibly exasperated Robach
continued, revealing the level of detail of her investigation:

She
told me everything, she had pictures, everything. She was in hiding
for 12 years. We convinced her to come out. We convinced her to talk
to us. It was unbelievable what we had; Clinton, we had everything. I
tried for three years to get it on to no avail, and now it’s all
coming out and it’s like these new revelations, and I freaking had
all of it!… What we had was unreal.

Robach’s
comments about being pressured into killing the story by powerful
people ABC relied upon are a perfect example of the
perils of access journalism. In their influential book Manufacturing
Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media
, Edward Herman
and Noam Chomsky identified “sourcing” and “flak” as two of
the five key filters that dictate what makes the news and what does
not.

By
sourcing, Herman and Chomsky are referring to corporate media’s
reliance on powerful official sources (like politicians, celebrities
and corporations) to essentially subsidize them by providing them
with free content, such as interviews, soundbites, statistics and
pictures. Journalists are therefore caught up in a symbiotic
relationship with the powerful, where elite sources grant “scoops”
in exchange for preferential treatment. The royal family, Robach
claims, successfully used the influence it had, quashing the story by
threatening to cut off access.

It
is also particularly easy for the powerful to generate flak—negative
responses to media content. Flak can take the form of boycotts, angry
phone calls, lawsuits, smear campaigns and more. One particularly
alarming form of “flak” was the 
2018
US mail bombing attempt
,
where a Trump supporter sent a bomb to 
CNN headquarters
in response to its negative coverage of the president.

Robach
brought up Dershowitz, a 
famously
litigious
 lawyer,
as a reason for her silencing. But 
ABC could
reasonably expect great resistance from many of those connected to
Epstein, one more example of how stories scrutinizing the powerful
are discouraged in the modern media landscape.

ABC
News
 would
later claim
 that
they never nixed the story, stating that at the time of Robach’s
comments,

not
all of our reporting met our standards to air, but we have never
stopped investigating the story.  Ever since we’ve had a team
on this investigation and substantial resources dedicated to it. That
work has led to a two-hour documentary and six-part podcast that will
air in the new year.”

After
the video went viral, 
CBS
News
 fired
its producer
 Ashley
Bianco after 
ABC contacted
them, asserting (
possibly
incorrectly
)
that she had leaked the tape during her time working on Robach’s
show. Top executives at 
ABC are
reportedly “
freaking
out

over the anonymous employee’s identity, spending far more energy
and resources trying to find the leaker than in investigating why it
enabled a serial sexual predator to continue offending.

Afbeeldingsresultaat voor ABC’s Epstein Story Didn’t Kill Itself

Former
producer Ashley Bianco (MK, 
11/8/19),
who denies sharing the Robach tape with anyone outside ABC News.

Perhaps
even more worryingly, corporate media rivals have largely not touched
the story. Neither Robach’s revelation nor Bianco’s termination
have been reported on by 
MSNBCCNNCBS or
the 
New
York Times
,
nearly a month after the video first leaked. Thus the story of a
major media outlet covering up the crimes of a monster, with the only
person to face any sanction being the alleged whistleblower, 
whom two outlets combined to punish, appears not to qualify as a
newsworthy event to much of the press.

Indeed,
Epstein’s team managed to convince many supposedly reputable
outlets, including the 
Huffington
Post 
(11/17/17), Forbes (10/2/13)
and the 
National
Review
 (7/10/13)
to publish puff pieces about him (
New
York Times
7/21/19).
(Epstein 
pled
guilty
 to
charges connected to sexual abuse of minors in 2008.) 
Forbes 
described him as “one of the largest backers of cutting-edge
science around the world,” making no mention of his criminal past.
The stated writer was paid $600 by a PR firm to attach his name to
the pre-fab article and run it on the site, perhaps the most
blatantly unethical sponsorship practice there could be.

ABC’s
decision to spike the Epstein exposé in order not to embarrass or
implicate his powerful associates, thereby effectively enabling his
crimes, is a perfect example of the danger of access journalism.
Robach predicted, “There will come a day where we will realize
Jeffrey Epstein was the most prolific pedophile this country has ever
known.” Thanks to our corporate media system, that day was delayed
by at least three years.

By Alan
MacLeod
 /
Republished with permission / 
FAIR.org / Report
a typo

=================================

Zie ook:

Epstein was een agent van de Mossad en werd gebruikt om politici te chanteren

 

Jeffrey Epstein: bewakers die fraudeerden weigerden een ‘plea deal’

Prince Andrew: het voorbeeld dat koningshuizen eindelijk moeten worden opgedoekt

Epstein vermoord volgens patholoog-anatoom

Jeffrey Epstein en Ghislaine Maxwell werkten mede voor de militaire geheime dienst van Israël

Kindermisbruikers beschermd door overheden‘ (met links naar een groot aantal video’s)

Donald Trump – Jeffey Epstein: you’ve got to grab them by the pussy


‘WHAT THE EPSTEIN CASE REVEALS, “PEOPLE ARE OVERLOOKING THE CHILDREN…” (video van Brasscheck TV):

´Russiagate, ‘couppoging tegen Trump’ en kindermisbruik netwerk Epstein zijn gekoppeld´

Prince Andrew ontkent kennis kindermisbruiknetwerk Epstein, maar……..

Jeffrey Epstein waarschijnlijk op ‘loonlijst’ Mossad, de Israëlische geheime dienst

Jeffrey Epstein (exploitant kindermisbruik netwerk) ‘overleden aan suïcide’

Jeffrey Epstein, beheerder van een kindermisbruiknetwerk ‘is gesuïcideerd’ ofwel vermoord

Jeffrey Epstein: seksueel wangedrag van welgestelden veelal onder de pet gehouden

Jeffrey Epsteins kleine zwarte pedo-boek met namen als Bill Clinton, David Koch, Courtney Love, prins Andrew en Tony Blair

Media en politiek bepalen waar wel en niet over gesproken wordt >> over manipulatie en desinformatie gesproken

Caitlin
Johnstone heeft een artikel gepubliceerd waarin ze stelt dat
de Overton Window (Overton-venster of Raam van Overton) onderhevig is
aan sterke inkrimping. Het Overton-venster is het spectrum aan
gedachtegoed dat wordt geaccepteerd door het publiek.
 Ofwel waar spreken we wel en niet over. (degenen die uitmaken waarover gesproken wordt zijn politiek en media). Zoals je begrijpt is e.e.a. een heel smerige vorm van manipulatie, iets waarvan politiek en media nu juist de alternatieve media op het internet beschuldigen….

Johnstone
stelt dus dat het Overton-venster aan krimp onderhevig is en dat
toont ze aan door een groot aantal voorbeelden, waar ze aangeeft dat
men spreekt over zaken, maar niet kijkt wat bijvoorbeeld de oorzaak
is van waar men over spreekt. Neem de islamitische terreuraanslagen
in het westen: het is prima om daar over te spreken zolang je de
schuld maar bij de jihadisten legt en niet begint over de
grootschalige westerse terreur in islamitische landen in het
Midden-Oosten, terreur die terreur in Europa oproept en grote vluchtelingenstromen richting Europa opgang heeft gebracht….. Ofwel men wil wel over één van de gevolgen van een fout
beleid spreken (fout >> immers het westen heeft niets te zoeken in het
Midden-Oosten): terreur op de Europese straten, maar niet wat de
oorzaak daarvan is…..

Johnstone
noemt o.a. het discussiëren over censuur op het internet, zonder dat de de
vraag wordt gesteld of die censuur nodig is….. Veel sites en blogs
zijn platgelegd in de VS, in feite als gevolg van de ‘Russiagate’
leugen, terwijl het hele Russiagate verhaal intussen onderuit is gehaald……
‘Russiagate’ was in feite een smerige truc van Hillary Clinton
en haar campagneteam, om haar eigen misdaden tijdens de Democratische
voorverkiezingen te verbergen……

Of wat
dacht je van het debatteren over de steun die politici in de VS (en een aantal andere buitenlanden) krijgen van
grote bedrijven, zonder de vraag te stellen of het wel gewenst is
dat grote bedrijven in feite steekpenningen betalen voor een voor hen zo gunstig mogelijk beleid na de verkiezingen……. Kortom onvervalste corruptie!

Over
samenzweringstheorieën: men bediscussieert of iets wel of geen
samenzweringstheorie is, zonder over het feit te spreken dat de
figuren met macht nu eenmaal altijd samenspannen, anders gezegd:
samenzweren….

Johnstone
haalt zoals gezegd een groot aantal zaken aan en ik moet zeggen dat werkt
behoorlijk verhelderend, zelfs als je al op de hoogte was van de
effecten die discussies over een bepaalde zaak teweegbrengen, zonder dat men over de
oorzaak heeft gesproken…… Ook wordt nog eens duidelijk gemaakt hoe
machtig de reguliere westerse (massa-) media zijn en hoe het komt dat
men daar ongegeneerd liegt en manipuleert. Dit is uiteraard in het
belang van de plutocratische eigenaren en in het belang van de
overheid, zoals bij bepaalde berichtgeving door ‘onze’ NOS…. Neem de totaal gekleurde berichtgeving door de reguliere media, inclusief ‘fake news’ en andere desinformatie, voorafgaand aan en tijdens de illegale oorlogen van de VS, oorlogen die door het zittende Nederlandse kabinet maar al te graag worden gesteund, ook al worden deze oorlogen op basis van hele bergen leugens gevoerd….. Oorlogsvoering is veelal ook in het belang van de
plutocratische media eigenaren, die enorme aandelenportefeuilles
hebben in de moorddadige oorlogsindustrie en in de olie-industrie, waar deze oorlogsvoering
zoals gezegd ook in het belang is van overheden, zoals die van de
VS……. Neem bijvoorbeeld Turkije waar Erdogan steeds minder
populair werd >> Erdogan valt Syrië illegaal binnen en is weer
populair bij het volk, terwijl hij schaamteloos gebruik maakt van de
media, die hij na een heftige persbreidel onder de duim heeft…..

The
Incredible Shrinking Overton Window

by Caitlin
Johnstone

The
smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit
the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate
within that spectrum — even encourage the more critical and
dissident views. That gives people the sense that there’s free
thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the
system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the
debate.”
~
Noam Chomsky

The
plutocrat-owned narrative managers of the political/media class work
constantly to shrink the 
Overton
window
,
the spectrum of debate that is considered socially acceptable. They
do this by framing more and more debates in terms of 
how the
oligarchic empire should be sustained and supported, steering them
away from debates about 
whether that
empire should be permitted to exist at all.

They
get people debating whether there should be some moderate changes
made or no meaningful changes at all, rather than the massive,
sweeping changes we all know need to be made to the entire system.

They
get people debating whether they should elect a crook in a red hat or
a crook in a blue hat, rather than whether or not they should be
forced to elect crooks.

They
get people debating violations of government secrecy laws, not
whether the government has any business keeping those secrets from
its citizenry in the first place.

They
get people debating how internet censorship should take place and
whom should be censored, rather than whether any internet censorship
should occur.

They
get people debating how and to what extent government surveillance
should occur, not whether the government has any business spying on
its citizens.

They
get people debating how subservient and compliant someone needs to be
in order to not get shot by a police officer, rather than whether a
police officer should be shooting people for those reasons at all.

They
get people debating whether or not a group of protesters are
sufficiently polite, rather than debating the thing those protesters
are demonstrating against.

They
get people debating about whether this thing or that thing is a
“conspiracy theory”, rather than discussing the known fact
that powerful people conspire.

They
get people debating whether Tulsi Gabbard is a dangerous lunatic, a
Russian asset, a Republican asset gearing up for a third party run,
or just a harmless Democratic Party crackpot, rather than discussing
the fact that her foreign policy would have been considered perfectly
normal prior to 9/11.

They
get people debating whether Bernie Sanders is electable or too
radical, rather than discussing what it says about the status quo
that his extremely modest proposals which every other major country
already implements are treated as something outlandish in the United
States.

They
get people debating whether Jeremy Corbyn has done enough to address
the Labour antisemitism crisis, rather than whether that “crisis”
ever existed at all outside of the imaginations of establishment
smear merchants.

They
get people debating whether Joe Biden or Elizabeth Warren would win
against Trump, rather than whether either of those establishment
lackeys is a worthy nominee.

They
get people debating whether politicians should have corporate
sponsors, rather than whether corporations should be allowed to
interfere in the electoral process at all.

They
get people debating if the US should be pursuing regime change in
Iran or Syria, rather than whether the US has any business
overthrowing the governments of sovereign nations to begin with.

They
get people debating how many US troops should be in Syria, rather
than whether that illegal invasion and occupation was ever legitimate
in the first place.

They
get people debating whether to kill people slowly by sanctions or
kill them quickly with bombs, rather than whether they should be
killed at all.

They
get people debating whether or not some other country’s leader is
an evil dictator, rather than whether it’s any of your business.

They
get people debating the extent to which Russia and Trump were
involved in the Democratic Party’s 2016 email leaks, rather than the
contents of those leaks.

They
get people debating what the response should be to Russian
interference in the election, rather than whether that interference
took place at all, and whether it would really matter if it did.

They
get people debating how much government support the poor should be
allowed to have, rather than whether the rich should be allowed to
keep what they’ve stolen from the poor.

They
get people debating what kind of taxes billionaires should have to
pay, rather than whether it makes sense for billionaires to exist at
all.

They
get people impotently debating the bad things other countries do,
rather than the bad things their own country does which they can
actually do something about.

They
get people debating what should be done to prevent the rise of China,
rather than whether a multipolar world might be beneficial.

They
get people debating whether western cold war escalations against the
Russian Federation are sufficient, rather than whether they want to
horrors of the cold war to be resurrected in the first place.

They
get people debating what extent cannabis should be decriminalized,
rather than whether the government should be allowed to lock anyone
up for deciding to put any substance whatsoever in their own
body.

They
get people debating whether or not US troops should be withdrawn from
Afghanistan, rather than whether or not there should be any US troops
outside of the US.

They
get people debating whether or not Julian Assange is “a real
journalist”, rather than whether or not they should set legal
precedents that necessarily criminalize acts of journalism.

They
get people debating the subtle details of bail protocol, political
asylum, embassy cat hygiene and leaking rather than whether it should
ever be legal to imprison a publisher for exposing government war
crimes.

They
get people debating what the punishment should be for whistleblowers,
not what the punishment should be for those they blow the whistle on.

They
get people debating whether Fox or MSNBC is the real “fake
news”, rather than whether the entirety of mainstream media is
oligarchic propaganda.

They
get people debating about how the things everyone is freaking out
over Trump doing were previously done by Obama, rather than
discussing why all US presidents do the same evil things regardless
of their parties or campaign platforms.

They
get people debating what should be done with money, not whether the
concept of money itself is in need of a complete overhaul.

They
get people debating what should be done with government, not whether
the concept of government itself is in need of a complete overhaul.

They
get people debating whether the status quo should be reinforced or
revised, rather than whether it should be flushed down the toilet
where it belongs.

They
get people angrily debating things they can’t change, rather than
constructively working on the things that they can.

They
get people shoving against each other in opposite directions, while
they swiftly build a cage around us all.

___________________________________

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
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,
checking out my podcast on either 
YoutubesoundcloudApple
podcasts
 or Spotify,
following me on 
Steemit, throwing
some money into my hat on 
Patreon or Paypalpurchasing
some of my 
sweet
merchandise
, buying
my new book 
Rogue
Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone
,
or my previous book 
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 or use any part of this work (or anything else I’ve
written) in any way they like free of charge.

Bitcoin
donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2


Caitlin
Johnstone
 |
November 4, 2019 at 2:54 am | Tags: 
debateOverton
window
partisanshipPolitics |
Categories: 
Article |
URL: 
https://wp.me/p9tj6M-1Uj

========================================

Zie ook:

Facebook keurde advertenties goed die waren gericht op neonazi’s

VS presidentschap wordt gekocht met 100 dollar per uitgebrachte stem

Michael Bloombergs deelname aan de verkiezingen laten nog eens zien hoe ondemocratisch de VS presidentsverkiezingen zijn

Niet Rusland maar Trump beïnvloedt nu al de verkiezingen in Groot-Brittannië

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez grilt Zuckerberg over misleidende advertenties op Facebook: liegen in verkiezingstijd is toegestaan

Tulsi Gabbard (Democratische presidentskandidaat) en de gestoken verkiezingen

Hillary Clinton manipuleert democratische voorverkiezingen

Ollongren (D66 minister) manipuleerde bevolking met beschuldiging Russische manipulatie door desinformatie en nepnieuws‘ (zie ook de links in dat bericht naar meer berichten over Ollongren en haar leugens)

WaPo waarschuwt voor Russische digitale controle over de hersenen van VS burgers

Trump tracht met fake news het volk te manipuleren en daarmee de EU te schande te maken

ALEC is een extreem rechtse lobbyclub: corruptie tot op het hoogste niveau en (echte) beïnvloeding van verkiezingen

Geheime diensten in westen geven toe dat spioneren via het G5 netwerk praktisch onmogelijk is……..

Federale rechter stelt ten overvloede dat DNC geen grond heeft voor zaak te tegen Trumps verkiezingsteam

Britse regering weigert RT en Sputnik voor conferentie over persvrijheid….. ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!

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

Het westen vervolgt journalist Assange, Rusland laat journalist vrij na onrust over diens gevangenschap‘ (zie daarin ook de links naar andere berichten over Assange)

De sterkste beïnvloeding van de VS presidentsverkiezingen wordt als volkomen ‘legaal’ en normaal gezien

Avaaz valt met fake news en desinformatie ‘fake news en desinformatie‘ aan……’ (zie in dat bericht ook de link naar een ander artikel met een smerige rol van Avaaz)

Rob Jetten (D66 fractievoorzitter) liegt een fikse slag in de rondte in EU verkiezingspraatje

EU verkiezingen: manipulatie ook door lobbyisme is misdadig, zelfs Bas Eickhout (GroenLinks) doet hieraan mee

‘Intel processors al 10 jaar zo lek als een mandje, Intel niet een bedrijf uit Rusland of China, maar uit….. de VS!

Gelekte documenten tonen aan dat Google en Pinterest censuur uitoefenen

Facebook stelt klimaatsceptisch Daily Caller aan als ‘factchecker…’ ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!

Russiagate: nog overtuigd van bestaan daarvan? Lees dit!‘ 

Robert Mueller lijdt aan dementie en maakt van Russiagate een nog belachelijker verhaal

Putin vraagt en Trump levert: een lijst met ‘alle goede zaken die Trump voor Rusland regelde’

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

BBC presentator maakt per ongeluk promotie voor het socialisme

The Mail on Sunday en Sky News schieten levensgrote antisemitische bok bij het belasteren van Corbyn

BBC wijst meer en meer naar Corbyn als medeschuldige voor de Brexit

Simon Wiesenthal Center: antisemitische top tien 2018 >> o.a. moorden toegestaan voor Joden

BBC Media Action: een smerige propaganda organisatie, mede door Nederland betaald

Britse justitie gaat ‘hate crimes’ van Labour onderzoeken

Jeremy Corbyn wordt gedemoniseerd als antisemiet…….

Jeremy Corbyn krijgt echt belangrijke vredesprijs >> aandacht van de reguliere media: nul komma nada…

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

Venezolaanse verandering van regime bekokstoofd door VS en massamedia

Nadat
Maduro vorig jaar de verkiezingen in Venezuela won, zette de VS de
volgende stap in haar wil tot verandering van regime, men
schoof Guaidó naar voren als de gewenste kandidaat voor de Trump
administratie, Guaidó, een man die daarvoor bij minder dan 20% van
de Venezolaanse bevolking bekend was……….

Alsof
de VS voor het eerst van Maduro had gehoord, begon een nog veel
grotere lastercampagne tegen Maduro, die men daarna afschilderde als
een paranoïde tiran, alsof men hier van doen had met de kroonprins
van Saoedi-Arabië, Mohammad bin Salman (MBS), de smerige schoft die
o.a. de genocide in Jemen op zijn naam heeft staan (een genocide die nog steeds wordt voortgezet), voorts is hij verantwoordelijk voor de gruwelijke moord op Khashoggi, eerder een trouwe perslakei van het Saoedische terreurbewind……..

Mike Pence, de vicepresident van de VS, had het
gore lef te zeggen dat Maduro de verkiezingen heeft gemanipuleerd
en daarmee het presidentschap won….. Anders gezegd Maduro heeft op
misdadige manier het presidentschap gewonnen…….

De
reguliere massamedia in de VS (en in de rest van het westen) hebben
de opstand en de ‘coup’, georganiseerd door de VS, van meet af aan
gesteund, sterker nog: de economische oorlog die de VS al jaren tegen
Venezuela voerde en voert, was nooit onderwerp in die media, nee de
gevolgen van die oorlog, het steeds verder in het slop raken van de
Venezolaanse economie, werd door deze media volledig aan het bewind in Caracas
toegeschreven…….. Terwijl al jaren bekend is dat VS supermarkten
met winkels in Venezuela onder druk heeft gezet de voorraden niet
langer aan te vullen…… Hetzelfde geldt overigens voor de grote VS
farmaceuten…… Let wel: dit was al een ‘stiekeme economische oorlogsvoering’
onder Obama…..

Edward
Herman en Noam Chomksky hebben een studie uitgevoerd naar de rol van
de reguliere massamedia bij het omverwerpen door de VS van een haar
onwelgevallige regeringen. Als eerste ‘vonden ze bewijs voor het feit dat
deze media niet onafhankelijk zijn en de belangen van de eigenaren
behartigen’. (dit was al lang bekend, ‘maar goed’) Daarmee behartigen deze media tevens de belangen van
andere grote bedrijven die hun reclames tonen in die media…. 
(bovendien steunen die media het inhumane neoliberalisme, al is dat dan weer logisch, gezien het behartigen van de belangen van grote bedrijven door diezelfde media) 

Waar
censuur dictaturen in het zadel houdt, maken de reguliere media in
feite ook gebruik van (zelf) censuur, door de manier van
berichtgeving, waarbij men de belangen behartigt, zoals hiervoor
beschreven…. Bij dit alles maakt men gebruik van personeel dat ‘op
de juiste manier denkt’, aldus Chomski en Herman.

Chomski
en Herman hebben drie verkiezingen van de 80er jaren van de vorige
eeuw in Latijns-Amerika onder de loep genomen: die in Honduras,
Guatemala en Nicaragua.

Het
sluitstuk zijn de verkiezingen die vorig jaar plaatsvonden in
Colombia en Venezuela. Lees hoe de verkiezingen in Colombia werden
gestolen met vals spel, terwijl de verkiezingen in Venezuela door
internationale waarnemers als goed en eerlijk werden beoordeeld,
uiteraard waren er wat onregelmatigheden, maar naar
Latijns-Amerikaanse maatstaven waren die te verwaarlozen……

Beste
bezoeker, het hieronder opgenomen artikel is het zoveelste bewijs dat
we door de reguliere westerse massamedia en de westerse politiek
worden voorgelogen over de werkelijke situatie in Venezuela……
Deze media hebben nu al het gore lef om het woord honger te gebruiken
in combinatie met Maduro, terwijl een werkelijke genocide, duizenden
kilometers verderop nog amper krantenkoppen haalt en mocht dit wel
gebeuren worden de feiten zo verdraaid dat het lijkt alsof Iran in
gevecht is met de Saoedische terreurcoalitie, terwijl er niet één
enkel bewijs is waaruit blijkt dat Iraanse militairen vechten in
Jemen……..

Terwijl
de mensen in Jemen als vliegen sterven, propageren de reguliere media
een militair ingrijpen in Venezuela en staat men achter de coup tegen de democratische gekozen president van dat land…… En dan te bedenken dat die reguliere media de bek vol hebben over ‘fake news (nepnieuws) en desinformatie’, terwijl ze zelf verantwoordelijk zijn voor deze zaken, zaken waarvoor een enorme berg aan bewijs voorhanden is……..

How
the Media Manufactures Consent for Regime Change in Venezuela

Juan Guaido swore himself in as "interim president" on January 23 (EFE)

Juan
Guaido swore himself in as “interim president” on January
23 (EFE)

February
11, 2019 at 10:54 am

Written
by 
Alan
Macleod

(VA) — The
latest extraordinary chapter in the bizarre world of Venezuelan
politics is playing out before our eyes. After winning the 2018
presidential elections, Nicolás Maduro was inaugurated in January,
only for the head of the National Assembly, Juan Guaidó — a man
whom, at the time, 
less
than 20 percent
 of
the country had even heard of — to declare himself President.

Guaidó
was immediately backed by the governments of the U.S. and U.K.,
with 
Vice
President Mike Pence stating
,
“Nicolás Maduro is a dictator with no legitimate claim to power.
He has never won the presidency in a free and fair election, and has
maintained his grip of power by imprisoning anyone who dares to
oppose him.”

I’ve
previously cataloged how the media has been quick to 
echo
the idea
 that
Maduro is completely illegitimate and has been eager to position
America’s stance towards Venezuelan politics as one of 
a
neutral arbiter
.

Why
do mainstream media outlets, who resist Trump at home, neatly align
themselves with his administration’s Venezuela policy? And why has
there so little criticism of what 
is
essentially
 an
ongoing U.S.-backed coup attempt?

In
a recent study, I analyzed
 how
the media presented the 2018 elections in Colombia and Venezuela.
Looking at how these two elections were covered can help us
understand why there’s so little nuance in the media coverage of
U.S.-Venezuela relations.

A
seminal study inspires

To
study the 2018 elections, I used the propaganda model media scholars
Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky outlined in their book 
Manufacturing
Consent
. Their
propaganda model contends that mainstream, corporate media is not a
neutral venue for truth. Instead, it is a vehicle that advances the
interests of media owners and their advertisers.

The
authors argue that, in contrast to the top-down censorship of
authoritarian states, these outlets achieve uniform opinions through
the pre-selection of “right-thinking” editors and reporters who
have been trained at the “right” schools. They then disseminate
information – or, at the very least, self-censor – in a way that
protects or advances the ideology of ownership, advertisers and
official sources.

Herman
and Chomsky highlight this phenomenon through coverage of elections
in three countries: Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua.

The
Guatemalan presidential election of 1982 and the Honduran
presidential election of 1984 to 1985 were held under what Herman and
Chomsky describe as “conditions of severe, ongoing state terror
against the civilian population.” They show how the U.S. media
ignored the enormous waves of violence inundating these two
elections. CBS’ Dan Rather, for example, described the events in
Guatemala as “heartening.”

Meanwhile,
Herman and Chomsky explain that the 1984 Nicaraguan elections were
won by the Marxist 
sandinistas in
a “model of probity and fairness by Latin American standards.”
Yet American media coverage portrayed this election with a relentless
tone of negativity. Time Magazine reported that the election mood was
“one of indifference,” with voters “too apathetic to go to the
polls” and that “the outcome was never in doubt,” suggesting a
rigged system, while many articles discussed the “fear” of
Nicaraguan voters.

Mainstream
media coverage, they concluded, manufactured a reality that was
conducive to the interests of the U.S. government – which sought to
prop up their client states and demonize Nicaragua – and
multinational corporations, who were eager to work with sympathetic
right-wing governments to increase their foothold in Central America.

Coverage
of two elections: A case study

Using
this paired example method to test the propaganda model 
I
studied
 Western
media coverage of the 2018 elections in Colombia – a key U.S. ally
– and Venezuela, 
a
sworn enemy
.
In Colombia, the conservative Ivan Duque triumphed; in Venezuela, the
socialist Maduro won.

The
elections in Colombia took place under a heightened state of terror,
with the left-wing candidate Gustavo Petro 
narrowly
surviving
 an
assassination attempt and right-wing paramilitaries
issuing 
generalized
threats
 to
those who tried to vote for him. The incumbent conservative party
under President Alvaro Uribe had 
massacred
over 10,000 civilians
,
while American election observers, such as University of Pittsburgh
law professor Daniel Kovalik, were mistaken for voters and offered
bribes to vote for Duque. There were 
over
250
 official
electoral fraud complaints.

The
mainstream media, however, overwhelmingly endorsed the elections in
the U.S.-ally state, presenting it as a moment of hope for the
country and downplaying any negative aspects, especially violence.
CNN 
reported
that
 “though
there have been isolated incidents of violence related to the
election, they have been minimal.” The Associated Press went
further, 
claiming the
real danger facing Colombia was that Petro would push the country
“dangerously to the left” while NPR 
described Alvaro
Uribe as “immensely popular,” and failed to mention any
connection to the massacres his government had implemented.

In
contrast, the mainstream media virtually unanimously presented the
simultaneously occurring elections in Venezuela as a travesty, the
“coronation of a dictator,” 
according
to
 The
Independent.

Other
major outlets described them as “
heavily
rigged
,”
the
fortification of a dictatorship

and a “
farce
cementing autocracy.

The Miami Herald 
called
them
 “fraudulent,”
a “sham,” a “charade” and a “joke” in one column alone.

There
were certainly some 
questionable
aspects
 to
the Venezuelan election. However, the idea of a full-blown “sham
election” was 
flatly
contradicted
 by every
international
 election observation
organization
 monitoring
the elections, many of whom produced detailed reports attesting to
their exemplary organization and implementation. There were a number
of prominent international observers monitoring the 2018 elections,
including former Spanish Prime Minister Jose Zapatero, who 
said he
“did not have any doubt about the voting process” and the
ex-President of Ecuador, Rafael Correa, who 
declared the
“impeccably organized” elections proceeded with “absolute
normalcy.”

But
you would have been hard pressed to find any acknowledgment of this
in Western media outlets.

The
administration shows its true hand

Instead,
since Maduro’s swearing-in, many seem to have been openly
championing regime change in the country. One of the few positive
things about the Trump administration is that it does not try to
conceal its true intentions behind misleading, flowery words. John
Bolton, Trump’s National Security Advisor, has openly described
Venezuela as a business opportunity.

It
will make a big difference to the United States economically if we
could have American oil companies really invest in and produce the
oil capabilities in Venezuela,” 
he
said
.

With
clear parallels to the build-up to the Iraq War, he 
also
labeled
 Venezuela
as belonging to a “troika of tyranny” and
recently 
suggested sending
Maduro to Guantanamo Bay. The U.K. government has 
blocked the
transfer of Venezuela’s gold out of the Bank of England after it
declared Guaidó its legitimate leader. At the same time, the
U.S. 
has
ramped
 up
its sanctions on the beleaguered nation, in spite of 
pleas
from the UN
 to
do the opposite. The Human Rights Council 
formally
condemned
 them,
noting they made the crisis far worse. One Special
Rapporteur 
declared
them
 a
possible “crime against humanity”.

And
yet the press overwhelmingly abets the pretense of “democracy
promotion” and protection of human rights. The Washington Post, for
example, 
applauded the
administration’s actions, urging it to work with the body to
tighten the sanctions while 
claiming Guaido
had given hope to the people of Venezuela.

The
mainstream media 
seems
to ignore
 the
opinions of everyday Venezuelans. 
Eighty-six
percent
 are
against military intervention and 81 percent disagree with the
current sanctions, according to a recent local poll. Perhaps there’s
a ulterior motive to the mainstream media’s uniform approach in
delegitimatizing Maduro’s regime: to 
undermine and attack the rise
of
 socialist-inspired
ideas back home.

When
it comes to key issues such as foreign policy, the charade that the
media cares about impartiality and truth withers away to reveal its
true role in serving the powerful.

By Alan
Macleod
 / Republished
with permission / 
Venezuela
Analysis
 / Report
a typo

============================================

Zie ook:

Venezuela: VS bedrijf dat wapens smokkelde is gelinkt aan CIA ‘Black Site’ centra

Congreslid Ilhan Omar fileert het monster Elliot Abrams, de speciale gezant van de VS voor Venezuela

Venezuela >> de media willen het socialisme definitief de nek omdraaien

Joel Voordewind (CU 2de Kamer) bakt de ‘Venezolaanse vluchtelingencrisis’ op Curaçao wel erg bruin en van Ojik (GL 2de Kamer) schiet een Venezolaanse bok

BBC World Service radio >> fake news and other lies about Venezuela‘ (van Ap blog)

Venezuela zou humanitaire hulp weigeren, het echte verhaal ziet er ‘iets anders’ uit

Guaidó is een ordinaire couppleger van de VS, e.e.a. gaat volledig in tegen de Venezolaanse constitutie

Venezuela >> regime change: ‘de 12 stappen methode’ die de VS gebruikt

Venezuela >> VS economische oorlogsvoering met gebruikmaking van o.a. IMF en Wereldbank

VS couppleger in Venezuela belooft VS Venezolaanse olie als hij de macht heeft overgenomen

Pompeo: US Military Obligated to “Take Down” the Iranians in Venezuela

(de opgeblazen oorlogshitser en oorlogsmisdadiger Pompeo beweert dat Hezbollah werkzaam is in Venezuela en daar een leger heeft dat gezien zijn woorden amper onder doet voor de gezamenlijke NAVO troepen… ha! ha! ha! Ook hier is totaal geen bewijs voor deze belachelijke beschuldiging…)

Halliburton en Chevron hebben groot belang bij ‘regime change’ in Venezuela

Mike Pence (vicepresident VS) gaf Guaidó, de door de VS gewenste leider, groen licht voor de coup in Venezuela

VS coup tegen Maduro in volle gang……..

Antiwar Hero Medea Benjamin Disrupts Pompeo Speech on Venezuela

Venezuela’s Military Chief, Foreign Allies Back Maduro

Als de VS stopt met spelen van ‘politieagent’ en het vernielen van de wereld, zullen de slechte krachten winnen……

VS weer op oorlogspad in Latijns-Amerika: Venezuela het volgende slachtoffer…….

Venezuela: VS verandering van regime mislukt >> de Venezolanen wacht een VS invasie

Vast Majority of Democrats Remain Silent or Support Coup in Venezuela

Trump wilde naast de economische oorlogsvoering tegen Venezuela dat land daadwerkelijk militair aanvallen……

Venezolaanse regionale verkiezingen gehekeld door westen, terwijl internationale waarnemers deze als eerlijk beoordeelden……….

Venezuela: Target of Economic Warfare

Venezuela: de anti-propaganda van John Oliver (en het grootste deel westerse massamedia) feilloos doorgeprikt

Venezuela: ‘studentenprotest’ wordt uitgevoerd door ingehuurde troepen………

Abby Martin Busts Open Myths on Venezuela’s Food Crisis: ‘Shelves Fully Stocked’‘ (zie ook de video in dat artikel!)

Rex Tillerson waarschuwt Venezuela voor een coup en beschuldigt China van imperialisme…….. ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!

Edwin Koopman (VPRO Bureau Buitenland) over Venezolaanse verkiezingen met anti-Maduro propaganda bij de ‘onafhankelijke NOS…..

EU neemt uiterst hypocriet sancties tegen de Venezolaanse regering Maduro………

Venezuela ontwricht, wat de reguliere media u niet vertellen……..

VS steunt rechtse coalitie (MUD) in Venezuela………

Venezuela’s US-Backed Opposition Turns Up The Violence Following Assembly Vote

10 Things You Need to Know About the Terrorist Attack in Venezuela

Venezuelans in the Streets to Support Constituent Assembly

What Mainstream Media Got Wrong About Venezuela’s Constituent Assembly Vote‘ (met mogelijkheid tot directe vertaling)

The Left and Venezuela‘ (met mogelijkheid tot directe vertaling)

Rondje Venezuela schoppen op Radio1………

Karabulut (SP) blij dat ze Maduro eindelijk ook kan schoppen………

Venezuela moet en zal ‘verlost’ worden van Maduro, met ‘oh wonder’ een dikke rol van de VS en de reguliere westerse media

Venezolaanse regering treedt terecht op tegen de uiterst gewelddadige oppositie!!

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:

AUTHOR:
CAITLIN JOHNSTONE

DECEMBER
10, 2018

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?

AFP news agency

@AFP

Replying to @AFP

#UPDATE A total of 1,723 people are arrested across France with 1,220 ordered held in custody, during the latest round of “yellow vest” protests, the interior ministry says

View image on Twitter


2,837

6:26 PM – Dec 9, 2018

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
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?

Caitlin Johnstone ⏳@caitoz

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.


531

12:53 AM – Dec 10, 2018

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.

Caitlin Johnstone ⏳@caitoz

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.


531

12:53 AM – Dec 10, 2018

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
.

Mail & Guardian

@mailandguardian

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 


21

10:45 AM – Dec 10, 2018

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 result
of
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 public
to
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.
populist
information revolution
is
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 Paypalbuying
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

Assange’s ‘Conspiracy’ to Expose War Crimes Has Already Been Punished

Assange Held at “Britain’s Guantanamo Bay” as UN Urges Fair Trial

The Arrest of Julian Assange is an Existential Threat to Journalism

Julian Assange, valse beschuldigingen, Big Brother en VS steun voor terrorisme

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

Hersenspoeling via de massamedia en hoe e.e.a. middels 5 filters werkt, o.a. propaganda voor oorlogsvoering

Ontving
een artikel van Caitlin Johnstone dat begint met de veroordeling van
Bill Cosby, waar ze terecht wijst op de vrouwonvriendelijkheid in de
media, o.a.met het aanhalen van het praatje dat Cosby al decennia
lang ‘héél komisch’ in de media herhaalde, dat je vrouwen best kan drogeren om
ze daarna te misbruiken.

Over
Cosby is gelukkig al genoeg geschreven en ben blij dat de schoft tot
een onvoorwaardelijke gevangenisstraf is veroordeeld, hier de link naar het hele artikel van Johnstone.

Johnstone
gaat in haar betoog over op de andere rol van de massamedia
in de VS bij het hersenspoelen van het volk in voorbereiding op weer een andere illegale oorlog, dan wel hen voor te liegen over acties bijvoorbeeld van een land als
Rusland. (overigens gebeurt hetzelfde in de EU en dus ook in Nederland, zo worden we bijna dagelijks keihard voorgelogen over de oorlog in Syrië…..)

Hier
het laatste deel van het artikel dat Johnstone schreef, zie ook de 4,46 minuten durende leuke video met een geanimeerde, duidelijke uitleg van Noam
Chomsky’s: ‘The 5 Filters of the Mass Media Machine’ die onder het artikel van Johnstone is te vinden, deze video werd ingesproken door de uitstekende journalist, auteur en presentator Amy Goodman:

If
Society Understood Sovereignty, It Would End Rape Culture,
Imperialism, And Propaganda

Power,
when you get right down to it, is ultimately about control. The
ability to control other human beings and decide what happens to
them. The more control you have over human lives, the more power you
have. Some exert totalitarian control over their spouse and their
children, and within their homes they are all-powerful. Some exert
control over entire groups of nations, and have the power of life and
death over entire populations. Those individuals are the most
powerful people in the world.

But
in order to have control over another person, you must necessarily
violate their personal sovereignty. You must find a way to get your
will to override their own will for their own lives in order to
control them, be it by physical force, legal compulsion,
psychological manipulation, or rape drugs. This is why
power-facilitating narratives advanced by governments, religions,
education/indoctrination systems, and mass media outlets have aways
explained to their audiences why it is in their best interest to
subvert their personal sovereignty over their lives, their bodies,
their reproductive systems, and their minds.

Max Abrahms
@MaxAbrahms

So, never.https://twitter.com/JonLemire/status/1044244177901547521 

Jonathan Lemire
@JonLemire

NEW YORK (AP) — National Security adviser Bolton: US troops not leaving Syria ‘as long as Iranian troops are outside Iranian borders’

President
Trump’s National Security Advisor John Bolton is a PNAC founder, a
lead architect of the Iraq invasion, and once 
threatened
to murder a diplomat’s sons
 for
standing in the way of the rape of Iraq. He is the neocon’s neocon,
and his respect for both national and personal sovereignty is so
nonexistent that I would not be the slightest bit surprised to learn
that he has raped his wife or anyone else. Sovereignty is such a
non-thing in Bolton’s reality tunnel that 
he
recently claimed
 that
Russia giving Syria air defense systems to defend its own airspace
“would be a significant escalation by the Russians,” and added
that US troops are going to remain in Syria “as long as Iranian
troops are outside Iranian borders, and that includes Iranian proxies
and militias.”

To
be clear, the US military is in Syria without the permission of the
Syrian government, while the Iranian military and its so-called
proxies are there at the invitation of the Syrian government to help
combat the terrorist forces which have overrun the nation with the
help of the US-centralized empire. Bolton is the kind of guy that
crashes your party uninvited, drinks all the punch and knocks over
the snack table, and when your boyfriend asks him to leave, he tells
you he’s not leaving until your boyfriend leaves first. That’s
essentially what he’s saying.

The
gall it takes to say that your military will continue illegally
occupying a sovereign nation for as long as its allies continue to do
the thing that allies do is such a grotesque perversion of the
concept of sovereignty that if more Americans had a better
understanding of that concept John Bolton would have caused national
outrage by saying it. But of course he didn’t, because they don’t.
It’s just assumed that America is entitled to decide what sovereign
nations do with their own allies, and that it is allowed to invade
and occupy their land to force them to comply.

US Mission to the UN
@USUN

”Iran treats Iraq like it’s not an independent nation. Iran sees Iraq as a transit point for weapons and a training ground for its proxies. Iran seeks to keep Iraq economically weak. Why? Because Iran wants to use a weak Iraq to illicitly fund its terrorist activities.” pic.twitter.com/yDtxIUIAed

View image on Twitter

Caitlin Johnstone@caitoz

The worst part was that time in 2003 when Iran invaded Iraq, killed a million people and destabilized the entire region, which they manufactured consent for by lying to the public about weapons of mass destruction. We all remember Iran doing that, right?https://twitter.com/USUN/status/1042911916442701824 

Americans
accept this gross violation of sovereignty because they have been
propagandized to accept it 
by
the mass media machine
 which
spends all day every day 
manufacturing
support
 for
the agendas of those who control the most humans. But this is a
violation of Americans’ mental sovereignty, in exactly the same way
slipping a rape drug into a woman’s drink is a violation of her
sexual sovereignty. Just as Bill Cosby made it his life’s mission
to try and manufacture the illusion of sexual consent from women
using rape drugs, the most powerful people in the world have been
using the mass media to try and manufacture the illusion of consent
for their agendas of war, oppression and ecocide.

It
is not America’s place to tell Syria and Iran what they’re
allowed to do inside one another’s borders any more than it’s the
government’s place to tell a woman what she can and cannot do
inside her own body, whether that be having sex with whom she pleases
or having an abortion if she decides that’s in her best interest.
It is not the plutocrats’ place to slip manipulative narratives
into the minds of the masses any more than it was Bill Cosby’s
place to slip rape drugs into a woman’s drink. It is not America’s
place to invade a sovereign nation and occupy its land to force it to
obey its commands any more than it was Bill Cosby’s place to insert
his penis into a drugged woman.

Power
depends on systematic and relentless violations of sovereignty in
myriad forms around the world, which is why powerful people act like
such disgusting, rapey creeps all the time. In a healthy world, which
I firmly believe we can create, a deep understanding of sovereignty
in all its forms will replace this toxic dynamic in which the rapey
fingers of power are constantly inserting themselves into lives,
minds and nations in order to dominate and control them. In such a
society, everything from rape to imperialism to propaganda will stand
out like a black fly on a white sheet of paper and be expelled like a
pathogen by a healthy immune system.

________________________

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,
checking out my
 podcast,
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
.

Zie ook:

Bolton (nationaal veiligheidsadviseur van Trump) zegt Rusland de wacht aan wat betreft haar verdediging van Syrië

VS buitenlandbeleid sinds WOII: een lange lijst van staatsgrepen en oorlogen……….

List of wars involving the United States

VS vermoordde meer dan 20 miljoen mensen sinds het einde van WOII……..

VS: openlijke militaire oefening met terreurgroep in Syrië……

NAVO gaat VS helpen in Zuid-Amerika terreur uit te oefenen: Colombia lid van de NAVO………

VS commando’s vechten o.a. in Midden- en Zuid-Amerika, aldus het VS ministerie van oorlog………

De VS, een duivels imperium, dat achter haar psychopathisch moordende troepen staat??

De war on drugs is veel dodelijker dan over het algemeen gedacht

Terreuraanslag in Iran moet acties uitlokken die de VS tot een oorlog met Iran ‘dwingen’

Professor Boyle: Obama de oorlogsmisdadiger die alle wetten met voeten heeft getreden, zou levenslang gevangen moeten zitten in Den Haag

Professor
Boyle geeft al 41 jaar lang onderwijs aan de Harvard Law School,
waar ook Obama studeerde. Volgens Boyle heeft Obama alle regels
aangaande de rechtsstaat geschonden, sterker nog: Obama heeft
zelfs de grondwet van de VS geschonden…….

Boyle
stelt dat e.e.a Obama veel zwaarder is aan te rekenen dan
bijvoorbeeld Bush en Trump, daar hij rechten heeft gestudeerd. Dit
alles terwijl Obama tijdens diens presidentschap letterlijk stelde
dat hij zeer goed is in het vermoorden van mensen…….

Niet
alleen vermoordde Obama een groot aantal mensen in de illegale
oorlogen die hij begon tegen Libië en Syrië*, maar ook de duizenden
mensen die hij vermoordde met zijn ‘drone programma’, waar meer dan
90% van de slachtoffers niet eens als verdacht te boek stond, dus
je raadt het al: vooral vrouwen en kinderen……  

Daarnaast breidde Obama het aantal militairen in Afghanistan fiks uit en ook daar beging de VS, zoals overal waar deze grootste terreurentiteit oorlog voert, enorme oorlogsmisdaden…. Zoals het bombarderen van een Artsen zonder Grenzen (MSF) ziekenhuis en dat een uur lang, terwijl het VS oppercommando meermaals werd gevraagd te stoppen met bombarderen……..

Lees dit
helaas enigszins krom geschreven artikel dat wel een heel duidelijk
beeld geeft hoe Obama niet alleen wetten met voeten heeft getreden,
maar ook zijn verkiezingsbeloften heeft geschonden (al vanaf zijn
eerste termijn….)…

Ofwel: gezien het voorgaande had ook Obama levenslang gevangen moeten zitten in Den Haag……

Denouncing
Obama

By
Professor Francis A. Boyle

University
of Illinois College of Law, Before the Foellinger Auditorium,
September 7, 2018

 (Transcript
revised)


September
14, 2018 
Information
Clearing House
” –  I
am Francis Boyle, Professor of Law here at the College of Law. I’m
the Senior Professor at the College of Law. I’ve taught here 41
years in a row without a break. I know Obama. He was behind me at
Harvard Law School. Obama abandoned and betrayed every Principle
about the Rule of Law that I learned at Harvard Law School including
the United States Constitution.

I
was fairly disposed towards Obama. When the Black Law Students
brought him over here to the Law School from Springfield to speak, I
went over there. I sat next to Obama. I introduced myself to Obama. I
told Obama I couldn’t stay. I had to go home for dinner with my
family. He said he understood. I wished him well and I shook his
hand. I was the only Law Professor there that day. I am here to
condemn Obama as a war criminal and worse.

The
University of Illinois is giving him an “ethics in government”
award. This is a sick joke and a demented fraud! The University of
Illinois, for its own typical bootlicking reasons, wants to whitewash
all of Obama’s international crimes. Obama should be sitting in a
jail cell in The Hague with the International Criminal Court and not
here getting some bogus “ethics in government” award from the
bootlickers of the University of Illinois campus bigwigs.

I’m
not the only one to say that. Obama and I had the same Jurisprudence
Teacher – Philosophy of Law – at Harvard Law School, Professor
Roberto Unger, the founder of the Critical Legal Studies Movement.
What did our Teacher say about Obama on BBC Hard Talk and elsewhere?:
“Obama is a disaster!” Again, Professor Unger, our teacher, said:
“Obama is a disaster!” I agree with Professor Unger, one of the
great philosophers of law in the post-World War 2 era. And I’ve
been teaching Jurisprudence since I came here in 1978.

Now
don’t just take Professor Unger’s words for it. What does
Professor Noam Chomsky have to say about Obama and his drone murder
extermination campaign against Muslims, Arabs, Asians of Color all
over the world? Here’s Professor Noam Chomsky: “…particularly
to the drone assassinations, the most extreme terrorist campaign of
modern times – which have killed more than 5,000 people, including
U.S. citizens and hundreds of children.” That is Noam Chomsky, one
of the great intellectuals in the world and a personal hero of mine
when he was leading the forces of opposition to the Vietnam War that
I was opposing as a young man. That’s how Chomsky referred to
Obama’s drone murder campaign: “…the most extreme terrorist
campaign of modern times…” That’s amazing to think of! That’s
the person here that the University of Illinois is whitewashing. That
figure today on his drone murder extermination campaign is up to at
least ten thousand. Trump is just continuing it.

Indeed,
Trump is just continuing across the board policies that Obama put in
place. The difference between Trump and Obama and Obama and Bush Jr.
is that Obama knows better. He’s a magna cum laude graduate of
Harvard Law School just like I am. Obama has abandoned and betrayed
every known Principle of the Rule of Law that I ever learned at
Harvard Law School including the United States Constitution which he
doesn’t give diddly-squat about. Indeed referring to his drone
murder extermination campaign Obama bragged: “…I’m really good
at killing people!” Those are Obama’s own words. That’s the man
the University of Illinois is whitewashing today with their “ethics
in government” award. Indeed Obama murdered four U.S. citizens at
least that we know of, including Mr. Awlaki and his 16 year old son
who was completely innocent of anything. Obama is a monster! He’s a
criminal! As I said he should be in jail, not getting some bogus
“ethics” award from the bootlickers at the University of Illinois
administration.

Let’s
review his record. The first thing Obama does when he comes into
office, Bush Jr. has about 26,000 troops in Afghanistan, and Obama
escalates that immediately by 100,000 troops. 100,000 extra troops
murdering, killing, exterminating Afghans all up and down. We don’t
even have a body count because the Pentagon won’t give us the
numbers. My estimate maybe a million people. Obama is like Genghis
Khan and His Mongol Horde, raping, robbing, pillaging and murdering
all over the world innocent men, women, and children. That’s the
guy they’re giving their “ethics in government” award to.

After
he had done his genocidal work in Afghanistan, Obama moved on to
Libya in order to steal their oil. Obama launched his war against
Libya and exterminated about 50,000 Libyans – needlessly for no
reason except Obama wanted to steal Libya’s oil. Indeed it was
outright genocide for Black Africans living in Libya that Obama
perpetrated upon them. Obama destroyed Libya as a State completely.
It no longer exists and we the have the massive refugee crisis coming
out of Libya with thousands of Africans – Blacks, and Arabs –
drowning in the Mediterranean all thanks to Obama this war criminal.

After
he was done with Libya, then Obama moved on to Syria and destroyed
Syria. He worked with his jihadi terrorists to overthrow the
government of Syria and create a total catastrophe. Maybe 500,000
Syrians have been murdered because of Obama, and that country is a
catastrophe today. The battles still go on. We have no idea what’s
going to happen over there. 


Just like he did in Libya, Obama used
jihadi extremists to wage his wars for him. And America in Libya,
became the air force for Obama’s jihadi extremists. Then he turned
them on Syria and there the death and destruction by Obama goes on
today. A second state that Obama has pretty much destroyed all by
himself with his jihadi extremists – Genghis Khan and His Horde of
Mongols.

Now,
we come to Yemen started by Obama. Massive death and destruction in
Yemen right now as we speak today. Obama supported Saudi Arabia and
the UAE against Yemen and has killed close to 10,000 Houthis.
Outright genocide. All to steal their oil and set off a humanitarian
catastrophe in Yemen. Maybe 2 million Yemenis over there are
suffering from cholera. It’s the largest outbreak of cholera in the
world today. And they are starving. Obama starved them to death.
There’s an embargo on them right now. They can’t even eat. Obama
started this policy.

I
could go on here forever but I’m not going to because I teach
Obama’s atrocities to my law students. I think we could have no
better indication of where Obama really stands than the eulogy he
gave last weekend in honor of the war criminal and warmonger John
McCain. John McCain was a war criminal. He bombed Hanoi killing
innocent civilians when he was shot down. Outright war criminal. And
when he got home McCain mongered for every war the U.S. ever waged
since then including in Syria and supporting Obama’s Nazis in
Ukraine. Let us recall John McCain’s theme song: “Bomb, bomb,
bomb! Bomb, bomb, Iran!” Sixty million people and McCain did his
best to start a war against them and kill them. Obama then appeared
there to give a eulogy in support of this long-standing war criminal
and warmonger.

Who
else was there? Bush Jr. another Genghis Khan and His Horde of
Mongols. They’re best buddies – Bush Jr and Obama. Who else did
they trot out to honor McCain? Henry Kissinger! The three of them,
yes, they all spoke right after each other: Kissinger, Bush Jr., and
Obama. Kissinger of the genocidal Vietnam War. Murdering 58,000 young
men of my generation and exterminating 3 million Vietnamese. I call
him Hank Half-An-Eichmann Kissinger. I say that from personal
experience. I went through the exact same Ph.D. program at Harvard
that produced Kissinger before me. They gave me Kissinger’s Old
Office at Harvard’s Center for International Affairs. 


“There but
for the grace of God go I!” So here we have three major warmongers
and war criminals honoring a fourth. You have Kissinger, Bush Jr. and
Obama honoring McCain. Well as I say: Warbirds of a feather flock
together!

I
have one message for Obama that I want to deliver him here today
personally as a lawyer and a law professor and a graduate of Harvard
Law School:

Hey!
Hey!
Obama say!
How many kids!
Did you kill today!

Hey!
Hey!
Obama say!

How many kids!
Did you kill today!

Hey!
Hey!
Obama say!

How many kids!
Did you kill today!

Thank
you.



Francis
Anthony Boyle is a professor of international law at the University
of Illinois College of Law. He has served as counsel for Bosnia and
Herzegovina and has been a staunch supporter of the rights of
indigenous peoples and Palestinians.

=============================================

* In feite begon Obama ook de oorlog tegen de bevolking van Oost-Oekraïne. Immers zijn minister van Buitenlandse Zaken, hare kwaadaardigheid Hillary Clinton, heeft de opstand op poten gezet, die tot het afzetten van de democratisch gekozen president Janoekovytsj leidde…… De neonazi-junta die na deze coup werd geïnstalleerd, met de uitermate corrupte Porosjenko aan het roer, was de keus van Obama en Clinton………. 

De Israëlische manipulatie van de VS presidentsverkiezingen, gaat veel verder dan wat men Rusland in de schoenen schuift…..

Zoals
eerder o.a. op deze plek betoogd, concludeert ook Noam Chomsky dat de Israëlische bemoeienis met de VS verkiezingen veel verder gaat dan
wat men Rusland in de schoenen probeert te schuiven en dat laatste zonder maar één flinter aan
bewijs…..

Met
veel ophef sprak de Palestijnenslachter Netanyahu in 2015 het Congres
toe, zelfs zonder eerst te overleggen met de president, destijds ‘vredesduif’ Obama…… Dan zijn er nog de reguliere (massa-) media in de
VS, die fungeren als lobbyisten voor de fascistische apartheidsstaat Israël en knippen na elke klapscheet van een Israëlische politicus……

Chomsky
wijst op het zogenaamde democratische proces in de VS en stelt
volkomen terecht dat er geen sprake is van een functionerende democratie in de VS
(overigens geldt dit ook meer en meer voor landen in de EU, zelfs voor Nederland…), volgens Chomsky moeten we in de VS spreken van een
billionaire
corporatocracy’, niet het volk maar de 1 procent (van welgestelden, waar veel zionisten tussen zitten) en grote bedrijven worden door
de politiek in de VS bediend…… (oh ja en niet te vergeten de belangenbehartiging voor Israël en wat andere
‘fijne fascistische landen’ als Saoedi-Arabië ‘natuurlijk’)

Zelfs
als zou Rusland hebben geprobeerd de verkiezingen te manipuleren,
hebben ze dat op een manier gedaan die totaal geen zoden aan de dijk
zet, althans als je alleen al het bedrag aan reclames door ‘Rusland’
geplaatst op sociale media in ogenschouw neemt, kunnen die niet eens
in de schaduw staan van de bedragen die worden misbruikt voor deze
presidentsverkiezingen……

Voorts
is daar de zogenaamde manipulatie door hacks en door het lekken van
documenten van de democraten naar WikiLeaks, alweer geen flinter aan
bewijs. Bovendien komt deze claim uit de smerige koker van Clinton en
haar aanhangers, om zo de aandacht af te leiden van het smerige spel
waarmee zij tot presidentskandidaat van de democraten werd verkozen, een smerig
spel tegen de enige kandidaat die er toe deed, Bernie Sanders…… Ofwel: je speelt een smerig spel, waarvan de bewijzen op straat komen
te liggen, maar je doet verder geen onderzoek naar dat smerige spel……. Sterker nog: je beschuldigt de klokkenluider en stelt plompverloren dat deze buiten het democratisch comité te vinden moet zijn, vervolgens ga je op zoek naar die klokkenluider* en schuift Rusland de schuld in de schoenen, de aanzet tot het nieuwe ‘McCartyisme’ in de VS en een verdere aanjager voor de herintroductie van de Koude Oorlog..!!! (‘natuurlijk’ worden daarmee ook nog eens de belangen van het militair-industrieel complex gediend……)

Ongelofelijk!!

Lees
het volgende artikel met de zienswijze van Chomsky en oordeel zelf:

Noam
Chomsky: “Israeli Intervention in US Elections Overwhelms Anything
Russia Has Done”

August
3, 2018 at 9:29 pm

Written
by 
Tyler
Durden

(ZHE) — Well,
this is going to make the weekend’s political conversations a
little more awkward around America.

As
the mainstream media (and even the leftist politicians) begin to back
quietly away from the “collusion” narrative, they remain
increasingly focused on Russia’s “evil” efforts at “meddling”
in the US election and “interfering with our democracy,” or some
such hysterical phrase.

And
that is what makes the comments by mainstay of world-renowned
political dissident and liberal-thinking hero Noam Chomsky’s
comments in the following interview with Democracy Now so ‘awkward’
for the Trump-hating members of society.

(Let wel: dit is niet de video van Democracy Now, met o.a. Chomsky en gepresenteerd door Amy Goodman uit het originele artikel, klik daarvoor op deze link)

so,
take, say, the huge issue of interference in our pristine
elections. 
Did
the Russians interfere in our elections?
 An
issue of overwhelming concern in the media. I mean, in most of the
world, that’s
almost
a joke
.

First
of all, if you’re interested in foreign interference in our
elections, 
whatever
the Russians may have done barely counts or weighs in the balance as
compared with what another state does, openly, brazenly and with
enormous support.

Israeli
intervention in U.S. elections vastly overwhelms anything the
Russians may have done…

I
mean, even to the point where 
the
prime minister of Israel, Netanyahu, goes directly to Congress,
without even informing the president, and speaks to Congress, with
overwhelming applause, to try to undermine the president’s policies
– what happened with Obama and Netanyahu in 2015
….

Did
Putin come to give an address to the joint sessions of Congress
trying to – calling on them to reverse U.S. policy, without even
informing the president?
 And
that’s just a tiny bit of this overwhelming influence.

So
if you happen to be interested in influence of – foreign influence
on elections, there are places to look. But even that is a joke.

I
mean, 
one
of the most elementary principles of a functioning democracy is that
elected representatives should be responsive to those who elected
them. There’s nothing more elementary than that. But we know very
well that that is simply not the case in the United States.

There’s
ample literature in mainstream academic political science simply
comparing voters’ attitudes with the policies pursued by their
representatives, and it shows that for a large majority of the
population, they’re basically disenfranchised. Their own
representatives pay no attention to their voices. 
They
listen to the voices of the famous 1 percent – the rich and the
powerful, the corporate sector.

The
elections—Tom Ferguson’s stellar work has demonstrated, very
conclusively, that for a long period, way back, U.S. elections have
been pretty much bought. You can predict the outcome of a
presidential or congressional election with remarkable precision by
simply looking at campaign spending. That’s only one part of it.

Lobbyists
practically write legislation in congressional offices.
 In
massive ways, the concentrated private capital, corporate sector,
super wealth, intervene in our elections, massively, overwhelmingly,
to the extent that the most elementary principles of democracy are
undermined.
 Now,
of course, all that is technically legal, but that tells you
something about the way the society functions.

So, if
you’re concerned with our elections and how they operate and how
they relate to what would happen in a democratic society, taking a
look at Russian hacking is absolutely the wrong place to look. 
Well,
you see occasionally some attention to these matters in the media,
but very minor as compared with the 
extremely
marginal question of Russian hacking.

And
I think we find this on issue after issue, also on issues on which
what Trump says, for whatever reason, is not unreasonable. So, 
he’s
perfectly right when he says we should have better relations with
Russia.

Being
dragged through the mud for that is outlandish, makes – Russia
shouldn’t refuse to deal with the United States because 
the
U.S. carried out the worst crime of the century in the invasion of
Iraq, much worse than anything Russia has done
.

But
they shouldn’t refuse to deal with us for that reason, and we
shouldn’t refuse to deal with them for whatever infractions they
may have carried out, which certainly exist. This is just absurd. We
have to move towards better – 
right
at the Russian border, there are very extreme tensions, that could
blow up anytime and lead to what would in fact be a terminal nuclear
war, terminal for the species and life on Earth.
 We’re
very close to that.

Now,
we could ask why. First of all, we should do things to ameliorate it.
Secondly, we should ask why. Well, it’s because NATO expanded
after the collapse of the Soviet Union, in 
violation
of verbal promises to Mikhail Gorbachev, mostly under Clinton, 
partly
under first Bush, then Clinton expanded right to the Russian border,
expanded further under Obama.

The
U.S. has offered to bring Ukraine into NATO. That’s the kind
of a heartland of Russian geostrategic concerns.

So,
yes, 
there’s
tensions at the Russian border – and not, notice, at the Mexican
border.
 Well,
those are all issues that should be of primary concern.

The
fate of – 
the
fate of organized human society, even of the survival of the species,
depends on this. 
How
much attention is given to these things as compared with, you know,
whether Trump lied about something? I think those seem to me the
fundamental criticisms of the media.

So
to sum up
 – Trump’s
right about better relations with Russia – the fate of the world
depends on it, Russia did nothing of note, Russian hacking is
extremely marginal, Israel is the real meddler, US democracy no
longer exists, the billionaire corporatocracy runs America.

Is
Noam Chomsky a “puppet of Putin”? Did the veteran political
dissident just become a “useful

idiot”?
Well he must be an anti-semite, right? We look forward to Adam
Schiff’s response to this crushing blow to the left’s
‘russia-russia-russia’ narrative.

By Tyler
Durden
 /
Republished with permission / 
Zero
Hedge
 / Report
a typo

================================

* Onder andere Seth Rich, een ontevreden DNC medewerker, lekte documenten naar WikiLeaks, daar hij pissig was over deze gang van zaken. Deze Rich werd, oh wonder, kort daarna vermoord op straat, volgens de politie een roofoverval, terwijl er niets van waarde werd gestolen en waardevolle spullen had Rich tijdens die ‘roofoverval’ voldoende ‘op zak…’

Zie ook:

Russiagate: de westerse massamedia gebruiken propaganda om het volk te manipuleren, precies waar ze Rusland van beschuldigen

BBC: Rusland ‘misbruikt humor’ om Russiagate te ontkrachten….. ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!

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…….

Russiagate? Britaingate zal je bedoelen!‘ (zie ook de andere links in dat bericht)

Facebook gebruikte ‘fake news’ beschuldiging om de aandacht voor schandalen af te leiden

New York Times: eerste Israëlische inval in Gazastrook sinds 2014 >> fake news!

Noord-Koreaans ‘bedrog met nucleaire deal’ is fake news o.a. gebracht door de New York Times

New York Times ‘bewijzen’ voor Russiagate vallen door de mand……

Trump (Republikeinen) wint de midterm verkiezingen, alsook de Democraten, het verschil voor mensen elders in de wereld, die onder VS terreur moeten leven, is nul komma nada…….

Russiagate sprookje ondermijnt VS democratie en de midterm verkiezingen‘ (zie ook de links in dat bericht)

Politico rapport bevestigt: Russiagate is een hoax

Russische inmenging VS presidentsverkiezingen? ha! ha! ha! ha! Sheldon Adelson en Netanyahu zal men bedoelen!

‘Russiagate’: Intel-raport over Russische bemoeienis met verkiezingen opgebouwd met leugens en is politiek gemotiveerd, aldus Matlock, voormalig VS ambassadeur in Moskou

Op 7 november 2018 fout in kop herstelt, waar nu staat: ‘gaat veel verder’, stond: ‘gaan veel verder’; mijn excuus.