Tijdens
de begrafenis van zijn vader, massamoordenaar en oorlogsmisdadiger
George H.W. Bush, gaf de nog grotere massamoordenaar en
oorlogsmisdadiger G.W. Bush, Michelle Obama een snoepje. Deze
handeling leidde tot een meer dan belachelijke en hysterische reactie
in de reguliere (massa-) media, waar men Bush als een geweldige en
gevoelige man afschilderde.
Deze
kontlikkerij van de reguliere media is niet alleen in het belang van
Bush, maar uiteraard ook van die media zelf, immers zij hebben
zonder enig onderzoek, laat staan kritiek de illegale oorlogen van die deze schoft begon van meet af aan gesteund (en zelfs nog daarvoor)……. Oorlogen tegen Afghanistan, Irak, Libië en Syrië, al
zijn de laatste 2 van die oorlogen aangegaan door de Obama administratie, zometeen meer
daarover. Oh nee, dom van mij, de
oorlogen in Afghanistan en Irak zijn in feite nog steeds gaande en
hebben intussen aan meer dan 2 miljoen mensen uit die 2 landen het leven
gekost (alleen in Irak al meer dan 1,5 miljoen doden…..)….
Diezelfde
massamedia hebben ‘uiteraard’ ook de illegale oorlogen van de Obama
administratie uitentreuren gesteund. Het gaat dan om de illegale oorlogen tegen Libië en Syrië, naast een groot aantal geheime militaire operaties in
andere delen van Afrika, plus de opstand in Oekraïne, die door
Hillary Clinton, destijds minister van BuZa, werd georganiseerd
(i.s.m. de CIA) en waar de VS 4 miljard dollar aan spendeerde……..
Gevolg
van de gelukte opzet van die opstand in Oekraïne, een staatsgreep tegen de
democratisch gekozen regering Janoekovytsj, heeft ervoor gezorgd dat
de neonazi-junta van Porosjenko een oorlog begon tegen de Oekraïners in het oosten van het land, daar deze mensen niet wensten te leven
onder de neonazi-junta van Porosjenko en terecht goed pissig waren over de coup
tegen een o.a. door hen gekozen regering en president……..
Alle
leugens gefabriceerd door de VS over Oekraïne werden en worden zonder
enig commentaar overgenomen door de reguliere media, op aangeven van de geheime diensten van de VS en die van haar westerse partners….. Ga maar eens
na wat diezelfde media te vertellen zouden hebben als er bijvoorbeeld
eenzelfde staatsgreep zou hebben plaatsgevonden in een land als België…… De rapen zouden gaar zijn geweest en diezelfde media
zouden moord en brand hebben geschreeuwd…… (hoewel, zouden ze dat
ook doen als de VS ook in België de antidemocratische agressor zou
zijn geweest?)
Voorts
zijn er nog de moorden die de VS pleegt op verdachten, dit middels
drones….. Dit terreurprogramma werd door Bush opgezet en in veel groter aantal door de Obama
administratie overgenomen, intussen heeft Trump deze terreuraanslagen nog verder uitgebreid…… Hoe is het mogelijk dat zogenaamd
onafhankelijke mediaorganen niet met hevige kritiek op deze
standrechtelijke executies zijn gekomen, zeker nadat een paar jaar
geleden al bekend werd gemaakt dat meer dan 90% van de slachtoffers van die
VS terreuraanslagen, niet eens werden verdacht, dus vooral vrouwen en
kinderen…???
Het
volgende artikel is van Caitlin Johnstone, vandaag gepubliceerd:
The
fact that George W Bush has given Michelle Obama two pieces of candy
is once again making headlines in mainstream outlets like Time, The
Hill,
and Newsweek.
He has not given her any new pieces of candy since the last time he
did so at his father’s funeral. He also has not ceased to be the
man who facilitated the murder of a million Iraqis and inflicted a
whole new level of military expansionism and Orwellian surveillance
upon our world. As near as I can tell, the only reason this story is
once again making headlines is because Michelle Obama and the
mainstream media have decided to bring it up again.
“He
has the presence of mind and the sense of humor to bring me a mint,
and he made it a point to give me that mint right then and there and
that’s the beauty of George Bush,” Obama said of the war criminal
in conversation at the SAP Center over the weekend, which we
apparently need to know about because the news is telling us about
it.
“We’re
all Americans. We all care about our family and our kids, and we’re
trying to get ahead,” Obama continued. “And that’s how I feel
about [Bush]. You know? He’s a beautiful, funny, kind, sweet man.”
Amir@AmirAminiMD
I have always respected Michelle Obama. But continuing to glorify a mass murderer responsible for the death of over a million defenseless innocent civilians, reflects more on her own character than on that of that despicable war criminal.
If
you’re starting to feel like attempts to rehabilitate George W
Bush’s image are being aggressively shoved down your throat by the
mass media at every opportunity, it’s because that is exactly what
is happening. Every few weeks there’s a new deluge of headlines
explaining to consumers of mainstream media why they should love the
43rd president because he’s such a cutesy wootsey cuddle pie, and
completely forget about the piles upon piles of human corpses he is
responsible for creating for no legitimate reason at all. The last
Bush appreciation blitz was less
than two weeks ago.
And
there is a reason for this. Make no mistake, this relentless,
aggressive campaign to rehabilitate George W Bush whether you like it
or not is actually a campaign to rehabilitate what he did and the
mass media’s unforgivable complicity in it.
The
mass media failed spectacularly to
practice due diligence and hold power to account in the lead-up to
the illegal and unconscionable Iraq invasion, not
just the ghouls at Fox News but
respected centrist outlets like CNN, the New
York Times and
the Washington
Post as
well. Bogus government reports were passed on uncritically and
unquestioned, antiwar demonstrations with hundreds of thousands of
protesters were ignored and downplayed, and the words “Saddam
Hussein” and “9/11” were deliberately mentioned in the same
breath so frequently that seven out of ten Americans still
believed Saddam was responsible for the September 11 attacks months
after the Iraq invasion had occurred.
In
an environment where the New
York Times is
instructing its readers how to “help
fight the information wars”
against Russia, the BBC is coaching
its audience to
scream the word “whataboutism” whenever a skeptic of
establishment Russia narratives brings up Iraq, and the US Secretary
of Defense is claiming that Putin is trying to “undermine
America’s moral authority,”
the massive credibility hit that imperial media and institutions took
by deceiving the world into the destruction of Iraq matters.
Propaganda is a lot more important in cold war than in hot war since
avoiding direct military confrontation limits the options of the
participants, and Iraq is a giant bullet hole in the narrative of US
moral authority which Moscow is rightly all too happy to point out.
OffGuardian@OffGuardian0
Exactly this. This is a war on both morality & objective reality. People are rebranded “good” or “bad” not based on their actions, but whether or not they subscribe to a state mandated list of opinions.
Caitlin Johnstone @caitoz
Make no mistake, this relentless, aggressive, shove-it-down-your-throat campaign to rehabilitate George W Bush is actually a campaign to rehabilitate what he did and the mass media’s complicity in it. This isn’t news, it isn’t a heartwarming story, it’s war propaganda. https://twitter.com/TIME/status/1074907188429275136 …
Without
the claim of moral authority, none of America’s manipulations
against Russia make any sense. It’s absurd for America to spend
years shrieking about Russian election meddling after it openly
rigged Russia’s elections in
the nineties, unless America claims that it rigged Russia’s
elections for moral reasons while Russia rigged America’s elections
for immoral reasons. It makes no sense to have mainstream western
media outlets uncritically manufacturing support for wars and
coaching their audiences on how to help government agencies fight
“information wars” against Russia while also criticizing RT as
“state media”, unless you can say that western media functions as
an arm of the US government for moral reasons while RT does so for
immoral reasons. It makes no sense for the US to criticize Russian
military interventionism when the US is vastly more guilty of vastly
more egregious forms of military interventionism, unless the US can
claim its interventionism is moral while Russia’s is immoral.
For
this reason it’s been necessary to rehabilitate the image of the
Iraq invasion, and since there is no aspect of the Iraq invasion
itself that isn’t soaked in blood and gore, they are rehabilitating
its most recognizable face instead. Mainstream media outlets are
doing this both to restore their own credibility and the credibility
of the US world order they serve, in order to help secure crucial
narrative control as we slide ever closer to a direct
military confrontation with Russia and/or China.
Whoever
controls the narrative controls the world, and Iraq is a major weak
point in the US-centralized empire’s narrative control. When you
see a political insider like Michelle Obama constantly facilitating
the mass media’s fixation on how cuddly wuddly George W Bush has
become, you are not witnessing a heartwarming moment, you are not
witnessing redemption, and you are most certainly not witnessing the
news. You are witnessing war propaganda, plain and simple.
Gisteren
publiceerde Caitlin Johnstone een artikel met een kop waarin ze stelt
dat de hysterische massamedia eindelijk openlijk erkennen dat propaganda werkt.
Ze legt dit verder uit met te zeggen dat de reguliere (massa-)
media hebben ontdekt dat propaganda werkt, dit door het dag in dag uit op de oorlogstrommel slaan met de leugen
dat Rusland de verkiezingen in de VS heeft gestolen van Hillary
Clinton…….
Ben
het in deze niet eens met Johnstone, daar die reguliere media al ver
voor de presidentsverkiezingen van 2016 volop propaganda maakten,
neem alleen al de leugens van die media over Afghanistan, Irak, Libië en Syrië, leugens die mede aan de wieg stonden van grootschalige VS terreur tegen die landen, dit in
de vorm van illegale oorlogen……
Ondanks dat voor een ieder en zeker voor journalisten van de massamedia, duidelijk zou moeten zijn dat men het publiek heeft voorgelogen (over de landen waartegen de VS illegale oorlogen begon), immers daar zijn stapels bewijzen voor, blijven die media (alsook het grootste deel van de westerse politici) dezelfde leugens herhalen……….
Syrië?
Vraag je je misschien af. Ja, in feite geldt dit ook voor Syrië,
immers de VS was al vanaf 2006, onder opperschoft G.W. Bush, bezig
met het opzetten van een opstand in Syrië, die tot de afzetting van
Assad had moeten leiden….. Met grote graagte herhaalden de massamedia de leugens van o.a. de CIA over Syrië en dat al ver voor ‘de opstand…..’
Eén en ander zegt jammer genoeg niets over het in puin bombarderen van Syrië, waarvoor de VS als hoofdverantwoordelijke kan worden aangewezen….. ‘Opstand’ (middels buitenlandse
agitatoren en de CIA) geslaagd, coup mislukt, hetzelfde recept werkte overigens
wel in Oekraïne en als gevolg van die geslaagde staatsgreep tegen de
democratisch gekozen regering Janoekovytsj, voert de door de VS
geparachuteerde neonazi-junta Porosjenko oorlog tegen burgers, die het
terecht niet pikten dat de door hen gekozen regering werd
afgezet….. Ofwel de VS is ook verantwoordelijk voor de oorlog die de Porosjenko junta voert tegen de burgerbevolking van Oost-Oekraïne….
De
media hebben met hun propaganda het grootste deel van de westerse
bevolkingen overtuigd van de Russische bemoeienis met de
presidentsverkiezingen, het Brexit referendum en het Catalaanse
onafhankelijkheidsreferendum. Waar de media in de EU lidstaten de
Russen beschuldigden van zo ongeveer alles wat fout ging op
politiek-maatschappelijk gebied…..
Uiteraard
beseft men bij die media dat men openlijk meewerkt aan anti-Russische
propaganda, immers waar zou men als eerste door moeten hebben dat
claims van Russische manipulaties je reinste kul zijn? Juist, bij die
reguliere media! Media die met een claim op nationale veiligheid
al lang zijn gestopt met het zetten van vraagtekens bij
beschuldigingen waarvoor zelfs na 2 jaar niet één steekhoudend
bewijs werd geleverd……..
Ondanks
mijn bedenkingen geeft het artikel van Johnstone een duidelijk
(sarcastisch en bij tijd en wijle humoristisch) beeld van waar het om
gaat als je spreekt over Russiagate en de verdere anti-Russische propaganda
in de reguliere media. Nogmaals wijst Johnstone (volkomen terecht) op de minimale bedragen waarmee Rusland zogenaamd de VS presidentsverkiezingen zou hebben beïnvloed, terwijl de bedragen waarmee deze verkiezingen wel worden beïnvloed, de ‘Russische bedragen voor eenzelfde invloed’ volkomen in de schaduw stellen…..
Om nog maar te zwijgen (niet dus) over het optreden van de Israëlische Palestijnenslachter en premier Netanyahu in de VS senaat, maanden voor de presidentsverkiezingen, waar deze massamoordenaar de democraten afmaakte en de republikeinen (onder Trump) voor Israël als enig aanvaardbare toekomstige regering afschilderde…… Geen hond in de reguliere (massa-) media die hier grote ophef over maakte, terwijl dit toch echt veel verder ging dan de leugens over het kwaadaardige sprookje dat men ‘Russiagate’ noemt…….
Mass
Media’s Russia Hysteria Is Openly Acknowledging the Power of
Propaganda
(CJ Opinion) — “So
now the question becomes: how did Russia know to target African
American voters, and especially in certain key states,” asked popular
#Resistance pundit Amy Siskind in response to a New
York Times article claiming
Russian social media trolls targeted Sanders supporters and Black
voters during the 2016 election.
“I
think we’ll get our answers in the coming months from the Mueller
probe,” Siskind speculated.
Well
that’s a mighty good question there, Amy, and I think the answer is
pretty obvious. Clearly Russia knew to target African American voters
because Donald Trump called his boss Vladimir Putin and told him
about America’s secret racial issues, which nobody in any foreign
country could ever know about on their own. Then it was a simple
matter of sending the trolls of St Petersburg’s Internet Research
Agency to trick black people into thinking that the American
political system hasn’t been working for them, thereby ensuring the
defeat of the rightful heir to the presidential throne, Hillary
Rodham Clinton. It’s not disenfranchised voters’ fault that
Hillary’s coronation failed to take place, it’s the fault of
Russian memes on social media which confused their silly heads about
who they wanted to vote for!
Or,
alternate theory: everything about that question is immensely stupid.
Russian 2016 Influence Operation Targeted African-Americans on Social Media
Two reports commissioned by the Senate Intelligence Committee take a deeper look at the fake social media accounts used by Russia in the American election.
nytimes.com
This
whole story is unbelievably idiotic. Not just because it’s based on
a report by a private cybersecurity company that was founded
by an NSA veteran,
a company which would have every incentive to bend its findings in
the most sensational way possible to attract clients with a viral new
“bombshell” story about Russian election meddling. Not just
because it infantilizes voters by implying that a smattering of
cutesy memes deprived them of independent agency and caused the
failure of Hillary Clinton’s historically awful presidential
campaign. Not just because of the sleazy gaslighting element inherent
in a narrative which insinuates that a populace meant to elect a
different candidate but got confused. By far the dumbest thing about
this story is the implicit suggestion that only Russian propaganda
was at play during the 2016 election, and no other propaganda.
It’s
often claimed that the dastardly Russians had a $1.2 million monthly
budget for US social media influence in the lead-up to the 2016
election, but that’s false. As Aaron Maté noted
back in February,
this figure actually covers the Russian troll farm’s total
operating budget, which was for “domestic audiences within the
Russian Federation and others targeting foreign audiences in various
countries, including the United States.” So the actual monthly
budget was some thousands of dollars, and most of the troll farm’s
posts weren’t
even about the election.
Contrast that with Hillary Clinton’s $1.2
billion campaign budget and
the untold billions of dollars worth of free mass media coverage she
received, and even if everything we’re being told about Russia’s
“influence campaign” is completely true, that’s a microscopic
drop in the bucket.
FiveThirtyEight
editor-in-chief Nate Silver, a fairly reliable establishment
loyalist, tweeted
today about
the new Russia report saying “If you wrote out a list of the most
important factors in the 2016 election, I’m not sure that Russian
social media memes would be among the top 100. The scale was quite
small and there’s not much evidence that they were effective.”
“For
instance, this story makes a big deal about a (post-election) Russian
social media disinformation campaign on Bob Mueller based on… 5,000
tweets? That’s **nothing**. Platform-wide, there are something like
500,000,000 tweets posted each day,” Silver continued.
What fraction of overall social media impressions on the 2016 election were generated by Russian troll farms? 0.1%? I’m not sure what the answer is, but suspect it’s low, and it says something that none of the reports that hype up the importance of them address that question.
For
all the fearmongering we see in the mass media about “Russian
propaganda”, propaganda from Russia actually constitutes an almost
nonexistent percentage of the media westerners consume which is
designed to influence the way they think, act and vote. You can go
your whole life without ever encountering any propaganda that was
cooked up by the Kremlin, yet every day you are surrounded
by screens,
billboards and literature aimed at manipulating you into supporting
the corporatist oligarchy that rules the nation you live in. The only
reason anyone thinks Russian psyops have any kind of meaningful
influence on people’s minds is because the mass media have been
shrieking about it day in and day out for two years without ever
contrasting it with the rest of the propaganda they consume.
But
within all the hysterical hand-wringing about Russian propaganda
there is an important admission: these mass media talking heads are
all openly acknowledging that there exists a science for manipulating
the minds of the public, and that it is very effective. Now if they
could only admit that they are the world’s greatest practitioners
of this science, they’d be telling the full story.
Of
course, that’s the part of the story they’ll never tell you. They
tell you their concern is that Russians are trying to manipulate your
mind with propaganda, but really their concern is that they want to
be the only ones manipulating your mind with propaganda. They tell
you Russian propaganda is so dangerous that it’s necessary to
censor the internet and hide all narratives which aren’t in line
with the ruling establishment in order to protect democracy, but
really all they want is to have full control of the narratives you
consume. This is evidenced in the
article by the Washington
Post which
kicked off this latest round of Russia panic, which reports the
following:
The
report expressed concern about the overall threat social media poses
to political discourse within nations and among them, warning that
companies once viewed as tools for liberation in the Arab world and
elsewhere are now threats to democracy.
“Social
media have gone from being the natural infrastructure for sharing
collective grievances and coordinating civic engagement to being a
computational tool for social control, manipulated by canny political
consultants and available to politicians in democracies and
dictatorships alike,” the report said.
Of all the absolute mountains of propaganda produced every election cycle, we’re supposed to believe the minuscule fraction of Russian stuff (probably .000001% of total propaganda produced) was somehow decisive. No one has *ever* explained how that even remotely makes sense.
There
does indeed exist a science for manipulating the minds of the people.
It is indeed very effective, and it has been developed, refined and
perfected for
over a century.
Propaganda works, and even establishment mouthpieces like the New
York Times and
the Washington
Post admit
it.
Think
powerful people in your own country aren’t using it on you? Think
again.
‘Campagne Clinton, smeriger dan gedacht…………‘ (met daarin daarin opgenomen de volgende twee artikelen: ‘Donna Brazile Bombshell: ‘Proof’ Hillary ‘Rigged’ Primary Against Bernie‘ en ‘Democrats in Denial After Donna Brazile Says Primary Was Rigged for Hillary‘)
Thomas
Merton (31 januari 1915 – 10 december 1968), een rk geestelijke die zich actief verzette tegen de
Vietnamoorlog, werd op 10 december 1968 vermoord, in hetzelfde jaar
dat Robert Kennedy en Martin Luther King werden vermoord, alle drie
mensen die zich hebben uitgesproken tegen de Vietnamoorlog….. (al
is daar wat betreft J.F. Kennedy nog steeds discussie over)
Brasscheck
TV bracht vorige week maandag een bericht over de mysterieuze dood
van Merton, die dag 50 jaar eerder. Als men in de VS spreekt over een
mysterieuze dood van een maatschappijcriticus, kan je er donder op
zeggen dat de CIA en/of de FBI het één en ander hebben geregeld om
een dergelijke criticus voorgoed de mond te snoeren………
In
de laatste video in dit artikel aandacht voor het enorme gebruik van heroïne, niet alleen in de VS maar ook in Zuid-Vietnam, waar na 1970 een enorm aantal VS militairen een overdosis hebben genomen (overigens
niet altijd dodelijk). De CIA deed zaken met ‘warlords’ in Cambodja
en transporteerde grote hoeveelheden heroïne in de lijkzakken van gesneuvelde militairen naar de VS……. Eén van de tactieken van de CIA en FBI
tegen opstandige jongeren in de VS was groepen als de Black Panthers
te overspoelen met heroïne…….
Uiteraard
gebruikte de CIA de gelden uit de heroïne verkoop voor zwaar
illegale acties in het buitenland, acties die zelfs de zittende
regeringen te ver gingen (en die regeringen zagen al veel CIA geweld
door de misdadige vingers…..)……
SPECIAL
REPORT – 50th anniversary of the strange death of Thomas Merton
December
10, 2018 is the 50th anniversary of the strange death of Thomas
Merton.
And
the news media is, predictably, ignoring it.
Who
was Thomas Merton?
He
was an immensely popular writer, the most prominent and popular
priest in the Catholic Church – and outspoken against the Vietnam
War.
And
like Martin Luther King and Robert F. Kennedy, he ended up dead – in
1968 – under highly suspicious circumstances.
THE
STRANGE DEATH OF THOMAS MERTON
JANUARY 31, 1915 –
DECEMBER 10, 1968
1968
– KING, KENNEDY, MERTON – ALL KILLED
In
1968, 16,597 American servicemen were killed in Vietnam. This was
50% more than any other year of the war.
Things
were particularly bloody at home too.
Specifically,
the country’s top three anti-war leaders, each of whom represented
a major demographic segment of the country, were murdered:
1.
Martin Luther King – the African-American leader of the Civil
Rights Movement
2. Robert F. Kennedy – the most likely
presidential candidate for the Democrats in ’68
3. Thomas Merton
– the most popular priest at the time in the Catholic Church
Thomas
Merton?
Many
people think that Thomas Merton was electrocuted by a faulty fan in
the bedroom of a retreat center he was staying at in Thailand.
Many
people believe in the Easter Bunny too.
Currently,
there is NOTHING on YouTube that explains the following five points
in a single video:
1
Who Thomas Merton was
2. What he said about the war (and other
issues of justice)
3. How respected and influential he was
4.
How despised he was by the hierarchy of the Catholic Church and
others who were pro-war in 1968
5. The utter preposterousness of
the official “story” of how he died
Facts
about Merton’s death:
1
No autopsy was conducted
2. The only “official” report did
not appear on official stationery and was unsigned
3. A photo
exists of the body as it was reportedly found and no one has been
allowed to see it or publish it
4. Merton’s body had a head
wound with significant blood loss
The
last talk of Thomas Merton…later that day he was dead
Heroin
sales to US troops – A major CIA cash cow
Aan de labels direct onder dit label heb ik ook de namen John Lennon en Berta Cáceres toegevoegd, beiden vermoord vanwege hun
maatschappijkritiek, waar bij Cáceres opgemerkt dient te
worden dat zij vooral bekend stond als milieu-activist (die met haar activisme ook de rechten van de arme oorspronkelijke bewoners in Honduras diende, hetzelfde Honduras waar de CIA onder regie van Hillary Clinton in 2009 een staatsgreep pleegde en waarvan de bewoners nu massaal richting VS vluchten……). Daarover gesproken: milieuactivisten in Latijns Amerika lopen groot gevaar vermoord te worden, voorbeelden te over…..
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…….
How
Plutocratic Media Keeps Staff Aligned With Establishment Agendas
Why
do mainstream media reporters within ostensibly free democracies act
just like state media propagandists? Why are they so reliably
pro-establishment, all throughout every mainstream outlet? Why do
they so consistently marginalize any idea that doesn’t fit within
the extremely narrow Overton window of acceptable opinion? Why does
anyone who inconveniences western establishment power always find
themselves on the losing end of a trial by media? Why are they so
dependably adversarial toward anything that could be perceived as a
flaw in any nation outside the US-centralized power alliance, and so
dependably forgiving of the flaws of the nations within it?
The
way I see it there are only two possible explanations for the
unanimous consensus in mass media on these issues:
Explanation
1: The
consensus exists because the mass media reporters are all telling the
truth all the time.
OR
Explanation
2: The
consensus exists because there is some kind of system in place which
keeps all mass media reporters lying to us and painting a false
picture about what’s going on in the world.
Those
are the only two possibilities, and only one can be true, since any
mixture of the two would result in the loss of consensus.
Most
mainstream westerners harbor an unquestioned assumption that
Explanation 1 is the only possibility. The things they see on CNN,
the BBC and the ABC are all accurate descriptions of what’s really
going on in the world, and the consensus in their descriptions exists
because they’re all describing the same objective reality.
But
what would that mean exactly? Well, for starters if the mainstream
media reporters are telling us the truth all the time it would mean
that the same power institutions which slaughtered millions in
Vietnam and Iraq for no good reason are actually virtuous and honest.
It would mean the positive, uncritical picture that is consistently
painted of those same institutions which wage
nonstop campaigns of bloodshed and
oppression to ensure the profit of economic manipulators and war
profiteers is due to those institutions possessing merits which are
overall so positive that no criticism of them is needed. It would
mean that the status quo of climate destruction, steadily growing
wealth inequality, an increasingly Orwellian surveillance system, an
increasingly militarized police force, increasing internet
censorship, and crushing neoliberal austerity measures are all things
people voted for using the excellent democratic political system the
mainstream media defends, based on the accurate information the
mainstream media gave them about what’s in their best interests.
Explanation
1 sounds improbable in that light. We know that the system is
spectacularly screwed up, and we know that the political
establishment which these mainstream outlets always defend does
unforgivably evil things, so we should expect to see a lot more
critical reporting and a lot less protecting of the status quo. But
we don’t. We see war crimes ignored, oppression justified, the
two-headed one-party system normalized, dissident narratives smeared
as fake news conspiracy theories, and unproven assertions by
government agencies with a known history of lying reported as
unquestionable fact.
But
that leaves only Explanation 2. How could that be right?
This
partof
a 1996
interviewbetween
Noam Chomsky and the BBC’s Andrew Marr describes a foundational
element of Explanation 2: that there is a system in place which
ensures that all the reporters in positions of influence are there
not to report factually on the news of the day, but to sell a
particular narrative that is friendly to the state and the status
quo. Chomsky describes a “filtering system” which ensures
that only those loyal to power rise to the top within the
plutocrat-owned media, to which Marr objects and insists that his
peers are brave truth-tellers who hold power to account.
Subsequently, the following exchange takes place:
”Chomsky:
Well, I know some of the best, and best known investigative reporters
in the United States, I won’t mention names, whose attitude towards
the media is much more cynical than mine. In fact, they regard the
media as a sham. And they know, and they consciously talk about how
they try to play it like a violin. If they see a little opening,
they’ll try to squeeze something in that ordinarily wouldn’t make
it through. And it’s perfectly true that the majority – I’m
sure you’re speaking for the majority of journalists who are
trained, have it driven into their heads, that this is a crusading
profession, adversarial, we stand up against power. A very
self-serving view. On the other hand, in my opinion, I hate to make a
value judgement but, the better journalists and in fact the ones who
are often regarded as the best journalists have quite a different
picture. And I think a very realistic one.
Marr:
How can you know that I’m self-censoring? How can you know that
journalists are..
Chomsky:
I’m not saying your self censoring. I’m sure you believe
everything you’re saying. But what I’m saying is that if you
believed something different, you wouldn’t be sitting where you’re
sitting”.
“If
you believed something different, you wouldn’t be sitting where
you’re sitting.”
It
is an obvious fact that mainstream media outlets are
owned by the extremely wealthy,
as has been the case for a very long time. Owning media is in and of
itself a profitable investment, “like having a license to print
your own money” as Canadian television magnate Roy Thomson once
put it.
So when it comes to the news media outlets which form people’s
perceptions of the world, what incentive would a powerful plutocrat
have to platform anti-establishment voices on those outlets and help
sow ideas which upset the status quo upon which said plutocrat has
built his empire? It certainly wouldn’t make him any more money,
and if anti-establishment ideas like socialism, anarchism,
non-interventionism or skepticism of government agencies gained
popular footing in public consciousness, it could upset the
foundation of the plutocrat’s dynasty and cause him to lose
everything.
Plutocrats
have put a lot of energy into influencing government policy in order
to create legislation which ensures the continued growth of their
wealth and power. A whole lot of maneuvering has had to happen over
the course of many years to create a political system wherein
government bribery is legal in the form of campaign finance and
corporate lobbying, wherein deregulation of corporations is the norm,
wherein tax loopholes are abundant and tax burdens are shifted to the
middle class, wherein money hemorrhages upward to the wealthiest of
the wealthy while ordinary people grow poorer and poorer. What
incentive would these powerful oligarchs have to risk upsetting that
delicate balancing act by helping to circulate ideas which challenge
the very governmental system they’ve worked so hard to manipulate
to their extreme advantage? And how many incentives would they have
to keep everyone supporting the status quo?
How
hard would it be to simply decline to give anti-establishment voices
a platform, and platform establishment loyalists instead? How easy
would it be for a wealthy media owner or influential investor to
ensure that only establishment loyalists are given the job of hiring
and promoting editors and reporters in a mainstream media outlet?
Every blue-checkmark MSM journo on Twitter is auditioning for a job. All they’re actually tweeting is “Look at me, current or future employer! I will smear Julian Assange! I will help sell the Russia narrative! I’ll say Corbyn is an antisemite!” And the MSM bosses pay attention.
If
you’ve ever wondered what motivates all those blue-checkmarked
corporate media journalists to spend so much time on Twitter
defending the powerful and attacking the disempowered, this is your
answer. They spend their own free time smearing Jill Stein, calling
Jeremy Corbyn an antisemite, attacking Julian Assange, supporting
longtime neoconservative war agendas against Russia, Syria and Iran
and uncritically reporting intelligence agency assertions as fact not
because there’s a CIA officer hovering over their shoulder at all
times telling them exactly what to tweet, but because they’re
auditioning for a job. They’re creating a public record of their
establishment loyalism which current and future employers will look
at when weighing hiring and promotion decisions, which is why both
journalism schools and journalism employers now
encourage journalists to cultivate a social media presence to
“build their brand”, i.e. their public resume.
So
it’s very easy to fill mass media jobs with minds which are not
predisposed toward rocking the boat. A pro-establishment consensus is
artificially built, and now you’ve got an environment where someone
who stands up and says “Uh, hey, so we still haven’t seen any
actual hard evidence that Russia interfered in the US election in any
meaningful way” or whatever is instantly greeted by a wall of
shunning and shaming (observe Aaron
Maté‘s
interactions with other journalists on social media for a good
example of this), which can be psychologically difficult to deal
with.
Every blue-checkmark MSM journo on Twitter is auditioning for a job. All they’re actually tweeting is “Look at me, current or future employer! I will smear Julian Assange! I will help sell the Russia narrative! I’ll say Corbyn is an antisemite!” And the MSM bosses pay attention.
Anyone
who’s ever gone to high school can understand how powerful the
social pressures to seek peer approval and fit in can be, and anyone
who’s ever worked a normal job anywhere can understand the natural
incentives that are in place to behave in a way that is pleasing to
one’s bosses. In any job with any kind of hierarchy, you quickly
learn the written rules, and you pay close attention to social cues
to learn the unwritten ones as well. You do this in order to learn
how to avoid getting in trouble and how to win the approval of your
superiors, to learn which sorts of behaviors can lead to raises and
promotions, and which behaviors will lead to a career dead-end. You
learn what will earn you a pat on the back from a leader, which can
be extremely egoically gratifying and incentivizing in and of itself.
It
works exactly the same way in news media. Reporters might not always
be consciously aware of all the pro-establishment guidelines they’re
expected to follow in order to advance their careers, but they know
how the reporters who’ve ascended to the top of the media ladder
conduct themselves, and they see how the journalists who win the
accolades behave. With the help of editors and peers you quickly
learn where all the third rails and sacred cows are, and when to shut
your mouth about the elephant in the room. And for those rare times
that all these filtration devices fail to adequately filter out
dissident ideas, you see the example that gets made of those few who
slip between the cracks, like CNN contributor Marc Lamont Hill for
his defense
of Palestinian human rights or
Phil Donahue for his opposition
to the Iraq invasion.
Last week, CNN contributor Marc Lamont Hill delivered a speech at the United Nations in support of Palestinian self-determination and equal rights. Less than 24 hours later, CNN was done with him. http://bit.ly/2RTa4La
The six words that got Marc Lamont Hill fired from CNN
Hill’s dismissal highlights how pro-Israel lobbying groups control the US discourse on Palestine and Israel
mg.co.za
So
plutocrats own the mass media and platform status quo-friendly
voices, which creates an environment full of peer pressure to conform
and workplace pressure to advance establishment-friendly narratives.
Add to this the phenomenon of access
journalism,
wherein journalists are incentivized to cozy up to power and pitch
softball questions to officials in order to gain access to them, and
things get even more slanted. It’s easy to understand how all this
can create an environment of consensus which has nothing to do with
facts or reality, but rather with what narratives favor the
US-centralized empire and the plutocrats who control it. But all
those dynamics aren’t the only factors going into making sure a
consensus worldview is maintained. Remember that hypothetical CIA
officer I mentioned earlier who isn’t actively leaning over every
journalist’s shoulder and dictating what they tweet? Well, just
because he’s not dictating every word produced by the mass media
machine doesn’t mean he’s not involved.
Secretive
and unaccountable government agencies have an extensive and
well-documented record of involving themselves with news media
outlets. It is a known and undisputed fact that the Central
Intelligence Agency has been intimately
involved in America’s news media since the 1950s,
and it remains so to this day. In 2014 it was a scandal when reporter
Ken Dilanian was caught collaborating
with the CIA in
his publications, but now veterans of the US intelligence community
like John Brennan and James Clapper openly
fill out the line-up of
talking heads on MSNBC and CNN. Just recently the Guardian published
a lie-filled smear piece on Julian Assange which was
almost certainly the resultof
the outlet’s collaboration with one or more intelligence and/or
defense agencies, and when that article caused an outcry it was
defended as the likely result of Russian disinformation in an
evidence-free article by a CIA veteran who was permitted to publish
anonymously in Politico.
The Washington
Post is
solely owned by Jeff Bezos, who
is a CIA contractor,
and who we may be certain did not purchase the Post under the
illusion that newspapers were about to make a lucrative comeback.
Secretive government agencies are deeply involved in the workings of
western news media, in many ways we know about, and in far more ways
we don’t know about.
Taking
all of these factors into consideration and revisiting Explanation 1
and Explanation 2 from the beginning of this article, it should be
obvious to you that the most logical explanation for the uniform
consensus of support for pro-establishment narratives in the mass
media exists because there is indeed a system in place which keeps
all mass media reporters lying to us and painting a false picture
about what’s going on in the world.
This
doesn’t mean that these news media outlets lie about everything all
the time, it means they mostly provide half-truths, distortions and
lies by omission whenever it benefits the agendas of the powerful,
which is functionally the same as lying all the time. I sometimes get
people telling me “Caitlin! The MSM lies all
the time,
and they say global warming is real! That means it’s false!” But
it doesn’t work that way; if the TV tells you a celebrity has died
then it’s probably true, and if they say it’s about to rain you
should probably roll up your car windows. If they lied about
everything all the time they would instantly lose all credibility,
and their ability to propagandize effectively would be lost. Instead,
they advance evidence-free narratives asserted by opaque government
agencies, they avoid highlighting inconvenient truths, they ignore
third parties and dissident ideas except to dismiss them, they
harshly criticize the misdeeds of governments which oppose the
US-centralized empire while sweeping the misdeeds of imperial members
under the rug, and when there’s an opportunity to sabotage peace or
support war, they seize it. They distort only when they have to, and
only as much as they need to.
In
this way the powerful have succeeded in controlling the people’s
narratives about what’s happening in their country and their world.
This is the system of narrative manipulation we are up against when
we try to sow dissident ideas into public consciousness, and as the
old adage goes, it is easier to fool people than to convince them
that they have been fooled.
And
yet we are gaining ground. The manipulators have been losing control
of the narrative, which is why the mass media have been acting
so weird and desperate since 2016.
The unelected power establishment failed to manufacture support for
its would-be Syria invasion, it failed
to get the publicto
buy into the Russia hysteria, trust in the mass media is at
an all-time
low,
and it’s continuing
to plummet.
More and more people are waking up to the fact that they are being
lied to, which is good, because the only thing keeping them from
pushing for real change is the fact that there are all these screens
in everyone’s lives telling them that real change isn’t needed.
The
liars are against the ropes, and they’re starting to look winded.
A populist
information revolutionis
looking more winnable than ever.
Thanks
for reading! The best way to get around the internet censors and make
sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list
for mywebsite,
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 onFacebook,
following my antics onTwitter, throwing
some money into my hat on PatreonorPaypal, buying
my new book Rogue
Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone,
or my previous book Woke:
A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers.
Bij de moorden op John F. Kennedy (JFK), zijn broer Robert (RFK) en Martin Luther King (MLK), bestaat het officiële verhaal uit een stelling dat een eenling de
moord zou hebben gepleegd, terwijl het voor een ieder duidelijk kan zijn dat
het hier om in de puntjes beraamde moorden gaat, die niet door één persoon kunnen zijn gepland en uitgevoerd.
Het
‘verbazende’ is dat het voorgaande zeker ook voor de moord op John
Lennon opgaat, vorige week was dat 38 jaar geleden (8 december 1980). Hoewel, verbazend? Immers Lennon nam geen blad voor
de mond als het in het openbare debat ging om het kritiek leveren op de maatschappij, kapitalisme en oorlogsvoering in het
bijzonder……
Wanneer je in de VS een bekend persoon bent als Lennon, JFK, MLK of RFK met veel invloed en je stelt je op als zoals deze mensen dat hebben gedaan, bevind je je uiterst snel in de kijker van de CIA en de FBI, waarna je in levensgevaar verkeert……
Al deze
moorden zijn dan ook toe te schrijven aan de CIA (niet zelden in samenwerking met de FBI), die voor dit soort
en andere zaken die verborgen moeten blijven, samenwerkt met de
georganiseerde misdaad (immers daar heeft men ‘de neiging’ de mond te
houden).
Voorts
zijn degenen die meestal opvallend snel na zo’n moord worden aangewezen als
dader, van te voren bewerkt door de CIA en/of andere geheime diensten.
Lees het
volgende artikel van Brasscheck TV en zie de 2 bijgevoegde video’s
(Brasscheck stelt overigens dat ook video’s van haar organisatie
worden gecensureerd door YouTube, ‘leve de Russiagate
leugen……..’)
The
mysterious death of John Lennon
When
John Lennon was shot and killed the news media went into “lone
nut with a gun” mode.
They
left out the “lone nut with intelligence connections, endless
financial resources, and obvious signs of having been brainwashed”
part.
THE
ASSASSINATION OF JOHN LENNON
THE
UNTOLD STORY
1
MIND CONTROL PATSY + 1 MOB HITMAN
Wow,
it was hard getting this one passed the YouTube censors.
If
you like it, best download and repost it elsewhere while it’s still
available.
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/954.html
The
Official Story
Let’s
see…
It’s
1980. There are no cheap air flights. Credit cards are not easily
available.
A
25 year old ex-camp counselor and janitor flies from Hawaii to New
York City, stays in five star luxury hotels (ex. The Waldorf
Astoria), flies to Georgia, back to New York City and then back to
Hawaii.
Back
in Hawaii, he tells his wife he planned to kill John Lennon, hands
her the gun he planned to use and then tells her that he changed his
mind.
Then
he flies back to New York City and with no known marksmanship
training and an avowed aversion to guns shoots and kills John Lennon.
Makes
a lot of sense, doesn’t it?
Disappearing
material witnesses and evidence
The
media sure made the wife disappear and Chapman’s psychiatrist too.
Did
you even know Chapman was married? (What kind of chick marries and
stays with a dude like this?)
Did
you even know Chapman had been under a psychiatrist’s care for
years leading up to the shooting? Whoever he was (and whatever
methods he was using), the public never got his name. Funny how that
works – over and over again.
Lennon’s
autopsy has never been released though an “autopsy report” was
stating he died of shock and loss of blood.
A
big show was made of the fact that Chapman traveled to Georgia (!) to
buy hollow point bullets because he could not buy ammunition in NYC
(WTF? He never heard of Pennsylvania just an hour and a half away by
Greyhound bus?)
Wikipedia
disinformation
The
Wikipedia article about Chapman claims he worked with refugees
through the “YMCA” at Ft. Chafee in Arkansas and that he did
“similar” work in Lebanon. This is BS cubed. He worked for the
CIA front World Vision.
Amazingly,
two years before he visited NYC, this then young twenty-something
year old janitor took a world tour which brought him to Tokyo, Seoul,
Hong Kong, Singapore, Bangkok, Delhi, Israel, Geneva, Paris and
London…in 1978 as a 23 year old…when air fares were sky high…and
kids didn’t get credit cards.
Give
me a fucking break. The official story about this guy as reinforced
by the slime balls at Wikipedia is pure fantasy.
A
CIA/Mob collaboration
Chapman
is probably a brainwashed patsy who thinks he shot Lennon.
He
probably even pointed a gun. (Note: Chapman spent a lot of time
working at a hospital “alone in the printing department”, the
same hospital that treated him after he attempted suicide.)
There
was, quite possibly, another shooter there who got the job done and
just calmly walked away as professional hit men do.
Who
pulled the trigger?
Well,
when the CIA wants to kill people overseas, it uses Special Forces.
When it wants to kill them at home, it often uses the Mob with whom
it has had a long and fruitful relationship. (They used to know how
to keep their mouths shut and provide a kind of “farm team” to
locate world class domestic trigger pullers.)
The
New York Mob was very familiar with the “use a lunatic as a patsy”
routine. They had in fact used the method just a few years earlier in
the murder of Joe Colombo when a street hustler was given a gun and
pushed into the crowd just as Colombo was shot. The street person,
Jerome Johnson who was hired that day by sources unknown to
photograph Colombo, was shot dead on the spot. No investigation. No
bullet check.
RFK
was killed by similar means when a mind control subject was put
several feet in front of Kennedy firing a pistol wildly while the
killing shot came from close range behind Kennedy.
Misdirection.
It’s a old magician’s trick made easier with the chaos of gunfire
and bloodshed.
Anyway,
the odds that the media (i.e. CIA) cover story of this murder
happened the way they claimed are very, very, very slim.
Caitlin
Johnstone plaatste gisteren een artikel over de
keus van de Trump administratie voor VS ambassadeur bij de VN Veiligheidsraad, nu oorlogshitser, pathologische leugenaar en psychopaat Nikki Haley.
De keus is gevallen op Heather
Nauert, voormalig Fox presentator en huidig woordvoerder van het
VS ministerie van buitenlandse zaken. Een neoliberale ploert die niet
onderdoet voor haat- en angstzaaier Haley, zoals ze bij Fox en
in haar functie als buitenlandse zaken woordvoerder al voldoende
heeft laten zien.
Ongelofelijk,
de reacties op het vertrek van Haley, als betrof het een groot
bewindspersoon, i.p.v. een oorlogshoer, die ziel en zaligheid heeft
verkocht aan de duivel genaamd militair-industrieel complex, een
duivel die zoveel mogelijk oorlog en ellende wil zien op de wereld,
een duivel aan wie de VS jaarlijks honderden miljarden dollars
belastinggeld offert………..
Johnstone
gaat o.a. in op de kritiek als zou Nauert elke ervaring missen om te
fungeren als ambassadeur bij de VN, waar Johnsone betoogt dat Nauert
niet onderdoet voor leugenaar en oorlogshitser Haley.
Lees het
deels humoristisch relaas van Johnstone:
Nikki
Haley To Be Replaced By Blonde Version Of Nikki Haley
When
UN Ambassador Nikki Haley announced her upcoming resignation from the
position, establishment loyalists spent the day awash with grief that
the Trump administration was losing one of its remaining moderate
Republican voices.
“Nikki
Haley, ambassador to the United Nations, has resigned, leaving the
administration with one less moderate Republican
voice,” tweeted the New
York Times, without defining what specifically is “moderate”
about relentlessly pushing for war and starvation sanctions at every
opportunity and adamantly defending the slaughter of unarmed
Palestinian protesters with sniper fire.
“Too
bad Nikki Haley has resigned,” tweeted law
professor turned deranged Russia conspiracy theorist Laurence Tribe.
“She was one of the last members of Trumplandia with even a smidgen
of decency.”
Well
I’ve got some good news for those who lamented the
loss of a virulent psychopathic war whore
as UN ambassador, and bad news for any anti-interventionist Trump
voters who’ve been secretly hoping this administration would use
Haley’s vacancy to move in a less hawkish direction: you’re
getting another one just like her. According
to multiplesources,
Trump has confirmed early rumors and selected State Department
Spokeswoman and former Fox News pundit Heather Nauert as Haley’s
replacement.
HuffPost ✔@HuffPost
BREAKING: Former Fox News host Heather Nauert has been picked to replace outgoing U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley. http://huffp.st/HwpAHte
Trump To Appoint Heather Nauert As U.S. Ambassador To United Nations
The former Fox News host is Trump’s pick to replace Nikki Haley.
Ever
since rumors emerged of Nauert’s selection for
the job last month, the dominant criticisms have been that she lacks
“experience” and “qualifications” for the job of US
Ambassador to the United Nations. These criticisms have picked up
ever since these early rumors were confirmed, and they are
illegitimate for two reasons. The first is that a position as Fox
News propagandist is very much the sort of experience an American
needs to be a UN Ambassador, especially for this administration. The
second is that all the job requires is a willingness to sell one’s
soul for the promotion of US war agendas, and to occasionally help
kick Palestinian human rights further into the gutter than they
already are. No experience is required for this, and these are things
we already know Nauert could do in her sleep.
Nauert
is perfectly qualified for the job of UN Ambassador, because all that
job requires is being a sociopathic war pig. She’s already been
doing that.
Anderson Cooper 360° ✔@AC360
“In terms of what we normally look for at the United Nations, her resume is very thin.”@David_Gergen reacts to reports that the President is expected to name Heather Nauert his new ambassador to the UN.
All
this fuss about Nauert’s “experience” highlights perfectly why
Trump’s ostensible opposition has been almost entirely worthless:
they don’t focus on any of the evil foreign policy decisions that
this administration is actually advancing, because they don’t
actually oppose those decisions. They aren’t concerned that Nauert
will promote senseless, psychotic acts of military mass murder, they
are concerned that she lacks the necessary qualifications to promote
it skillfully and professionally. On this matter, as with all
matters, Trump’s self-proclaimed “resistance” is perfectly
comfortable with the blood-spattered face of world-dominating
imperialism. They just want it to go back to smiling and saying
things politely.
The
problem with most of the opposition to Trump is that they’re not
interested in waking up, they’re interested in removing an annoying
wrinkle in their bedsheets so that they can go back to sleep. They
don’t care about the monstrous acts of violence that are inflicted
upon human beings on the other side of the globe in their name, so
they focus on irrelevant nonsense like whether or not Heather Nauert
is qualified to read from the same imperialist script that was read
by Haley, Samantha Power and Susan Rice.
Those
who care about reality don’t care about who’s reading from that
script. It is the script itself they seek to burn.
______________
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 mywebsite,
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 onFacebook,
following my antics onTwitter, throwing
some money into my hat on Patreon orPaypal, buying
my new book Rogue
Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone,
or my previous book Woke:
A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers.
Afgelopen vrijdag overleed George H.W. Bush, VS president van 20 november 1989 tot 20 november 1993.
Alsof een groot staatsman was overleden, zo berichtten de landelijke (‘onafhankelijke’) radiozenders van Nederland, Duitsland, België en Groot-Brittannië over de dood van deze ‘zware’ oorlogsmisdadiger, die o.a. verantwoordelijk was voor de in feite illegale oorlog van de VS tegen Irak in 1991.
Voorts was deze Bush als president verantwoordelijk voor de oorlog tegen Panama, terwijl de leider van dat land Manuel Noriega*, een dictator was die door de VS aan de macht werd geholpen, waar Panama o.a. werd gebruikt door de VS voor terreuraanvallen op Nicaragua, waar Noriega destijds samenwerkte met de CIA……
Onder Bush als vicepresident en president werd de ‘war on drugs’ pas echt uitgerold, ook daarbij vielen enorm veel slachtoffers en werden hele gebieden onbewoonbaar gemaakt, door gif wat men vanuit vliegtuigen over landbouwgrond in o.a. Colombia verspreidde, zodat daar geen cocaplanten konden worden geteeld….. Terwijl de DEA en CIA met enige regelmaat gemeen spel speelden met de misdaadkartels en niet zelden zelf beter werden van de drugsverkoop in de VS…….. (waarmee men dan weer andere smerige spelletjes mee betaalde……)
Uiteraard werd Bush op de aangehaalde radiozenders alleen maar geprezen, niets over de zaken die hiervoor werden aangehaald………
Als vicepresident onder de mislukte cojboj Reagan, was Bush mede verantwoordelijk voor door de VS gepleegde massamoorden, staatsgrepen, illegale oorlogen en oorlogsmisdaden in het algemeen…….. De VS werd door de VN zelfs veroordeeld voor terreur gepleegd in Nicaragua, tijdens het vicepresidentschap van Bush….
Overigens is Bush ook nog even directeur van de CIA geweest, waar hij dan ook al is aan te merken als een groot crimineel en moordenaar voor de illegale acties van die geheime dienst………
Kortom: Bush had in Scheveningen moeten overlijden, tijdens een levenslange gevangenisstraf opgelegd door het Internationaal Strafhof (ICC)!!! Maar nee, de reguliere media ruimden soms zelfs hun hele nieuwsbericht in voor de dood van deze massamoordenaar, de BBC wist zelfs een uur vol te lullen over ‘de geweldige prestaties’ van Bush……
* Noriega werd later tot een 40 jarige gevangenisstraf veroordeeld in de VS, deze werd later omgezet in 30 jaar, in 2010 werd hij uitgeleverd aan Frankrijk, die hem tot 7 jaar gevangenisstraf veroordeelde, in 2017 werd hij vervroegd vrijgelaten voor een hersenoperatie in Panama, aan de gevolgen waarvan hij overleed.
PS: ik sprak hier niet over de reacties van westerse politici, echter zoals je begrijpt bestaan die uit dezelfde valse bewoordingen als die de pers gebruikte.
Het is overduidelijk dat de corrupte Oekraïense neonazi-junta de aandacht van de
bevolking wil afleiden van de desastreuze economische situatie in het
land, dit door Rusland uit te dagen…… Zo zijn er grote tekorten aan verwarming in veel Oekraïense steden en wordt grofgraaier Porosjenko, de junta leider, nog door 8% van de Oekraïners gesteund…… Als dat je nog niet heeft overtuigd,
heeft junta leider Porosjenko NAVO oorlogsschepen te hulp geroepen
in de strijd tegen ‘Russische expansie agressie’ in de Zee van
Azov……..
Met
opzet stuurde de Oekraïense junta 3 marineschepen naar de Zee van
Azov, zonder de Russen om toestemming te vragen door de Straat van
Kertsj te mogen varen, zoals was afgesproken tussen Oekraïne en Rusland……
Vervolgens
begaven de schepen zich in door de Russen als verboden aangewezen zeegebied…… Niet zo vreemd dat verboden zeegebied, als je ziet dat Oekraïne al meerdere marineoefeningen
met de VS heeft gehouden waarbij landingen werden gesimuleerd,
simulaties voor het binnenvallen van het nu Russische schiereiland De
Krim…….
De Krim
dat zich na de door de VS georganiseerde opstand, die resulteerde in
een staatsgreep tegen de democratisch gekozen regering Janoekovytsj,
afscheidde van Oekraïne en zich na een door buitenlandse waarnemers
als goed en eerlijk beoordeeld referendum, aansloot bij Rusland, een duidelijke streep door de VS rekening van 4 miljard dollar…..* Waar het westen
o.l.v. de VS consequent blijft volhouden dat Rusland De Krim heeft
geannexeerd…….
Terig naar het incident met de Oekraïense marineschepen: Niet
voor niets hadden de Oekraïense marineschepen inlichtingenofficieren
aan boord, men wilde de reactiesnelheid van de Russen uittesten en
die was redelijk snel zoals we nu weten.
Porosjenko’s
opzet (uiteraard met hulp van de CIA) om Rusland verder te
demoniseren is gelukt, nu wil hij zijn winst omzetten in een NAVO
oorlog tegen Rusland, waar niet vergeten moet worden dat de NAVO
onder opperbevel staat van de, meest agressieve staat ter wereld,
terreurentiteit VS (de VS dat meer dan 800 militaire bases heeft over
de wereld, een land dat alleen deze eeuw al 4 illegale oorlogen is
begonnen…)…..
In de
reguliere westerse media wordt plompverloren gezegd dat Rusland de
boel provoceert, zoals vanmorgen weer op BBC World Service radio,
waar de correspondenten uit Rusland en Oekraïne, een stuk
anti-Russische propaganda brachten, waar de honden geen droog brood
van lusten…. Alle cliché’s kwamen voorbij, tot en met ‘de oorlog’
van Rusland tegen Georgië (een grove leugen**)…… Je snapt
dat Rusland als de grote schuldige werd aangewezen in de zaak van de
opgebrachte Oekraïense marineschepen…..
Trouwens
totaal ongeloofwaardig, die houding van de reguliere media, hoe durft
men daar nog zonder de zaak van meerdere kanten te bekijken, te
stellen dat Rusland ook in deze fout was, men spreekt niet eens over
de afspraak dat schepen zich moeten aanmelden bij de Russen voordat
ze door de Straat van Kertsj mogen varen. Niet vreemd dat de
Russen dit verlangen, immers men moet onder een Russische brug
doorvaren, een brug die de VS en Oekraïne nog liever vandaag dan
morgen zouden opblazen…… Dit nog naast de eerder aangehaalde
marine landingsoefeningen op de kust van De Krim….. Nogmaals:
Rusland heeft alle reden achterdochtig te zijn!!
Intussen draaien de westerse media de boel op de kop, de eerder aangehaalde BBC correspondenten stelden dat het niet gaat om de tanende populariteit van Porosjenko, die door 8% van de bevolking wordt gesteund, maar om die van Putin, daar die ‘nog maar’ door 66% van de bevolking wordt gesteund, terwijl dat eerder 88% was….. ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! Wat een bedriegers!!
Een WDR correspondent in Rusland maakte het gistermiddag helemaal bont door te stellen dat Janoekovytsj niet werd afgezet middels een staatsgreep, maar dat hij zelf was gevlucht…… Terwijl dit soort ‘journalisten’ wel degelijk over een staatsgreep spreken als een door hen gepromoot leider iets dergelijks overkomt…… Bovendien werden na die coup een aantal media gesloten en werden politieke partijen verboden die liever vriendschapsbanden onderhouden met Rusland…… Voorts werden critici en journalisten bedreigd door neonazi-groepen die vrij schieten hebben in Oekraïne……
Fatsoenlijke, echte journalisten hadden hier al lang terecht moord en brand over geschreeuwd!! Verder durfde deze Duitse correspondent te zeggen dat de expansie van de NAVO volkomen legaal is, er zouden geen afspraak is gemaakt over de uitbreiding van de NAVO richting Moskou, terwijl er al lang documenten zijn gevonden, die bewijzen dat die afspraak er wel degelijk lag!! Volgens deze valse correspondent is de afspraak ongeldig daar hij werd gesloten met een Sovjet president, t.w. Gorbatsjov…… Echter de afspraak werd gemaakt voor de toekomst en dat op een tijdstip waar het al lang duidelijk was dat de Sovjet-Unie zou ophouden te bestaan……Ach je roept het als ‘journalist’ 10 keer op een landelijke omroep en bijna iedereen gelooft de anti-Russische propaganda…… (die hen dagelijks door de strot wordt geduwd als ging het om het fabriceren van foie gras……. Al worden ganzen daarvoor vreselijk gemarteld…)
Ukraine
Urges NATO to Send Warships to Confront Russia
As
a practical matter, NATO nations are severely limited in the warships
they could send to the area by the 1936 Montreux Convention***, which
severely limits the number of warships allowed to pass through the
Bosporus Straits.
This
means that even if Germany had a vast navy, which
it doesn’t,
they would not legally be able to deploy large numbers in the Black
Sea or Sea of Azov, and certainly would need more than a couple of
frigates to square off with the entire Russian Black Sea Fleet.
* Hare
kwaadaardigheid Clinton heeft als minister van buitenlandse zaken
onder Obama, de opstand en staatsgreep tegen de EU en VS kritische,
maar wel democratisch gekozen president Janoekovytsj, gekocht met 4
miljard dollar, zodat de VS met haar NAVO ook aan de Oekraïense grens
met Rusland zou komen te staan…. Uiteraard wist men dat Rusland De
Krim nooit zou kunnen afstaan, daar zich op dit schiereiland zo
ongeveer de belangrijkste ijsvrije marinebases van dit land
bevonden en bevinden….. De VS hoopte op een Russische inval op De Krim, echter
de VS had buiten de bevolking van De Krim gerekend, waar ook de
oorspronkelijke bevolking, in een referendum, met grote meerderheid
voor aansluiting bij Rusland koos,……..
“The war between Russia and Georgia took place in 2008 at the time of the Beijing Olympics”, in the Independent’s epic bit of Russia bashing:
“Leaked State Department documents provide further evidence that United States authorities knew that the ex-Soviet republic of Georgia, a key ally of Washington in the Caucasus region, initiated the August 2008 war with Russia.
“Cables from US diplomats in the Georgian capital, Tbilisi, were released through the whistleblower website WikiLeaks. They show that Washington was well aware that the Georgian government was intensifying its military build-up near the breakaway province of South Ossetia in the weeks before the outbreak of full-scale hostilities.” (5)
Further:
“A cable records that US embassy observers witnessed 30 government buses ‘carrying uniformed men heading north’ towards South Ossetia the day of the Georgian attack.
“The Georgian assault on South Ossetia, launched August 7, involved the shelling of the main city of Tskhinvali followed by a ground invasion by 1,500 troops. The operation destroyed hundreds of civilian properties and claimed the lives of an estimated 160 South Ossetians and 48 Russian military personnel.
“Despite this knowledge of Georgian military preparations, once the war began, US ambassador John Tefft simply relayed the claims of Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili that Russia was the aggressor.”
The pretext for the attack was US ally Georgia’s allegation of an imminent Russian attack.
The subsequent investigation into the invasion and destruction, held under Swiss diplomat Heidi Tagliavini, found that: “None of the explanations given by the Georgian authorities in order to provide some form of legal justification for the attack”, were valid.
“In particular, there was no massive Russian military invasion under way, which had to be stopped by Georgian military forces,” Tagliavini confirmed.
“There is the question of whether the force by Georgia during the night of 7/8 August was justifiable under international law. It was not …”, the investigators found.
It was:
“The shelling of Tskhinvali by the Georgian armed forces during the night of 7 to 8 August 2008” which “marked the beginning of the large-scale armed conflict in Georgia”, the Report stated. Thus Georgia’s belligerence triggered Russia’s response in defence of an allied country, Russia’s own military personnel and Russia’s three military bases there.
The parallels between the Georgia and Crimea disinformation are stark, whether orchestrated by political Western Cold Warriors, or media ones.
Oorlogsmisdadiger
en superpsychopaat Bolton, de ‘national security adviser’ van Trump,
die hem o.a. adviseert op het gebied van buitenlandse en militaire
zaken, zei tegen reporters die hem ernaar vroegen, dat hij niet zal
luisteren naar de Khashoggi tapes, die werden gemaakt tijdens de gruwelijke moord op Khashoggi in het Saoedische consulaat in Istanbul, daar hij de arabische taal niet machtig is.*
Ofwel
de adviseur van Trump wil alleen over zaken spreken en handelen, als men in het betreffende buitenland minimaal
in het buitenland Engels spreekt…… ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! Wat een
dolgedraaide gek, jezus! Was het maar waar dat de VS alleen haar
illegale oorlogen voerde tegen Engelstalige landen, dan waren na 1945 miljoenen levens gespaard gebleven!
Kortom
de VS zal geen maatregelen nemen tegen de reli-fascistische staat
Saoedi-Arabië of haar werkelijke (bloedige) heerser, Mohammad bin Salman (MBS)….. Eigenlijk niet eens vreemd, als je ziet dat de VS de
Saoedische terreurcoalitie helpt bij de genocide in Jemen, waarmee intussen al een enorm aantal mensen feitelijk is vermoord…….. (zo sterft er elke 10 minuten een Jemenitisch kind door toedoen van de Saoedische terreurcoalitie…..) Dat gaat
wel even wat verder dan de (verschrikkelijke) moord op Khashoggi, hoe
lullig het ook is om dat vast te stellen……
Opperschoft
MBS gaat overigens volgende week naar een G20 conferentie in Argentinië**. Human Rights Watch en een speciaal aanklager hebben onder de Argentijnse wet strafvervolging geëist van Saoedi-Arabië, dit vanwege
oorlogsmisdaden. De Argentijnse wet staat dit toe, echter deskundigen hebben al gezegd dat het hoogst
onwaarschijnlijk is dat MBS zal worden gearresteerd, niet in de laatste plaats daar een dergelijke aanklacht onderzocht moet worden, waarbij o.a. het Internationaal Strafhof (ICC) zal worden gevraagd te getuigen…..
In het volgende artikel dat eerder werd gepubliceerd op Middle East Eye (MEE), door mij overgenomen van Anti-Media, is een korte video van 50 seconden opgenomen, waarin Bolton zijn uitspraak doet t.a.v. de geluidsopnamen die gemaakt werden tijdens de moord op Khasoggi, jammer genoeg kan ik deze video niet overnemen, ga daarvoor naar het originele artikel op MEE.
Bolton
Won’t Listen to Khashoggi Murder Tape Because He Doesn’t Speak
Arabic
(MEE) — US
National Security Adviser John Bolton has said he doesn’t need to
listen to the audio recording of Jamal Khashoggi’s murder because
he doesn’t understand Arabic.
Speaking
to reporters in a confrontational manner on Tuesday, Bolton asked:
“Why do you think I should? What do you think I’ll learn from
it?”
“I’m
just trying to make the point that everybody who says ‘why don’t
you listen to the tape’ – unless you speak Arabic, what are you
going to get from it?” he said.
Bolton’s
comments come as US President Donald Trump is under pressure from
members of his own Republican party, as well as US intelligence
officials and Democrats, to take decisive action to hold Saudi
leaders accountable for Khashoggi’s murder.
Trump’s
administration has defended Saudi Arabia and its crown prince,
Mohammed bin Salman, since the killing of Khashoggi, a Saudi
journalist and prominent columnist for the Washington Post who was
murdered inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul on 2 October.
As
national security adviser, Bolton reports directly to Trump on
matters relating to foreign policy and military affairs and leads the
National Security Council, which dictates the White House’s
national security policy to other branches of the federal government.
National Security Advisor John Bolton says he hasn’t listened to the tape of Jamal Khashoggi’s killing because it’s in Arabic: “What do you think I’ll learn from it?…Unless you speak Arabic, what are you going to get from it?”
Last
week, in a
meandering written statement,
Trump vowed to remain a “steadfast partner” of Saudi Arabia
despite the murder, saying both Saudi King Salman and bin Salman, the
country’s de facto ruler, deny having any knowledge of the
journalist’s killing.
The
US president has also repeatedly cast doubts on the
CIA’s assertion that
bin Salman, also known as MBS, ordered Khashoggi’s murder.
Saudi
officials have repeatedly denied that the crown prince had any
knowledge of the plan to murder Khashoggi or cover up the crime, but
human rights groups, journalists, UN experts and others have pointed
the finger at MBS, saying it’s impossible he was not involved.
The
case has caused a split between Trump and some prominent politicians
within his own Republican party.
On
Sunday, several US senators rejected the president’s attempts to
discredit the CIA’s conclusion that MBS ordered Khashoggi’s
murder.
“I
disagree with the president’s assessment. It’s inconsistent with
the intelligence I’ve seen” implicating the crown prince,
Republican Senator Mike Lee said on NBC’s Meet the Press television
show.
Other
Republican senators, including Lindsey Graham, Rand Paul and Bob
Corker, have been unsparing in their assessments of Saudi Arabia’s
involvement in Khashoggi’s killing, saying MBS must have been
involved.
“I
never thought I’d see the day a White House would moonlight as a
public relations firm for the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia,”
Corker, the current chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee, who is set to retire next year, wrote on Twitter.
No
confirmed Trump-MBS meeting in Argentina
Amid
the controversy over the US’s response to Khashoggi’s killing,
the White House said Trump has no plans to meet with bin Salman when
the two leaders are in Argentina next week for a G-20 summit.
Trump
spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders said Tuesday that an informal
meeting may happen, however.
“I
wouldn’t say we’ve ruled out any interaction,” she said,
although she stressed that “the president’s schedule is pretty
packed”.
Earlier
this week, Argentina announced it
was examining whether to file criminal charges against MBS over his
role in the Saudi-led war in Yemen.
Human
Rights Watch said the inquiry was opened after the group and an
Argentine federal prosecutor lodged a complaint against the Gulf
kingdom for violating international war crimes laws, according to
a New
York Times report.
Still,
officials in Argentina have said bin Salman’s arrest, while he is
in the South American country next week for the G-20 summit, is
“extremely unlikely”, the Times reported.
This
article was chosen for republication based on the interest of our
readers. Anti-Media republishes stories from a number of other
independent news sources. The views expressed in this article are the
author’s own and do not reflect Anti-Media editorial policy.
Try
LBRY to
experience content freedom, earn crypto, and support The Anti-Media!
=============================================
* Opperploert Bolton wist wel te vertellen dat de tapes uitwijzen dat Mohammad bin Salman (MBS) niet aanwezig was bij de moord…… Alsof dit MBS, de opdrachtgever tot die moord, vrijpleit……. Clinton, Bush, Obama en Trump zijn ronduit oorlogsmisdadigers, die waarschijnlijk nooit daadwerkelijk iemand hebben vermoord, dit doet niets af aan het feit dat ze grote oorlogsmisdadigers zijn en voor het leven gevangen zouden moeten zitten……. Met die uitspraak van Bolton geeft hij aan wel degelijk op de hoogte te zijn van wat er in de Saoedische consulaat is gebeurd; ofwel ook hij wenst (zoals te verwachten was) geen sancties tegen Saoedi-Arabië vanwege de moord op Khashoggi. (waarschijnlijk is Bolton ook de persoon die Trump heeft overtuigd geen actie te ondernemen, immers hij is, zoals gezegd, de adviseur van Trump op dat gebied)
** Misschien ‘een goed idee’ om pampakoningin Maxima in Argentinie, haar vader/moederland, de ‘honneurs’ waar te laten nemen, ze kan het immers, als de rest van het koningshuis, prima vinden met massamoordenaars……. Zo heeft Maxima massamoordenaar paus Franciscus (massamoordenaar vanwege het verbod op anticonceptie >> miljoenen aids doden) meermaals geld geschonken…….
MI6,
de Britse geheime dienst doet er alles aan om te voorkomen dat Trump
geheime documenten vrijgeeft, documenten verkregen via een FBI ‘app’
(waarmee één van Trumps campagne adviseurs werd ‘afgeluisterd en afgekeken’)……
MI6 stelt dat elke openbaarmaking het verder vergaren van
inlichtingen zal ondermijnen….. ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! Tja, een andere reactie was dan ook niet te verwachten van dit gespuis.
Trumps
bondgenoten eisen terecht openbaarmaking en stellen dat
Groot-Brittannië ‘iets’ te verbergen heeft met het pleidooi de
documenten niet vrij te geven. Een hoge beambte van de VS
inlichtingendiensten stelt dat MI6 terecht bezorgd is, mochten
bronnen worden geopenbaard als geheime delen van het afluisteren (en
ik neem aan door meekijken op computers) worden vrijgegeven…..
Aanvankelijk eiste ook Trump openbaarmaking, maar de geheime diensten hebben hem weten om te praten……..
MI6
is vooral bezorgd over de link met Steele, de voormalige MI6 agent
die één van de hoofdrolspelers is in het ‘Russiagate’ sprookje, met het ‘Steele dossier’*,
dat al volkomen is doorgeprikt als flauwe kul…..
Eén
ding is zeker, al stelt Tyler Durden, schrijver van het hieronder
opgenomen artikel dat op Zero Hedge werd gepubliceerd, het een stuk
voorzichtiger: Groot-Brittannië heeft zich op grote schaal bemoeit
met de presidentsverkiezingen in 2016, dit in samenwerking met de
Obama administratie…… Dat laatste blijkt wel uit het feit dat één
van de andere hoofdrolspelers, ene Halper in totaal 1 miljoen dollar
ontving van het Pentagon onder die administratie, waarvan
400.000 dollar tijdens de laatste maanden voor (en tijdens) de
presidentsverkiezingen van 2016……
Kortom
mocht je nog steeds zijn overtuigd van Russiagate, waarvoor al zoveel
bewijs is geleverd dat het om een ‘hoax’ gaat, wordt het nu toch echt
de hoogste tijd dat je gaat spreken over Britaingate i.p.v.
Russiagate!! Uiteraard zullen de westerse reguliere media en het
grootste deel van de politici blijven volhouden dat Rusland de grote
schuldige is…… Ach ja, men is dan ook uit op oorlog met Rusland,
goed voor de VS, de NAVO en het militair-industrieel complex, maar
niet voor de wereldbevolking……. (laten we hopen dat het bij een
Koude Oorlog 2.0 blijft, maar alle machinaties van de VS en de NAVO lijken te wijzen op
een ‘warme oorlog’ met Rusland [en China], ofwel WOIII…..)
MI6
Scrambling To Stop Trump From Releasing Classified Docs In Russia
Probe
The
UK’s Secret Intelligence Service, otherwise known as MI6, has been
scrambling to prevent President Trump from publishing classified
materials linked to the Russian election meddling investigation,
according to The Telegraph, stating
that any disclosure would “undermine intelligence gathering if
he releases pages of an FBI application to wiretap one of his former
campaign advisers.”
Trump’s
allies, however, are
fighting back –
demanding transparency and suggesting that the UK wouldn’t want the
documents withheld unless it had something to hide.
The
Telegraph has talked to more than a dozen UK and US officials,
including in American intelligence, who have revealed details about
the row.
British
spy chiefs have “genuine concern” about sources being exposed if
classified parts of the wiretap request were made public, according
to figures familiar with discussions.
“It
boils down to the exposure of people”,
said one US intelligence official, adding: “We
don’t want to reveal sources and methods.”
US intelligence shares the concerns of the UK.
Another
said Britain feared setting a dangerous “precedent” which could
make people less likely to share information, knowing that it could
one day become public. –The Telegraph
The Telegraph adds
that the UK’s dispute with the Trump administration is so politically
sensitive that staff within the British Embassy in D.C. haver been
barred from discussing it with journalists. Theresa May has also
“been kept at arms-length and is understood to have not raised
the issue directly with the US president.”
In
September,
we reported that the British government “expressed grave
concerns” over the material in question after President
Trump issued an order to the DOJ to release a wide swath of
materials,
“immediately” and “without redaction.”
Mr
Trump wants to declassify 21 pages from one of the applications. He
announced the move in September, then backtracked, then this month
said he was “very seriously” considering it again. Both
Britain and Australia are understood to be opposing the move.
I met with the DOJ concerning the declassification of various UNREDACTED documents. They agreed to release them but stated that so doing may have a perceived negative impact on the Russia probe. Also, key Allies’ called to ask not to release. Therefore, the Inspector General…..
….has been asked to review these documents on an expedited basis. I believe he will move quickly on this (and hopefully other things which he is looking at). In the end I can always declassify if it proves necessary. Speed is very important to me – and everyone!
The New
York Timesreported
at the time that the UK’s concern was over
material which “includes
direct references to conversations between American law enforcement
officials and Christopher Steele,” the
former MI6 agent who compiled the infamous “Steele Dossier.”
The UK’s objection, according to former US and British officials, was
over revealing Steele’s identity in an official document, “regardless
of whether he had been named in press reports.”
We
noted in September, however, that Steele’s name was contained
within the Nunes
Memo – the
House Intelligence Committee’s majority opinion in the Trump-Russia
case.
Steele
also had extensive
contacts with
DOJ official Bruce Ohr and his wife Nellie,
who – along with Steele – was paid by opposition research firm Fusion
GPS in the anti-Trump campaign. Trump called for the declassification
of FBI notes of interviews with Ohr, which would ostensibly reveal
more about his relationship with Steele. Ohr was demoted twice within
the Department of Justice for lying
about his contacts with
Fusion GPS.
Perhaps
the Brits are also concerned since much of the espionage performed on
the Trump campaign was conducted on
UK soil throughout 2016.
Recall that Trump aid George Papadopoulos was lured
to London in
March, 2016, where Maltese professor Joseph Mifsud fed him the rumor
that Russia had dirt on Hillary Clinton. It was later at
a London bar that
Papadopoulos would drunkenly pass the rumor to Australian diplomat
Alexander Downer (who Strzok flew to London to meet with).
Also
recall that CIA/FBI “informant” (spy) Stefan Halper met
with both Carter Page and
Papadopoulos in
London.
Halper,
a veteran of four Republican administrations, reached out to Trump
aide George Papadopoulos in September 2016 with an offer to fly to
London to write an academic paper on energy exploration in the
Mediterranean Sea.
Papadopoulos
accepted a flight to London and a $3,000 honorarium. He
claims that during a meeting in London, Halper asked him whether he
knew anything about Russian hacking of Democrats’ emails.
Papadopoulos
had other contacts on British soil that he now believes were part of
a government-sanctioned surveillance operation. –Daily
Caller
In
total, Halper received over
$1 million from the Obama Pentagon for
“research,” over $400,000 of which was granted before and
during the 2016 election season.
Papadopoulos,
who was sentenced to 14 days in prison for lying about his
conversations with a shadowy Maltese professor and self-professed
member of the Clinton
Foundation, has
publicly claimed he was targeted by UK spies, and told The
Telegraph that
he demands transparency. Trump’s allies in Washington, meanwhile,
have suggested that the facts laid out before us mean that the
ongoing Russia investigation was
invalid from the start.
In
short, it’s understandable that the UK would prefer to hide
their involvement in the “witch hunt” of Donald Trump
since much of the counterintelligence investigation was
conducted on UK soil. And if the Brits had knowledge of the
operation, it will bolster claims that they meddled in the
2016 US election by assisting what appears to have been a set-up
from the start.
Steele’s
ham-handed dossier is a mere embarrassment, as virtually none of the
claims asserted by the former MI6 agent have been proven true.
Steele,
a former MI6 agent, is the author of the infamous and unverified
anti-Trump dossier. He worked as a confidential human source for the
FBI for years before the relationship was severed just before the
election because of Steele’s unauthorized contacts with the press.
He
shared results of his investigation into Trump’s links to Russia
with the FBI beginning in early July 2016.
The
FBI relied heavily on the unverified Steele dossier to fill out
applications for four FISA warrants against Page. Page has denied the
dossier’s claims, which include that he was the Trump campaign’s
back channel to the Kremlin. –Daily
Caller
That
said, Steele hasn’t worked for the British government since 2009, so
for their excuse focusing on the former MI6 agent while ignoring the
multitude of events which occurred on UK soil, is curious.
‘Campagne Clinton, smeriger dan gedacht…………‘ (met daarin daarin opgenomen de volgende twee artikelen: ‘Donna Brazile Bombshell: ‘Proof’ Hillary ‘Rigged’ Primary Against Bernie‘ en ‘Democrats in Denial After Donna Brazile Says Primary Was Rigged for Hillary‘)
