Alan
Macleod schreef afgelopen vrijdag een artikel op FAIR, waarin hij uitlegt hoe
de Russiagate samenzweringstheorie de machthebbers dient, ook al valt de Trump administratie onder die machthebbers, die zoals je begrijpt geen baat
heeft bij de hysterie die de democraten hebben losgemaakt in de
VS….
Met
veel voorbeelden toont Macleod aan dat politiek en media deze
Russiagate complottheorie dag in dag uit aan de mens ‘voeren……’ (lees: de bevolking hersenspoelen met een dikke leugen) Overigens, zelfs al zou je dit belachelijke complot geloven, moest er
de laatste bijna 2 jaar toch wel wat twijfel zijn ontstaan over
beweringen als dat Rusland de Brexit, of het Catalaanse referendum
zou hebben gewonnen. Op deze plek stelde ik al een minstens een
maand voordat deze 2 claims in de media verschenen, dat het niet
ondenkbaar zou zijn, als men Rusland de schuld zou geven van deze 2
zaken en verdomd dat is precies wat er gebeurde……
Overigens
de oplettende lezer, kijker, luisteraar moet toch minimaal getwijfeld
hebben over de claim dat Rusland de verkiezingen in de VS voor Trump
had gewonnen, zeker gezien de bedragen die Rusland daarvoor gebruikt
zou hebben, bedragen die volkomen in het niets wegzakken bij de enorme bedragen waarmee de campagnes werden gevoerd……
Lees
hoe Macleod fijntjes de boosaardige hysterie en complottheorie blootlegt, wellicht ten overvloede, echter als je ziet hoe deze
uiterst ronduit belachelijke samenzweringstheorie telkens weer wordt
herhaald, kan het geen kwaad een feitelijke uitleg te geven en aan te
tonen dat de democratische partij voor het grootste deel is verworden tot een corrupte,
rechtse partij met oorlogshitsers! (waar een groot deel van de aanhangers deze koers van harte steunt, maar vergeet niet dat ook deze aanhang werd en wordt voorgelogen door de vips in de democratische partij, figuren als Hillary Clinton en Obama en dat uiteraard gesteund door een groot deel van de reguliere media in binnen- en buitenland….)
Jammer dat Macleod in zijn laatste woorden stelt dat Rusland als de VS probeert haar invloed te doen gelden op verkiezingen elders, daar is geen nanometer bewijs voor, terwijl er voor VS bemoeienis met verkiezingen elders honderden meters aan bewijs voorhanden is……
How
the Russiagate Conspiracy Benefits Those in Power
July
27, 2018 at 1:55 pm
Written
by Alan
Macleod
(FAIR) — To
the shock of many, Donald Trump won the 2016 presidential elections,
becoming the 45th president of the United States. Not least shocked
were corporate media, and the political establishment more generally;
the Princeton Election Consortium confidently
predicted an
over 99 percent chance of a Clinton victory, while MSNBC’s
Rachel Maddow (10/17/16)
said it could be a “Goldwater-style landslide.”
The
election of Donald Trump came as a shock to many
(Independent, 11/5/16).
Indeed,
Hillary Clinton and her team actively
attempted to
secure a Trump primary victory, assured that he would be the easiest
candidate to beat. The Podesta emails show that
her team considered even before the primaries that associating Trump
with Vladimir Putin and Russia would be a winning strategy and
employed the tactic throughout 2016 and beyond.
With
Clinton claiming,
“Putin would rather have a puppet as president,” Russia was by
far the most discussed topic during the presidential debates
(FAIR.org, 10/13/16),
easily eclipsing healthcare, terrorism, poverty and inequality. Media
seized upon the theme, with Paul Krugman (New
York Times, 7/22/16)
asserting Trump would be a “Siberian candidate,”
while ex-CIA Director Michael Hayden (Washington
Post, 5/16/16)
claimed Trump would be Russia’s “useful fool.”
The
day after the election, Jonathan Allen’s book Shattered detailed,
Clinton’s team decided that the proliferation of Russian-sponsored
“fake news” online was the primary reason for their loss.
Within
weeks, the Washington
Post (11/24/16)
was publicizing the website PropOrNot.com,
which purports to help users differentiate sources as fake or
genuine, as an invaluable tool in the battle against fake news
(FAIR.org, 12/1/16, 12/8/16).
The website soberly informs its readers that you see news sources
critiquing the “mainstream media,” the EU, NATO, Obama, Clinton,
Angela Merkel or other centrists are a telltale sign of Russian
propaganda. It also claims that when news sources argue against
foreign intervention and war with Russia, that’s evidence that you
are reading Kremlin-penned fake news.
The
Washington Post (11/24/16)
was one of the first media outlets to blame the election results on
Russian “fake news.”
PropOrNot
claims it has identified over 200 popular websites that “routinely
peddle…Russian propaganda.” Included in the list were Wikileaks,
Trump-supporting right-wing websites like InfoWars and
the Drudge Report, libertarian outlets like the Ron
Paul Institute and Antiwar.com, and
award-winning anti-Trump (but also Clinton-critical) left-wing sites
like TruthDig and Naked Capitalism. Thus
it was uniquely news sources that did not lie in the fairway between
Clinton Democrats and moderate Republicans that were tarred as
propaganda.
PropOrNot
calls for an FBI investigation into the news sources listed. Even its
creators see the resemblance to a new McCarthyism, as it appears as
a frequently
asked question on
their website. (They say it is not McCarthyism, because “we are not
accusing anyone of lawbreaking, treason, or ‘being a member of the
Communist Party.’”) However, this new McCarthyism does not stem
from the conservative right like before, but from the establishment
center.
That
the list is so evidently flawed and its creators refuse to reveal
their identities or funding did not stop the issue becoming one of
the most discussed in mainstream circles. Media talk of fake news
sparked organizations like Google, Facebook, Bing and YouTube to
change their algorithms, ostensibly to combat it.
However,
one major effect of the change has been to hammer progressive outlets
that challenge the status quo. The Intercept reported a
19 percent reduction in Google search
traffic, AlterNet 63 percent
and Democracy
Now! 36 percent. Reddit and Twitter deleted
thousands of accounts, while in what came to be called the
“AdPocalypse,” YouTube began
demonetizing videos from independent creators like Majority
Report and
the Jimmy
Dore Show on
controversial political topics like environmental protests, war and
mass shootings. (In contrast, corporate outlets like CNN did
not have their content on those subjects demonetized.) Journalists
that questioned aspects of the Russia narrative, like Glenn Greenwald
and Aaron Maté, were accused of being agents of the Kremlin
(Shadowproof, 7/9/18).
The
effect has been to pull away the financial underpinnings of
alternative media that question the corporate state and capitalism in
general, and to reassert corporate control over communication,
something that had been loosened during the election in particular.
It also impels liberal journalists to prove their loyalty by
employing sufficiently bellicose and anti-Russian rhetoric, lest they
also be tarred as Kremlin agents.
Thomas
Friedman (Morning Joe, 2/14/18)
pointedly compared email hacking to events that the US responded to
with major wars.
When
it was reported in February that 13 Russian trolls had been indicted
by a US grand jury for sharing and promoting pro-Trump and
anti-Clinton memes on Facebook,
the response was a general uproar. Multiple senior political figures
declared it an “act of war.” Clinton herself described Russian
interference as a “cyber
9/11,”
while Thomas Friedman said that it was a “Pearl
Harbor–scale event.”
Morgan Freeman’s viral video, produced by Rob Reiner’s Committee
to Investigate Russia, summed up the outrage: “We have been
attacked,” the actor declared;
“We are at war with Russia.” Liberals declared Trump’s refusal
to react in a sufficiently aggressive manner further proof he was
Putin’s puppet.
The
McCarthyist wave swept over other politicians that challenged the
liberal center. Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein refused
to endorse the Russia narrative, leading mainstream figures like
Rachel Maddow to insinuate she
was a Kremlin stooge as well. After news broke that Stein’s
connection to Russia was being officially investigated, top Clinton
staffer Zac Petkanas announced:
Jill
Stein is a Russian agent.
Jill
Stein is a Russian agent.
Jill
Stein is a Russian agent.
Jill
Stein is a Russian agent.
Jill
Stein is a Russian agent.
Jill
Stein is a Russian agent.
Jill
Stein is a Russian agent.
Jill
Stein is a Russian agent.
“Commentary”
that succinctly summed up the political atmosphere.
In
contrast, Bernie Sanders has consistently and explicitly endorsed the
Russiagate theory, claiming it
is “clear to everyone (except Donald Trump) that Russia was deeply
involved in the 2016 election and intends to be involved in 2018.”
Despite his stance, Sanders has also been constantly presented as
another Russian agent, with the Washington
Post (11/12/17)
asking its readers, “When Russia interferes with the 2020 election
on behalf of Democratic nominee Bernie Sanders, how will liberals
respond?” The message is clear: The progressive wave rising across
America is and will be a consequence of Russia, not of the failures
of the system, nor of the Democrats.
Outlets
like Slate (5/11/18)
warned of a sinister connection between Black Lives Matter and
Russia.
It
is not just politicians who have been smeared as Russian agents,
witting or unwitting; virtually every major progressive movement
challenging the system is increasingly dismissed in the same way.
Multiple media outlets,
including CNN (6/29/18), Slate (5/11/18), Vox (4/11/18)
and the New
York Times (2/16/18),
have produced articles linking Black Lives Matter to the Kremlin,
insinuating the outrage over racist police brutality is another
Russian psyop. Others claimed
Russia funded the riots in Ferguson and that Russian
trolls promoted the
Standing Rock environmental protests.
Meanwhile,
Democratic insider Neera
Tanden retweeted
a description of Chelsea Manning as a “Russian stooge,” writing
off her campaign for the Senate as “the Kremlin paying the extreme
left to swing elections. Remember that.” Thus corporate media are
promoting the idea that any challenge to the establishment is likely
a Kremlin-funded astroturf effort.
The
tactic has spread to Europe as well. After the poisoning of Russian
double agent Sergei Skripal, the UK government immediately blamed
Russia and imposed sanctions (without publicly presenting evidence).
Jeremy Corbyn, the pacifist, leftist leader of the Labour Party, was
uncharacteristically bellicose, asserting,
“The Russian authorities must be held to account on the basis of
the evidence and our response must be both decisive and
proportionate.”
The
British press was outraged—at Corbyn’s insufficient jingoism.
The Sun‘s
front page (3/15/18)
attacked him as “Putin’s Puppet,” while the Daily
Mail (3/15/18)
went with “Corbyn the Kremlin Stooge.” As with Sanders, the fact
that Corbyn endorsed the official narrative didn’t keep him from
being attacked, showing that the conspiratorial mindset seeing Russia
behind everything has little to do with evidence-based reality, and
is increasingly a tool to demonize the establishment’s political
enemies.
The
Atlantic Council published
a report claiming
Greek political parties Syriza and Golden Dawn were not expressions
of popular frustration and disillusionment, but “the Kremlin’s
Trojan horses,” undermining democracy in its birthplace. Providing
scant evidence, the report went on to link virtually every major
European political party challenging the center, from right or left,
to Putin.
From
Britian’s UKIP to Spain’s Podemos to Italy’s Five Star
Movement, all are charged with being under one man’s control. It is
this council that Facebook announced it
was partnering with to help promote “trustworthy” news and weed
out “untrustworthy” sources (FAIR.org, 5/21/18),
as its CEO Mark Zuckerberg met with representatives from some of the
largest corporate outlets, like the New
York Times, CNN and News
Corp,
to help develop a system to control what content we see on the
website.
“We
are at war,” Morgan Freeman assures us
on behalf of the Committee to Investigate Russia.
The
utility of this wave of suspicion is captured in Freeman’s
aforementioned video.
After asserting that “for 241 years, our democracy has been a
shining example to the world of what we can all aspire to”—a
tally that would count nearly a century of chattel slavery and almost
another hundred years of de jure racial disenfranchisement—the
actor explains that “Putin uses social media to spread propaganda
and false information, he convinces people in democratic societies to
distrust their media, their political process.”
The
obvious implication is that the political process and media ought to
be trusted, and would be trusted were it not for Putin’s
propaganda. It was not the failures of capitalism and the deep
inequalities it created that led to widespread popular resentment and
movements on both left and right pressing for radical change across
Europe and America, but Vladimir Putin himself. In other words,
“America is already great.”
For
the Democrats, Russiagate allows them to ignore calls for change and
not scrutinize why they lost to the most unpopular presidential
candidate in history. Since Russia hacked the election, there is no
need for introspection, and certainly no need to accommodate the
Sanders wing or to engage with progressive challenges from activists
on the left, who are Putin’s puppets anyway.
The
party can continue on the same course, painting over the deep cracks
in American society. Similarly, for centrists in Europe, under threat
from both left and right, the Russia narrative allows them to sow
distrust among the public for any movement challenging the dominant
order.
For
the state, Russiagate has encouraged liberals to forego their
faculties and develop a state-worshiping, conspiratorial mindset in
the face of a common, manufactured enemy. Liberal trust in
institutions like the FBI has markedly
increased since
2016, while liberals also now espouse a neocon foreign policy in
Syria, Ukraine and other regions, with many supporting the vast
increases in the US military budget and attacking Trump from the
right.
For
corporate media, too, the disciplining effect of the Russia narrative
is highly useful, allowing them to reassert control over the means of
communication under the guise of preventing a Russian “fake news”
infiltration. News sources that challenge the establishment are
censored, defunded or deranked, as corporate sources stoke mistrust
of them. Meanwhile, it allows them to portray themselves as arbiters
of truth. This strategy has had some success, with Democrats’
trust in media increasing
since the election.
None
of this is to say that Russia does not strive to influence other
countries’ elections, a tactic that the United States has employed
even more frequently (NPR, 12/22/18).
Yet the extent to which the story has dominated the US media to the
detriment of other issues is a remarkable testament to its utility
for those in power.
By Alan
Macleod / Republished
with permission / FAIR.org / Report
a typo
========================================
Zie ook:
‘Russian Roulette: The Inside Story of Putin’s War on America and the Election of Donald Trump‘
‘Volkskrant en Nieuwsuur Fake News over ‘Russische hacks…..’‘
‘VS sluit een nucleaire aanval niet uit als een mogelijke reactie op een ‘cyberaanval…….’‘
‘FBI, de spin in het Russiagate web……..‘
‘Publicly Available Evidence Doesn’t Support Russian Gov Hacking of 2016 Election‘
‘Democraten VS kochten informatie over Trump >> Forgetting the ‘Dirty Dossier’ on Trump‘
‘Russia Is Trolling the Shit out of Hillary Clinton and the Mainstream Media‘
‘‘Russiagate’ een verhaal van a t/m z westers ‘fake news…..’‘
‘Rusland zou onafhankelijkheid Californië willen uitlokken met reclame voor borsjt…….‘
‘CIA deed zich voor als het Russische Kaspersky Lab, aldus Wikileaks Vault 8…..‘ (zie ook de andere links onder dat bericht)
‘Wall Street Journal wil punt achter Russiagate‘
‘‘Russiagate’ een complot van CIA, FBI, Hillary Clinton en het DNC………..‘
‘FBI Director Comey Leaked Trump Memos Containing Classified Information‘
